Messages

1

General Discussion / YouTube video about 1967 Camaro RS

« on: August 29, 2020, 11:02:35 PM »

I just thought I would let anyone who is interested know about YouTube videos, 4 currently,  being posted by a YouTuber, "WatchJRGO", with ~250,000 subscribers and ~125000 viewers of this particular video. He has acquired a 1967 Camaro RS with Powerglide to do a somewhat strange conversion on. The car's body, while it has some rust, doesn't look that bad although the paint is dull. However, he is going to replace most of that sheet metal. But first, the Powerglide is rebuilt and then he wants to mate it up to a new generation LS motor. I'm not sure how that will work or what I think about it as this is far removed from where my mind goes when thinking about Camaros. But it is his car and he can do what he wants. At the end of the second episode he did look the removed 327 over and did say what he did see and that he found no serial #'s, but what he did find on the pad was V1214ME which, if I can decode correctly, is a 210 hp 2 barrel 327 built at the Flint V8 plant on the 14th of Dec, 1966, and installed with a Powerglide in a Camaro. Color is black, but when he opened the door, it looked to me like the jambs were a lighter color. Car was originally sold new by Van Chevrolet in Mission Kansas, which is the same dealer that originally sold my 1967 RS. I wish the detail of this car could be entered into the Database. The car looks to be equipped with RS, White custom interior, console with floor shift Powerglide; rear bumper guards, A/C, Power steering but manual drum brakes, & Deluxe Wheel are the options I can see, Depending on the original color, this looks to have been a nice, well-equipped car back in its day.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGlu2IppJmg&t=41s

What got me to look at this video in the first place is that I am rather addicted to watching Youtube videos of my favorite topics such as Cars, History, Coins, Agriculture, etc. and 2 other YouTubers who I watch almost all of and are associated with WatchJRGO are "Hoovies" Garage & the "Car Wizard". Tyler Hoover or "Hoovie" portrays himself as the dumbest YouTube channel in all of YouTube, which he obviously is not, but is entertaining to me. His main mechanic is the Car Wizard who I do enjoy listening to about how to solve car issues. Both, however, seem to lean toward European Luxury & Sportscars. Too many Bentley, Rolls Royce, Mercedes Benz, Audi & BMW cars. I've learned that I would never want almost all of them because of the high initial cost that depreciates very rapidly and they are extremely expensive to repair. Because of that, I first thought both must be on one of the coasts and was stunned to learn later that I am only a half-hour from the Wizard and have met him in person actually & Hoover, who is an hour south of me in Wichita KS. WatchJRGO is about a short hour east of Hoover and part of the reason I took an interest in watching the YouTube video about the 67 Camaro and part of why I religiously watch Hoovie & the Wizard.

I'd be curious to hear back about others' thoughts & opinions.

Loren

2

Originality / 1967-1969 rear spring single leaf cushion pads

« on: August 29, 2020, 10:06:25 PM »

I managed to secure a set of rear spring single leaf cushion pads from a member over on the SuperCar site. 2 sets of part #3792585 & 3791381 in the original GM box. I, for some reason, had never even tried to source these but when I saw them up for sale, I thought I better buy those. I'm glad I did as I learned something I never knew before. Both the top and the bottom pads each have "Forward to Increase" & "Forward to Decrease" molded into the rubber on opposite ends, along with an accompanying "+" or "-" . If I stack the 2 appropriate halves as they would be installed, it is obvious that the line of meeting slopes up or down slightly from one end to the other. One has to make sure that the 2 halves are properly orientated to each other at installation or the gap at the ends will either be too tight or too wide.  Can someone tell me how to dtermine which way is correct for a car? I will also report that it looks like when you went to purchase these, you ordered a complete set of 2 halves for each side to do the entire car and so since it was a combination of 2 part #'s, the order itself was its own part # under "1 #3921060  G.R. 7.545  Cushion Unit" I likely may also post this on the SuperCar site.

Thank you for any and all help

Loren

3

Originality / Re: 1967 Camaro 3-speed floor shift with a Muncie handle?

