CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2014, 11:30:10 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
106619 Posts in 12428 Topics by 4790 Members
Latest Member: gmein
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: L48 QUADRAJET on: November 22, 2014, 04:06:06 PM
http://www.carbkitsource.com/carbs/images/numbers/Rochester/7026203.jpg
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 L35 black lid wing nut shape on: November 19, 2014, 11:41:21 AM
NCRS Discussion Boards > Technical Discussion > 1963 air cleaner wing nut, #117204, #219281, or both?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
PDA

View Full Version : 1963 air cleaner wing nut, #117204, #219281, or both?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 




David L.

December 26th, 2011, 02:34 PM

The 1963 Corvette AIM lists GM # 117204 as the part number for the air cleaner wing nut. GM # 117204 is a chrome plated "forged" type wing nut based on my research. The 219281 wing nut is a chrome plated stamped steel wing nut and first listed in the 1964 Corvette AIM. There is no part number change from the 117204 to the 219281 wing nut in the revision box in either the 1963 or the 1964 Corvette AIM.

 The 1963 Chevrolet Passenger car used two different wing nuts (not chrome plated) on the assembly line according to the AIM. GM # 148312 was replaced with GM # 9418699 on Feb. 12, 1963, but the actual assembly line change could have been a month or two later.

 The 9418699 wing nut is the same as a 219281 wing nut EXCEPT that it is not chrome plated.

 For those who have very original 1963 Corvettes:
 Did "early" 1963 Corvettes use the chrome plated "forged" type wing nut (GM # 117204) and "late" 1963 Corvettes use the chrome plated stamped steel wing nut (GM # 219281).

 Dave

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 


Timothy B.

December 27th, 2011, 07:01 AM

Back to the top as I have the same question..Smiley

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 


Jack P.

December 27th, 2011, 09:43 PM

This post caught my interest. I think my nut is an original 66 wing nut.

 Many of the posts give wall thickness size and tooling marks. It seems that some nuts that were used in 60-62 passenger cars, unchromed, were plated and used on corvettes , GM just changed numbers and vendors etc, etc, etc,

 The NCRS site seems down, so I thought I would let you all look at my nut.

 I have owned the car for 42 years now, an I am the second owner. I don't believe the nut has ever been away from the top and I know the top has not been away from me.

 What do you think of it, compared to the repros or do I have a 43 year old service nut, or original ?

 Jack

 http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu57/jackfit87/Wing%20nut%20air%20cleaner/Wingnutoriginal001.jpg
 http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu57/jackfit87/Wing%20nut%20air%20cleaner/Wingnutoriginal002.jpg
 http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu57/jackfit87/Wing%20nut%20air%20cleaner/Wingnutoriginal007.jpg
 http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu57/jackfit87/Wing%20nut%20air%20cleaner/Wingnutoriginal005.jpg
 http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu57/jackfit87/Wing%20nut%20air%20cleaner/Wingnutoriginal012.jpg
 http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu57/jackfit87/Wing%20nut%20air%20cleaner/Wingnutoriginal013.jpg
 http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu57/jackfit87/Wing%20nut%20air%20cleaner/Wingnutoriginal014.jpg
 http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu57/jackfit87/Wing%20nut%20air%20cleaner/Wingnutoriginal018.jpg
 http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu57/jackfit87/Wing%20nut%20air%20cleaner/Wingnutoriginal022.jpg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 


Timothy B.

December 28th, 2011, 11:04 AM

Jack,


 That looks like the real deal 219281 wingnut to me, it's the 1963 wignut that I question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 


David L.

December 28th, 2011, 06:33 PM

Jack,

 I would say that the wing nut in your photos is an original (GM # 219281) but the issue in this thread is whether or not the the chrome plated stamped steel 219281 wing nut was original equipment on the 1963 Corvette as the 1963 assembly manual lists GM # 117204 which is a chrome plated "forged" wing nut. The 1962 Corvettes AIM lists the 117204 wing nut as well.

 Dave

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bingo.
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 L35 black lid wing nut shape on: November 17, 2014, 10:46:34 PM
Anyone know why the chrome wing nut 219281 would have a 6 digit part number assigned instead of the conventional 7 digit number 9418699?
Just curious. Grin
Bob
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 L35 black lid wing nut shape on: November 17, 2014, 12:52:18 PM
Mike,
Could we have an over head shot of the NOR wing nut?
Here is some ideas.
67 AIM L35 A8 and L30 A4 show that production wing nuts where used. Now, 6 C1 (6 cyl.) and 6 C2 (8 cyl.) show that 9418699 was used on both engines. It would be safe to assume that 9418699 was the production wing nut used on all engines except the 302 and the 396 375HP that used a chrome wing nut 219281. I believe that 219281 is the same wing nut as 9418699 and respecified with flash chrome.
68,69 AIM show the same thing ,just on different pages.
Do not think that small differences in appearance due to vendor manufacturing processes was of importance as long as vendors meet specifications set forth by the DRE engineer.
Bob

