Re: [Chevelle-list] Dipstick Tube

[Jim H. Thompson]

You are
ok. Some guys put a little black RTV on the last part of the tube by the raised
ring.

 

-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of Dennis McGillis
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
9:12 PM
To: The Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: [Chevelle-list] Dipstick
Tube

 

Hi
Guys,


When installing the engine oil dipstick tube in my new 350, is it supposed to
somehow be pressed in the block more than hand tight?  The retainer tab to
a manifold bolt lines up with it when just stuck in.  Is this right?

You'll be glad to know that my silicone plug wires do not contact the exhaust
manifolds. 

 

Thanks,

Dennis
McGillis

1965
Malibu SS-350

[Chevelle-list] Dipstick Tube

[Dennis McGillis]

Hi Guys,
When installing the engine oil dipstick tube in 
my new 350, is it supposed to somehow be pressed in the block more than hand 
tight?  The retainer tab to a manifold bolt 
lines up with it when just stuck in.  Is this right?You'll be glad 
to know that my silicone plug wires do not contact the exhaust 
manifolds. 
 
Thanks,
Dennis McGillis
1965 Malibu SS-350

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Larry Shouse]

Title: Message



Thanks David.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  The Hanks 
  To: Chevelle-list@chevelles.net 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:56 
  PM
  Subject: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
  Question
  
   
  Ok guys, here are some pics of both SB and BB engine frame mounts. 
  These came off of two 1966 Chevelles one a SB the other a BB.. So as far as I 
  know they are the correct ones..   The one on the right is the BB.  
  I did not see any difference in the height between the two.  As you see 
  the difference is in the structure of the two.  Hope this 
  helps This is the link 
  to the pics http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=0AYuGTdq4ZsWLmI
   
  David 
   
  
  David Hanks 
  1966 SS396 
  1974 Corvette 
  ACES 6782 Team Chevelle 1940 Pilot Point, TX 
  
  

-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint 
HooperSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:45 PMTo: The 
Chevelle Mailing ListSubject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
Question
I think 1968 was the year of the 
recall,Dale.
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino 
ProTourer2001 H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dale 
  
  
  Not sure I 
  understand the question, but neither of those engines were available in 
  the 66 Chevelle.
   
  On a side note, 
  anyone have a pair of small block and big block mounts for 66/67 that can 
  lay them flat on the floor and measure the two 
  heights?
   
  I know there 
  was a recall on all Chevrolet mounts in the 60s I believe due to the 
  driver’s side engine mount (rubber one that bolts to the block itself) 
  tending to break and possibly causing the throttle to stick open.  
  First solution was a cable unit applied to the driver’s side engine 
  mount.  Later the engine mounts were designed with a locking tab to 
  stop the engine from coming off the mount if it broke.  My Chevrolet 
  parts book (circa 1971) also has the locking mounts as dealer replacements 
  and to use the big block frame mounts when doing so.  This could be 
  why a lot of small block Chevelles have big block frame and engine 
  mounts.
  
  Dale 
  McIntosh 
  67 El 
  Camino 1967 Chevelle Reference 
  CD http://www.chevellecd.com ACES #1709/TC 
  Gold #92 
  

[Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[The Hanks]

Title: Message



 
Ok guys, here are some pics of both SB and BB engine frame mounts. 
These came off of two 1966 Chevelles one a SB the other a BB.. So as far as I 
know they are the correct ones..   The one on the right is the BB.  I 
did not see any difference in the height between the two.  As you see the 
difference is in the structure of the two.  Hope this 
helps This is the link to 
the pics http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=0AYuGTdq4ZsWLmI
 
David 

 

David Hanks 1966 SS396 1974 Corvette ACES 6782 Team Chevelle 1940 Pilot Point, TX 


  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint 
  HooperSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:45 PMTo: The 
  Chevelle Mailing ListSubject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
  Question
  I think 1968 was the year of the 
  recall,Dale.
  Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
  H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dale 


Not sure I 
understand the question, but neither of those engines were available in the 
66 Chevelle.
 
On a side note, 
anyone have a pair of small block and big block mounts for 66/67 that can 
lay them flat on the floor and measure the two 
heights?
 
I know there was 
a recall on all Chevrolet mounts in the 60s I believe due to the driver’s 
side engine mount (rubber one that bolts to the block itself) tending to 
break and possibly causing the throttle to stick open.  First solution 
was a cable unit applied to the driver’s side engine mount.  Later the 
engine mounts were designed with a locking tab to stop the engine from 
coming off the mount if it broke.  My Chevrolet parts book (circa 1971) 
also has the locking mounts as dealer replacements and to use the big block 
frame mounts when doing so.  This could be why a lot of small block 
Chevelles have big block frame and engine 
mounts.

Dale 
McIntosh 
67 El 
Camino 1967 Chevelle Reference 
CD http://www.chevellecd.com ACES #1709/TC 
Gold #92 

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Larry Shouse]

Dan,

Thank You. I'm getting a "page cannot be displayed" error on your link right 
now, but I will keep trying.


Larry
- Original Message - 
From: "Daniel Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question



Larry,

I have a really great article I copied from a Car Craft magazine that 
discusses this problem, solutions and give the GM part numbers for the 
correct mounts. I attached it to my web site in the downloads section. It 
is 1.2MB so you may need to right mouse click the link and select save as.

Hope it helps.

Dan Solomon
http://www.freewebs.com/chevelles1970/

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Daniel Solomon]

Larry,

I have a really great article I copied from a Car Craft magazine that 
discusses this problem, solutions and give the GM part numbers for the 
correct mounts. I attached it to my web site in the downloads section. It is 
1.2MB so you may need to right mouse click the link and select save as.

Hope it helps.

Dan Solomon
http://www.freewebs.com/chevelles1970/

Re: [Chevelle-list] Frame Mount

[Brad Waller]

The big block mounts are 
in the middle of the top two pictures, and the small block mounts are on the 
outside of the top two pictures.  It would have been a lot easier if he 
labeled them in the picture or had separate pictures.  It took me a while 
to figure out what he meant, and without a picture from the table top it will be 
hard to be sure which is taller.  Or maybe they are close, but the holes 
are different?
 
Anyone have pictures that 
would show us which is taller?
 
Brad

  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
  ShouseSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:34 PMTo: 
  Chevelle ListSubject: [Chevelle-list] Frame 
  Mount
  
  Guys,
   
  I found this post by Craig in my saved files - 
   finally. If you would please go to the picture link he provides and take 
  a look at the different mounts. Am I assuming correctly when he says the 
  "middle" set of mounts are for big blocks, he is talking about the second set 
  from the top? If so, that set (chassis mount) does indeed seem 
  taller...
   
  Larry Shouse
   
  - Original Message - 
  From: Craig Ellis 
  
  To: Chevelle List 
  Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:07 PM
  Subject: [Chevelle-list] BBC/SBC frame towers
  
  I also found this...
   
  Stacey, the frame to engine mount brackets are different from small block 
  to big block, however all of the hole locations are the same. The difference 
  is that the big block brackets have a strengthening rib that runs around the 
  bottom toward the front, also it has a notch to clear the interlocking tab in 
  the big block engine mount.Phil is correct in stating that you must use small 
  block engine mounts with small block frame to engine mount brackets, but you 
  can use small block or big block engine mounts with big block frame to engine 
  mount brackets. If you try to use the big block engine mounts on the small 
  block frame to engine mount brackets, the interlocking tab will hit the 
  bracket before the engine mount gets in the correct possition, you wont be 
  able to get it to line up. I found this out the hard way. I had to cut the tab 
  off before I could get everything to line up. Here are some pictures that 
  might help, the big block mounts are in the middle. Frame brackets 
  The link is to pics of the two types. If anyone can sort this out, please 
  do.
  

  Craig A. Ellis, CPA, CISA 
  810-388-1345 
  www.neagroup.com  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  NEA Automotive, Inc. 
  "The Expert 
  Source" for Automotive Professionals 

Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out

[John Nasta]

Also, you have to pull the pin to get the C-clips out but as soon as you get 
them out, put the pin back in to prevent the spider gears from falling apart. 
Try not to move the gears while the axles are out.

HTH,
JN


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:14 PM
To: Chevelle-list@chevelles.net
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out

Also check the end of the axle for any wear/damage. Make sure you get any metal 
filings wiped off all surfaces too. gm66

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

From: "Bill Bradley IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Chevelle Mailing List" 
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:08:37 -0600

sounds like you hit the nail on the head, its not too difficult.
i've done this in my driveway before. good luck.
if all else fails, ask vin, he knows everything, and has nothing better to do 
(GRIN)
Bill Bradley
67 Malibu
Edmond Ok.
  - Original Message -
  From: Lynch, Charles Edward LT NETC, N7
  To: The Chevelle Mailing List
  Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:00 AM
  Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Correct Air Cleaner


  Hi to all,

  I am new to the list and I have a question.  I just had the right rear axle 
"walk" out of the rear end on my car.  Luckily it didn't come all the way out.  
I assume, from what I've read, that I may have broken a "c" clip.  Am I 
assuming right, and how difficult is this to repair?  I have a 67 big block 
Malibu, 350T with a 10 bolt rear end.  I am mechanically inclined but no Master 
mechanic and I'll be doing this in my drive way.  Thanks in advance for any 
advice.



_
Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.

Re: [Chevelle-list] painting undercarriage

[John Nasta]

Eastwood is famous for taking other companies' paints and
putting their label on them. Not that there's anything wrong with it as long as
they provide a source for good quality products. Just remember that you can often
get the same paint elsewhere for less $$ if you know where to look.

 

 

 

-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jim H. Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
7:34 PM
To: The Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list]
painting undercarriage

 

Yes, it is the same. I asked Eastwood last year at
Carlisle.