« on: January 21, 2020, 11:23:53 PM »

But there it is Niblet. In the assembly manual, I find 2 part #s for the shifter asm., 9789337 for the Heavy Duty 3-Speed and 9789336 for a 4-speed. I know the 1967 SS 350 ordered with a heavy-duty Borg-Warner 3-speed could only be had with a floor shift while the standard Saginaw 3 speed came with a column shift unless a console was ordered.  I strongly suspect the shifter mechanism for both the standard and heavy-duty 3-speed transmissions are identical only having different shift rods & the mounting bracket stabilizer. I would think even the majority of shifter mechanism parts between the Inland 3-speed & 4-speed shifter are the same, maybe even using the same shifter lever. Do all known SS 350 's with a heavy-duty transmission have a "Muncie" shifter handle and then also the SS 396's? Did the Saginaw 4-speeds also get a shifter mechanism with "Muncie" on the handle? If so, the "Muncie" handle, while a decorative upgrade, really had nothing to do with having an aluminum transmission. If your SS 350 has a 3-speed lever with "Muncie" on it,  I can't see a reason mine couldn't also have been built that way even if yours was supposed to be and mine was an error. I suspect those shifter body mechanisms came from the same parts bin on the line unless they were delivered from Inland preassembled with all their shift rods in place. If this was an error, it was created at the Inland shifter assembly plant. Can anyone who has disassembled both Inland 3-speed & 4-speed shifters confirm that the shifter handle is either identical or different between the 2 kinds?

I have no intention of making a big deal out of this but what I do know is that when I purchased my car in September of 1976, long before almost any of us ever spent 1 second considering any of this important, my car, which even today is still largely equipped with almost all of its original assembly line parts, came with a 3-speed shifter that had a "Muncie" handle on it. I have no idea if someone in the preceding 10 years may have caused this change to happen or did my car come through assembly with an error from what it should have had.

Loren

4

Originality / 1967 Camaro 3-speed floor shift with a Muncie handle?

« on: January 20, 2020, 09:50:12 PM »

I posted this as a hijack to a topic on the Yenko site and thought I might get better responses here. It seems to me I did see something that stated this was true. My 1967 RS was built 3rd week of October 1966 in California. It is an L30 with the standard 3-speed trans with floor shift and a console. I have owned it since September of 1976 and it came to me with a 3-speed shifter with a "MUNCIE" shift handle. That shifter was long worn out and removed and is not available anymore. I ordered a new 4-speed shift lever from a Chevy dealer when I installed a Muncie. Finding correct shift rods was not fun or easy at that time. The new shift lever did not have "MUNCIE" on it so I had a colleague cut my old handle off and weld it on the new shifter which is in the car today. I have bought a replacement 3-speed shifter with a "T" mark on the handle but if my car was originally constructed with a 3-speed "MUNCIE" shifter handle, I would like to find a handle to put in this shifter.

Loren

5

1969 - Orphans / Re: n605921 69 L78 SS cortez silver

« on: December 31, 2019, 02:58:48 AM »

Just an interesting FYI. The next one on the line, 124379N605922, which was advertised as a 11,000 mile non restored Z/28 and was no sale'd on eBay because the reserve wasn't met by the ending bid of $86,766 on the 1st of October, 2012.

Loren

6

General Discussion / Re: 1969 Z28 power brakes

« on: August 23, 2019, 04:09:16 AM »

Glad I asked. Thank you all, those were enlightening and interesting comments.

Loren

7

General Discussion / Re: 1969 Z28 power brakes

« on: August 22, 2019, 04:18:44 AM »

Which brings up a question I've had for a long time. Why did Chevy offer manual disc brakes in 1967? Seems odd but it must have worked ok. I always figured disc brakes required more pressure on the brake pedal to make the brakes work which was why power brakes seemed to always be included otherwise.

Loren

8

General Discussion / Re: 396 oil gauge line routing and fittings

« on: August 16, 2019, 07:13:30 PM »

I finally did what I said I would do. This is what I have and I have learned a few things and also raised some more questions. All this over a couple of small diameter tubes and some brass fittings. First, I was surprised at how long the Nylon Hose Asm. #3921433is at 61.5 inches. Is it possible this NOS replacement piece is actually this long to fit multiple applications on a wide variety of GM vehicles as a hose is a hose and they all likely use the same size fittings? This Hose uses the same brass ferrules on both ends but is different than the ones used on the steel pipe.

The Steel Pipe Asm. #3954225 is exactly 8 inches long and uses 2 different style ferrules on the 2 ends the wedge-shaped ferrule goes to the upside into the fitting that attaches with bracket #3954228. This brass fitting does not have a part # in the AIM so it must come with either the Hose Asm. or Pipe Asm. and I suspect it belongs with the Pipe Asm. as this is a BB only part. The solid wider hex part of the fitting needs to go to the bottom to match up with the wedge-shaped ferrule on the Steel Pipe Asm. The thinner brass nut is on top and tightens against bracket 3954228.

