69 Upper A Arms

[Mark S.]

Judging guide (JG) says color is semi-gloss. I have new gm ones that are natural finish on the ball joint end (see pic). Will this result in a points deduction or can they be installed as-is?

Also, when JG says "natural finish" is there a deduction if painted clear or cast blast??

Thanks for any help.

Mark

[Mark E.]

Re: 69 Upper A Arms

This Forum taught me to avoid making a conclusion because I haven't seen it before, but I haven't seen a partially dipped control arm on a car before. Now let's wait for someone to say they see this on bowtie cars all the time...

Even if partially dipped control arms have been seen, the question to ask: Do you want badly dipped control arms on your freshly restored car just to watch them rust in a few months?

So if it was my car, and it isn't, I would finish the entire part knowing many cars left the factory with fully finished control arms. The bonus is it looks better and won't rust.

And yes, there is a finish deduction for clear coated, painted or protected (e.g. Calyx) metal if the part should be bare.

[Ron G.]

Re: 69 Upper A Arms

Mark,

The upper arms that have no paint on the ends where the ball joints are attached are for very late C3 cars. All 1969's are totally painted with a paint called black triclhoretine (I know that this is not the correct spelling). The aforementioned was supplied from the Pontiac Paint & Varnish Co. that was located in Pontiac, Michigan which is longer in business. The paint was similar to an acrylic enamel base, but was extremely durable. The finish was a semi-gloss black. At one time many years ago I was able to obtain some for one of my own cars. I know most people including my own judging colleagues believe that they were originally dipped, but I have mixed beliefs as I have spoke with GM personnel and was told they were sprayed. I have experimented with dip painting them and spraying them, and all I can say is that the latter looks more like an original. There may still be evidence of runs in the paint if you sprayed them, but when I tried dipping painting them they did not quite mirror the finish of the originals. Not saying I am right. Just my opinion of I have had personal experience with. - Ron

[Jeffrey S.]

Re: 69 Upper A Arms

Ron,
Last time I looked, Pontiac Paint & Varnish is still located on the corner of M59 and Woodward Ave. in Pontiac (unless it's a different Pontiac Paint). It was established in 1928. I have bought there on many occasions. Great old time store.
Jeff

[Ron G.]

[Patrick H.]

Re: 69 Upper A Arms

I agree with Ron.

These are service replacement parts from the late C3 era, and not representative of what one would find on a 1969.
I also believe that in 1969 they would have been sprayed, not dipped.

There is a deduction for cast blast or clear if we can tell its there, as that's a different finish than Day 1.
If we can't tell, then we can't deduct.

Ron -

https://www.pontiacpaint.com/

[Joe L.]

Re: 69 Upper A Arms

Judging guide (JG) says color is semi-gloss. I have new gm ones that are natural finish on the ball joint end (see pic). Will this result in a points deduction or can they be installed as-is?

Also, when JG says "natural finish" is there a deduction if painted clear or cast blast??

Thanks for any help.

Mark

Mark------


The only reason for the partially painted a-arm assemblies was to avoid painting of the ball joint that was installed prior to painting. However, this was a SERVICE-only kind of thing. Here's why: the SERVICE a-arms were a different assemblage of components than PRODUCTION. For PRODUCTION, the a-arm assemblies included the shafts and bushings but did not include the ball joints. The ball joints were installed at St. Louis. So, there was no need to avoid paint on the ball joint end.

For SERVICE, the a-arms included the ball joint but did not include the shafts and bushings. Of course, the SERVICE assemblies could have been fully painted and have had the ball joints installed after paint. But, for some reason, they were not.

So, that's why the SERVICE assemblies have unpainted ends and PRODUCTION assemblies have painted ends.

Beyond all that, the original a-arms on my original owner 1969 were fully painted. However, the shafts and bushings were not painted.

[Mark S.]

Re: 69 Upper A Arms

I really appreciate everyone's feedback. always learning....

I will paint them fully. I would use my originals but they will end up with replacement ball joints so i imagine that these "service replacements" would be better for judging if painted fully (except ball joint of course).

thanks

[Ron G.]

Re: 69 Upper A Arms

Just my 2 cents to add to what Joe L. replied is that on the majority of all original type upper control shafts are usually painted along with the bushings, washers, and bolts. The lowers are as Mr. L. says, they are always natural.

[David H.]

Re: 69 Upper A Arms

... So, that's why the SERVICE assemblies have unpainted ends and PRODUCTION assemblies have painted ends. ... Beyond all that, the original a-arms on my original owner 1969 were fully painted. However, the shafts and bushings were not painted.

FWIW

Attached is a St Louis Assembly Line photo taken during Christmas break in December 1980. It shows partial painted a-arms on PRODUCTION Corvettes at least in 1981. (A-arms on my April 1980 are completely painted.)

Dave1981 Corvette Assembly Line.jpg

[Ron G.]

Re: 69 Upper A Arms

I would assume at that time is when the change occurred. Also, it is possible that they exhausted the arms that were completely painted and the same time were using the version with the ones with the unpainted ends. Just a thought.