 

-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of Herb Lumpp
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:11
PM
To: The Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list]
painting undercarriage

 

I went
to Eastwood's web site and searched for Corroless, but it appears they either
no longer sell it or changed the name to "Rust Encapsulator."

http://eastwood.resultspage.com/search?p=KK&srid=S7%2d4&lbc=eastwood&ts=custom&pw=corroless&uid=739702418&&isort=score&w=coroless&rk=1

 

According
to Eastwood: 

·
Encapsulates
rust & primes in one step 

·
Prevents
rust creep 

·
Minimal
prep - remove loose rust, degrease, & apply 

·
Can be
used under or over body fillers 

·
Compatible
with most top coats 

·
Available
in Red, Black, Silver, & Clear

Eastwood
Rust Encapsulator has been shown by an independent lab to be the most effective
rust preventive product yet. Tested against well-known brands, the New Eastwood
Rust Encapsulator has proven to be superior in sunlight resistance, preventing
rust creep, and overall durability. Heat resistant up to 400º F. Made in
the USA. 

 

 

With
that said, back when the El was disassembled, I had the frame sandblasted,
then I coated it with the Eastwood Corroless followed by Chassis Black. 
It's been over 5 years and 16,000 miles and the frame still looks good and is
rust free.

Herb Lumpp
http://users.adelphia.net/~hlump/index.htm

 

Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out

[gm66]

Also check the end of the axle for any wear/damage. Make sure you get any metal 
filings wiped off all surfaces too. gm66

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

From: "Bill Bradley IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Chevelle Mailing List" 
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:08:37 -0600

sounds like you hit the nail on the head, its not too difficult.
i've done this in my driveway before. good luck.
if all else fails, ask vin, he knows everything, and has nothing better to do 
(GRIN)
Bill Bradley
67 Malibu
Edmond Ok.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Lynch, Charles Edward LT NETC, N7 
  To: The Chevelle Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:00 AM
  Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Correct Air Cleaner


  Hi to all,

  I am new to the list and I have a question.  I just had the right rear axle 
"walk" out of the rear end on my car.  Luckily it didn't come all the way out.  
I assume, from what I've read, that I may have broken a "c" clip.  Am I 
assuming right, and how difficult is this to repair?  I have a 67 big block 
Malibu, 350T with a 10 bolt rear end.  I am mechanically inclined but no Master 
mechanic and I'll be doing this in my drive way.  Thanks in advance for any 
advice.



_
Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.

Re: [Chevelle-list] painting undercarriage

[Jim H. Thompson]

Yes, it is
the same. I asked Eastwood last year at Carlisle.

 

-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of Herb Lumpp
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:11
PM
To: The Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list]
painting undercarriage

 

I went to Eastwood's web
site and searched for Corroless, but it appears they either no longer sell it
or changed the name to "Rust Encapsulator."

http://eastwood.resultspage.com/search?p=KK&srid=S7%2d4&lbc=eastwood&ts=custom&pw=corroless&uid=739702418&&isort=score&w=coroless&rk=1

 

According to Eastwood: 

·
Encapsulates
rust & primes in one step 

·
Prevents
rust creep 

·
Minimal
prep - remove loose rust, degrease, & apply 

·
Can be
used under or over body fillers 

·
Compatible
with most top coats 

·
Available
in Red, Black, Silver, & Clear

Eastwood Rust
Encapsulator has been shown by an independent lab to be the most effective rust
preventive product yet. Tested against well-known brands, the New Eastwood Rust
Encapsulator has proven to be superior in sunlight resistance, preventing rust
creep, and overall durability. Heat resistant up to 400º F. Made in the
USA. 

 

 

With that said, back
when the El was disassembled, I had the frame sandblasted, then I coated
it with the Eastwood Corroless followed by Chassis Black.  It's been over
5 years and 16,000 miles and the frame still looks good and is rust free.

Herb Lumpp
http://users.adelphia.net/~hlump/index.htm

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of Shawn Price
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006
10:48 AM
To: The Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list]
painting undercarriage

Yeah, I got one of those Eastwood chassis
kits, with a couple pints of Corrolless (sp?) and about 6 rattle-cans of
chassis black. I bought it for a vette that I was going to put back together,
but now I think I'll use it on my '67 pickup. Can anyone confirm that the
Corrolless product is the same or similar to the POR product? 

Anyway I would think that any decent
rattle-can enamel paint, Rustoleum or similar should offer decent protection
for the frame.

 

On Mar 14, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Eddie
Bumgarner wrote:





Yes, eastwood has what you need. Im doing
the frame and the underside now. They have spray cans in everthing. But I
prefer the sraygun. Goodluck Eddie Bumgarner 66ss conv.

John Nasta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: 



I am going to
be pulling the fuel tank out of the '70 this weekend, and as
much as possible I want to clean up the underside and paint it with
corroseal as I work on the car. Corroseal is a primer that turns rust into
magnetite. It is similar to POR-15 but it's water based and non-toxic (and
it can be sprayed). Do you guys have any recommendation for a topcoat? I
don't have spray equipment, so something that would flow nicely from a brush
would be ideal. Otherwise I do have a compressor and I could buy a spray
gun...

Thanks







 

 









Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New
PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

 

Re: [Chevelle-list] painting undercarriage

[Jim H. Thompson]

The fumes
POR puts out are very bad on the lungs do not spray unless you have the right
mask. Also over spray is a bitch to get off.

 

-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of Karl Groves
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:07
PM
To: 'The Chevelle Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list]
painting undercarriage

 

Jim - 

 

Do you have experience
spraying POR-15?

Just asking, because
POR-15's own documentation says you can spray it. 

I have not yet done so
but planned to, but I might not if others have done it and it didn't
work out.

Karl
Groves
Master Certified CIW
http://www.karlgroves.com

Will Work For Parts:
http://chevelle.karlcore.com/detail.php?id=3 

 

 











From: Jim Thompson
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:59
PM
To: The Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list]
painting undercarriage

POR 15 does
not need a top coat can not be sprayed. Use foam brushes and throw away. I have
used both and the Eastwood products need more prep to look good if you won't
see the end result but want protection go with POR 15. 

On 3/14/06, John Nasta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 





Thanks
Eddie. I was looking at the Devilbiss (sp?) spray guns because they say that
you can spray upside down with their gravity feed guns as long as you use the
cup liner. I would imagine that being able to spray upside down is important
when doing an undercarriage. Is there a reason that most people seem to use
gravity feed rather than suction feed? Do you get a more uniform flow of paint
or is it a price issue? 

 

I also
read that you get what you pay for with these guns, and if you want to do good
quality exterior paint work, don't buy any gun under $200, but if you are just
doing undercarriage and/or industrial surfaces, guns around $100 are fine. 



 

 

 

 





-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Eddie Bumgarner
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006
10:36 AM
To: The Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list]
painting undercarriage

 

Yes, eastwood
has what you need. Im doing the frame and the underside now. They have spray
cans in everthing. But I prefer the sraygun. Goodluck Eddie Bumgarner 66ss
conv. 

John Nasta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: 



I am going to be pulling the fuel tank out of the '70 this
weekend, and as
much as possible I want to clean up the underside and paint it with 
corroseal as I work on the car. Corroseal is a primer that turns rust into
magnetite. It is similar to POR-15 but it's water based and non-toxic (and
it can be sprayed). Do you guys have any recommendation for a topcoat? I 
don't have spray equipment, so something that would flow nicely from a brush
would be ideal. Otherwise I do have a compressor and I could buy a spray
gun...

Thanks






 









Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New
PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. 










-- 
Please see my web site.
www.jimhthompson.us 

[Chevelle-list] Frame Mount

[Larry Shouse]

Guys,
 
I found this post by Craig in my saved files - 
 finally. If you would please go to the picture link he provides and take a 
look at the different mounts. Am I assuming correctly when he says the "middle" 
set of mounts are for big blocks, he is talking about the second set from the 
top? If so, that set (chassis mount) does indeed seem taller...
 
Larry Shouse
 
- Original Message - 
From: Craig Ellis 
To: Chevelle List 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:07 PM
Subject: [Chevelle-list] BBC/SBC frame towers

I also found this...
 
Stacey, the frame to engine mount brackets are different from small block 
to big block, however all of the hole locations are the same. The difference is 
that the big block brackets have a strengthening rib that runs around the bottom 
toward the front, also it has a notch to clear the interlocking tab in the big 
block engine mount.Phil is correct in stating that you must use small block 
engine mounts with small block frame to engine mount brackets, but you can use 
small block or big block engine mounts with big block frame to engine mount 
brackets. If you try to use the big block engine mounts on the small block frame 
to engine mount brackets, the interlocking tab will hit the bracket before the 
engine mount gets in the correct possition, you wont be able to get it to line 
up. I found this out the hard way. I had to cut the tab off before I could get 
everything to line up. Here are some pictures that might help, the big block 
mounts are in the middle. Frame brackets 
The link is to pics of the two types. If anyone can sort this out, please 
do.


Craig A. Ellis, CPA, CISA 
810-388-1345 
www.neagroup.com  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
NEA Automotive, Inc. 
"The Expert 
Source" for Automotive Professionals 

Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out

[John Nasta]

Well said
Bill. I personally find that the best thing to do about these arguments is to
try to stay out of them and hope they go away quickly.

