1969 radiator cap

[E S.]

Hi all- I have a 69(L-46) that I ordered new that came with a 13# RC-6 radiator cap. The 68-69 TIMJG (6th ed.) only mentions RC-15 and RC-26 radiator caps for 68/69.
This car has 56xx mi; and no bolt has been disturbed under the hood except for the fuel filter, fuel filter bracket ,spark plugs, and master cylinder. What goes?
E.J.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Hi all- I have a 69(L-46) that I ordered new that came with a 13# RC-6 radiator cap. The 68-69 TIMJG (6th ed.) only mentions RC-15 and RC-26 radiator caps for 68/69.
This car has 56xx mi; and no bolt has been disturbed under the hood except for the fuel filter, fuel filter bracket ,spark plugs, and master cylinder. What goes?
E.J.

E.J.-------


A complete mystery. All 1968 and later Corvettes had 15 lb cooling systems. Some earlier than 68 did, too. I don't know why a 13 lb cap would even have been in the St. Louis factory by 1969.

[Patrick H.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Judging Guides have to describe what is typical factory configuration. For 1969, that would be the RC-16 and RC-26 radiator caps, depending on application.

Yours, if factory installed, would be "not typical" of a factory installation, and would be judged as such.

That's about all that can be said about it. Strange things happened in the factory, at dealership, and when in for service, so it is difficult to say how/when the cap ended up on the car.

[E S.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Patrick-Thank you (and Joe Lucia) for your input-This car arrived at the dealership on a friday afternoon,and I took delivery the following monday.Since that time, it has never been out of my possession for any reason, and the only work that has been done on it is:replaced calipers, (kept originals); replaced gas tank, fuel filter, air filter, spark plugs, and a few batteries- all work was done personally by me. Never had any radiator or overheating problem that would warrant a new radiator cap. If I would have replaced the cap, I would have certainly used the correct one, and I am reasonably sure that if the dealership had a reason to replace the cap before I took delivery, they would have surely used the correct cap also. That leaves the factory- This car was built during the strike, and that could explain some irregularities- Who knows?

[James G.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

The plausible explanation is that a service tech or mechanic at the dealership as a predelivery inspection or a thorough post arrival check was dealing with more than one vehicle and would leave the caps off the cars needing coolant - could have mixed up the caps between a couple of cars or a number of other scenarios, however I would more lean toward dealership service guy mixing caps. I know in the 80's as a matter of practice, installing hubcaps, antennas etc every fluid was checked prior to putting a car into available inventory.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Patrick-Thank you (and Joe Lucia) for your input-This car arrived at the dealership on a friday afternoon,and I took delivery the following monday.Since that time, it has never been out of my possession for any reason, and the only work that has been done on it is:replaced calipers, (kept originals); replaced gas tank, fuel filter, air filter, spark plugs, and a few batteries- all work was done personally by me. Never had any radiator or overheating problem that would warrant a new radiator cap. If I would have replaced the cap, I would have certainly used the correct one, and I am reasonably sure that if the dealership had a reason to replace the cap before I took delivery, they would have surely used the correct cap also. That leaves the factory- This car was built during the strike, and that could explain some irregularities- Who knows?

E.J.-------


Can you post a photo of the cap?

[E S.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Joe- Yes- Here it is-What application would this cap have?
Thanks E.J.IMG_20210326_150141335.jpg

[Joe L.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Joe- Yes- Here it is-What application would this cap have?
Thanks E.J.[ATTACH=CONFIG]105270[/ATTACH]

E.J.-------


It is a period-correct configuration. This cap had many applications across all GM car and truck lines. Most were 50's and early 60's model years. As far as Corvettes go, it was applicable to 1958-59 with fuel injection. The last Chevrolet passenger car to use it was some 1964. The last trucks were some 1968.

[E S.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Joe- Thanks for the technical information-this car was judged gold at Bloomington years ago, without mention about the radiator cap.- looks like that would be an easy catch.-Anyway-I see that you are also an original owner of a 69- mine is 307xx.
Thanks- E.J.

[Terry M.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Joe- Thanks for the technical information-this car was judged gold at Bloomington years ago, without mention about the radiator cap.- looks like that would be an easy catch.-Anyway-I see that you are also an original owner of a 69- mine is 307xx.
Thanks- E.J.

Or the judge(s) thought it was a factory anomaly.

[E S.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

James- Thanks for your reply- Your explanation is very reasonable, although- this dealership was in a very small farming community (Madison, Ks.); and they probably did not do many multiple pre-deliveries in a single day. Also- Apparently the RC-6 was only used on 58-59 FI cars, and 1968 trucks. It seems unlikely that the dealer would be doing a pre-delivery on a 1968 truck and a 69 corvette at the same time, but stranger things have surely happened!!
Thanks again for your input-E.J.

[E S.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Terry- Thanks for your input- I tend to agree that this might be a factory anomaly, but I blame it on the strike. I am familiar with the impact a strike can have in an aircraft assembly environment, and this is probably similar in an auto assembly environment as well.
You have techs and mechanics called in from other areas in the plant to do jobs that they are not familiar with- you have management pressuring the supervisors, lead men,and inspection dept. to : make some deliveries!! If there is a problem, let the dealership handle it!
Maybe they needed a radiator cap to get the car out the door, and a tech had a RC-6 cap in his tool box?
Thanks -E.J.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Terry- Thanks for your input- I tend to agree that this might be a factory anomaly, but I blame it on the strike. I am familiar with the impact a strike can have in an aircraft assembly environment, and this is probably similar in an auto assembly environment as well.
You have techs and mechanics called in from other areas in the plant to do jobs that they are not familiar with- you have management pressuring the supervisors, lead men,and inspection dept. to : make some deliveries!! If there is a problem, let the dealership handle it!
Maybe they needed a radiator cap to get the car out the door, and a tech had a RC-6 cap in his tool box?
Thanks -E.J.

E.J.-------


It is possible that the strike had something to do with it. However, the only way that I could envision it is if the strike caused a supply shortage of the RC-15 cap and a substitute had to be found. But, St. Louis had a perfect substitute. The RC-26, which was mandatory for Corvette with aluminum supply tanks, would have been a perfect substitute for the RC-15 and would have maintained the 15 PSI system.

I just can't see the St. Louis Corvette assembly plant having RC-6 caps in the plant in 1969. As a matter of fact, I can't see the larger, co-located St. Louis passenger car/truck plant having them, either.

[Terry M.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Terry- Thanks for your input- I tend to agree that this might be a factory anomaly, but I blame it on the strike. I am familiar with the impact a strike can have in an aircraft assembly environment, and this is probably similar in an auto assembly environment as well.
You have techs and mechanics called in from other areas in the plant to do jobs that they are not familiar with- you have management pressuring the supervisors, lead men,and inspection dept. to : make some deliveries!! If there is a problem, let the dealership handle it!
Maybe they needed a radiator cap to get the car out the door, and a tech had a RC-6 cap in his tool box?
Thanks -E.J.

There was a truck assembly line at St Louis at that time. It is possible your cap somehow migrated to the Corvette line. I am told it was not uncommon for employees to throw things at each other when the got bored, or wanted to attract the attention of one of their co-workers. The debris I found in the bottom of the storage compartments of my 1970 is testimony to that practice, and we won't go into the extra fasteners I found under the driver's carpet more recently in the car. But those items are another story for another time.

Edit add: I see Joe Lucia thinks the above was not possible. I don't want to start a debate with Joe. As noted below, whatever happened to get this cap on your car is not germane to the judging process. It makes for interesting speculation, and were it possible to explain, adds to the story of your car, but as judges we don't have to explain how every deduction came about.

During the 1969 work stoppage there was no production at St Louis. Corvette or other lines. Could start up have confused things?

Remember as judges it is not our job to tell why something happened. We only need to identify Typical Factory Production (TFP). We sometimes fall into the trap of trying to figure out the "why" because sometimes in identifying what is not TFP another part of the car's story is revealed. However, at the end of the day our assessment of originality is based on TFP. You have two options with your radiator cap if you intend to have the car judged in the future. Find and install a correct RC-15 cap (and place the RC6 in storage), or leave the RC6 on the car knowing that you MAY receive a deduction.

To put all of this thread in perspective there are 3 originality points for the radiator cap on the 1968-72 score sheets. Since the cap you have is only slightly different in configuration (stamped number(s)) we have a minor configuration deduction. Now 20% of those three points is a total configuration deduct. Figure 20% of three points is less than 1 (in fact it is around half a point), and one can debate for a long time if that slight difference in configuration merits a total configuration deduct or not. BTW: some judges do not believe in partial CDCIF deductions. They believe any deviation, no matter how slight, is grounds for a complete 20% deduct. That is also a debate for another time and place. In any case, I would submit no deduction is warranted for this deviation. Maybe place a dot in the margin if your team leader allows that practice. The judge should make some notation so that you, Mr Owner, knows that the deviation was observed. That way Mr Owner can chose to take some action or make a decision not to. Now it is time to judge other cars. Let's move on.

[E S.]

Re: 1969 radiator cap

Joe- probably won't ever know what really happened-Thanks for the help though
E. J.