Messages

It suggests that the stop bracket is wider than the first design axle bracket. We'll have to check old photos, but this might be the first photo set we've seen of the 2nd design stop bracket installed on a first-design axle bracket.  Might have to add this to the article...

Been a long time since I looked at the rods research.  Kurt pointed me to this, so I guess it's time for my bi-annual forum post! LOL

Do we know anything about the car this is on?

It clearly has the early round-rod axle bracket, without the top hole for the attachment of the bumper assembly structure.  So (per the TSB-67-T-30 instructions) the bumper assembly structure is welded to the axle bracket (with the bottom hole lined up).  It's interesting that there was such a difference in position between the two parts that the bumper assembly structure is positioned so that the top hole (which would normally line up with a top hole in the axle bracket - which wasn't present in the early ones) is so far forward that it is half-way past the edge of the axle bracket.  Raises questions - was the original bracket installed in the wrong position, and if so how did that pass?  Did this car never have a round rod installed? (Perhaps assembly couldn't install it because it wasn't in the right position, so they left it off? - that's speculation.)

I'm not sure if you had a specific question, but let us know if you have any more information.

Thanks, Rich

A great deal of appreciation for the efforts Kurt especially made to get the forum updated and out of the "coffin corner" we were in and (for a time) unable to get out of.  More minor tweaking may be needed, but he's in a position to be able to execute updates now, which, for awhile, we were unable to do at all.  Thanks Kurt!  Rich

Kurt woke me from my current genealogy obsession to put out my annual forum response for 2023.  We don't have a record of M58, so yours is the first we've encountered.  (To others that might ask, sorry, that does NOT add value to your car... LOL)  My glass contacts are by now long gone (I'm so glad I did that research when I did, as at the time I could still find people at the source that either were there at the time, or had access to historical documents), so odds of finding new contacts that know the history to this level of detail are slim, but here is what I would say about your glass based on what you've presented:

1) You have no plant code on your glass - that is normally the mark of plant 8, which normally supplied only laminated glass (not this glass)

2) You have the DOT supplier code mark (not required until 1973, but LOF started using the mark as soon as DOT assigned it, in early 1969)

3) The M5x series applies to AS-2 (non-laminated) plate (not float) tempered glass used for GM on non-windshield applications.

4) For the known models of the M5 series:

a) M51 and M52 were untinted 1/4- and 3/16-inch thick respectively.  The thinner was normally used for 67 vent, backlight, and rear quarter windows; the thicker for the large (and unsupported on two sides) door windows, to provide greater stiffness.   M53 hasn't been observed (yet); perhaps was reserved.

b) M54 and M55 were tinted (Soft Ray) 1/4-inch and 3/16-inch respectively (see above for applications based on thickness).  M56-M58 hadn't been observed until now.

At this point I frankly can't be certain what distinguished M58 from, say, M55.  But I can speculate.  I doubt that it was the application of the DOT15 manufacturer number that caused it to be redefined; we haven't seen this before.  However, we have seen a new glass model number used for glass simply because it was produced at a different factory (see the glass article regarding windshields produced at plant 10).  Plant 8 is the plant that normally did NOT use a plant code, and that plant normally supplied only laminated (windshield) glass.

LOF skipped (or reserved) M53, so I wouldn't be surprised if they skipped M56.  That would leave M57 as the next model in this set to be used, and M58 after it.

Based on their typical consistency in assigning glass models, M58 might be expected to be AS2 (check), Soft-Ray (check), safety plate glass (check),  and 3/16 inch thick (we don't know the thickness of your glass, but your photo is in a backlight that would normally be 3/16 inch thick).

So my speculation based on what you've told us is that perhaps M58 was simply a rare run from plant 8 of 3/16 thick Soft-Ray AS-2 plate tempered glass (non-laminated) - and if so - I would expect M57 to be the 1/4-inch thick version.

Do you see this same glass on your doors, and if so, what is the thickness?  Only rarely was the thinner glass ever applied to door windows; that has been seen, but would definitely non-normative based on earlier designs.

Can you post a photo of your door glass, and measure the thickness of that glass, please?

Thanks, Rich

My once per decade login/post.     What Kurt said is correct, in that there are all sorts of heat treats and all sorts of alloys, even just within the generic class of carbon steels.  Without knowing the details of the metallurgy (and I'm not privy to the alloys being used for roll bars at that time, or any time for that matter) or the specific design objective, the part could be air quenched, water quenched, oil quenched, (some other medium), or no heat treat at all (though that is less likely than some type of quench).  Rich

No matter that it is legal to take pictures in the open at public events, CRG has long striven to honor personal privacy by not publishing detailed information on individual cars that are not already published in the public domain or for which owner permission was not given.

I think the thread discussion above has reached the desired conclusion; thanks for that, all of you!  That said, my personal preference would be for the original posters of the images and data above to edit those posts and retract those data for which the owner did not have opportunity to clear for public release.  Thanks in advance for doing that.

Going forward we expect that CRG Forum members, especially when representing themselves as CRG Forum members either verbally or by wearing a CRG logo, would honor this approach.

Thanks for your support and interest!

Rich

Awakened from the dead for my biannual post... I will note that the core group is having a discussion spawned by this thread.  There are issues associated with creation and selling of items with CRG logo designs that we haven't yet wanted to deal with.  But we're talking about it.  Main thing is we're all plenty busy and bird-dogging this though all the issues would require some time, and even if there were helpers, a core member would have to oversee it, and we don't as yet have a core volunteer for this.

That said, not previously appreciating the demand for such, I just dug up my "original" CRG hat (complete with some sweat salt stains on the black brim - needs to be washed).

If the core group itself also doesn't object (I haven't asked yet ) to a one-off auction (we don't do these things here, normally) , would there be any interest/objection to me auctioning this off here with the proceeds to benefit the American Red Cross for Hurricane Sandy victims?

Rich

There is a redirect to a Russian site that has been attached to the site home page and probably the forum page(s).  It loads a JAVAscript files that does various undesirable things.  Common up-to-date virus and malware checkers will stop that, but it's a PITA.  Working to get it off.

In meantime, disabling JAVAscript in your browser is another approach.

BTW, these attacks have been hitting other sites, like MSN.

Sorry for the troubles.

Rich

Welcome, and congratulations on your car.  You'll find a good group of people here with a fair amount of international participation, though spread thinly across a big world.  Rich

The mini icon is a special formatted file that is on the site that your browser picks up, or should.  Should have nothing to do with the forum issue.  You might need to do a refresh on your browser; it is somehow confused.

I locked this thread and cleaned up the end of it.  Past the point of usefulness - if you all want to go toe to toe, do it somewhere else.

Rich

I updated the name.  Sorry Pat - the msg didn't come thru right.  Nice car.  Rich

Please congratulate long-time Forum member, and our most recent CRG member Ed Bertrand, on the great job he has done on the latest CRG Research Report.  Thanks Ed!

Rich

http://www.camaros.org/carb.shtml

That said, I believe Pillkington is buying at least some of their repo glass from the orient and simply reselling.  Marking them here though.  That's what I recall from a discussion I had with them several years ago.  Main thing, however, is, does the glass fit.

Not to reopen old wounds, but here's a picture of a 63 Impala SS cover, taken in the GM Heritage Center on 9 Aug 2007 (by Daniel).  They appear to be physically identical, just painted differently.