what underbody insulation would go on a Sep 69 build?

[Michael L.]

guys,

im trying figure out what underbody insulation needs to be put on my 69. The JG is not clear (at least to me) on this. Seems there definitely is the insulation in the tranny tunnel and there are the heat shields covering the floor boards and toe kick areas but is there supposed to be insulation between the underbody and heat shields on a Sep 69 car? The JG states this insulation was seen through s/n 15954 but some cars after this have been seen with smaller fiberglass mats under the shields. No idea what was there originally, although I do not believe there are the 7-8 clips riveted to the underbody that would have been used to hold it in place (the car is not here for me to look at) so I have to believe it likely didnt come with any insulation. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Mike

[Terry M.]

Re: what underbody insulation would go on a Sep 69 build?

guys,

im trying figure out what underbody insulation needs to be put on my 69. The JG is not clear (at least to me) on this. Seems there definitely is the insulation in the tranny tunnel and there are the heat shields covering the floor boards and toe kick areas but is there supposed to be insulation between the underbody and heat shields on a Sep 69 car? The JG states this insulation was seen through s/n 15954 but some cars after this have been seen with smaller fiberglass mats under the shields. No idea what was there originally, although I do not believe there are the 7-8 clips riveted to the underbody that would have been used to hold it in place (the car is not here for me to look at) so I have to believe it likely didnt come with any insulation. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Mike

Mike

The TIM&JG is unclear as to what cars had heat insulation and associated metal parts because we simple don't know. There seems to be no logical reason as to which cars got it and which didn't. There must be some pattern, but we haven't figured it out yet.

The tunnel insulation goes on every car from 1968 to 1972.

If you have the underbody metal shields from the toe shields to the middle cross-member there is a good chance your Corvette originally had the insulation, but to be sure you are going to have to look at the car. If it originally had factory installed insulation there will be clips riveted to the floor to support that insulation. Take a look in the back of the manual for TSB (Technical Service Bulletin) 68-T-43. This has instructions to the dealers how to install the insulation and associated metal parts. One can never be sure that the dealer didn't install these parts on a car, but the clips riveted to the floor is a almost sure sign of a factory installation. Let the car tell you what to do.

[Joe L.]

Re: what underbody insulation would go on a Sep 69 build?

Mike

The TIM&JG is unclear as to what cars had heat insulation and associated metal parts because we simple don't know. There seems to be no logical reason as to which cars got it and which didn't. There must be some pattern, but we haven't figured it out yet.

The tunnel insulation goes on every car from 1968 to 1972.

If you have the underbody metal shields from the toe shields to the middle cross-member there is a good chance your Corvette originally had the insulation, but to be sure you are going to have to look at the car. If it originally had factory installed insulation there will be clips riveted to the floor to support that insulation. Take a look in the back of the manual for TSB (Technical Service Bulletin) 68-T-43. This has instructions to the dealers how to install the insulation and associated metal parts. One can never be sure that the dealer didn't install these parts on a car, but the clips riveted to the floor is a almost sure sign of a factory installation. Let the car tell you what to do.

Terry and Mike------

I am the original owner of a 1969 built mid-September, 1969. My car has the white plastic lower firewall shields and the flat, sheet metal underfloor shields. My car never had any kind of insulation between the underfloor shields and the floor nor any kind of insulation between the white plastic shields and the lower firewall.

[Terry M.]

Re: what underbody insulation would go on a Sep 69 build?

Terry and Mike------

I am the original owner of a 1969 built mid-September, 1969. My car has the white plastic lower firewall shields and the flat, sheet metal underfloor shields. My car never had any kind of insulation between the underfloor shields and the floor nor any kind of insulation between the white plastic shields and the lower firewall.

Joe,
And I presume it had no "grippers" on the floor boards either.

BTW: I am confident the term "grippers" is not the correct term, but it saves me looking in the 1969 AIM, which is not handy.

[Joe L.]

Re: what underbody insulation would go on a Sep 69 build?

Joe,
And I presume it had no "grippers" on the floor boards either.

BTW: I am confident the term "grippers" is not the correct term, but it saves me looking in the 1969 AIM, which is not handy.

Terry-----

No, there were absolutely no such devices on the floor boards.

[Michael L.]

Re: what underbody insulation would go on a Sep 69 build?

thanks guys that fits with what I see on my car. The only "grippers" are in the tranny tunnel for the insulation there. there are no other ones seen. I also have the plastic lower firewall shields on mine.

Joe, on another note, since our cars were built around the same time, can you tell me if your wsw actuator is the coffee can style or the pie tin style? Mine is the coffee can style and I believe it original but I have heard that was not typical for late 69 cars. Also, my car has only a single vacuum relay valve at the front of the car, and that is also not typical for a Sept 69 build I have been told, with the switch to two relay valves having been done more around the mid 69 model year. Can you confirm what you have on your car? Thanks,

Mike

[Joe L.]

Re: what underbody insulation would go on a Sep 69 build?

thanks guys that fits with what I see on my car. The only "grippers" are in the tranny tunnel for the insulation there. there are no other ones seen. I also have the plastic lower firewall shields on mine.

Joe, on another note, since our cars were built around the same time, can you tell me if your wsw actuator is the coffee can style or the pie tin style? Mine is the coffee can style and I believe it original but I have heard that was not typical for late 69 cars. Also, my car has only a single vacuum relay valve at the front of the car, and that is also not typical for a Sept 69 build I have been told, with the switch to two relay valves having been done more around the mid 69 model year. Can you confirm what you have on your car? Thanks,

Mike

Mike------

I can tell you, for sure, that my car has the "coffee can" style wiper door actuator.

I just don't recall, for sure, on the vacuum relay issue. Vaguely, I recall that it's the single relay type. However, I can't check right now because I'm 7,000 miles from the car.

My car also has the 68-E69 style hood latches with the "tulip-shaped" lock bolts and associated upper latches.

[Paul O.]

Re: what underbody insulation would go on a Sep 69 build?

Joe,
And I presume it had no "grippers" on the floor boards either.

BTW: I am confident the term "grippers" is not the correct term, but it saves me looking in the 1969 AIM, which is not handy.

It is known as a Retainer 3834985 AIM part number

[Michael L.]

[Joe L.]

Re: what underbody insulation would go on a Sep 69 build?

Thanks Joe. As someone who has contributed to various textbooks on other subjects, I know firsthand how much we are all indebted to the folks who dedicate so much time and energy to making the JG but its curious how many things on my car, which was believed to be a low mileage survivor prior to my starting on the resto, doesn’t fit with what the JG authors have found. In addition to those two items above, I know we have previously discussed the plated vs. painted wsw arms. Mine have every original marking of OEM wipers but they clearly were painted and not plated and it clearly was done prior to arm final assembly. Of course some controversies will never be settled due to the rarity of some pieces or difficulty inspecting them on intact cars on a judging field, but some of these things are so easily seen and apparently so common that it baffles me as to where the disconnect is occurring. Maybe most of this stems from how That ‘69 work stoppage messed up with the 69 model year production, making it tough to truly discern between early and late in the model year.

Michael------

"Early" and "late" when applied to a specific component must be viewed as applying only to that component. In other words, "early" for a certain component will usually have a different "change-over" period than "early" for another component. Sometimes there are even more than one change for a certain component during a model year. Then, changes could be described as "early", "mid", and "late".

There can also be "indiscrete" changeover periods. In other words, the change does not occur at a discrete and specific car. In other words, it might not be that a certain car got the former component and the next and all subsequent cars got the later component. It might SEEM that's how it should have happened but there are many factors involved that we just have no understanding of.