Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: General Motors

« on: December 02, 2005, 08:57:20 PM »

A Camaro "concept" will be shown at the Detroit Auto Show next month.

Might well be

but they've already announced they've killed the platform it was meant to be built on. They also admitted (and I quote) "there wasn't a replacement on the drawing boards for the forseeable future"

Serves those GM morons right. They ditched a perfectly viable platform, that was selling well enough and had reached it's "zenith" of technical development.

Those head office imbeciles could have sold that last platform for an additional 10 years, with tooling and dies long paid for (pure profit).

Same would have held true about the 96 RWD Impalas. Not only the performance ones, but they handed Ford the entire police market on a platter.

Then they redesign their FS truck with the ugliest headlight confirguration yet to be released on an unsuspecting public.

The body contours and headlight placement on their S-10 (a 15 year mistake in itself) replacement, the Colorado, couldn't have been uglier and less practical if they'd been trying to make it ugly and impractical.

What the hell is wrong with the people at GM ? They're like British Leyland in the 50s and 60s. At that time they had a lock on the entire import market of North America and THEY GAVE IT TO THE JAPANESE. Is that what GM is doing ?

They can't even rebadge a Niponese car properly. They import their Japanese chasis's and then make them uglier !!!!

 I've begun to hate GM, but with that said, nobody wants to see them go under. That would be like a major battle lost to the Japanese. Let's just hope they get smarter.

2

General Discussion / Re: General Motors

« on: December 02, 2005, 01:25:52 AM »

Looking at what GM's been doing in recent years, they have no balls and now are suffering the consequences.
I doubt they will ever bring it back.
 the other hand, look at what Dodge is doing.....the comeback of the Challenger?
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103629
Wouldn't it be nice to see the big 3 have a re-match?

3

General Discussion / Re: 68 shoulder harness

« on: November 03, 2005, 09:43:51 PM »

From the VIN is looks as if my 68 was built the first week of April. It doesn't have shoulder harnesses. It is my understanding that they were required starting in January 1968. Am I wrong?

Does anyone know when the shoulder harness was required? My 68 Z28 was built the 4th week of February and it looks like it has the original headliner but there are no shoulder belts. Were the shoulder harnesses required on all 68 camaro's after January 1968 or were they optional? I'm restoring my car right now and I need to know if I should put these on or not.
Thanks,
Mike

You can always put them in later, if your replacing the headliner it will become be obvious whether it once had them by looking at the screw holes for the clips (self tapping screws)
My car came with them but I opted to leave them out after doing the headliner. (At least for now)
If you get pulled over, will you be wearing the complete seat belt assy?

4

General Discussion / Re: 68 shoulder harness

« on: November 01, 2005, 01:11:10 AM »

The areas for the belt holder clips are raised to be against the inside of the headliner,as is the harness bracket mount area.
You should be able to feel the holes under the headlinerfor the 2 harness bracket bolts and the 4 screws for the clips
Perhaps a previous owner replaced the headliner and didn't put the belts back.
I think in earlier cars that were shoulder belt optioned, came with belts that were just hanged by the sides.

5

Maintenance / Re: '68 396 timing suggestions?

« on: October 30, 2005, 05:41:57 PM »

Just tried it, first thing I noticed was the smell of the exhaust at idle wasn't as rich as before, so after I turned the idle down I took it out for a spin. Definitely an improvement!

6

Maintenance / Re: '68 396 timing suggestions?

« on: October 30, 2005, 04:25:54 PM »

No, it's not - the vacuum that operates the secondary opening diaphragm isn't manifold vacuum at all - it's VENTURI vacuum, created by high-velocity airflow going past a pickup tube orifice in the primary venturi (referring back to my post above, remember that when you put your foot down, manifold vacuum goes to zero, so it can't activate anything). The best place to pick up full manifold vacuum with a 4053 is to tee into the short hose from the nipple at the front of the baseplate that runs to the choke pull-off diaphragm - that's full manifold vacuum. Original Z/28's already have a plastic tee in that hose to feed the vacuum signal to the diverter valve.

Actually that is the tube I meant to describe (thinking about but said somthing else)
Thanks!

7

General Discussion / Re: Center Console Clock

« on: October 30, 2005, 02:49:43 AM »

This was probably added because in 68 the console mounted clock was recessed in a black metal housing in place of the woodgrain panel.

8

Maintenance / Re: 67 RS drivers door is locked and won't open

« on: October 30, 2005, 02:20:06 AM »

When you operate the lock knob do you feel any click?
I would try this if the mechanism is sticking, remove the lock knob and use lots of spray lube  into the lock knob hole while trying to soak the door latch and key cylinder areas. Try to move the lock knob rod up and down and the key many times to see if it will free it up?
Maybe a long shot but it's worth a try.

9

Maintenance / Re: '68 396 timing suggestions?

« on: October 29, 2005, 09:18:54 PM »

There is only one vacuum tube connection on my 4053 holley, (and it's ported vacuum.)
If I put a tee in the vacuum secondary tube. will that be the a good place to pick up full vacuum?

10

General Discussion / Re: Members from old forum version please post here

« on: October 25, 2005, 12:34:17 AM »

JimsL78 ......been awhile since I posted but I have been a member for a few years.