 

 

-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of Bill Lessenberry
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
6:37 PM
To: The Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] axle
"walk" out

 

There you
go--everyone's been mad at their buddies before, & most of us get over it
and still stay friends.  It seems like we all need some nice weather to
get the cars out & burn a little rubber & get to feeling better. 
It's coming, so let's all stay cool. 8-)
BillL

Re: [Chevelle-list] Was Tires - now spindles

[Mike Holleman]

Title: Message



Clint, Yes the Fatman spindles do use the stock 
steering arms, but I don't know anything yet about how they will 
perform.
Mike

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Clint Hooper 
  
  To: The Chevelle Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:13 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Was Tires - 
  now spindles
  
  TJ,I'm not sure I've seen anyone "highly suggest" 
  the Fatman tall spindles just yet,as too much is unknown about their geometry. 
  Do they use the stock steering arms? To fix the problems associated with our 
  car's front geometry,custom arms will probably be needed. That's the reason 
  the ATS spindles haven't been released for A-bodies yet as Tyler is still 
  working on new arms.
  Just trying to keep someone from buying something 
  that might make them unhappy. I would hold onto my money,for now.
  Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
  H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Thomas 
Ringlein 


Thanks 
Brad-
Since I have an 
innate fear of bump steer (which, on the interstate, is a bitch) I have 
nearly decided to use the fatman fabrications 2” dropped spindles as highly 
suggested on lateral-g.net.  See more here  http://www.fatmanfab.com/06page25.htm
I figure with some 
1” drop springs from Global West, I can get that sweet 3” drop with 17” 
rubber that looks so good.  It should run like a banshee 
also.
I still have some 
research to do regarding spacing etc., but since it mounts any disk brakes 
made for 72 Chevelle disk brake spindles, I can run nearly any aftermarket 
or stock (gack) brakes I want.
Anyone using these 
spindles?  What do you think?
I am moving to 
Fresno California in a few months and starting 
wrenchin’.  Any Chevelle list folks wanna hook up and lend me some 
tools?  J
 
TJ Ringlein 
(Rinky)
Ramstein, 
Germany
USAF
1972 Chevelle, in 
shambles
 




From: Brad 
Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:46 
AMTo: 'The Chevelle Mailing List'Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 
Tires
 
TJ,
Save this (and Clint's) 
email for when you get back and put on the 17" wheels.  

I have 275/40/17s on 17" x 
9.5" V45 
wheels with 5 7/8" backspace by 
Vintage Wheel 
Works and I also have the 
F-body front spindles (which do change the requirements a bit).  Unless 
you are going for the absolute max, then you should ease off and use 5.5" 
backspace in the rear.  I had to clearance my wheel well a bit on one 
side of the car.  I have lots of room to the outside, so your 285s 
should have lots of room with the 5.5" backspace.  

In front, a 17x8 with 5.5" 
backspace would work (although being 1.5" narrower, Clint's suggestion of 
4.5" should be fine as well).  I wanted the to be the same so I could 
rotate the tires, but it does make for a tight fit.  If you don't care 
about that, then 255's in front should be OK.
Brad Waller 
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
'66 Corvette | 327/dead | 
4-speed   | Wilwood Brakes | 245/45/16 BFG R1'67 Chevelle | 
ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body Brakes  | 275/40/17 Kumho 
MX

   
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas 
  RingleinSent: Tuesday, 
  March 14, 2006 8:46 AMTo: 'The 
  Chevelle Mailing List'Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 
  Tires
  I hope this helps 
  – I have had 15” wheels on my 1972 for over 12 years.  I have 1987 
  IROC wheels (15x8 with 4.5” backspacing – if memory serves) and have them 
  mounted with 265 50R 15 BFG Radial T/A’s front and rear.  I have 
  never experienced any rubbing anywhere, and the fat tires on all 4 corners 
  looks awesome.
  When I rebuild, I 
  am going with 17” American’s – 17x9.5 with 285’s in back, 17x8 with 245’s 
  or 255’s in front.
   
  TJ Ringlein 
  (Rinky)
  Ramstein, 
  Germany
  USAF
  1972 Chevelle, in 
  shambles
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  John Nasta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:14 
  PMTo: The Chevelle Mailing ListSubject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 
  Tires
   
  It seems like 
  it's only people with 15" wheels who talk about backspacing. I guess I 
  will be dealing with this soon myself.
   
  There is good info and a diagram 
  here:
   
  http://www.high-impact.net/wheels/howtomeasurebackspacing.htm
   
  I'm still not clear on how maximum 
  offset has anything to do with the height of the caliper from the center 
  of the axle, while minimum offset has to do with the depth behind the rim. 
  I also 

Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out

[Bill Lessenberry]

There you go--everyone's been mad at their buddies before, & most of
us get over it and still stay friends.  It seems like we all need
some nice weather to get the cars out & burn a little rubber &
get to feeling better.  It's coming, so let's all stay cool.
8-)
BillL

At 05:03 PM 3/15/2006, you wrote:
maybe I was a
little rash in the beginning,but if anyone is thin skinned,let's be real.
I'm in this bus.for 22 years now and dealing with the public---well if
you ever did  or do you would no what I'm talking about.so yea I've
read alot of questions in the past and quite frankly some things are left
done bye a  professional I'm sure everyone wants to take on there
own and most times only make things worse-esp. when you someone say
there in engine buis. for 40 years and are not sure about putting wires
on a hot exhaust,alright so i went about it a little tough so you all
say--sure questions are how you learn,but some things are just plain
common sense.so maybe i 'got insulted by hearing such crazy stuff.this
sight has alot of novices so if help is needed then I'll give what i
can-if everyone still pissed off well--oh well.


- Original Message - 

From: Bill
Lessenberry 

To: The Chevelle
Mailing List 

Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:11 PM

Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out

If you're willing to share that information (which is what a mailing
list is all about anyway), then folks will think that you're probably a
good guy, just a little thin skinned and cantankerous.  If you're
not willing to share, then you're only on the list to boost your ego
'cause you know something that others don't.  Just my $.02

BillL

Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out

[vin]

maybe I was a little rash in the beginning,but if 
anyone is thin skinned,let's be real. I'm in this bus.for 22 years now and 
dealing with the public---well if you ever did  or do you would no what I'm 
talking about.so yea I've read alot of questions in the past and quite frankly 
some things are left done bye a  professional I'm sure everyone wants 
to take on there own and most times only make things worse-esp. when 
you someone say there in engine buis. for 40 years and are not sure about 
putting wires on a hot exhaust,alright so i went about it a little tough so you 
all say--sure questions are how you learn,but some things are just plain common 
sense.so maybe i 'got insulted by hearing such crazy stuff.this sight has alot 
of novices so if help is needed then I'll give what i can-if everyone still 
pissed off well--oh well.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bill 
  Lessenberry 
  To: The Chevelle Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:11 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" 
  out
  If you're willing to share that information (which is what a 
  mailing list is all about anyway), then folks will think that you're probably 
  a good guy, just a little thin skinned and cantankerous.  If you're not 
  willing to share, then you're only on the list to boost your ego 'cause you 
  know something that others don't.  Just my $.02BillLAt 
  01:21 PM 3/15/2006, you wrote:
  yea your correct 
wise  guy---I'll bet you never came across a frozen pin[locking bolt] 
and can't get the center rod out---there is a way to get the possible broken 
bolt and save the rear-end,but I'll bet you never came across that because 
you guy's think your so smart.

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Dale]

Thanks, Clint.  Couldn’t remember
just when it was but it was a pretty big stink for Chevrolet. 



Dale McIntosh 
67 El Camino 
1967 Chevelle Reference CD

http://www.chevellecd.com 
ACES #1709/TC Gold #92 











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clint Hooper
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
3:45 PM
To: The
 Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list]
Engine Mount Question



 



I think 1968 was the year of the recall,Dale.





Clint Hooper
H&H Custom,owner
1969 El Camino ProTourer
2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Clint Hooper]

I think 1968 was the year of the 
recall,Dale.
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dale 
  
  
  Not sure I 
  understand the question, but neither of those engines were available in the 66 
  Chevelle.
   
  On a side note, 
  anyone have a pair of small block and big block mounts for 66/67 that can lay 
  them flat on the floor and measure the two 
  heights?
   
  I know there was a 
  recall on all Chevrolet mounts in the 60s I believe due to the driver’s side 
  engine mount (rubber one that bolts to the block itself) tending to break and 
  possibly causing the throttle to stick open.  First solution was a cable 
  unit applied to the driver’s side engine mount.  Later the engine mounts 
  were designed with a locking tab to stop the engine from coming off the mount 
  if it broke.  My Chevrolet parts book (circa 1971) also has the locking 
  mounts as dealer replacements and to use the big block frame mounts when doing 
  so.  This could be why a lot of small block Chevelles have big block 
  frame and engine mounts.
  
  Dale 
  McIntosh 
  67 El 
  Camino 1967 Chevelle Reference 
  CD http://www.chevellecd.com ACES #1709/TC Gold 
  #92 
  

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Dale]

Not sure I understand the question, but neither
of those engines were available in the 66 Chevelle.

 

On a side note, anyone have a pair of
small block and big block mounts for 66/67 that can lay them flat on the floor
and measure the two heights?

 

I know there was a recall on all
Chevrolet mounts in the 60s I believe due to the driver’s side engine
mount (rubber one that bolts to the block itself) tending to break and possibly
causing the throttle to stick open.  First solution was a cable unit
applied to the driver’s side engine mount.  Later the engine mounts
were designed with a locking tab to stop the engine from coming off the mount
if it broke.  My Chevrolet parts book (circa 1971) also has the locking
mounts as dealer replacements and to use the big block frame mounts when doing
so.  This could be why a lot of small block Chevelles have big block frame
and engine mounts.



Dale McIntosh 
67 El Camino 
1967 Chevelle Reference CD

http://www.chevellecd.com 
ACES #1709/TC Gold #92 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mumper, Douglas
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
3:16 PM
To: The
 Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list]
Engine Mount Question



 

Are the motor mounts for a 1966 Chevelle
with a 307 Chevy SB the same as a 400 Chevy SB?

 

Doug

 







From: Clint
Hooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:24
PM
To: The
 Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list]
Engine Mount Question



327 & 350 mounts are the same. 307 mounts are different.





