Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

[Joe R.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

While it is useful to consult the AIM for insight on what to expect for a given year, the AIM is just a point of reference. There are known cases of the AIM showing something different from what was ACTUALLY INSTALLED at St. Louis during production.

In general, the best way to determine what was actually installed in St. Louis is by inspecting known-original cars. This is challenging for the case of air cleaner wing nuts, since it would not be unusual for a C2 owner to install a service replacement for such an easily-lost part.

However, I've looked at many un-restored C2 Corvettes where the wing nut on the car had the expected "patina" for a 50 year old car. So far, the only style I've seen is the one shown in post #2. The evidence I have seen so far is that the "Mickey Mouse ears" version shown in post #14 first appeared in 1968 production (and possibly late '67 production).

[Ronald L.]

[Gene M.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Ronald,
You stated “Making an isolated exception the rule” and “You are deviating every little detail to non factual not the production process assumptions”.

Well there are many inspected and judged original cars that verify otherwise (none shown correct in this post). These known “features” have help establish the known to the judging persons what an original wing nut looks like. I see from your profile you have essentially no judging experience.

I must say again this wing nut thing in the grand scheme is nothing. As Harry stated “move on”.

[Joe R.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Hi Ronald:

I agree with Gene that at this point, it is not useful to continue debating the significance of specific differences among different versions of an air cleaner wing nut. As was established early on in this thread, the wing nut has a very low points value in NCRS judging.

However, I think it might be instructive to use the above discussion as a means to highlight how the NCRS judging procedure is intended to be applied.

In the above discussion, there are two problems that should be considered separately, so I will attempt to clearly separate them:


TWO PARTS WITH THE SAME GM PART NUMBER HAVE DISTINCT DIFFERENCES

These visible differences occur because GM had multiple suppliers for most parts, especially if the same part number was used over a period of several years. Experienced judges typically have some sense of when the various differences first appeared in production.

In NCRS judging, deductions are frequently made because the specific version of a given part is believed to have entered production, or use as a service replacement, after the date on which the car was manufactured.


A PART INSTALLED ON THE CAR IS NOT THE SAME PART NUMBER SHOWN IN THE AIM

Some people place too much emphasis on the AIM. Experienced NCRS judges know of many examples where the part number called out in the AIM is not what was actually used in production at the time the car was manufactured. Most of the AIM was written before production began, and things changed.

As I understand it, we are in possession of only a small fraction of the documentation associated with running changes that were made during production. In industry parlance, these changes would be referred to as ECOs (Engineering Change Orders). I recall reading an article by John Hinckley where he described the actual forms that GM used for this purpose. I think he described at least three different forms, each with its own unique acronym, that addressed different reasons for deviating from the AIM.

I don't know of any place in the NCRS judging guidelines where the NCRS states that the judging standard should be the AIM. I believe the NCRS judging standard is known original cars.

So, the AIM itself is not the definitive standard for judging originality. It is a very useful resource, but it is not the last word on originality.

[Ronald L.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Gene, you join the pool?
I was PAID by GM in the day, so I know a whole lot more of this than the tip of the iceberg, all still rubbish.....and these other discussions about variations of parts with same part number - of course - read the prints, I have.

Your assumptions still need to start with the AIM and a part print, triage that and you will have FACTS.

[Alan D.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

OK, so where can I find the prints?

[Ronald L.]

[David B.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Ronald Lovelace, Love your comments! You are right on the money!

Have noticed GM standards & procedures (prints) have somehow taken a secondary position to ego driven judges.

[Gene M.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Gene, you join the pool?
I was PAID by GM in the day, so I know a whole lot more of this than the tip of the iceberg, all still rubbish.....and these other discussions about variations of parts with same part number - of course - read the prints, I have.

Your assumptions still need to start with the AIM and a part print, triage that and you will have FACTS.

Ronald,
You don’t have the part print. I don’t understand why you keep pushing this point. There are not enough dimensions and specifications to draw that part let alone tool it up to produce it. I was in that job profession and can assure you it’s not. It’s an inspection drawing to accept parts in a customers house, in this case GM. Please stop directing your comments towards me. You are beating a dead horse.

[Ronald L.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Gene,

Let me ask you Mr tooling engineer....what was it, that 'the GM Engineer' gave to a supplier to quote and tool (If it wasn't the print in question)?

Also - have YOU read the print and its references to the GM Standards Books?

What is the part number??

[Gary C.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Guys,

Please tone it down! And don't get personal.

Thank you,

Gary
....

[Gene M.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Gene,

Let me ask you Mr tooling engineer....what was it, that 'the GM Engineer' gave to a supplier to quote and tool (If it wasn't the print in question)?

Also - have YOU read the print and its references to the GM Standards Books?


What is the part number??

I’m done with this foolishness.
Gary or Don please close this thread before Ronald becomes more hostile.

[Ronald L.]

[Gene M.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

I’m done with this foolishness.
Gary or Don please close this thread before Ronald becomes more hostile.

[Ronald L.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Gene, mirrors...
Stay out of the technical discussion if you can't contribute effectively as we have seen, you're hostility unacceptable.