CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 31, 2015, 11:09:20 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.
109349 Posts in 12660 Topics by 4866 Members
Latest Member: jamejia1967
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 29, 2015, 08:12:47 PM
^Yeah,unless the I contact I'm thinking of can confirm. If I get them, their word will suffice. But that is only one person in the world…

Steve
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 29, 2015, 06:25:17 PM
" Otherwise, with no bad intent directed at anyone, opinion or regurgitated "facts" with no back-up"
 
Meant to say documents are what is needed.

Steve
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 29, 2015, 12:57:19 PM
Appreciate the input gents. If there are materials available with notes to cross-reference that is what I'm seeking. Otherwise, with no bad intent directed at anyone, opinion or regurgitated "facts" with no back-up. Already covered this ground elsewhere.

I'm looking to break new ground(or uncover old earth), actual proof. If it exists, and is available, it benefits all. Even a nod in the right direction would be of benefit.

Steve
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 23, 2015, 10:32:40 PM
Does GM have a phone number for their historical archive service?
Thanks.

Steve
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 22, 2015, 10:35:53 PM
You are making statements regarding specs in a 1962 advertisements for Hurst Shifters, yet asking questions about 65-69 Hurst supplied OEM shifters.
Apples to Oranges
GM's specs may or may not have been the exact specs for what Hurst supplied to the aftermarket.
Example elimination of the positive stops in the comp plus, the bayonette handle and rubber insulator were not used, nor were the rubber bushings in the shifter gates for the rods, these were done to accommodate the OEM's, not for performance.

I was establishing what I do know and what the company said about all their shifters in '62 and '63.

I thought Hurst established their first OEM relationship with Pontiac and that was in '61.

What Pontiac, and subsequent clients such as Oldsmobile, specified for the rods and linkage, is another story. I'm quite well acqianted with the floppy linkage on my '69 Z-28 in the seventies. I'm acquainted with less than perfect crispness on my '70 AMX with factory Hurst.

I get your point about the OEM's and entirely agree. Nevertheless leaving out shift arms and rods and rubber vs steel bushings, then the standard, at least through '63, as per their ads, was cadmium plated shifter box and hardware.

After that time, I have found no ads, no engineering papers from OEM's, and no proof that cadmium lit the way through mid-1970.

Steve
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 22, 2015, 09:54:55 PM
^ Thank you. Yes,that is the simple question. I don't care if it's zinc or cad or some came that way and others were cad because Hurst sent the shifters out to have the plating done. I strongly suspect after talking to people and after others have done individual testing, that there is no absolute. There's the standard, and then there's the reality of having job shops do outside work for an aftermarket company.

Around '68 things changed rapidly at Hurst and unless they inspected the plating baths as the parts were getting done, how would they or GM or any other OEM customer know? Looking at it? Zinc with the right chromates can look almost exactly like silver cadmium. Destructive testing with acid to find out? Really?

It's really two questions: 1)What was the plating spec?
2) what has subsequent spot checking of original, unmolested items shown?

My interest is purely historical.

On the judging field for original and restored cars, who is going to a) check the shifter box and hardware?
b)and who is going to know, or care, what they are looking at?
c)If they are qualified experts, how would they ever discern beween silver cadmium and the various zinc processes that can look almost exactly the same?

So the last three questions are not a problem that needs addressing.

Steve
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 22, 2015, 05:42:31 PM
Are there engineering sheets available from GM's historical services that back up what you gentlemen are saying?
I wouldn't be asking about what plating was either specified by manufacturers or aftermarket if there were readily available documents for the period of time indicated. There are precious few documents surviving that period when Hurst was in Pa.

If those specified documents exist they exist from the OEM's. Does Pete Serio provide hard data as to why concludes that all Hurst shifters from '60-'70? Individuals on various forums. Gravitate between ear zinc and silver cadmium. You can argue till the cows come home about what GM specified but I'm interested in hard data, and only hard data. Not what individuals say or write. I'm here because what people say, doesn't agree. What people have stated, as fact, thus far has no proof behind it. That is what I'm looking for. Not opinion, not argument, not declarative  statements, fact.