Clint Hooper
H&H Custom,owner
1969 El Camino ProTourer
2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger
http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm







- Original Message - 





From: RJ
Winkler 





 



You got it. The big block mounts are just
that much taller.  The 327 has a special pair of frame mounts while the
350 and up use the same ones, pretty sure that’s how it works out. -RJ

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Larry Shouse



 





When I installed my big block, I had to buy a set up upper
engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then discovered that the ones I got
did not couple correctly with the chassis mounts. The upper mounts were too
big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off and took it to a local parts store.
We discovered the engine mounts that fit my chassis mount was identified to fit
a 327. I guess the previous owner must have installed a small block at one time
or another. Remembering a thread on the list where people said both will work,
except the engine would sit a bit lower with the small block mounts, I bought a
set of small block engine mounts and installed the engine.





 





I have since discovered  I need the engine to sit 1/2
to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance issues. I'm assuming if you set
the SB and BB chassis mounts down side by side, the "hump" where the
engine mount couples with the chassis mount would be larger and taller, raising
the engine a bit?





 





I appreciate your comments,





 





Larry Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Clint Hooper]

Ok,I found this by doing a search on Team Chevelle. 
Tom Parsons aka DZAUTO knows his stuff. Read what he had to say.
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121179&highlight=motor+mounts
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Clint Hooper 
  
  
  Probably not,Doug. My guess is that a 307 uses a 
  different motor mount than the other small blocks. Why else would the frame 
  mounts be different?
  Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
  H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Mumper, Douglas 

Are the motor mounts for a 1966 Chevelle with a 307 
Chevy SB the same as a 400 Chevy SB?
 
Doug


From: Clint Hooper 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

327 & 350 mounts are the same. 307 mounts 
are different.
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino 
ProTourer2001 H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  RJ Winkler 
  
  
  You got it. The 
  big block mounts are just that much taller.  The 327 has a special 
  pair of frame mounts while the 350 and up use the same ones, pretty sure 
  that’s how it works out. -RJ
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
  Shouse
   
  
  
  When I installed my big block, 
  I had to buy a set up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then 
  discovered that the ones I got did not couple correctly with the chassis 
  mounts. The upper mounts were too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts 
  off and took it to a local parts store. We discovered the engine mounts 
  that fit my chassis mount was identified to fit a 327. I guess the 
  previous owner must have installed a small block at one time or another. 
  Remembering a thread on the list where people said both will work, except 
  the engine would sit a bit lower with the small block mounts, I bought a 
  set of small block engine mounts and installed the 
  engine.
  
   
  
  I have since discovered 
   I need the engine to sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header 
  clearance issues. I'm assuming if you set the SB and BB chassis mounts 
  down side by side, the "hump" where the engine mount couples with the 
  chassis mount would be larger and taller, raising the engine a 
  bit?
  
   
  
  I appreciate your 
  comments,
  
   
  
  Larry 
  Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Clint Hooper]

Probably not,Doug. My guess is that a 307 uses a 
different motor mount than the other small blocks. Why else would the frame 
mounts be different?
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mumper, Douglas 
  
  Are the motor mounts for a 1966 Chevelle with a 307 Chevy 
  SB the same as a 400 Chevy SB?
   
  Doug
  
  
  From: Clint Hooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  327 & 350 mounts are the same. 307 mounts are 
  different.
  Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
  H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
RJ Winkler 


You got it. The big 
block mounts are just that much taller.  The 327 has a special pair of 
frame mounts while the 350 and up use the same ones, pretty sure that’s how 
it works out. -RJ
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
Shouse
 


When I installed my big block, I 
had to buy a set up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then 
discovered that the ones I got did not couple correctly with the chassis 
mounts. The upper mounts were too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off 
and took it to a local parts store. We discovered the engine mounts that fit 
my chassis mount was identified to fit a 327. I guess the previous owner 
must have installed a small block at one time or another. Remembering a 
thread on the list where people said both will work, except the engine would 
sit a bit lower with the small block mounts, I bought a set of small block 
engine mounts and installed the engine.

 

I have since discovered  I 
need the engine to sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance 
issues. I'm assuming if you set the SB and BB chassis mounts down side by 
side, the "hump" where the engine mount couples with the chassis mount would 
be larger and taller, raising the engine a 
bit?

 

I appreciate your 
comments,

 

Larry 
Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Mumper, Douglas]

Are the motor mounts for a 1966 Chevelle with a 307 Chevy 
SB the same as a 400 Chevy SB?
 
Doug


From: Clint Hooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:24 PMTo: The Chevelle 
Mailing ListSubject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
Question

327 & 350 mounts are the same. 307 mounts are 
different.
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  RJ 
  Winkler 
  
  
  You got it. The big 
  block mounts are just that much taller.  The 327 has a special pair of 
  frame mounts while the 350 and up use the same ones, pretty sure that’s how it 
  works out. -RJ
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
  Shouse
   
  
  
  When I installed my big block, I 
  had to buy a set up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then 
  discovered that the ones I got did not couple correctly with the chassis 
  mounts. The upper mounts were too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off 
  and took it to a local parts store. We discovered the engine mounts that fit 
  my chassis mount was identified to fit a 327. I guess the previous owner must 
  have installed a small block at one time or another. Remembering a thread on 
  the list where people said both will work, except the engine would sit a bit 
  lower with the small block mounts, I bought a set of small block engine mounts 
  and installed the engine.
  
   
  
  I have since discovered  I 
  need the engine to sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance 
  issues. I'm assuming if you set the SB and BB chassis mounts down side by 
  side, the "hump" where the engine mount couples with the chassis mount would 
  be larger and taller, raising the engine a 
  bit?
  
   
  
  I appreciate your 
  comments,
  
   
  
  Larry 
  Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out

[Bill Lessenberry]

If you're willing to share that information (which is what a mailing list
is all about anyway), then folks will think that you're probably a good
guy, just a little thin skinned and cantankerous.  If you're not
willing to share, then you're only on the list to boost your ego 'cause
you know something that others don't.  Just my $.02
BillL

At 01:21 PM 3/15/2006, you wrote:
yea your correct
wise  guy---I'll bet you never came across a frozen pin[locking
bolt] and can't get the center rod out---there is a way to get the
possible broken bolt and save the rear-end,but I'll bet you never came
across that because you guy's think your so
smart.

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Clint Hooper]

Brad,I tend to agree that the later stands were all 
the same,,except for the 307 stands. Why those were different,I have no 
clue.
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Brad Waller 
  
  
  Larry,
  No 
  problem.  Also, my info is for '66-'67 engine mounts/frame stands/or 
  whatever they are really called.  My car is an SS396 so it had the old 
  big block stands.  When I had trouble with the headers I put in the small 
  block stands and that cleared up the issue.  Since the big block is 
  bigger, they did their best to get it to sit lower in the car.  After 
  '67, I guess they just made the hoods taller and simplified with one mount for 
  350 and big blocks.  I have no idea why they did anything like they did 
  for the 307 cars...
  Brad Waller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  '66 Corvette | 327/dead | 4-speed   | Wilwood Brakes 
  | 245/45/16 BFG R1'67 Chevelle | ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body 
  Brakes  | 275/40/17 Kumho MX
  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
ShouseSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:53 AMTo: The 
Chevelle Mailing ListSubject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
Question

Thanks Brad. I'm hoping you'll understand when 
I tell you I hope your situation is different from mine, considering what 
Clint said about different mounts for small blocks.
 
Larry

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Brad Waller 

  To: 'The Chevelle Mailing List' 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:42 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine 
  Mount Question
  
  
  Larry,
  I 
  think you have it backwards.  The big block mounts lower the 
  engine.  I had a small block with big block mounts and had lots of 
  trouble with headers.  I swapped to small block mounts (sold the big 
  block mounts to a buddy) and the engine is raised up just enough to make 
  headers fit.
  Brad Waller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  '66 Corvette | 327/dead | 4-speed   | Wilwood 
  Brakes | 245/45/16 BFG R1'67 Chevelle | ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body 
  Brakes  | 275/40/17 Kumho MX
  


From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
ShouseSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:01 AMTo: 
Chevelle ListSubject: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
Question


When I installed my big block, I had to buy 
a set up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then discovered 
that the ones I got did not couple correctly with the chassis mounts. 
The upper mounts were too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off and 
took it to a local parts store. We discovered the engine mounts that fit 
my chassis mount was identified to fit a 327. I guess the previous owner 
must have installed a small block at one time or another. Remembering a 
thread on the list where people said both will work, except the engine 
would sit a bit lower with the small block mounts, I bought a set of 
small block engine mounts and installed the engine.
 
I have since discovered  I need the 
engine to sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance 
issues. I'm assuming if you set the SB and BB chassis mounts down side 
by side, the "hump" where the engine mount couples with the chassis 
mount would be larger and taller, raising the engine a bit?
 
I appreciate your comments,
 
Larry 
  Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Brad Waller]

Larry,
No 
problem.  Also, my info is for '66-'67 engine mounts/frame stands/or 
whatever they are really called.  My car is an SS396 so it had the old big 
block stands.  When I had trouble with the headers I put in the small block 
stands and that cleared up the issue.  Since the big block is bigger, they 
did their best to get it to sit lower in the car.  After '67, I guess they 
just made the hoods taller and simplified with one mount for 350 and big 
blocks.  I have no idea why they did anything like they did for the 307 
cars...
Brad Waller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
'66 Corvette | 327/dead | 4-speed   | Wilwood Brakes | 
245/45/16 BFG R1'67 Chevelle | ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body 
Brakes  | 275/40/17 Kumho MX

  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
  ShouseSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:53 AMTo: The 
  Chevelle Mailing ListSubject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
  Question
  
  Thanks Brad. I'm hoping you'll understand when I 
  tell you I hope your situation is different from mine, considering what Clint 
  said about different mounts for small blocks.
   