The Bushing #444030 listed in the AIM must only be used on L35 & L34 blocks as mine is a much larger size to screw into the block as mine is for an L78. Does anybody know if this is correct and if so what the correct pn# is for that piece? It looks to me that the AIM is incorrect in how this is visually drawn. The AIM lists a Bushing #444030 & Elbow #444052 which in reality looks to be accomplished by 1 piece. Also, the drawing for how the Steel Pipe attaches to the Elbow looks backward to me.

I've taken pictures but they all need to be resized and it looks to me like all the important information is already here except I'll see if I can post the different L78 Bushing.

Loren

9

General Discussion / Re: 396 oil gauge line routing and fittings

« on: August 12, 2019, 06:31:56 PM »

Joe, this brings up a question I had when I received my bracket and bolt that attaches to the head and hold the top end of the steel oil line. My bracket is also painted chevy orange but since those parts are listed in the AIM, meaning they were installed at Norwood or Los Angeles, long after the engine was painted in Tonawanda, shouldn't they be an unpainted bracket? I'd like to hear what those who have seen this say.

Loren

10

General Discussion / Re: 396 oil gauge line routing and fittings

« on: August 12, 2019, 01:51:24 AM »

No, unfortunately for posterity, my car is still all in pieces but I think the pictures should tell you what you need to know. I need to bring the line in the house and take it all apart and photo each part as best I can with all markings and such. I'll try and accomplish that in the next day or two.

Loren

11

General Discussion / Re: 396 oil gauge line routing and fittings

« on: August 12, 2019, 01:16:50 AM »

I'll add a little more. I miss posted the part numbers I have. It looks to me that the nylon line #3921433 is used on both SB & BB, even though they source oil pressure in distinctly different areas on the 2 engines. On the BB, after going to the left side of the engine where bracket #3954228 attaches, the remaining distance down to above the oil filer is filled by the steel line likely because the engine heat there would be too high for the nylon line to survive very long.

Loren

12

General Discussion / Re: 396 oil gauge line routing and fittings

« on: August 12, 2019, 12:48:54 AM »

I'll see if I can help you out. I have an original bracket & bolt (#3954228 & 3817006) that goes on the head, NOS nylon & steel line (#3954225), and original brass fittings (#444052 & 444030) that screw into the block. Mine is for an L78 but all except possibly the fitting that screws into the block above oil filter should be the same for all BB. I was trying to find the original rubber grommet (#3906193) that the nylon line uses to pass through the firewall but am not sure which drawer it is in. I'll see if I can find it and even if not I'll post pictures of what items you want to see.
 Let me know if you want photos of all or some.

Loren

13

General Discussion / Happy Birthday to my Camaro

« on: February 27, 2019, 09:45:51 PM »

I hadn't really thought about it until I was looking through some digital files this morning that I keep on different topics and was looking for something else and went into my 69 Camaro's file and looked at the NCRS Data Shipping Report and was reminded that my car's Official Production Date was today, Thursday, Feb. 27, 1969. From there it was shipped to Bill White Chevrolet Co. in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It didn't travel very far as I suspect it was sold and owned in Oklahoma and through title searches in my home state of Kansas and in Oklahoma back in April of 1987, I have learned of 7 owners, including myself, who bought it on June 26, 1979. However, I do have a gap from it being sold new at White Chevrolet until Feb. 22, 1975, when a Dwight Nail, then of Wynnewood, Oklahoma, is shown to have had title to this car. From there it moved to South Central Kansas, around Wichita, up until today (I live about an hour away from Wichita).  Of the 6 owners in Kansas from June 13, 1975, until my purchase in June of 1979, only 1 was a used car dealership. I knew the 2 owners prior to myself, Brad N. & Dallas B, and have talked to the 2nd Kansas owner by phone probably ~30 years ago which didn't give much information. When I bought the car in 1979, the previous owner, Dallas B., was going to make a fake Z/28 with much of the emblems & trim shaved off. He had it in a storage building and I don't think he had paid for that so it was pushed outside which is where I found it. Bare metal, no engine or transmission. All I saw was Disc Brakes, 12 bolt rear end, Tachometer & gauge package, so I assumed it was a Big block car. From what I knew then, which was very little, meant knowing nothing about Trim Tags, X22, single fuel line, and  6000 redline tach, I knew I needed  (really just wanted) to buy this car. I worked at the same plant that summer as Dallas B. as I was also attending college. This may seem far too good of a deal today but in 1979 this was just a well-used Camaro that was missing many items and was far from road worthy. I found Dallas B., offered him $200, He discussed with his wife and came back with $600 being acceptable, and I then upped my offer to $300 which they accepted. The next Sunday I rounded up a high school classmate, took my folk's 1970 Impala and a chain and we drug it and its loose parts home about 15 miles. Somewhere prior to my purchase, this Camaro traveled its last mile under its own power.

