Messages

181

General Discussion / Re: 1st Gen Driveshaft Design - Did GM Make a Mistake?

« on: July 02, 2006, 07:45:31 PM »

This topic has been on my radar for many years also.  When I started to look for all the correct, original drivetrain components for my big block '69 Camaro,
I became aware that THM400 equipped cars used the only "in-line yoke" driveshaft of that Camaro period.  So many of the THM400 driveshafts I found out
there were non-in-line, so I passed on them.  I own three of the THM400 driveshafts today and all are in-line.  Not at all sure what this indicates though.

Is JohnZ following this topic?  I'd like to hear his thoughts on this.  If any such Engineer from that period is still with us, I'd love to hear from him. 

Steve

182

General Discussion / Re: Your worst 1st generation Camaro fears - realized

« on: July 02, 2006, 07:36:40 PM »

A couple of comments here:

aaronz28 - I did just see one of these kits loosely assembled @ the GM Nationals in Carlisle.  The lack of quality fit really floored me.  For me, of most note was the
front grill mounting surfaces encompassing the header panel and the fenders.  The angles were all wrong!  Also, this assembled kit did not include the grill ( installed )
as I believe it would have clearly pointed out just how bad this flaw is.  From my initial observation, the fit between panels leaves a lot to be desired.  I also saw another
re-build show a few months ago and they built one of these kits as well.  Now, to be fair, they did a nice job in the end.  However, they beat on every panel to line them
up.  They also welded door skins to set the gaps to the fenders properly.  They also welded the decklid perimeter in a number of areas to adjust the fit.  I suspect they
did the same to the hood/fender fit.  All in all, a lot of extra expensive work.......

As to your comment regarding the bebody scenario, let me offer this.  Many years ago, when I restored my Camaro, the only original sheet metal pieces I kept
were the cowl section, the floorpan, the trunk & roof.  Everything else was new GM metal.  I will never consider this a rebody as the VIN & cowl tags never left
the cowl section.  Your point is well taken.  What exactly does constitute a rebody?  I still don't know.  I'd like to get many members to input on this debate.

aaronz28 - I'm in NC also.  I'm fairly new here, so I can't cite current DMV laws.  As I mentioned in the opening thread, the blatant suggestion of doing a rebody
( VIV & cowl tags ) is what really took me by surprise.  I would have thought they would skirt that whole issue on the show.  Rergardless of what state they build
this kit in, is not the affixing of a VIN tag to a body it was not originally attached to - illegal?

Steve

183

General Discussion / Your worst 1st generation Camaro fears - realized

« on: July 01, 2006, 02:20:13 PM »

Hey everybody!

I just finished watching a segment of Chop-Cut-Rebuild on Speed.  The project of choice was the creation ( re-creation ) of a Z-10
using the Dyna-Corn ( spelling? ) body and all aftermarket sheet metal.  While this is nothing new, what the narrator of the show advised is what
took me by surprise.

They clearly stated that getting the body together is the first step.  Secondly, you must get the car registered for the road.  Their suggestion
was to re-body an old Camaro.   Is that not totally illegal?  I know we have talked before about attaching "certain pieces" of original sheet
metal to one of these bodies and that this might constitute a restoration vs. a re-body.  However, if the entire shell is new metal and you
simply ( actually, no so simple ) attach an original firewall and upper dash ( containing VIN & cowl tag ), does this still not constitute a re-body?
Now, to be totally clear, this show featured the use of a new firewall.  So, that only leaves them the illegal option to attach a VIN plate & cowl
tag to this body.  Oh yeah, they did mention checking with your states DMV first on this.  But, it was not emphasized!   The blunt suggestion
of doing a re-body really shocked me.

As has been discussed numerous times, you can not legally sell or affix a VIN plate to another car.  We all know it's been done before!  
Yes, eBay allows the selling of cowl tags for "collecting" purposes , but you can't sell VIN plates there or anywhere else for that matter.
Based on that premise, how then can you legally re-body one of these Dyna-Corn kits?

I still hold the position that those knowledgeable will be able to tell the Dyna-Corn bodies from originals.  My concern lies with the  less
than knowledgeable folks that seem to be flocking to eBay & Barrett-Jackson these days. 

What do you guys think about the shows suggestion of doing a re-body of the VIN & cowl tag?

Steve

184

Originality / Re: starter soleniod wire protector ????

« on: July 01, 2006, 02:51:43 AM »

There was one of these on eBay recently that the seller claimed was absolutely original.  I agree with you John, the manual shows nothing like that
on a '69 big block ( or small block for that matter ).  Out of the hundreds of big block cars I've reviewed, I've never seen one.  I don't believe it was
original to the car.