We're the shifters zinc of cad or were they specified as zinc or cad. Either situation works for me.

Thanks.

Steve

8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 21, 2015, 02:33:40 PM
The problem is looking at parts is not proof.
I've contacted Pete. My personal experience has been unless it is aviation, aerospace, military, or crucial suspension, brake, or drivetrain components, specifications for materials and processes applied to hardware can change between the drawing and production.

I have some other contacts in mind, thanks for the idea!

Steve
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 15, 2015, 02:02:16 PM
The more I delve into the matter of whether factory and aftermarket shifters made by Hurst in the indicated title period of this subject, the more muddy the waters become.

Literature, including page 52 ( but I do not currently own a copy) of Pete Serio's Volume 1, 'Vintage Hurst Shifters', an email to Pete Serio in which he restates what he said on page 52 of his book, and vintage '62 and '63 Hurst ads which state under features that all Hurst shifters and hardware ( obviously not the triple chrome shifter stick ) are cadmium plated.

So what is the deal? What actual testing proof or documents outside engineering documents which usually list heat treatments, fastener coatings, etc. but are wish lists from engineering(if those documents exist at all)exist? Company memos and service bulletins sent out to customers might list actual production facts such as cadmium or zinc and chromate hardware and shifter control boxes.

Outside the above, what, if any, testing has been done to determine original, factory coatings? If they have been done, are there documents, posts, photos, and so on attesting to the results found?
Thanks.

Steve Avery
10  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Rest in Peace Ronnie Kaplan on: March 06, 2014, 01:22:13 AM
Regrettable news.

S A
11  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Racing AMX Information on: December 13, 2013, 01:56:10 AM
The car was there and it looks like it started on the outside second row. But the only results I see for Dewar are on 6 July and 20 July of 1969.

S A
12  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Racing AMX Information on: December 13, 2013, 12:47:21 AM
Guys, not sure if you are still looking for pictures of the #47 Javelin in 1969 or not but there were several taken at the Trophé Gulf Canada which took place at Le Circuit Mont-Tremblant, Mont-Tremblant, Québec on May 25, 1969.  See the pictures here: http://www.autocourse.ca/photos/saison1969/25mai-gulf/touringcar/index.html   It is part of the autocourse.ca.


 ( Boy- I am not on it today -I got this all cocked up the first time )We can see the source of one of the pics Adam provided earlier. So, this is earlier in the season. I'll see if the results are available.

Steve
13  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Racing AMX Information on: December 13, 2013, 12:35:48 AM
Did you just make this up about Kaplan calling Dewar?  It reads like fact which if you made it up you should probably caveat it as such. 

BTW the #4 Javelin driven by Lothar Motschenbacher came in 4th place at St Jovite.  The #3 Javelin driven by Ron Grable was crashed. 



According to Jon here, the #4 car was heavily damaged the weekend before at St Jovite 8/3/'69. That is why Ronnie called upon Gordon Dewar- #47 to come down to W G.

Steve

My bad! I drew a conclusion, Adam. Looks like it deserves more research.

By the way, thanks again for contacting Mr. Kaplan and getting his thoughts on the Dewar car. That information says volumes and I appreciate you reaching out to him.

Steve
14  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Racing AMX Information on: December 12, 2013, 08:48:49 PM
According to Jon here, the #4 car was heavily damaged the weekend before at St Jovite

I did not say the #4 was heavily damaged, it was the #3. I just flubbed the year.

I'm just curious if the #3 car that was wrecked at St Jovite in '69 was repaired or scrapped and replaced with one of the "spare" team cars.

I'm sorry Jon, I didn't double check what you had said earlier and mixed the two cars up, 3 & 4.

Steve
15  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Racing AMX Information on: December 12, 2013, 03:24:04 PM
According to Jon here, the #4 car was heavily damaged the weekend before at St Jovite 8/3/'69. That is why Ronnie called upon Gordon Dewar- #47 to come down to W G.

Steve
Pages: [1] 2 3
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 0.078 seconds with 18 queries.