I am compiling information on bolt head marks, particularly those that are not listed in the judging manual (JM), for engine and chassis. For example, my base-engine 1960 has intake manifold bolts that have an A in a circle in the middle with a 2 below it between two of the three Grade 5 tickmarks. If anyone else has run across bolts that are not mentioned in the JM, I'd be interested in where they go, the grade, the headmark, and the finish. Thanks, Bob.
-
-
Re: 1958-60 Bolt Head Marks
Bob--
Best of luck on your endeavor. What you're going to run into is trying to sort out original vs. "claimed to be" original. I've been studying 62's since the mid 70's--and there are very few unmolested cars out there.
What bolts are hardware store vs. original? Even the example that you use--did GM have a supplier that used that type of logo? In 1960? I've seen a number of "AP" intake bolts, but never an A 2--burden of proof is always interesting, because we can't jump on an application and accept it unless we really know a complete history of the vehicle. That said, after a while you begin to get tendencies. Make sure you keep track of the VIN of each car's headmarks logged in, because they were not necessarily consistent throughout the year (or throughout a day, at times.)
The above is not said to discourage you, but to challenge you so that you get worthwhile results.
Again, good luck.
Mike Ernst -
Re: 1958-60 Bolt Head Marks
Mike, The engine had the original GM tabs when I took the manifold off. I also had A over 2 bolts holding on my shifter. I also saw another 1960 (#3047) at Hershey going for Bow Tie that also had them on the intake. My VIN is #3628. I guess a lot of cars have engine bolts changed, but chassis is a bit less likely. I am just looking for head mark info for any bolts that people have good reason to think are original. My concern is that people with original bolts are tossing them in favor of what the JM says and we are losing information on these cars that can never be regained. Thanks, Bob.Comment
-
Re: 1958-60 Bolt Head Marks
Bob--
I support your concern 100%!!!!! Too many people read the JM and assume that those are the only correct head patterns, which is not the case. It's good that you're doing what you are proposing, because that can expand the options. The trouble with the JM is that we can't anticipate all the wrong things people will do and legislate against them. We could put "Dorman" bolts are incorrect--but then someone would argue "but the Mr. GAsket bolts I have are not said to be incorrect, therefore I should get credit." Writing a judging manual is a lot like enacting legislation--you're getnerally reacting to peoples' wrongs. Good luck on what you're doing!Comment
Comment