  Larry
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Brad Waller 
To: 'The Chevelle Mailing List' 

Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:42 
PM
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine 
Mount Question


Larry,
I 
think you have it backwards.  The big block mounts lower the 
engine.  I had a small block with big block mounts and had lots of 
trouble with headers.  I swapped to small block mounts (sold the big 
block mounts to a buddy) and the engine is raised up just enough to make 
headers fit.
Brad Waller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
'66 Corvette | 327/dead | 4-speed   | Wilwood 
Brakes | 245/45/16 BFG R1'67 Chevelle | ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body 
Brakes  | 275/40/17 Kumho MX

  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
  ShouseSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:01 AMTo: 
  Chevelle ListSubject: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
  Question
  
  
  When I installed my big block, I had to buy a 
  set up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then discovered that 
  the ones I got did not couple correctly with the chassis mounts. The upper 
  mounts were too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off and took it to a 
  local parts store. We discovered the engine mounts that fit my chassis 
  mount was identified to fit a 327. I guess the previous owner must have 
  installed a small block at one time or another. Remembering a thread on 
  the list where people said both will work, except the engine would sit a 
  bit lower with the small block mounts, I bought a set of small block 
  engine mounts and installed the engine.
   
  I have since discovered  I need the 
  engine to sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance issues. 
  I'm assuming if you set the SB and BB chassis mounts down side by side, 
  the "hump" where the engine mount couples with the chassis mount would be 
  larger and taller, raising the engine a bit?
   
  I appreciate your comments,
   
  Larry 
Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Clint Hooper]

We went over this subject extensively,last 
month,but damn if I can remember everything that was said. 
Guess I need to ask Dale or the gurus over at Team 
Chevelle and see what they say.
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Larry Shouse 
  
  Thanks Brad. I'm hoping you'll understand when I 
  tell you I hope your situation is different from mine, considering what Clint 
  said about different mounts for small blocks.
   
  Larry
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Brad Waller 


Larry,
I 
think you have it backwards.  The big block mounts lower the 
engine.  I had a small block with big block mounts and had lots of 
trouble with headers.  I swapped to small block mounts (sold the big 
block mounts to a buddy) and the engine is raised up just enough to make 
headers fit.
Brad Waller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
'66 Corvette | 327/dead | 4-speed   | Wilwood 
Brakes | 245/45/16 BFG R1'67 Chevelle | ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body 
Brakes  | 275/40/17 Kumho MX

  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
  ShouseSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:01 AMTo: 
  Chevelle ListSubject: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
  Question
  
  
  When I installed my big block, I had to buy a 
  set up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then discovered that 
  the ones I got did not couple correctly with the chassis mounts. The upper 
  mounts were too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off and took it to a 
  local parts store. We discovered the engine mounts that fit my chassis 
  mount was identified to fit a 327. I guess the previous owner must have 
  installed a small block at one time or another. Remembering a thread on 
  the list where people said both will work, except the engine would sit a 
  bit lower with the small block mounts, I bought a set of small block 
  engine mounts and installed the engine.
   
  I have since discovered  I need the 
  engine to sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance issues. 
  I'm assuming if you set the SB and BB chassis mounts down side by side, 
  the "hump" where the engine mount couples with the chassis mount would be 
  larger and taller, raising the engine a bit?
   
  I appreciate your comments,
   
  Larry 
Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Clint Hooper]

I kept the 307 mounts in my 68 El Camino when I 
swapped in the 468 BB. Always thought the 307 mounts allowed the engine to be 
mounted a smidgen lower because I never had a problem with running a 4" tall air 
cleaner. Not sure about header clearances but my Hooker Comps worked ok once I 
installed a pair of Coil Spring Specialties 2" drop coils on the front. Later 
on,I installed a pair of Sanderson 1 7/8" intermediate headers and those solved 
all the problems.
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Larry Shouse 
  
  Clint, do you know in my situation, going from 
  327 mounts to a BB mount will raise or lower my 396?
   
  Thanks,
  Larry
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Clint Hooper 


327 & 350 mounts are the same. 307 mounts 
are different.
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino 
ProTourer2001 H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  RJ Winkler 
  
  
  You got it. The 
  big block mounts are just that much taller.  The 327 has a special 
  pair of frame mounts while the 350 and up use the same ones, pretty sure 
  that’s how it works out. -RJ
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
  Shouse
   
  
  
  When I installed my big block, 
  I had to buy a set up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then 
  discovered that the ones I got did not couple correctly with the chassis 
  mounts. The upper mounts were too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts 
  off and took it to a local parts store. We discovered the engine mounts 
  that fit my chassis mount was identified to fit a 327. I guess the 
  previous owner must have installed a small block at one time or another. 
  Remembering a thread on the list where people said both will work, except 
  the engine would sit a bit lower with the small block mounts, I bought a 
  set of small block engine mounts and installed the 
  engine.
  
   
  
  I have since discovered 
   I need the engine to sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header 
  clearance issues. I'm assuming if you set the SB and BB chassis mounts 
  down side by side, the "hump" where the engine mount couples with the 
  chassis mount would be larger and taller, raising the engine a 
  bit?
  
   
  
  I appreciate your 
  comments,
  
   
  
  Larry 
  Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Larry Shouse]

Thanks Brad. I'm hoping you'll understand when I 
tell you I hope your situation is different from mine, considering what Clint 
said about different mounts for small blocks.
 
Larry

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Brad Waller 
  To: 'The Chevelle Mailing List' 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:42 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
  Question
  
  
  Larry,
  I think 
  you have it backwards.  The big block mounts lower the engine.  I 
  had a small block with big block mounts and had lots of trouble with 
  headers.  I swapped to small block mounts (sold the big block mounts to a 
  buddy) and the engine is raised up just enough to make headers 
  fit.
  Brad Waller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  '66 Corvette | 327/dead | 4-speed   | Wilwood Brakes 
  | 245/45/16 BFG R1'67 Chevelle | ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body 
  Brakes  | 275/40/17 Kumho MX
  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
ShouseSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:01 AMTo: 
Chevelle ListSubject: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
Question


When I installed my big block, I had to buy a 
set up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then discovered that 
the ones I got did not couple correctly with the chassis mounts. The upper 
mounts were too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off and took it to a 
local parts store. We discovered the engine mounts that fit my chassis mount 
was identified to fit a 327. I guess the previous owner must have installed 
a small block at one time or another. Remembering a thread on the list where 
people said both will work, except the engine would sit a bit lower with the 
small block mounts, I bought a set of small block engine mounts and 
installed the engine.
 
I have since discovered  I need the engine 
to sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance issues. I'm 
assuming if you set the SB and BB chassis mounts down side by side, the 
"hump" where the engine mount couples with the chassis mount would be larger 
and taller, raising the engine a bit?
 
I appreciate your comments,
 
Larry 
  Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Larry Shouse]

Clint, do you know in my situation, going from 327 
mounts to a BB mount will raise or lower my 396?
 
Thanks,
Larry

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Clint Hooper 
  
  To: The Chevelle Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:23 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
  Question
  
  327 & 350 mounts are the same. 307 mounts are 
  different.
  Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
  H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
RJ Winkler 


You got it. The big 
block mounts are just that much taller.  The 327 has a special pair of 
frame mounts while the 350 and up use the same ones, pretty sure that’s how 
it works out. -RJ
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
Shouse
 


When I installed my big block, I 
had to buy a set up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then 
discovered that the ones I got did not couple correctly with the chassis 
mounts. The upper mounts were too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off 
and took it to a local parts store. We discovered the engine mounts that fit 
my chassis mount was identified to fit a 327. I guess the previous owner 
must have installed a small block at one time or another. Remembering a 
thread on the list where people said both will work, except the engine would 
sit a bit lower with the small block mounts, I bought a set of small block 
engine mounts and installed the engine.

 

I have since discovered  I 
need the engine to sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance 
issues. I'm assuming if you set the SB and BB chassis mounts down side by 
side, the "hump" where the engine mount couples with the chassis mount would 
be larger and taller, raising the engine a 
bit?

 

I appreciate your 
comments,

 

Larry 
Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out

[vin]

yea your correct wise  guy---I'll bet you 
never came across a frozen pin[locking bolt] and can't get the center rod 
out---there is a way to get the possible broken bolt and save the rear-end,but 
I'll bet you never came across that because you guy's think your so 
smart.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bill Bradley IV 
  
  To: The Chevelle Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:08 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" 
  out
  
  sounds like you hit the nail on the head, its not 
  too difficult.
  i've done this in my driveway before. good 
  luck.
  if all else fails, ask vin, he knows everything, 
  and has nothing better to do (GRIN)
  Bill Bradley
  67 Malibu
  Edmond Ok.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lynch, Charles Edward LT NETC, N7 

To: The Chevelle Mailing List 

Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:00 
AM
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Correct 
Air Cleaner

Hi 
to all,
 
I 
am new to the list and I have a question.  I just had the right rear 
axle "walk" out of the rear end on my car.  Luckily it didn't come 
all the way out.  I assume, from what I've read, that I may have broken 
a "c" clip.  Am I assuming right, and how difficult is this to 
repair?  I have a 67 big block Malibu, 350T with a 10 bolt rear 
end.  I am mechanically inclined but no Master mechanic and I'll be 
doing this in my drive way.  Thanks in advance for any 
advice.

