1963 3461S 340HP Accelerator Return Spring Connection

[Frederick H.]

The shop manual shows the return spring connects to a hole in the carb linkage just below where the accelerator rod connects but in other photos, it does not show the same hole. (Drawings showing the hole and current config attached). I currently have the return spring hooked directly "around" the accelerator rod. Don't see where it would make much difference mechanically, but I'm thinking the drawing is correct - thoughts?

Thanks,
Fred

[Rick H.]

I have the return spring thru the hole in the rod and thus no cotter pin needed on my 340hp car.

[Duke W.]

To the best of my recollection from when my SWC (mid production just short of 11,000) was brand new the return spring hooked into the hole in the rod to secure the rod to the throttle lever on the 340 HP engine. Section 6, Sheet C1.00 or the AIM shows the same configuration as the shop manual in the detail drawing (View A), but in the main drawing the spring end appears to be wrapped around the throttle rod. This sheet is dated 6-15-62 and has two revisions, one of which is the spring.

My original 3461S AFB does NOT have the hole in the throttle lever for the spring as shown in the shop manual, and from the photo of yours I don't see a hole, It is shown in the View A of the sheet, but a spring is not included.

AIM Section L-75 L-76, Sheet 3.00 lists the carburetor as 3826004 (manual transmissions, 3626006 called out in Section M-35 for L-75), but this sheet is dated 11-23-62, which is AFTER the start of production, and the revision record is empty. Usually if a sheet is completely changed the revision record will say 'redrawn and revised", but that's not the case here. Was there an earlier AFB part number that had the hole in the throttle lever for the return spring?

All we can do is speculate, and from my brief stint as a Pontiac production engineer right out of college I can tell you that many changes are made quickly on an ad hoc basis, and an easy example is a fastener change if a particular part number runs out, or low, and there is a similar part that has the necessary fit, from, and function.

So maybe early in production the plant requested (via TWX to production engineering) to simply use the return spring rather than a cotter pin to secure rod to the throttle lever, which would save on the part and time to install. Production engineering checked with the responsible design engineer who approved, and production engineering TWXed approval to the plant. Upon receipt the plant immediately implemented the change. Production engineering should have processed a change order to change the AIM sheet, but it fell through the crack. Remember there were a lot of change orders being processes early in '63 production.

However engineering did approve a change order to eliminate the hole for the return spring in the throttle lever and Carter was more than happy to do so because it eliminated one step in fabricating that part.

Bottom line is we'll never know for sure, but the above is a reasonable scenario.

If anyone has a very early '63 with the original early date coded AFB, does the throttle lever have the hole for the return spring as illustrated in the shop manual and AIM?

Duke

[Frederick H.]

Thanks all. I agree Duke - no telling how many things changed, especially in the first year of any model change. Mechanically, either way works.

[Alan D.]

Went over Noland's book and found both ways, so no help