------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/8LmulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list server instructions, go to
http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 4 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Torsion Bars
From: "Steve Galezowski" <stevenlulu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
2. G rear window regulator
From: "Richard Osborne" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
3. ram remote brake booster check valve
From: greektruck@xxxxxxx
4. Smog Check for Older Vehicles--SB 708
From: "jennifer allyn" <gearhead.girl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:27:06 -0500
From: "Steve Galezowski" <stevenlulu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Torsion Bars
That 47" bar is probably what I have, but I'll check. The .005" difference
in diameter between mine and the book specs is probably within tolerance.
The 50" bars with 1.06" dia would have a higher spring rate and would
probably be ideal. I assume though that your interchange book does not
show
them fitting on a '65?
Today I spoke with someone on the tech line at Just Suspension. He got me
very excited because he said they are gearing up to produce torsion bars
for
60's C-bodies. He said they would be available in several spring rates and
would be available in 3-4 months (which based on my experience really
means
one year but that's OK).
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "G Barker" <gbarker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Steve Galezowski" <steveg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Torsion Bars
> Do you know the length of your Bars? I have a interchange book for
Mopar Bars. My book shows a c body with a 440 uses .98 dia. bar 47" long.
And thats the bigest they used from 65-71. in those years. The 50" bars
go
up to 1.06" dia. in c bodys 1970-74. Gary Barker
>
> Steve Galezowski wrote:
>
> > I have beefed up the suspension on my 300L with a heavier-than-stock
front anti-sway bar, rear sway bar, koni adjustable shocks and an increase
in the rear spring rate by adding a leaf. The only outstanding item is
that
I find the front spring rate to be a little soft for my liking. So I am
wondering if there are higher rate torsion bars available that would fit
the
car. I believe that a "heavy-duty" suspension was optional in '65 but I
don't know if that option included higher rate torsion bars. If it did,
presumably those torsion bars would have a larger diameter than standard.
My
torsion bars are .975 inches in diameter.
> >
> > I know heavy duty aftermarket torsion bars are available for B and E
bodies but so far I have not come across any for C bodies.
> >
> > Can anyone comment on the possibility of obtaining higher spring rate
torsion bars?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Steve Galezowski
> > '65 300L
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > To send a message to this group, send an email to:
> > Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > For list server instructions, go to
http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 21:53:31 -0500
From: "Richard Osborne" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: G rear window regulator
Good Evening,
Approximately 2 years ago when I bought my G, everything except for the
left rear window worked well. The problem it turns out is that there was
NO power window motor. It's not that the motor wasn't working, it was
not to be found.
I suspect that the regulator may also need to be replaced. I have a
suitable replacement (and motor).
Do I need to remove the glass from the regulator prior to removing the
regulator? Can the glass and regulator be removed as an assembly? I
removed several scews and nuts, with little progress so far.
As always, thanks for the help.
Best regards,
Richard Osborne
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 12:06:40 EST
From: greektruck@xxxxxxx
Subject: ram remote brake booster check valve
well, i think the description pretty much sums it up. can someone help
please. on my 64 ram K, i am in need of the one way vacuum check valve for
the remote booster. the valve sits atop the driver ram, on vacuum fitting
and
runs to the booster. mine is old, brittle, and been epoxied a couple times
to
provent leaks, but it keeps coming undone from the heat, does anyone know
of
a part number from kragen, napa, dealer, anyone like that thats not out of
state and wants 30 bucks for one. i tries to match it up a few months ago,
but nothing close enough to work. thanks you all, tim
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 09:11:17 -0800
From: "jennifer allyn" <gearhead.girl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Smog Check for Older Vehicles--SB 708
SB 708 is written to require smog checks biennially for vehicles 30-45
years old. It seems harmless enough. It exempts vehicles driven under
12,000 miles a year which should mollify the car collectors. It is
ostensibly to promote cleaner air and the elimination of junk vehicles.
All good right? Wrong. It is a bill that merely creates more
paperwork without any significant benefit. More paperwork means more
work for clerks. More work for clerks means more tax dollars being
spent to pay the clerks. Tax dollars that are in short supply and much
needed for important applications.
I can tell you that most of the vehicles that fall into this group are
already in the hands of a collector. More than likely they a vast
majority are not driven more than 12,000 miles a year. Since they are
in the hands of collectors, the cars are more than likely tuned well and
running optimally; negating the image of smoke belching wrecks. The
SB42 exemption allowed these vintage vehicles to eliminate the nuisance
of a smog check. I say nuisance because when you smog one of these
older vehicles it is merely a process with no purpose and with the added
cost of the certificate. When I was required to smog my car collection,
I found that they passed effortlessly each time because they had no
emissions reduction system and were held to a different standard, the
standard that was in place when manufactured---or no standard. I never
understood why I had to pay for a certificate that didn't certify
anything except that I had jumped through the legislative hoop of a smog
check.
I can afford the certificate, though I shouldn't have to. (My local
mechanic is doing well enough without this source of revenue.) I can
even make the time to drive the two cars, which actually fall into the
non-exempt group, to the local service station. What I find appalling,
is that my taxes will be spent to enforce these requirements. There is
a severe budget crisis in California. Cuts are being felt deeply in
every sector. I can think of many things I would rather see each penny
that it costs to track these vehicles and enforce this bill. Please
vote no on SB708, it is truly a bill that looks simple, but is simply
pointless.
Jennifer Allyn
6737 El Carmen Street
Long Beach, CA 90815
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap