'63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

[Loren L.]

To further muddy the waters, the catalog

for Superior Pump (of Los Angeles & Phoenix) shows casting 3859326 as "65-67 327 High Performance eng. two 1/2" & one 3/4" pipe thread outlets #9/16", 2 1/8" hub bolt center" and 3839175 as "69-70 350 eng. wo/air one
3/4" & one 1/2" pipe thread outlets, #9/16"; 2-1/8" hub bolt center".
Let's also state that part of the material in the catalog is COPYRIGHTED in 1952. They've been around a while.

[Jack H.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

It's not my job to tell you how a part made from a drawing with an XYZ date could have shown up on cars built in ABC era. I know I don't know, Joe! I simply explained what the current JG book says, the latitude judges have, and how the system gets changed.... You all may WELL be dead nuts right about there being no '326 pump housings before '65, but that's not the current NCRS 'official' position.

Yep, the consequence of an error of this sort might well be to make a self-fulfilling prophesy in restoration, but it isn't the first time such has happened and probably won't be the last.

On the URGENCY to run out and change the system...here's some food for thought.

(1) Nobody puts a gun to our head telling us how to restore our car. If you believe the '609 pump is correct/original, then use it. But, understand the consequence MIGHT be a deduction based on another judge's belief and/or reading of the JG book.

(2) So what? There are SIX originality points up for grabs on the water pump and its fitting(s). With a '326 installed in lieu of a '209 or '175, the penalty boils down to a Configuration issue and that's worth 1/5 x 6 or approximately ONE JUDGING POINT out of 4500 possible.

(3) It's HIGHLY unlikely such an error is going to affect the judging outcome of a given car!

(4) So, is there really a dramatic/urgent need to drop everything and force change? Probably not. Is there time to work within the system and effect change through channels? Probably so.

(5) Changing a water pump isn't a Herculean effort compared with, say, getting the wrong color/hue/composition laid down on the exterior....

I too have experienced errors of omission/errors of commission when I restored my car(s) and jumped through hoops to change and re-change this/that! I know it's frustrating: we want ABSOLUTE standards that are unimpeachable to work with. But, that isn't our reality.

So, on my second restoration, I didn't read/believe/follow the 'book' verbatum.... When I came across a part I felt was REALLY genuine to the car but contradicted what the JG book said, I KEPT it and moved on. Then, I did what research I could on the subject. A case in point was the starter motor on my '71 SB. The 'book' said it was correct for '70 cars and some 'early' '71 cars, but my starter motor was dated 7-weeks before my April build '71 came off the line and it WAS the '70 PN vs. the '71 PN....

At my first Regional, the judges took a deduction for the 'wrong' starter. I was calm, cool, and explained why I'd left the 'wrong' starter on the car. They scratched their heads, re-examined the date code on the starter and THEY concluded there was an error in the JG book, over-rode it, and reversed the deduction. Judges DO have the discretion to overturn things they honestly believe to be wrong....

About two years later, after having presented my research to the NTL, calmly, working through channels, the JG book was revised reflecting the actual cross over point between 'early' and 'late' cars (JULY of 1971)!!! Yep, there probably were other owners before me who discarded correct/original starter motors, but HEY, that's life and in the grand scheme of things it's just a bolt-on assy that CAN be changed.

The point is this sport/hobby has some degree of artform to it. To some extent, we're trying to hit a moving target (restore it today so it will judge according to the rules in effect 2-3 years in the future). Like the duck hunter taking a 'sky' shot, we have to lead the flock with our aim. You don't always bag a birdie on every shot, but everybody plays by the same rules....

[Jack H.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

It's not my job to tell you how a part made from a drawing with an XYZ date could have shown up on cars built in ABC era. I know I don't know, Joe! I simply explained what the current JG book says, the latitude judges have, and how the system gets changed.... You all may WELL be dead nuts right about there being no '326 pump housings before '65, but that's not the current NCRS 'official' position.

Yep, the consequence of an error of this sort might well be to make a self-fulfilling prophesy in restoration, but it isn't the first time such has happened and probably won't be the last.

On the URGENCY to run out and change the system...here's some food for thought.

(1) Nobody puts a gun to our head telling us how to restore our car. If you believe the '609 pump is correct/original, then use it. But, understand the consequence MIGHT be a deduction based on another judge's belief and/or reading of the JG book.

(2) So what? There are SIX originality points up for grabs on the water pump and its fitting(s). With a '326 installed in lieu of a '209 or '175, the penalty boils down to a Configuration issue and that's worth 1/5 x 6 or approximately ONE JUDGING POINT out of 4500 possible.

(3) It's HIGHLY unlikely such an error is going to affect the judging outcome of a given car!

(4) So, is there really a dramatic/urgent need to drop everything and force change? Probably not. Is there time to work within the system and effect change through channels? Probably so.

(5) Changing a water pump isn't a Herculean effort compared with, say, getting the wrong color/hue/composition laid down on the exterior....

I too have experienced errors of omission/errors of commission when I restored my car(s) and jumped through hoops to change and re-change this/that! I know it's frustrating: we want ABSOLUTE standards that are unimpeachable to work with. But, that isn't our reality.

So, on my second restoration, I didn't read/believe/follow the 'book' verbatum.... When I came across a part I felt was REALLY genuine to the car but contradicted what the JG book said, I KEPT it and moved on. Then, I did what research I could on the subject. A case in point was the starter motor on my '71 SB. The 'book' said it was correct for '70 cars and some 'early' '71 cars, but my starter motor was dated 7-weeks before my April build '71 came off the line and it WAS the '70 PN vs. the '71 PN....

