Show Posts
16
Originality / Re: 69 Center axle bumper - two styles?
« on: January 09, 2024, 12:51:23 PM »
Lloyd, I agree and noticed the differences in the chamfered ends on the mounting plate and more rounded nose on the rubber bumper in Doug’s car. Hopefully over time more folks with ‘69 survivors will post photos of their bolt-in center axle bumpers.
I assume the differences in axle bumper design is what we sometimes in a component installed at the factory vs. the service replacement GM part; they don’t alway look identical. A change to the plate or rubber that does not affect the form, fit, or function of the component in the final assembly may have not required an engineering part number change which includes all the clerical work in the GM system, and validation of a new GM supplier/component. It’s also odd GM would make a change to this piece that adds complexity and more assembly work content. You would expect the design to change from bolt-in to push-in. I worked for a GM division for 15 years, Chrysler for 10, and now 14 years back at Allison Transmission, a former GM division. In both the GM and Chrysler plants, lower assembly content and complexity was always the goal. Keep in mind that this change also required additional tote dunnage for the bolts and installation tools along the assembly line. This might be the reason we see the push-in design more commonly used during the ‘69 model run as it was a less complex install. However, the ‘69 Camaro mounting structure was designed for either a push-on or bolt-on style bumper. Over time, the (2) outer frame mounted axle bumpers also got more complex changing from push-in to bolt-in bumpers. So there must have been issues with the push-in bumper design that eventually drove the change to bolt-in bumpers. I did not show it but the 1974 Nova application that used a very similar bolt-in center bumper as the ‘69 Camaro, showed the floor pan and the structure did not include a slot for a push-in.
What is interesting is Doug’s ‘69 SS is the first early car observed so far with the round style bolt-in bumper while most ‘69s in the study use the push-in style. Could this have been be a slow ramp up production supply of the bolt-in bumper? Did Norwood/Van Nuys make this a “running change” to pilot test the install of the bolt-in bumper? This is the reason I am pushing for more input and pictures from survivor ‘69 Camaros.
Kinda crazy so much attention is given to such a small detail…but that a what we do! Details…details…details…lol!
I assume the differences in axle bumper design is what we sometimes in a component installed at the factory vs. the service replacement GM part; they don’t alway look identical. A change to the plate or rubber that does not affect the form, fit, or function of the component in the final assembly may have not required an engineering part number change which includes all the clerical work in the GM system, and validation of a new GM supplier/component. It’s also odd GM would make a change to this piece that adds complexity and more assembly work content. You would expect the design to change from bolt-in to push-in. I worked for a GM division for 15 years, Chrysler for 10, and now 14 years back at Allison Transmission, a former GM division. In both the GM and Chrysler plants, lower assembly content and complexity was always the goal. Keep in mind that this change also required additional tote dunnage for the bolts and installation tools along the assembly line. This might be the reason we see the push-in design more commonly used during the ‘69 model run as it was a less complex install. However, the ‘69 Camaro mounting structure was designed for either a push-on or bolt-on style bumper. Over time, the (2) outer frame mounted axle bumpers also got more complex changing from push-in to bolt-in bumpers. So there must have been issues with the push-in bumper design that eventually drove the change to bolt-in bumpers. I did not show it but the 1974 Nova application that used a very similar bolt-in center bumper as the ‘69 Camaro, showed the floor pan and the structure did not include a slot for a push-in.
What is interesting is Doug’s ‘69 SS is the first early car observed so far with the round style bolt-in bumper while most ‘69s in the study use the push-in style. Could this have been be a slow ramp up production supply of the bolt-in bumper? Did Norwood/Van Nuys make this a “running change” to pilot test the install of the bolt-in bumper? This is the reason I am pushing for more input and pictures from survivor ‘69 Camaros.
Kinda crazy so much attention is given to such a small detail…but that a what we do! Details…details…details…lol!