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Clint Hooper]

327 & 350 mounts are the same. 307 mounts are 
different.
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  RJ 
  Winkler 
  
  
  You got it. The big 
  block mounts are just that much taller.  The 327 has a special pair of 
  frame mounts while the 350 and up use the same ones, pretty sure that’s how it 
  works out. -RJ
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
  Shouse
   
  
  
  When I installed my big block, I 
  had to buy a set up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then 
  discovered that the ones I got did not couple correctly with the chassis 
  mounts. The upper mounts were too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off 
  and took it to a local parts store. We discovered the engine mounts that fit 
  my chassis mount was identified to fit a 327. I guess the previous owner must 
  have installed a small block at one time or another. Remembering a thread on 
  the list where people said both will work, except the engine would sit a bit 
  lower with the small block mounts, I bought a set of small block engine mounts 
  and installed the engine.
  
   
  
  I have since discovered  I 
  need the engine to sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance 
  issues. I'm assuming if you set the SB and BB chassis mounts down side by 
  side, the "hump" where the engine mount couples with the chassis mount would 
  be larger and taller, raising the engine a 
  bit?
  
   
  
  I appreciate your 
  comments,
  
   
  
  Larry 
  Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] Was Tires - now spindles

[Clint Hooper]

Title: Message



TJ,I'm not sure I've seen anyone "highly suggest" 
the Fatman tall spindles just yet,as too much is unknown about their geometry. 
Do they use the stock steering arms? To fix the problems associated with our 
car's front geometry,custom arms will probably be needed. That's the reason the 
ATS spindles haven't been released for A-bodies yet as Tyler is still working on 
new arms.
Just trying to keep someone from buying something 
that might make them unhappy. I would hold onto my money,for now.
Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 
H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Thomas 
  Ringlein 
  
  
  Thanks 
  Brad-
  Since I have an 
  innate fear of bump steer (which, on the interstate, is a bitch) I have nearly 
  decided to use the fatman fabrications 2” dropped spindles as highly suggested 
  on lateral-g.net.  See more here  http://www.fatmanfab.com/06page25.htm
  I figure with some 1” 
  drop springs from Global West, I can get that sweet 3” drop with 17” rubber 
  that looks so good.  It should run like a banshee 
  also.
  I still have some 
  research to do regarding spacing etc., but since it mounts any disk brakes 
  made for 72 Chevelle disk brake spindles, I can run nearly any aftermarket or 
  stock (gack) brakes I want.
  Anyone using these 
  spindles?  What do you think?
  I am moving to 
  Fresno California in a few months and starting 
  wrenchin’.  Any Chevelle list folks wanna hook up and lend me some 
  tools?  J
   
  TJ Ringlein 
  (Rinky)
  Ramstein, Germany
  USAF
  1972 Chevelle, in 
  shambles
   
  
  
  
  
  From: Brad 
  Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:46 
  AMTo: 'The Chevelle Mailing List'Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 
  Tires
   
  TJ,
  Save this (and Clint's) 
  email for when you get back and put on the 17" wheels.  
  
  I have 275/40/17s on 17" x 9.5" 
  V45 
  wheels with 5 7/8" backspace by 
  Vintage Wheel 
  Works and I also have the F-body 
  front spindles (which do change the requirements a bit).  Unless you are 
  going for the absolute max, then you should ease off and use 5.5" backspace in 
  the rear.  I had to clearance my wheel well a bit on one side of the 
  car.  I have lots of room to the outside, so your 285s should have 
  lots of room with the 5.5" backspace.  
  In front, a 17x8 with 5.5" 
  backspace would work (although being 1.5" narrower, Clint's suggestion of 4.5" 
  should be fine as well).  I wanted the to be the same so I could rotate 
  the tires, but it does make for a tight fit.  If you don't care about 
  that, then 255's in front should be OK.
  Brad Waller 
  ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  '66 Corvette | 327/dead | 
  4-speed   | Wilwood Brakes | 245/45/16 BFG R1'67 Chevelle | 
  ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body Brakes  | 275/40/17 Kumho 
  MX
  
 



From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas 
RingleinSent: Tuesday, 
March 14, 2006 8:46 AMTo: 
'The Chevelle Mailing 
List'Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 
Tires
I hope this helps – 
I have had 15” wheels on my 1972 for over 12 years.  I have 1987 IROC 
wheels (15x8 with 4.5” backspacing – if memory serves) and have them mounted 
with 265 50R 15 BFG Radial T/A’s front and rear.  I have never 
experienced any rubbing anywhere, and the fat tires on all 4 corners looks 
awesome.
When I rebuild, I 
am going with 17” American’s – 17x9.5 with 285’s in back, 17x8 with 245’s or 
255’s in front.
 
TJ Ringlein 
(Rinky)
Ramstein, 
Germany
USAF
1972 Chevelle, in 
shambles
 




From: John 
Nasta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:14 
PMTo: The Chevelle Mailing ListSubject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 
Tires
 
It seems like it's 
only people with 15" wheels who talk about backspacing. I guess I will be 
dealing with this soon myself.
 
There is good info and a diagram 
here:
 
http://www.high-impact.net/wheels/howtomeasurebackspacing.htm
 
I'm still not clear on how maximum 
offset has anything to do with the height of the caliper from the center of 
the axle, while minimum offset has to do with the depth behind the rim. I 
also don’t know why If (I) x2 (times 2) is greater than 12.125" (G), 
obviously your maximum offset must be just under 4" or why G is measured on 
the outside of the wheel while the caliper is on the inside, but I have time 
to figure this out.
 
My '70 Malibu has 15s on the back now and when the 
air shocks are not pumped up they rub. Offhand I don’t know the tire size, 
which could be the cause of the problem. I suppose I'm going to have to see 
how she sits with new shocks and then decide what to do about tires and 
wheels.
 
 
 

Re: [Chevelle-list] Was Tires - now spindles

[Brad Waller]

Title: Message



Later-G has some great info.  Non of that was available years ago, 
and now there is a ton of stuff out there.  With 3" of drop, you better 
check the tire clearance.  I think I have close to 2" of drop, but it is 
always hard to determine what you really have.
 
Fresno?  A tad far to bring my tools, but I can wave to you as I 
drive through on my way to Yosemite or my sisters place in the Bay 
Area.

Brad Waller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
'66 Corvette | 327/dead | 4-speed   | Wilwood Brakes | 245/45/16 
BFG R1'67 Chevelle | ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body Brakes  | 
275/40/17 Kumho MX

  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas 
  RingleinSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:46 AMTo: 'The 
  Chevelle Mailing List'Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Was Tires - now 
  spindles
  
  
  Thanks 
  Brad-
  Since I have an 
  innate fear of bump steer (which, on the interstate, is a bitch) I have nearly 
  decided to use the fatman fabrications 2” dropped spindles as highly suggested 
  on lateral-g.net.  See more here  http://www.fatmanfab.com/06page25.htm
  I figure with some 1” 
  drop springs from Global West, I can get that sweet 3” drop with 17” rubber 
  that looks so good.  It should run like a banshee 
  also.
  I still have some 
  research to do regarding spacing etc., but since it mounts any disk brakes 
  made for 72 Chevelle disk brake spindles, I can run nearly any aftermarket or 
  stock (gack) brakes I want.
  Anyone using these 
  spindles?  What do you think?
  I am moving to 
  Fresno California in a few months and starting 
  wrenchin’.  Any Chevelle list folks wanna hook up and lend me some 
  tools?  J
   
  TJ Ringlein 
  (Rinky)
  Ramstein, Germany
  USAF
  1972 Chevelle, in 
  shambles
   
  
  
  
  
  From: Brad 
  Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:46 
  AMTo: 'The Chevelle Mailing List'Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 
  Tires
   
  TJ,
  Save this (and Clint's) 
  email for when you get back and put on the 17" wheels.  
  
  I have 275/40/17s on 17" x 9.5" 
  V45 
  wheels with 5 7/8" backspace by 
  Vintage Wheel 
  Works and I also have the F-body 
  front spindles (which do change the requirements a bit).  Unless you are 
  going for the absolute max, then you should ease off and use 5.5" backspace in 
  the rear.  I had to clearance my wheel well a bit on one side of the 
  car.  I have lots of room to the outside, so your 285s should have 
  lots of room with the 5.5" backspace.  
  In front, a 17x8 with 5.5" 
  backspace would work (although being 1.5" narrower, Clint's suggestion of 4.5" 
  should be fine as well).  I wanted the to be the same so I could rotate 
  the tires, but it does make for a tight fit.  If you don't care about 
  that, then 255's in front should be OK.
  Brad Waller 
  ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  '66 Corvette | 327/dead | 
  4-speed   | Wilwood Brakes | 245/45/16 BFG R1'67 Chevelle | 
  ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body Brakes  | 275/40/17 Kumho 
  MX
  
 



From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas 
RingleinSent: Tuesday, 
March 14, 2006 8:46 AMTo: 
'The Chevelle Mailing 
List'Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 
Tires
I hope this helps – 
I have had 15” wheels on my 1972 for over 12 years.  I have 1987 IROC 
wheels (15x8 with 4.5” backspacing – if memory serves) and have them mounted 
with 265 50R 15 BFG Radial T/A’s front and rear.  I have never 
experienced any rubbing anywhere, and the fat tires on all 4 corners looks 
awesome.
When I rebuild, I 
am going with 17” American’s – 17x9.5 with 285’s in back, 17x8 with 245’s or 
255’s in front.
 
TJ Ringlein 
(Rinky)
Ramstein, 
Germany
USAF
1972 Chevelle, in 
shambles
 




From: John 
Nasta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:14 
PMTo: The Chevelle Mailing ListSubject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 
Tires
 
It seems like it's 
only people with 15" wheels who talk about backspacing. I guess I will be 
dealing with this soon myself.
 