At my first Regional, the judges took a deduction for the 'wrong' starter. I was calm, cool, and explained why I'd left the 'wrong' starter on the car. They scratched their heads, re-examined the date code on the starter and THEY concluded there was an error in the JG book, over-rode it, and reversed the deduction. Judges DO have the discretion to overturn things they honestly believe to be wrong....

About two years later, after having presented my research to the NTL, calmly, working through channels, the JG book was revised reflecting the actual cross over point between 'early' and 'late' cars (JULY of 1971)!!! Yep, there probably were other owners before me who discarded correct/original starter motors, but HEY, that's life and in the grand scheme of things it's just a bolt-on assy that CAN be changed.

The point is this sport/hobby has some degree of artform to it. To some extent, we're trying to hit a moving target (restore it today so it will judge according to the rules in effect 2-3 years in the future). Like the duck hunter taking a 'sky' shot, we have to lead the flock with our aim. You don't always bag a birdie on every shot, but everybody plays by the same rules....

[Tracy C.]

Think $50 shipping will cover it.?...Geezzz *NM*

[Tracy C.]

Think $50 shipping will cover it.?...Geezzz *NM*

[Rick A.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Joe,

little clarification on hard - bought a restored "326" from Goat Hill at Spring Carlisle - when we tried to mount, the mounting bolts suddenly appeared to be too short. Tony and I basically tore the "326" apart and removed all of the gaskets too make it mount correctly

[Rick A.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Joe,

little clarification on hard - bought a restored "326" from Goat Hill at Spring Carlisle - when we tried to mount, the mounting bolts suddenly appeared to be too short. Tony and I basically tore the "326" apart and removed all of the gaskets too make it mount correctly

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick-----

As far as I know, the bolt hole lengths on the '609', '175' and '326' castings are the same. Might you be speaking of a condition in which the backing plate interfered with the timing cover before the legs were seated on the block?

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick-----

As far as I know, the bolt hole lengths on the '609', '175' and '326' castings are the same. Might you be speaking of a condition in which the backing plate interfered with the timing cover before the legs were seated on the block?

[Rick A.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Joe,

that was part of the problem - like I said, I think Goat Hill was over-zealous with the gaskets! we basically took all the gaskets out and used RTV!

[Rick A.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Joe,

that was part of the problem - like I said, I think Goat Hill was over-zealous with the gaskets! we basically took all the gaskets out and used RTV!

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick-----

Actually, that's a very common problem. For the short leg style waterpumps, there is, under normal circumstances, very little clearance between the timing cover and the waterpump backing plate. Some of the very early small block waterpump backing plates were flat. There was usually plenty of clearance with these. However, they didn't seal well and there were other problems relating to pumping efficency using them. Later backing plates have an "off-set" and reinforcing "curved edge" but no raised indentions on the sealing surface. The final design was like the previous but with indentions along the length of the sealing surface between the bolt holes. These are the best for sealing. I've pressure tested pumps with all three types of backing plates. The flat and "off-set but without indentions" type won't hold much pressure, at all, before they start leaking, even when gasket sealer is used on the backing plate gasket. I don't recall the exact numbers, but at just over 15 PSI they started leaking. Since automotive cooling systems operate at around 15 PSI, there's very little "margin of error". The last design with the indentions seal very well. They are the only type that I will use. Ever.

Both of the last two designs that I mentioned will often interfere with the timing cover on the "off-set" (raised) area of the backing plate. This is especially a problem when thick-type gaskets are used for the pump backing plate gasket. Many of the "rebuilder" gaskets are way too thick (and, that's probably what Paul Baker of Goat Hill uses). They help with sealing problems, but can cause interference problems. The original GM gaskets were thin but are long-since discontinued.

Often times, the problem can be corrected by using thick waterpump leg-to-block gaskets or using 2 or 3 stacked gaskets here. Pulley alignment problems are generally not created if a maximum of 3 thin gaskets are used.

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick-----

Actually, that's a very common problem. For the short leg style waterpumps, there is, under normal circumstances, very little clearance between the timing cover and the waterpump backing plate. Some of the very early small block waterpump backing plates were flat. There was usually plenty of clearance with these. However, they didn't seal well and there were other problems relating to pumping efficency using them. Later backing plates have an "off-set" and reinforcing "curved edge" but no raised indentions on the sealing surface. The final design was like the previous but with indentions along the length of the sealing surface between the bolt holes. These are the best for sealing. I've pressure tested pumps with all three types of backing plates. The flat and "off-set but without indentions" type won't hold much pressure, at all, before they start leaking, even when gasket sealer is used on the backing plate gasket. I don't recall the exact numbers, but at just over 15 PSI they started leaking. Since automotive cooling systems operate at around 15 PSI, there's very little "margin of error". The last design with the indentions seal very well. They are the only type that I will use. Ever.

Both of the last two designs that I mentioned will often interfere with the timing cover on the "off-set" (raised) area of the backing plate. This is especially a problem when thick-type gaskets are used for the pump backing plate gasket. Many of the "rebuilder" gaskets are way too thick (and, that's probably what Paul Baker of Goat Hill uses). They help with sealing problems, but can cause interference problems. The original GM gaskets were thin but are long-since discontinued.

Often times, the problem can be corrected by using thick waterpump leg-to-block gaskets or using 2 or 3 stacked gaskets here. Pulley alignment problems are generally not created if a maximum of 3 thin gaskets are used.