Author Topic: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972  (Read 1070 times)

fsc66

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« on: April 06, 2017, 01:51:05 AM »
Interesting article:



Paul

KevinW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • View Profile
Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2017, 11:23:44 AM »
Yup, I have a few of those recall cable kits.  Show judging does not like them on, though. 

abiddle

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
  • 1969 Camaro SS 350 - trim 719 52 52
    • View Profile
Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2017, 12:26:46 PM »
Judges don't like to see these?

BULLITT65

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2017, 02:16:19 PM »
That is because your car did not leave the factory with it. (This would be the kind of topic that would fit A judged category on CRG)

I like that my car has it, and I have a few newspaper clippings from the original owner as well. The owner of my car was so paranoid about it, he has a cable installed on both motor mounts.... :o

People are funny.. :)
1969 garnet red Z/28 46k mile unrestored X77
-Looking for 3192477 (front) spiral shocks 3192851 (rear)
-Looking for an original LOF soft ray windshield
-Looking for original Delco side post negative battery cable part # 6297651AV

red69

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2017, 03:00:49 PM »
Dealer installed new inter-locking mounts on my car, because it had headers and kit wouldn't fit.

69Z28-RS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4428
  • owner since 4-Apr-1976
    • View Profile
Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2017, 04:55:32 PM »
quote author=KevinW link=topic=15529.msg139449#msg139449 date=1491477824]
Yup, I have a few of those recall cable kits.  Show judging does not like them on, though. 
[/quote]

Given that the part was a 'safety recall' addition, it's difficult for me to believe that any judging organization DISCOUNTS points for it?  Although they could certainly declare it not a part of factory production.. :)

I have a personal story re the 'safety' aspect...  In 1966 (I was in HS barely of driving age), I had the family car - a '66 Caprice with 327/275 and PG? .. It was probably the first time I'd taken that car out by myself and turning into a shopping center, I floored the accelerator trying to 'turn a tire' for a second.. and immediately came off the throttle...  but. unfortunately, the accerator remained FLOORED!  (scaring the dog crap out of me!)..   I stomped the brake, stomped the accelerator, shifted to neutral and probably turned the key off... and managed somehow to stop the acceleration..  but I remember the fright it caused me to this day!   (and the bad thing is that I could not even tell my father about the issue...  :)_  )
Gary W / 09C 69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood tint
69 Corvette convertible, silver/black 350 hp,
60 Corvette white/red, 72 Corvette coupe, '70 Mach I 
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55-'56-'57 Nomads, '55-'57 B/A Sedan

TangoBravo

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2017, 06:12:01 PM »
Ever since this Camaro was found a couple years back in an Oklahoma lake, I have wondered if it was lost in 1970 to a jammed throttle from a faulty motor mount. Seems it could very easily have been caused by one. Maybe they will have a report on it one day......................http://www.newson6.com/story/23528624/car-recovered-from-foss-lake-shows-signs-of-wreck

Vince

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2017, 06:28:05 PM »
A 1967 Camaro RS I used to own that I bought from the original owner had the restraints on both sides, the one like in abiddle's photo on the drivers side and just a cable looped around the exhaust manifold and a arm on the passenger side. 

69Z28-RS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4428
  • owner since 4-Apr-1976
    • View Profile
Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2017, 07:41:25 PM »
Back in the 'old days', we used to tie down the engines using turnbuckles, so it could be adjusted to be nearly a direct bolt onto the frame...  :)   (that was before GM's introduction of the 'fix'...)..
Gary W / 09C 69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood tint
69 Corvette convertible, silver/black 350 hp,
60 Corvette white/red, 72 Corvette coupe, '70 Mach I 
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55-'56-'57 Nomads, '55-'57 B/A Sedan

BULLITT65

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2017, 06:50:51 AM »
A 1967 Camaro RS I used to own that I bought from the original owner had the restraints on both sides, the one like in abiddle's photo on the drivers side and just a cable looped around the exhaust manifold and a arm on the passenger side. 

Funny, maybe that car and mine had the same mechanic...obvious overkill
1969 garnet red Z/28 46k mile unrestored X77
-Looking for 3192477 (front) spiral shocks 3192851 (rear)
-Looking for an original LOF soft ray windshield
-Looking for original Delco side post negative battery cable part # 6297651AV

paceme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 609
    • View Profile
Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2017, 02:31:01 PM »
Here's the letter sent to owners of those vehicle involved in the recall.
Steve Shauger
Vintage Certification™ Program, Providing Recognition And Status To Unrestored Vehicles. Website www.vintagecertification.com
Yenko.net- The Supercar Registry

KurtS

  • CRG Coordinator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4447
    • View Profile
Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2017, 03:05:05 AM »
The cable is a band-aid. The fix is interlocking motor mounts, but that was too expensive for 6 million+ cars.
Non-interlocking was a bad design - note that none of the other GM divisions had that design.
This issue is also what drove the change to throttle cables instead of linkages.
Kurt S
CRG