Can you settle an argument? - Page 5

Adger Smith · 09-25-2010, 08:38 PM

Paul wrote:
On the small-journal versus large-journal.
The 67' blocks were 2-bolt mains, and utilized connecting rods with 5/16" bolts.
Also pistons with pressed-in pins.
The theory is the 4-bolt mains and larger-journal cranks are stronger.

This one can be debated until eternity.
I say:
Yes, Paul it can be debated, but as an engine builder that lived and work through that era of cars/engines I can say with authority it is a theory that is true. One major change that came about with the large journals is the overlap of the main and rod journals increased in the crankshaft. It was so much stronger it reduced flex and you could reduce bearing clearances. The small journal cranks and 2" rods with 11/32, not 5/16, rod bolts you had so much flex in the crank and rod distortion you had to have insane bearing clearances. Since that time period the improvements in metallurgy have also improved the strength of both factory and aftermarket race parts. Wow, no more co-plated rods for floating pins!!! (remember them?)

Paul Ceasrine · 09-26-2010, 07:49 AM

Adger,
Excellent evaluation.
The later 68' and 69' 302 engine internals had more mass and were better due to engine development.

But back in the day, I don't remember any 67' 302's blowing up, as a result of internal deficiencies.

Dwight Southerland · 09-26-2010, 10:19 AM

Also, the RS package morphed during the years '67-'69. It was originally conceived as a suspension-handling package in '67 with a "European flair", hence the HD suspension pieces (Springs and shocks, unless it was ordered on a 6-cyl car, then it included a front sway bar.). The hideaway headlights were included to give it a "European rallye" look, since taping the headlights or covering them was a common part of prep for competing in rallys. The hideaway lights also were an identifying element of the RS package, but the visual effect was so popular that the original intent of the package was lost by 1969. In fact, a lot of the 1969 production was really geared to what the public was asking for, so you end up with a lot of combinations of options that were not in the salesman's order book.

This is a quote from a September 1967 published "Camaro Facts" sales brochure:
"Rally Sport - Includes special black grid grille with 'RS' emblem, concealed headlights, wide lower body side molding, color-keyed body side accent stripes, roof drip cap molding (Sport Coupe), wheel opening moldings, 'RS' emblem on front fenders, steering wheel, and fuel filler cap, black accented taillight bezels, F41 suspension package, parking lights and directional signals located below front bumper, and backup lights mounted below rear bumper." It was designated as the Z22 option package and cost $100.

In the same brochure, reference is made to the "Camaro Rally Sport SS", which is described as "the special features of all (except that the RS emblems are replaced with SS identification) . . . plus Camaro interior features and appointments."

I owned a 22,000 mile original '67 Z-28 that was purchased to make a TransAm racer in the early '80s. The window sticker showed the car was ordered with the "Special Performace Engine Package", which included the "302-cid V8 engine, closed positive ventilation, dual exhaust with deep tone mufflers, special front and rear suspension, heavy-duty radiator and temperature controlled fan, quick ratio steering, 15x6 wheels, 7.35x15 nylon red stripe tires, 3.73:1 ratio axle and special paint stripes on hood and rear deck.". Additional options were "M21 close ratio 4-speed transmission", "J56 heavy duty front disc brakes", "J50 vacuum power brakes", "G80 positraction w/special 4.10 ratio", "C48 heater and defroster deletion". The original Z28 package required ordering the 4-speed and disc brakes, but were not included in the package. Positraction was recommended.

Spoilers were not available as factory-installed option on '67 models, but were available OTC later in the year. Fresh-air induction was not listed as an option, but that car had one and it looked to have been installed at the factory. Also, that car had a tach in the dash, but no console, and no indication on the sticker. No bumper guards, no chrome trim, no BS.

Burner · 09-27-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geerhead55

Burner,,,,,check to see if you've got an 8,000 rpm tach,,which was Z-28 only. Also, all dual exhaust cars had plates welded behind the rear wheels on the subframe for exhaust hangers,,something else to look for. Nice barn find,,,more pictures please!
Danny Durham

Some more pictures, these are of the day i found it, I have yet to take any more, the tach shows max at 7k(see insert) I have read several books and seems like there are several differant thoughts on the tach, anyway still have'nt made up my mind yet, still researching it. I have a Bracket finals race this week but will check out the plates ASAP.
any input welcome, thanks again
Phillip

rayfin · 03-17-2011, 01:21 AM

SO there was a 69 RS z28 but not as SS Z28?

