1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

[Robert G.]

I was wondering if anyone had a good picture of what the orange over spray coverage should look like on a 1965 Clutch Fork?

[Bill W.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

My 65 BB clutch fork and my original boot had no overspray , there was very little paint on my bell housing .

[Jim D.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

My 65 BB clutch fork and my original boot had no overspray , there was very little paint on my bell housing .

My SB 65 was pretty much the same. Not a trace of paint on the bellhousing anywhere close to the fork or boot.2011_10290010.jpg2011_10290011.jpg2011_10290012.jpg

[Mike E.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

Robert,
You didn't mention if your car is a BB or SB. I think the amount of overspray might vary between the two considering the engines were produced at different plants. For small blocks this factory photo verifies what Jim has on his bell housing.



Sorry guys, you're probably tired of me referencing this photo.


Mike

[Jim S.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

It's come in handy quite a lot so far , hasn't it !

Jim

[Mike E.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

It's come in handy quite a lot so far , hasn't it !

Jim

Actually yes it has. Prior to my body drop I'm going to try to take the same photo of my chassis from the same angle. I'm probably a year away from that at the rate I'm going. Mine is a L76 Coupe (HH) w/o K66. So it will be slightly different, no red tag on the coil and no #2 body mount. Everything else should be about the same. There will be one other difference...I'll save that for the experts to find.


Mike

[Robert G.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

All - Thanks for the information. My car is a SB L76 (HH) convertible, January 65' build. I am getting ready for a regional meet and checking my Chapter judging results and there was a comment about no over spray on the clutch fork. I will leave it as it is. Thanks.

[Gary B.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

All - Thanks for the information. My car is a SB L76 (HH) convertible, January 65' build. I am getting ready for a regional meet and checking my Chapter judging results and there was a comment about no over spray on the clutch fork. I will leave it as it is. Thanks.

Robert,

Did the judges take a deduct for the no over-spray on the clutch fork? Or simply make a comment?

Gary

[Robert G.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

All,

I had the car judged last week at the Tucson Regional. I received no deduct for over-spray on the clutch fork, but a comment was made by the judges that there should be over-spray on the front face of the fork (this would be on the opposite side of the photo Mike posted above). There was an un-restored survivor next to mine that had very faint evidence of this over-spray.

Robert

[Jim D.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

All,

I received no deduct for over-spray on the clutch fork, but a comment was made by the judges that there should be over-spray on the front face of the fork (this would be on the opposite side of the photo Mike posted above). There was an un-restored survivor next to mine that had very faint evidence of this over-spray.

Robert

I wish the "all knowing" judges would look at pictures of original cars and realize that the coverage is sooooo varied between cars that anything between full and zero coverage should be accepted as original and NO deduction, or even a comment, is needed.

[James W.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

Per your request, here is a picture of an unrestored, 27,xxx mile, 1965 big block that has NCRS Bowtie/Duntov certs. I took these pictures in 2008 at the NCRS National Convention in St. Louis to document/validate my '65 BB restortion. The first picture is of the original clutch fork and the second is of my '65 BB resrtoration. Yes the coverage on the bellhousing and clutch fork is more than typical but I merely copied what I docuemented on an originnal car. I did a top engine respray after the engine and transmissionwere in the car since I had had the valve covers off to adjust the lifters during engine dyno testing. This is when I painted the bellhousing and clutch fork. It took me longer tp mask and prep for paint than to actually paint it. My wife will never miss the bed sheets I "borrowed". The car wen through all levels of flight judging in 2014 and did not receive any originality point deducts for paint coverage.

Regards,

James West

[Bill W.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

James good pictures , but should the boot have been on the fork when the engine was painted ?
I agree with Jim . On a part that could have had complete coverage to no coverage there should be no deduction or even notes on the sheet .
I always wondered what the factory painters were told to do . Just paint the block . or paint the whole bell housing. It looks like they done what ever they wanted at the time .

[John S.]

Re: 1965 Clutch Fork Over Spray

In all fairness to the judges, I was there and saw his car. If memory serves me correctly, Roberts bell housing was completely painted orange. I believe that if the bell housing had that much paint on it there would be some evidence of paint on the fork. I believe the judges made the right call in no deduction but just a comment of no evidence of paint. MTCW.