There is good info and a diagram 
here:
 
http://www.high-impact.net/wheels/howtomeasurebackspacing.htm
 
I'm still not clear on how maximum 
offset has anything to do with the height of the caliper from the center of 
the axle, while minimum offset has to do with the depth behind the rim. I 
also don’t know why If (I) x2 (times 2) is greater than 12.125" (G), 
obviously your maximum offset must be just under 4" or why G is measured on 
the outside of the wheel while the caliper is on the inside, but I have time 
to figure this out.
 
My '70 Malibu has 15s on the back now and when the 
air shocks are not pumped up they rub. Offhand I don’t know the tire size, 
which could be the cause of the problem. I suppose I'm going to have to see 
how she sits

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Brad Waller]

Larry,
I think 
you have it backwards.  The big block mounts lower the engine.  I had 
a small block with big block mounts and had lots of trouble with headers.  
I swapped to small block mounts (sold the big block mounts to a buddy) and the 
engine is raised up just enough to make headers fit.
Brad Waller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
'66 Corvette | 327/dead | 4-speed   | Wilwood Brakes | 
245/45/16 BFG R1'67 Chevelle | ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body 
Brakes  | 275/40/17 Kumho MX

  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry 
  ShouseSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:01 AMTo: 
  Chevelle ListSubject: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount 
  Question
  
  
  When I installed my big block, I had to buy a set 
  up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then discovered that the 
  ones I got did not couple correctly with the chassis mounts. The upper mounts 
  were too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off and took it to a local 
  parts store. We discovered the engine mounts that fit my chassis mount was 
  identified to fit a 327. I guess the previous owner must have installed a 
  small block at one time or another. Remembering a thread on the list where 
  people said both will work, except the engine would sit a bit lower with the 
  small block mounts, I bought a set of small block engine mounts and installed 
  the engine.
   
  I have since discovered  I need the engine 
  to sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance issues. I'm 
  assuming if you set the SB and BB chassis mounts down side by side, the "hump" 
  where the engine mount couples with the chassis mount would be larger and 
  taller, raising the engine a bit?
   
  I appreciate your comments,
   
  Larry 
Shouse

Re: [Chevelle-list] plug wires

[Brad Waller]

Dennis,
 
If your question was would letting the wires sit 
against an exhaust manifold for initial break in be a bad idea, then I think it 
was answered that it would indeed be bad.  Remember that initial break in 
you have not adjusted the carburetor and the exhaust often runs extra hot.  
I don't think any plug wire would last more than a few minutes touching a 1000 
degree manifold.  In fact, you might want to use an old set of wires for 
break in because the radiated heat even when you have the wires away from the 
manifolds could damage them.

Brad Waller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
'66 Corvette | 327/dead | 4-speed   | Wilwood Brakes | 245/45/16 
BFG R1'67 Chevelle | ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body Brakes  | 
275/40/17 Kumho MX

  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis 
  McGillisSent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 6:26 PMTo: The 
  Chevelle Mailing ListSubject: Re: [Chevelle-list] plug 
  wires
  
   Thanks, Ronnie, it will 
  take more than a reply from one rude dude to chase me away.  This list 
  has provided good information on several issues while installing the new 350 
  in my '65 SS.   The issue of silicone wires 
  on the manifolds was asked with regard to the initial firing of a brand new 
  engine and whether 30 minutes of running would hurt them, I intended to 
  install looms later.  As you pointed out, no one really answered the 
  question.
   My laptop stays in the 
  garage so questions can be posed to the list while working.  My 
  pre-oiling question drew a bunch of replies and a solution within an 
  hour.  This is real-time help. Thanks again,
  Dennis McGillis
  1965 Malibu SS-350
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
ronnie, 
a.k.a. rocko 
To: chevelle-list@chevelles.net 

Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:44 
AM
Subject: [Chevelle-list] plug 
wires
geez,  i  thought  we  
were  all  here  to  learn,  dont  read  
all  the  e - mails  that  come  over,  
but  the  plug  wire  issue  caught  my  
eye,  i  have  one  wire  that  really  
takes  the  heat,  tried  a  few  
different  things,  jegs  has  a  ceramic  
boot,  this  looks  instresting  but  
expensive,  as  far  as  a  dumb  
question,  sorry  to  say  there  is  
none,  if  that  guy  is  in  the  
dumb  boat,  i  will  make  him  move  
over  so  i  can  get  my  oar  in  
the  water,  together  the  boat  will  
at  least  travel  straight,  as  far  
as  the  jibes  at  this  ones  expense,  
a  little  disapointed  in  the  ones  
who  were  not  to  offer  any  ideas,  
hope  he  stays  on  the  list,  after  
all  thats  why  we  are  here,  right ? 


Yahoo! MailUse 
Photomail to share photos without annoying 
attachments.

Re: [Chevelle-list] El Camnio Car Cover

[Rick Schaefer]

  Ron I have a NOAH cover from www.covercraft.com  its held up great over the 8-10 years I've had it.    Only use it indoors, but covercraft has a complete line. Read the descriptions & even call them to decide which cover would be best for you.  

 
   I bought mine at the Pate Swap Meet (coming the end of April @ Ft Worth) from a Texas dealer.  I got an excellent price & free shipping.  It fits great.  Be sure to tell whoever you order from that you have dual exterior mirrors.  They should sew in a pocket for the mirrors.   There are plenty of discount deals on the covers.

 
  On a side note, I'd remove your physical address from your signature block.   These postings are available to anyone in the archives.   You don't want someone placing a special order for a 71 at your expense. No point in making it easy for them.  

 
  And lastly thats a great looking El Camino.  Bet that you are proud of her. 
On 3/15/06, Ron Griffith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 

Can anyone make any suggestions as to what would be a good cover for my recently completed '71 El Camino SS?  I may need two covers, one for when it's in my shop to protect it from dust and general shop crap and one to take with me when showing it in case it rains.  

 
I am interested in a good fit and something that will not harm the paint. 
 
Ron Griffith2 Oak Forest RoadTexarkana, TX  75501-8957
 
http://elcaminocentral.com/gallery-album_rgriffs-71-SS-Clone.html
-- Rick Schaefer72 TPI El Camino

Re: [Chevelle-list] Was Tires - now spindles

[Thomas Ringlein]

Title: Message








Thanks Brad-

Since I have an innate fear of bump steer
(which, on the interstate, is a bitch) I have nearly decided to use the fatman
fabrications 2” dropped spindles as highly suggested on
lateral-g.net.  See more here  http://www.fatmanfab.com/06page25.htm

I figure with some 1” drop springs
from Global West, I can get that sweet 3” drop with 17” rubber that
looks so good.  It should run like a banshee also.

I still have some research to do regarding
spacing etc., but since it mounts any disk brakes made for 72 Chevelle disk
brake spindles, I can run nearly any aftermarket or stock (gack) brakes I want.

Anyone using these spindles?  What do
you think?

I am moving to Fresno California
in a few months and starting wrenchin’.  Any Chevelle list folks wanna
hook up and lend me some tools?  J

 

TJ Ringlein (Rinky)

Ramstein, Germany

USAF

1972 Chevelle, in shambles

 









From: Brad Waller
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
1:46 AM
To: 'The
 Chevelle Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Tires



 

TJ,

Save
this (and Clint's) email for when you get back and put on the 17"
wheels.  

I
have 275/40/17s on 17" x 9.5" V45 wheels with 5
7/8" backspace by Vintage
Wheel Works and I also have the F-body front spindles
(which do change the requirements a bit).  Unless you are going for the
absolute max, then you should ease off and use 5.5" backspace in the
rear.  I had to clearance my wheel well a bit on one side of the
car.  I have lots of room to the outside, so your 285s should have
lots of room with the 5.5" backspace.  

In
front, a 17x8 with 5.5" backspace would work (although being 1.5"
narrower, Clint's suggestion of 4.5" should be fine as well).  I wanted
the to be the same so I could rotate the tires, but it does make for a tight
fit.  If you don't care about that, then 255's in front should be OK.

Brad
Waller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

'66
Corvette | 327/dead | 4-speed   | Wilwood Brakes | 245/45/16 BFG R1
'67 Chevelle | ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body Brakes  | 275/40/17
Kumho MX



 







From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thomas Ringlein
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:46
AM
To: 'The
 Chevelle Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Tires

I hope this helps – I have had
15” wheels on my 1972 for over 12 years.  I have 1987 IROC wheels
(15x8 with 4.5” backspacing – if memory serves) and have them
mounted with 265 50R 15 BFG Radial T/A’s front and rear.  I have
never experienced any rubbing anywhere, and the fat tires on all 4 corners
looks awesome.

When I rebuild, I am going with 17”
American’s – 17x9.5 with 285’s in back, 17x8 with 245’s
or 255’s in front.

 

TJ Ringlein (Rinky)

Ramstein, Germany

USAF

1972 Chevelle, in shambles

 









From: John Nasta
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:14
PM
To: The
 Chevelle Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Tires



 

It seems like it's only people with
15" wheels who talk about backspacing. I guess I will be dealing with this
soon myself.

 

There is good info and a diagram here:

 

http://www.high-impact.net/wheels/howtomeasurebackspacing.htm

 

I'm still not clear on how maximum offset has anything
to do with the height of the caliper from the center of the axle, while minimum
offset has to do with the depth behind the rim. I also don’t know why If
(I) x2 (times 2) is greater than 12.125" (G), obviously your maximum
offset must be just under 4" or why G is measured on the outside of the
wheel while the caliper is on the inside, but I have time to figure this out.

 

My '70 Malibu
has 15s on the back now and when the air shocks are not pumped up they rub.
Offhand I don’t know the tire size, which could be the cause of the
problem. I suppose I'm going to have to see how she sits with new shocks and
then decide what to do about tires and wheels.