Ed Fernandez · 03-17-2011, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burner

Reading through the post I have some questions of my own, I have a barn find, yes I have pictures of the barn i found it in, it appears to be a 68 Z, as everyone knows the 68 was the only year that the cowl tag does not clearly state that it could be a Z, anyway previous post states that ALL Z's had front and rear bumper guards, well mine does not, i have yet to start resto on this car because i do not know the best way to restore it and not lose the value of it being a true Z. it has all the add on's that a Z should have, 12 bolt rear, tag in trunk warning of a posi,tic-tac clock, 4 speed, etc... any help, input on direction would help

Go for the bucks and let Jerry McNeish crawl over under and through it.Then you'll know for sure if it's the real deal.There's probably more "claimed" Z-28s around now than they really made.
Look in the lanes at any track or car show and every 2nd 67-9 camaro you see with a SB/BB has Z-28 emblems on it.

Jeff Lee · 03-17-2011, 01:55 AM

RS is a body trim package and could be added to a base Camaro or SS Camaro or Z-28 Camaro.
SS is a drive train package and you got a 350 or 396. So you could have an RS body trim package as an option to the SS drive train package.
But you can't mix drive train packages. RS Z-28 yes. SS Z-28 No.
Make sense?

Wayne W · 03-17-2011, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burner

Some more pictures, these are of the day i found it, I have yet to take any more, the tach shows max at 7k(see insert) I have read several books and seems like there are several differant thoughts on the tach, anyway still have'nt made up my mind yet, still researching it. I have a Bracket finals race this week but will check out the plates ASAP.
any input welcome, thanks again
Phillip

In 68 the early cars were just Camaros with 302 on them, then part way through the year they changed the name plate to the RPO (Regular Prodution Option) "Z28" . Early SS cars had the finned hood trim like a 67 while later cars had the square port trim like a 69 car. Now days so much has been switched around over the years that facts kinda get lost.

Tim H · 03-17-2011, 08:46 PM

In reference to the SS hood fin patterns, my recollection was that the long fins were on the mouse motor cars while the "square cube pattern' indicated a Rat was under the hood. (SS350 or SS396 ,67,68,69)

Wayne W · 03-17-2011, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim H

In reference to the SS hood fin patterns, my recollection was that the long fins were on the mouse motor cars while the "square cube pattern' indicated a Rat was under the hood. (SS350 or SS396 ,67,68,69)

Maybe, but .......

" For the 1968 model year, the chromed hood trim for SS396 changed from the simulated finned cooler to a set of simulated carburetor velocity stacks. The early 1968 model year SS350 continued to receive the 1967-style finned hood trim, but the SS350 trim transitioned to the velocity stack trim as the year progressed. The simulated velocity stack continued for the 1969 model year with all SS cars using this same hood trim. Related to this, the part number for the 1968-69 hood is different than 1967, with the only noticeable difference being the drains used with the velocity stack trim. "

http://www.camaros.org/exterior.shtml#SSHood

09-25-2010, 08:38 PM	#41
Adger Smith VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Texarkana Ark/TX Posts: 2,446 Likes: 575 Liked 880 Times in 311 Posts	Re: Can you settle an argument? Paul wrote: On the small-journal versus large-journal. The 67' blocks were 2-bolt mains, and utilized connecting rods with 5/16" bolts. Also pistons with pressed-in pins. The theory is the 4-bolt mains and larger-journal cranks are stronger. This one can be debated until eternity. I say: Yes, Paul it can be debated, but as an engine builder that lived and work through that era of cars/engines I can say with authority it is a theory that is true. One major change that came about with the large journals is the overlap of the main and rod journals increased in the crankshaft. It was so much stronger it reduced flex and you could reduce bearing clearances. The small journal cranks and 2" rods with 11/32, not 5/16, rod bolts you had so much flex in the crank and rod distortion you had to have insane bearing clearances. Since that time period the improvements in metallurgy have also improved the strength of both factory and aftermarket race parts. Wow, no more co-plated rods for floating pins!!! (remember them?) __________________ Adger Smith (Former SS)

09-26-2010, 07:49 AM	#42
Paul Ceasrine VIP Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,546 Likes: 0 Liked 10 Times in 10 Posts	Re: Can you settle an argument? Adger, Excellent evaluation. The later 68' and 69' 302 engine internals had more mass and were better due to engine development. But back in the day, I don't remember any 67' 302's blowing up, as a result of internal deficiencies.

