Crossram Package

[BULLITT65]

So that 305 could still be out there.

Someone must know the where abouts of the car if it has been restored. I am almost surprised Jon Mello doesn't know its where abouts. Jon is great at tracking down these cars.

[Michael Hanson]

Unfortunately, parts of the original 302" block and several internal components are pretty much scattered along the sides of the big end of Great Lakes Dragaway in Wisconsin.

I've run the VIN through a few different sources without success.

[bcmiller]

The car is not in the CRG database, but I now have notes on it in case it shows up.

[cook_dw]

Welcome.  Could you post the vin?  I assume NOR built car?  Gotta love the early 302 emblem'd 68's.. 


Additional question.  Did you run spacers for the 15x4 Cragars back in the day for the 4 piston calipers or did you swap the brakes?

[Michael Hanson]

To reduce car weight, I traded the disc brakes for drum brakes with a friend that had a 67 Camaro. I also gave him the brake booster. The car had to weight about 3050 minimum to fit into the D/MP class.  D/MP was 10 lbs/inch at that time.

The 4" Cragar wheels fit without spacers.

I'll dig out the VIN.

[cook_dw]

Makes sense they fit since you swapped to drums.  They wont fit with 4 piston.  That is why I asked. 

[firstgenaddict]

Drums back all the way off and don't drag like discs.

I love the Gold and Black Early 68 Z.

The Cowl Plenum looks like the one Dave Beem bought from Merle last year.

[BULLITT65]

I have drum and disc on different cars, I understand what you are saying about dragging, but I coast in the cars all the time on the same stretches of roads. I cannot tell a difference between them. I would think the difference would be negligible.
Has anyone ever measured the difference on a track, for how much slower a car with disc runs vs, drum?

[bcmiller]

I have no solid numbers but it makes a small difference. Reduces weight off the nose too.

Every little bit helps for the quarter mile... 

[Michael Hanson]

We switched to drum brakes in front to reduce weight. I don't remember the difference but my partner may remember. We weighed all of the components that were removed and compared to the items that we reinstalled. We were trying to reduce total car weight to fit the D/MP class and weight off the front was the best place to do that.

We even removed the front sway bar and some of the front bumper brackets. Also swapped radiators with the friends 67 because his was a single row.

When we added the roll bar, that added a little weight so we had to find and remove weight from some other location.

With a 302" motor, our minimum NHRA legal weight had to be 3020 lbs and the car usually went across the scale at around 3050.

For classes D/MP and lower, there was a rear tire rule that spec's that the slicks had to be "street legal", tread width no more than 7" and have two full circumference grooves of 1/8" minimum. (silly rule but that was NHRA) Traction was an issue.

Another item that we changed were the front coil springs. Front end lift was important with the 7" slicks so I thought springs from a 6 cyl Camaro would work but my partner suggested we try springs from a 4 cyl Nova. That worked!

Had I known what these cars would be worth in the future, I would have saved all the original parts.

[Sixteen Grand Sedan #56]

Hello Mr. Hanson. THANK YOU for jumping in and letting us learn from your experiences with the Camaro Cross ram.

I’m always amazed at how history seems to change when it gets written in a book or magazine. The last few words of text on page 86 of Guinn’s book clearly states “ It was not released as part of the cross ram package….”. Yet here we have someone who was there doing it in the day sharing experiences that are contrary to the book written decades later.

Seems quite clear that he received the shield from you. Why wouldn’t he just say in his book that it was indeed a part of the first couple of cross ram packages as you stated? I guess saying they were scrapped yet clearly showing one in the obviously later pictures on page 89 of his book shows he is the authority.

Does any of your information show the 3941134 number? CRG is known for having genuine and reliable information. We love hearing from those that were there in the day doing what we are struggling with today. I hope you feel comfortable sharing your experiences and information that you have.

Robert

[Michael Hanson]

Robert,

Yes, the shield came from me decades ago. I just read page 86 in Wayne's book and he does state that the shield was not included in the list of parts that came with the 2X4 package. The original parts list (not the one that I have that came with my 2X4 package) from GM files deletes three parts, item's #2,#3 and #4. I'm assuming that one of those items was the 3841134 shield. Unfortunately, I don't have any further information on the shield or it's part number. I'll compare the rest of the numbers on my original list to the sheet I have from GM files to see what else was deleted or changed. I do know that the last list from GM files showed the new Holley Carburetors, I think 4295's?

My original parts list that came with the crossram had not only the list of part numbers but also a note at the top that read something like; to be sent to individuals per Vince Piggins. Interesting that there were a few typos in the text. Someone was in a hurry while typing.

 

[68camaroz28]

Very interesting and thanks Michael! We have an original cross-ram and carbs on our 69Z but the original block is now 383 cu.in. and it runs great with a solid roller. LOL
Great info and love the history so thanks again!

[Michael Hanson]

At some time around spring/summer of 1968, GM sent a packet of about 20 pages of information to several people that were racing Z28's. Most topics were about chassis setup, roll cage installation and other modifications, mostly for road racing. Two of the items on the last two sheets that I remember discusses the crossram and a few modifications that engineering recommended. One had to do with what they called "drivability due to high throttle effort". The correction was to remove the throttle lever (inside the car) and, with a saw, remove one inch of the rod and reweld. The shorter rod would reduce throttle effort required.

The other was a reported lean condition at lower throttle openings. Because the secondaries were mechanically operated by a cam and roller, modifying the cam slot would bring the secondary in a bit later. I'm sure most of the 1st design carburetors found today had this modification. Below is the GM/engineering drawing that was sent.

[bcmiller]

Was this the same time you received the cross ram setup? Can you narrow it down to the month? Any idea how or why you got on the list?