As the information about 1st generation Camaro's grew from then until now, I came to see that my car was originally constructed in Norwood as an SS 396 with the L78 engine option, Muncie 4 speed, and 3:55 non-posi rear-end, It also is an RS car in Hugger Orange with the standard 711 black interior, console & gauges, Power steering, & AM radio with rear speaker. The car came with a non-original M20 with a 68 build date and no vin. anywhere, steel wheels that I later learned where code CL that came on 1970-72 Camaro SS's. The reason these wheels where on it was because of the owner prior to the one I bought it from, Brad N.,  was who I also purchased my 1967 Camaro RS from in September 1976. When I was in Grade School in about 1971-1972, our local town guys, like everyone else did, loved to drag main up and down the street countless times and at that time Brad N. had a 1970 Camaro SS/RS in Citrus Green with a 396 L78 motor and M22 transmission in it. I wish I had been old enough to have bought that car from him. Anyhow, that is where the wheels came from and I also, later, acquired the smog pump system from that car. This Camaro was disassembled by myself and all parts are stored as I fairly quickly came to the realization to not through anything away.

I have certainly made errors in the unfinished progress of this restoration. The 2 most regrettable were early on I was going to add every option I could instead of just rebuilding it as it was originally. So I have acquired D80 front & back spoilers, Cowl hood, Tilt wheel, Woodgrain wheel, Power windows, Deluxe interior seats, seat belts, & door panels, Fold down rear seat, all the lighting packages, Blue tooth radio, Rear defrost, 3:73 gears & posi unit, Darrel Shepherd built M22, Transistor ignition set up, and countless other parts acquired from local Chevy dealerships in my wife and I's BC days (Before Children). Those ideas have been changed and discarded as I know want to keep it as close to as original as constructed.  Another regretful mistake was purchasing new GM quarters and having them installed as the originals were not bad at all. But then it was just the cool thing to do then to put on new sheet metal. Another mistake was taking the bare body to someone with a sandblast operation. When finished, they told me someone must have had this car walked on and the dents filled with putty as both the original SS hood and trunk lid have been warped and I'm not sure if that can be brought back or not. Obviously, they were just covering for themselves as they used too much pressure and or time on those panels and they distorted them themselves. Not being very smart and having any knowledge or concern in those days, I did not try to protect the Trim Tag and so it was also pitted although certainly readable.

I have acquired many correct and original GM parts for this car that I have to confess, are worth more than the garage I store them in.

There are a lot more sentences I could write but this has gotten far too long, to begin with, so I'll stop here.

Happy Birthday to my 1969 Camaro

Loren

14

Originality / Re: 69 Gas Caps revisited - original Cap?

« on: December 18, 2016, 12:56:56 AM »

I don't know how I missed this thread, and I don't know how much more information is needed. I looked at the gas cap from my 69 that came with it when I bought the car in the summer of 1979 and the cap still has gray primer sprayed on it by a previous owner. Car is an 02D built in NOR, has ears, SM stamp on one of the ears, black rubber gasket, has the 3 indention's on the back side, finger tabs are located closer to the "ANTI SURGE" lettering than "VEN TED", which appears to be more uncommon. Maybe I can eBay it for $500 because it is the more rare 2nd version or something like that. LOL. Cap looks to be in good non corroded but dirty and painted shape so my guess is it will stay on the car if and when I ever get it finished.

Loren

15

General Discussion / Re: door Jamb embossment

« on: September 14, 2016, 09:08:18 PM »

I can tell you my 10C LOS has the first design telephone style and they are original as I've owned since Sept. of 1976. No sign of any quarter replacement.

Loren