09-26-2010, 10:19 AM	#43
Dwight Southerland VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Arkansas - In the middle of everything. Posts: 1,999 Likes: 64 Liked 772 Times in 192 Posts	Re: Can you settle an argument? Also, the RS package morphed during the years '67-'69. It was originally conceived as a suspension-handling package in '67 with a "European flair", hence the HD suspension pieces (Springs and shocks, unless it was ordered on a 6-cyl car, then it included a front sway bar.). The hideaway headlights were included to give it a "European rallye" look, since taping the headlights or covering them was a common part of prep for competing in rallys. The hideaway lights also were an identifying element of the RS package, but the visual effect was so popular that the original intent of the package was lost by 1969. In fact, a lot of the 1969 production was really geared to what the public was asking for, so you end up with a lot of combinations of options that were not in the salesman's order book. This is a quote from a September 1967 published "Camaro Facts" sales brochure: "Rally Sport - Includes special black grid grille with 'RS' emblem, concealed headlights, wide lower body side molding, color-keyed body side accent stripes, roof drip cap molding (Sport Coupe), wheel opening moldings, 'RS' emblem on front fenders, steering wheel, and fuel filler cap, black accented taillight bezels, F41 suspension package, parking lights and directional signals located below front bumper, and backup lights mounted below rear bumper." It was designated as the Z22 option package and cost $100. In the same brochure, reference is made to the "Camaro Rally Sport SS", which is described as "the special features of all (except that the RS emblems are replaced with SS identification) . . . plus Camaro interior features and appointments." I owned a 22,000 mile original '67 Z-28 that was purchased to make a TransAm racer in the early '80s. The window sticker showed the car was ordered with the "Special Performace Engine Package", which included the "302-cid V8 engine, closed positive ventilation, dual exhaust with deep tone mufflers, special front and rear suspension, heavy-duty radiator and temperature controlled fan, quick ratio steering, 15x6 wheels, 7.35x15 nylon red stripe tires, 3.73:1 ratio axle and special paint stripes on hood and rear deck.". Additional options were "M21 close ratio 4-speed transmission", "J56 heavy duty front disc brakes", "J50 vacuum power brakes", "G80 positraction w/special 4.10 ratio", "C48 heater and defroster deletion". The original Z28 package required ordering the 4-speed and disc brakes, but were not included in the package. Positraction was recommended. Spoilers were not available as factory-installed option on '67 models, but were available OTC later in the year. Fresh-air induction was not listed as an option, but that car had one and it looked to have been installed at the factory. Also, that car had a tach in the dash, but no console, and no indication on the sticker. No bumper guards, no chrome trim, no BS.

03-17-2011, 01:21 AM	#45
rayfin Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: sioux city Posts: 134 Likes: 1 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Can you settle an argument? SO there was a 69 RS z28 but not as SS Z28?

03-17-2011, 01:55 AM	#47
Jeff Lee VIP Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Anthem, Arizona Posts: 2,766 Likes: 0 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Can you settle an argument? RS is a body trim package and could be added to a base Camaro or SS Camaro or Z-28 Camaro. SS is a drive train package and you got a 350 or 396. So you could have an RS body trim package as an option to the SS drive train package. But you can't mix drive train packages. RS Z-28 yes. SS Z-28 No. Make sense? __________________ Jeff Lee 7494 D/S '70 AMX

03-17-2011, 08:46 PM	#49
Tim H VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,041 Likes: 1,068 Liked 481 Times in 158 Posts	Re: Can you settle an argument? In reference to the SS hood fin patterns, my recollection was that the long fins were on the mouse motor cars while the "square cube pattern' indicated a Rat was under the hood. (SS350 or SS396 ,67,68,69)