Anyone with a known untouched 67 survivor have a picture you could post would be appreciated.
Thanks.
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 T400 Transmission Mount on: November 15, 2014, 04:44:42 PM
Victor,
If you look at the AIM 6 B9 revision record you will see a mount revision, just wanted to make sure no one mistook that revision for the BB change.
I believe the first SB with a T400 was the big pass. with a 327 275 HP around Jan, 67.
3872247 was the first mount introduced on the auto. 325HP 396 but sometime before the end of 67 production it was changed. Why and when I am trying to find out.
You are correct about the BB support assy. 3912573 and CRG has a good report that addresses that issue.
Bob  
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 Camaro TH400 mount on: November 15, 2014, 03:14:56 PM
Mike,
Made new topic in Originality. Have no idea why the change but not for bolt centers as the tail housings 8624496 are the same.
Bob
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 67 T400 Transmission Mount on: November 15, 2014, 03:07:33 PM
The T400 mount was changed from 3872247 to 3895831 sometime between Jan. 67 and end of production. Reference 69 P&A, REV. 10-1-69, Gr. 4.081. Only reference in 67 AIM is for non BB T400 mounts.
Anyone know when this may have happened?
I am venturing a guess that the 2nd design 3895831 would be correct for my 67 05E build.
Bob
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 Camaro TH400 mount on: November 15, 2014, 01:54:54 PM
SS396,
3872247 with orange paint marking is the 67 1st design ( 4 1/4" between bolt hole centers). 3895831 with white paint marking is the 67 2nd design and is used in subsequent years. Maybe some one knows when this change took place but it would have been done sometime between Jan. 67 and end of 67 production.
Bob
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 14, 2014, 12:33:37 PM
Mine, which I believe to be original, is a 5/16"-18 recessed hex head with a captured conical washer and a reduced-diameter round flat point (we called them "dog-point" bolts in the plant).
[/quote]
Washer is 7/8" in diameter, and it does have serrations ("teeth") on the bottom.
John,

Two different styles of washers and two different styles of bolts = ?
Bob
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 11, 2014, 03:39:54 PM
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=2899.0

Maybe JohnZ can re-post the pic. I couldn't get it to open.
To All,
Before we go further, please read Phillip's attached thread as we seem to have a communications gap.
Two different style bolts and two different style conical washers = my questions. Which style and if both ( AIM indicates only one), then why the lead point and conical toothed washer?
Bob
11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 07, 2014, 01:03:31 PM
Clamping force required, that's all. They worked out the force required for the battery and generated the spec. Sure don't want to have the battery loose or crack the case.
.
Kurt,
I can agree with you fully if the bolt 3758783 is as Chick described from his 68 survivor. But if we assume that the bolt 3758783 is a lead point with a toothed conical washer as on other survivors, we have to ask, which style bolt is correct? If they are both correct then the AIM's are incorrect and can be noted.
Bob
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 07, 2014, 12:15:04 PM
John,
How would the bolt stay tight at half of it's recommended torque?
Is the plastic case compressing and compensating for the lack of bolt stretch or are the teeth on the conical washer keeping the bolt tight?
Bob

"Recommended torque" on a fastener is determined by Fastener Engineering based on the type of joint and the joint materials involved; the fastener's job is to establish and maintain clamping force in the joint, and the torque required to do that is a function of the materials in the joint.
In this case was the conical toothed washer used to maintain clamping force because of the soft joint? If not, why was toothed washer specified in this case?
Bob

I guess you'd have to ask the responsible release engineer about the specifics.
John,
Thank you for your input to my questions and as always I usually learn something from your replies.
Any DRE engineers out there that could respond to my final question would be appreciated.
Bob
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 07, 2014, 01:52:49 AM
Chick,
Yes.
The questions I have asked have arisen from reply #1 which indicates two types of bolts being used on survivors but only one type was factory specified.
Just trying to find an engineering answer to my reply #6 and now reply #10.
Bob
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 06, 2014, 11:11:30 AM
John,
How would the bolt stay tight at half of it's recommended torque?
Is the plastic case compressing and compensating for the lack of bolt stretch or are the teeth on the conical washer keeping the bolt tight?
Bob

"Recommended torque" on a fastener is determined by Fastener Engineering based on the type of joint and the joint materials involved; the fastener's job is to establish and maintain clamping force in the joint, and the torque required to do that is a function of the materials in the joint.
In this case was the conical toothed washer used to maintain clamping force because of the soft joint? If not, why was toothed washer specified in this case?
Bob
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 05, 2014, 03:29:34 PM

Same part number 3758783 and torque used in all three years of production for this particular bolt.
Why would the torque of 60-80 in lbs (6.6 ft lbs) be applied to this bolt when the same size bolts in the same area have 120-180 in lbs (12 ft lbs) applied to them.

On the battery hold-down application, the bolt is bearing down (through the clamp) on a molded tab that's part of the plastic battery case - a "soft make-up" application; too much torque, you break the case and have acid everywhere. Other applications using the same bolt join two steel parts, with "hard make-up" joints.
John,
How would the bolt stay tight at half of it's recommended torque?
Is the plastic case compressing and compensating for the lack of bolt stretch or are the teeth on the conical washer keeping the bolt tight?
Bob
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.095 seconds with 18 queries.