I will be submitting formal documentation in the next couple days to NCRS judging people regarding the subject. It has come to my attention that some judges are deducting points for "missing saw cuts" on the underside of mid year reproduction aluminum radiators. There is a misconception out there that ALL mid year radiators were saw cut in the middle of the bottom. I disagree with this for two reasons. #1. I have an nos radiator with the saw cuts at top right and bottom left or kitty corner. #2. If GM intended the saw cut as an expansion joint, you would not want it to be "locked in" by the two rubber mounting bushings. There would be no where to go. Now don't get me wrong, I have seen some 63 rads that were cut in the middle and maybe there were others but I know every year wasn't that way. The problem with the GM documentaton is that the drawing shows the top left cut and dimensions and it says "cut two places". It doesn't show or say where the other one is. The production people could have cut the bottom anywhere according to the blueprint and there may have never been consistancy or any pattern. In this case, I look at an original which is bottom left. To the judges that are deducting for "no saw cut" this is wrong. The saw cut IS THERE! Its just not where your looking. It's about 3.5" from the drain valve. It really doesn't matter to me where it is, I just need to know where to put it and on what years. Anyone have an opinion on this?
-
-
Re: Expansion cuts on mid-year aluminum radiators
I held onto my original 63E radiator (I bought the car, used, in September '63)... it has the expansion cut in the middle of the bottom.
If you have any interest in info on a 72 radiator, I also have one of those I can dig out of my parts piles. -
Re: Expansion cuts on mid-year aluminum radiators
It would be interesting to see where the 72 cut is! tdComment
-
Re: Expansion cuts on mid-year aluminum radiators
I also kept my original 63C and it has the cut in the center of the bottom.Comment
-
ATTABOY!
I love it when a vendor volunteers time/$$$ to work with us in the interest of the hobby!!! Much of what's done on the judging field is based on observation of original 'untouched' cars and, by default, that process suffers from the potential of small sample statistical skew.
On the other hand, the drawing system doesn't necessarily tell all (document everything and/or what might have been 'limited use' running changes not thought to have been significant enough to formally document). Then, there's the process of interviewing those who actually worked there and you've got to question whether you can really trust +30-year old memory. So, there's no really 'correct' way to get the info.
Good luck to you, Tom. And thanks for working with us!Comment
-
Ditto 63B
I still have the original (dead) 63B from my SWC, and the saw cut is in the center.
DukeComment
-
Re: Expansion cuts on mid-year aluminum radiators
Tom - I was docked points at Orlando for what you described. I have a 68L radiator ( believe to be a warranty replacement) which was in my 66 when I purchased it in 70 and it has a cut in the middle on the bottom and on the right side about 3" from the pipe to the expansion tank on the top. The one I purchased from you for the correct date is just the opposite with the top piece cut in the center and the bottom piece cut about 3" from drain plug. With the lower rubber supports you would think that would fix and a cut between the supports would allow for growth.Comment
-
Re: Expansion cuts on mid-year aluminum radiators
66D in my garage is cut in the middle. Interestingly - even though they do NOT
fall within your request - I have a Service Replacement for 61-2 made in 80F that is cut in the middle and an Original 60B top tank that is cut 1 1/2" left of the middle (driver's side).
I'd also echo Jack's congratulations on your willingness to communicate and try to find out what's right. Thanks.Comment
-
Re: Expansion cuts on mid-year aluminum radiators
I have an NOS (81M)radiator for a '65 396 that has saw cuts on the top right (about 2.5" from the tube to the exp tank) and lower left (about 2.5" from the drain).My Project Pictures
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/classics/l78vetteman/Comment
-
Re: Expansion cuts on mid-year aluminum radiators
Bob, it's actually just the opposite of what you said. The two lower mounting cushions are locked in by the core support when mounted. This would prevent any expansion because (with the saw cut in the middle) there would be no where to go. As far as your radiator being cut in the middle on the top, you might want to look at that again. The top center has the mounting bracket and I can assure you we never cut the top any place but top left side.Comment
-
Re: Expansion cuts on mid-year aluminum radiators
That's interesting on the 66 radiator but you have also enforced my arguement that there just wasn't enough consistancy to say it was clearly this way or that way. The case in point is your two 61-62 rads. Again, getting off the original topic a little, the 61-62 drawing clearly shows the saw cut in the middle but still someone cut one of yours 1 1/2" off center. Should that be a deduction? I don't think so.Comment
-
Re: Expansion cuts on mid-year aluminum radiators
Tom, FWIW, I have a used original 1971 Corvette #3155316 radiator, dated 71C. It has one saw cut in the center of the bottom and a saw cut on the top right about 2.5" from the tube for the expansion tank, just as Rob stated on the 81M radiator he has. The top right cut is right at the very edge of the original Harrison label. DaveComment
-
Re: Ditto 63B
Tom I have two 3155316 Alum. radiators and they are different. The one dated 75G has its cuts diagonal and about 3.5 inches from the edge. One by petcock and the other by over flow hose. Now the other radiator is dated 62J and the cut by the overflow is 3 3/8 inches from end and the other one is in the middle. BillComment
-
Documentaton on the subject
I have the original GM drawings for all four aluminum radiators produced between 1960-72. This includes 3151116 top tank, 3150916 (61-62), 3155316 (63-72) and 3007436 (65-396 & L88). Both the 3151116 & 3150916 drawings were modified on 4-11-61 to add the notes: "SAW CUTS ADDED" This mean to me that no PRODUCTION top tank or 1961 should have the saw cuts. I have a photo of a 61 upper casting that clearly shows no saw cut. This infomation would have taken time to implement and the inventory used up before the 1961 model year ended. This drawing (3150916) is very clear about the cut location. It details and dimension the saw cut to be in the middle on the bottom and top left side. This is the only drawing of the four rads that is clear on this location and that's why every service part should have them and that they should be in the middle. One problem that doesn't help the matter is the drawing I have for the 3155316 is a CAD drawing that replaced the orignal pencil drawing and the notes were not transfered to the new drawing and the orignal was distroyed. I think it's pretty safe to say that 1963's were probably all cut in the middle on the bottom. I had one and several people have mentioned it here as well but the question is "how long did it stay there, how consistant was it, and should points be deducted for variances. I look to the 65-396 radiator drawing for clues. This is the original pencil drawing with note changes. It does not show the lower cut and simply duplicates the notes from the mid-year rad "cut two places". All of the 3007436 that I have seen are cut kitty corner, top right/bottom left. We have another testimontial in this thread for a 81 service part that way. This issue needs to be researched more but in the mean time I think we need to lighten up a litte on the deducts. The people that invested into a reproduction radiator have made a financial commitment to restoring their car correctly with the best possible part available. If you must take something off, make it 1 point, simply to let the owner know something is wrong but it doesn't effect the score.Comment
-
Re: Expansion cuts on mid-year aluminum radiators
Bob said his 65-396 was kitty corner cut. Top right/bottom left, not like yours!
See the confusion. There was no consistancy.Comment
Comment