 

 

 

[Chevelle-list] El Camnio Car Cover

[Ron Griffith]

 

  Can anyone make any suggestions as to what would 
  be a good cover for my recently completed '71 El Camino SS?  I may need 
  two covers, one for when it's in my shop to protect it from dust and general 
  shop crap and one to take with me when showing it in case it rains.  
  
   
  I am interested in a good fit and something that 
  will not harm the paint. 
   
  Ron Griffith2 Oak Forest RoadTexarkana, 
  TX  75501-8957
   
  http://elcaminocentral.com/gallery-album_rgriffs-71-SS-Clone.html

Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out

[Shawn Price]

You'll just need to jack up the rear, remove the diff cover and fish around to find the 'c' clip (hopefully it didn't get eaten by the gears.) You want to inspect things very well while you're in there because the clip shouldn't just fall out while the spider gears are in place. ShawnOn Mar 15, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Bill Bradley IV wrote:sounds like you hit the nail on the head, its not too difficult.i've done this in my driveway before. good luck.if all else fails, ask vin, he knows everything, and has nothing better to do (GRIN)Bill Bradley67 MalibuEdmond Ok.- Original Message -From: Lynch, Charles Edward LT NETC, N7To: The Chevelle Mailing ListSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:00 AMSubject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Correct Air CleanerHi to all, I am new to the list and I have a question.  I just had the right rear axle "walk" out of the rear end on my car.  Luckily it didn't come all the way out.  I assume, from what I've read, that I may have broken a "c" clip.  Am I assuming right, and how difficult is this to repair?  I have a 67 big block Malibu, 350T with a 10 bolt rear end.  I am mechanically inclined but no Master mechanic and I'll be doing this in my drive way.  Thanks in advance for any advice.

Re: [Chevelle-list] Tires

[mike f]

Good looking rims, Brad.  Nice setup. 

--- Brad Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> TJ,
> 
> Save this (and Clint's) email for when you get back
> and put on the 17"
> wheels.  
> 
> I have 275/40/17s on 17" x 9.5" 
>  V45
> wheels with 5 7/8" backspace by 
>  Vintage
> Wheel Works and I also have the F-body front
> spindles (which do change the
> requirements a bit).  Unless you are going for the
> absolute max, then you
> should ease off and use 5.5" backspace in the rear. 
> I had to clearance my
> wheel well a bit on one side of the car.  I have
> lots of room to the
> outside, so your 285s should have lots of room with
> the 5.5" backspace.  
> 
> In front, a 17x8 with 5.5" backspace would work
> (although being 1.5"
> narrower, Clint's suggestion of 4.5" should be fine
> as well).  I wanted the
> to be the same so I could rotate the tires, but it
> does make for a tight
> fit.  If you don't care about that, then 255's in
> front should be OK.
> 
> Brad Waller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> 
> '66 Corvette | 327/dead | 4-speed   | Wilwood Brakes
> | 245/45/16 BFG R1
> '67 Chevelle | ex-SS396 | 355/700R4 | F-Body Brakes 
> | 275/40/17 Kumho MX
> 
> 
>   _  
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Ringlein
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:46 AM
> To: 'The Chevelle Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Tires
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this helps - I have had 15" wheels on my 1972
> for over 12 years.  I
> have 1987 IROC wheels (15x8 with 4.5" backspacing -
> if memory serves) and
> have them mounted with 265 50R 15 BFG Radial T/A's
> front and rear.  I have
> never experienced any rubbing anywhere, and the fat
> tires on all 4 corners
> looks awesome.
> 
> When I rebuild, I am going with 17" American's -
> 17x9.5 with 285's in back,
> 17x8 with 245's or 255's in front.
> 
>  
> 
> TJ Ringlein (Rinky)
> 
> Ramstein, Germany
> 
> USAF
> 
> 1972 Chevelle, in shambles
> 
>  
> 
> 
>   _  
> 
> 
> From: John Nasta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:14 PM
> To: The Chevelle Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Tires
> 
>  
> 
> It seems like it's only people with 15" wheels who
> talk about backspacing. I
> guess I will be dealing with this soon myself.
> 
>  
> 
> There is good info and a diagram here:
> 
>  
> 
>
http://www.high-impact.net/wheels/howtomeasurebackspacing.htm
> 
>  
> 
> I'm still not clear on how maximum offset has
> anything to do with the height
> of the caliper from the center of the axle, while
> minimum offset has to do
> with the depth behind the rim. I also don't know why
> If (I) x2 (times 2) is
> greater than 12.125" (G), obviously your maximum
> offset must be just under
> 4" or why G is measured on the outside of the wheel
> while the caliper is on
> the inside, but I have time to figure this out.
> 
>  
> 
> My '70 Malibu has 15s on the back now and when the
> air shocks are not pumped
> up they rub. Offhand I don't know the tire size,
> which could be the cause of
> the problem. I suppose I'm going to have to see how
> she sits with new shocks
> and then decide what to do about tires and wheels.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [Chevelle-list] painting undercarriage

[Danny Wilsher]

i have sprayed it on many occasions and get 
fantastic results. Just make sure you reduce it like the instructions say. and 
if you are spraying overhead, cover your head!!! and arms and any thing else 
that you don't want POR'ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Karl Groves 
  
  To: 'The Chevelle Mailing List' 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:07 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] painting 
  undercarriage
  
  Jim - 
   
  Do you have experience spraying 
  POR-15?
  Just asking, because POR-15's own 
  documentation says you can spray it. 
  I 
  have not yet done so but planned to, but I might not if others 
  have done it and it didn't work 
out.

Re: [Chevelle-list] axle "walk" out

[Bill Bradley IV]

sounds like you hit the nail on the head, its not 
too difficult.
i've done this in my driveway before. good 
luck.
if all else fails, ask vin, he knows everything, 
and has nothing better to do (GRIN)
Bill Bradley
67 Malibu
Edmond Ok.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lynch, Charles Edward LT NETC, N7 
  
  To: The Chevelle Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:00 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Correct Air 
  Cleaner
  
  Hi 
  to all,
   
  I am 
  new to the list and I have a question.  I just had the right rear axle 
  "walk" out of the rear end on my car.  Luckily it didn't come all 
  the way out.  I assume, from what I've read, that I may have broken a "c" 
  clip.  Am I assuming right, and how difficult is this to repair?  I 
  have a 67 big block Malibu, 350T with a 10 bolt rear end.  I am 
  mechanically inclined but no Master mechanic and I'll be doing this in my 
  drive way.  Thanks in advance for any 
advice.

Re: [Chevelle-list] Correct Air Cleaner

[Lynch, Charles Edward LT NETC, N7]

Hi to 
all,
 
I am 
new to the list and I have a question.  I just had the right rear axle 
"walk" out of the rear end on my car.  Luckily it didn't come all the 
way out.  I assume, from what I've read, that I may have broken a "c" 
clip.  Am I assuming right, and how difficult is this to repair?  I 
have a 67 big block Malibu, 350T with a 10 bolt rear end.  I am 
mechanically inclined but no Master mechanic and I'll be doing this in my drive 
way.  Thanks in advance for any advice.

Re: [Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[RJ Winkler]

You got it. The big block mounts are just
that much taller.  The 327 has a special pair of frame mounts while the 350 and
up use the same ones, pretty sure that’s how it works out. -RJ

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Larry Shouse
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
9:01 AM
To: Chevelle List
Subject: [Chevelle-list] Engine
Mount Question



 





When I installed my big block, I had to buy a set up upper
engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then discovered that the ones I got
did not couple correctly with the chassis mounts. The upper mounts were too
big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off and took it to a local parts store.
We discovered the engine mounts that fit my chassis mount was identified to fit
a 327. I guess the previous owner must have installed a small block at one time
or another. Remembering a thread on the list where people said both will work,
except the engine would sit a bit lower with the small block mounts, I bought a
set of small block engine mounts and installed the engine.





 





I have since discovered  I need the engine to sit 1/2
to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance issues. I'm assuming if you set
the SB and BB chassis mounts down side by side, the "hump" where the
engine mount couples with the chassis mount would be larger and taller, raising
the engine a bit?





 





I appreciate your comments,





 





Larry Shouse

[Chevelle-list] Engine Mount Question

[Larry Shouse]

When I installed my big block, I had to buy a set 
up upper engine mounts. I bought a big block set, then discovered that the ones 
I got did not couple correctly with the chassis mounts. The upper mounts were 
too big. I tool one of the chassis mounts off and took it to a local parts 
store. We discovered the engine mounts that fit my chassis mount was identified 
to fit a 327. I guess the previous owner must have installed a small block at 
one time or another. Remembering a thread on the list where people said both 
will work, except the engine would sit a bit lower with the small block mounts, 
I bought a set of small block engine mounts and installed the 
engine.
 
I have since discovered  I need the engine to 
sit 1/2 to 1 inch higher to address my header clearance issues. I'm assuming if 
you set the SB and BB chassis mounts down side by side, the "hump" where the 
engine mount couples with the chassis mount would be larger and taller, raising 
the engine a bit?
 
I appreciate your comments,
 
Larry 
Shouse

[Chevelle-list] Gauge sensors

[Jimmy C.]

I recently purchased a dash incert and 
Autometer electronic gauges to replace my mechanical sweeper speedo and dummy 
light set up. right now I have mechanical oil and temp. the oil sending unit is 
at the front of the block just above the oil pan driver side, the sending unit 
for temp is in the center of the head on driver side. are there better locations 
for electronic sending units (that are closer to the firewall ).Its a 
4th Gen.BBC. Jimmy C.

[Chevelle-list] NOS OEM GM LIMITED SLIP REAR AXLE ID TAG CHEVELLE

[rmpvsp]

Just in case someone needed that final finishing touch!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4622021806&sspagename=ADME%3AB%3AFSEL%3AUS%3A1