I also figured it was a Pontiaac or Oldsmobile part.  Possibly Firebird.

Steve

185

Originality / Re: Correct oil pan drain plug for '68 BB

« on: June 22, 2006, 01:30:40 AM »

Thanks guys!

That's what I needed to know.

Steve

186

Originality / Correct oil pan drain plug for '68 BB

« on: June 18, 2006, 04:50:02 PM »

I'm putting on the finishing touches to my '69 BB restoration and I have a fast question.

Can anyone here post an image of an original BB oil pan drain bolt?  I've seen a few on eBay recently
but I don't know what the "correct" one liiked like in terms of head marking(s) or style of head.

Did GM use a nylon-type washer originally?

Lastly, does anyone make a "correct" reproduction in leiu of an original one if I can't find one?

Thanks,
Steve

187

General Discussion / Re: Anyone know what a factory 427 goes for nowadays?

« on: June 18, 2006, 04:24:32 PM »

There are tall block 427's and I'd suspect most would stay from them, unless they are real hardcore racers.

There are also standard deck 427's from light duty trucks out there as well.  Quite of few of these had 4-bolt
mains if I remember correctly.  These may be more desireable.

Post the casting number of the engine block in question and possibly the heads if you can get them.

Steve

188

Restoration / Re: re-stamping a block

« on: June 16, 2006, 02:24:00 AM »

I have a question to pose here.  This won't help the discussion, but rather raise more questions.

Most of the COPO cars, Yenko cars, SS big blocks, Z/28's, etc. were bought with the intent of beating the pi$$ out of them. 
That being said, what is the liklihood that so many of these cars retained their original engines & transmissions post racing?  Remember, back in the mid-1970's, big block engines were a dime-a-dozen.  Also, who among us doesn't remember one or
more late night engine swaps due to spun bearings, thrown rods, etc.?

I just wonder what will happen when an engine block shows up on eBay or else where that has the VIN of an "already existing"
engine.  just think of that recent sale of the tractor trailers full of GM muscle cars & engines.  I wonder if any of those blocks have
duplicates already installed.

Steve

189

Originality / Re: disc brake rotors

« on: June 15, 2006, 03:36:31 AM »

JohnZ,

Were the two-piece rotors used throughout the 1969 production year?  Actually, when were they phased-out for the
one-piece rotor?

Steve

190

Originality / Re: engine wiring

« on: June 14, 2006, 04:22:19 PM »

Here is Sebastien's image:

191

Originality / Re: engine wiring

« on: June 13, 2006, 06:13:38 PM »

Send me the image, I will post it for you.

Steve

192

Originality / Re: disc brake rotors

« on: June 13, 2006, 06:12:33 PM »

While we are on this subject, can anyone tell me if the two-piece rotors were actually outlawed?  I heard something to this
effect a number of years ago.  I recently found a pair of early take off front two-piece rotors ( never turned ) from a '69 Z/28
drag car.  What a find !  They are destined for my L/78.....

I heard that the rotor and hub could separate under hard driving conditions, so that is why they were outlawed.  Anyone got
any information on this?

Surprisingly, I never looked into build date vs/ two-piece rotor usage before.  Having an early build car, I ALWAYS have to look for
the special parts......   Were all 1969 Camaro's with front disk brakes equipped with two-piece rotors?

Steve

193

Originality / Re: Correct shifter

« on: June 13, 2006, 06:04:11 PM »

Guys,

There is another way to go - possibly.  I read somewhere ( online ) that possibly Ground Up makes a Hurst/Muncie amalgamation
shifter.  The handle is Muncie, but the body is Hurst.  I don't think I'm crazy either.  See if such a thing is available.  You get a
stock look with the Hurst guts!

Steve

194

Restoration / Re: What's the correct paint procedure for the inside lower valance?

« on: June 09, 2006, 02:36:43 AM »

I have stated numerous times that if you were to go back to 1969 and buy a brand new camaro, transport it to present day and enter it in a car show... It wouldn't even place.

I would have to absolutely agree.  Did anyone see the COPO car at the Forge two years ago.  It was white with stickers all over it.  Anyway, the fenders were fitted as they
came from the factory.  I was shocked at the mismatch in spacing.  Bad hangover for some line worker I'm sure......

195

General Discussion / Are there still rooms for the Camaro Nationals?

« on: June 07, 2006, 06:13:04 PM »

I'm real late to book a room, but are there any rooms, hotels available for the Camaro Nationals?  Based on some of the original paint cars scheduled to be there,
I need to be there as well.  Cam someone let me know availability? 

Steve