exterior/fuel filler area judging

[Arnold P.]

going over my judging sheets i noticed i was "dinged" for no spring for fuel overflow hose spring. exterior, item 9. if interpret the aim, it specifys a strap, p/n 2328616, no spring. am i missing something? thnx in advance, pappy. 63 swc dec 62 build date.

[Harry S.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

This is from Paragon.

http://www.corvette-paragon.com/catalog/Product.aspx?id=39D1B88F-DAFB-43F9-BA1D-0342F431109C

I can not recall what the 63 spring looks like or if all 63's had them.

Harry

[Arnold P.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

hi,harry, thnx for responding. the aim that i have makes no mention of any spring. internal or external. only the strap. could have this been a later change? my car is a dec 26 62 build date , just like the capacitor for the blower fan motor that was revised with am/fm radio? thnx again,pappy.

[Bob J.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

Pappy, your car never had a spring inserted inside the hose .
If you have the correct size nipple inside the boot and attached overflow hose the repo spring can NOT be installed anyway ......its too large in diameter.Good luck,Bob

[Mike M.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

Hey Pappy
There may be some confusion as to the location of the spring
due to its being labelled as a "Filler Neck Hose Overflow Spring"
Actually, the spring is inserted into the lower end of that hose to deter kinking of the hose as it passes through the rear body panel into the lower bumper tip and secured to that brace with the "Tee" strap.
The spring is about 12 inches long and the end may be pushed up into the hose an inch or two and with the exit location making it difficult to see.
The "Tee" straps match those on the firewall harness and are specific in color to the year of the car; '63 - Semi Clear, '64 and up - Black.
HaND

[Dan H.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

Well, RJ is correct, 63 didn't have a 'spring', different pn for hose from 63 to 64. Spring was added to 64 AIM on 10-14-63 for 64 model year. Also, the 'T' strap is pn 2328616 for both 63 and 64 which is also the same strap used in the engine compartment, both 63 and 64 are the light 'clear' color. Don't know where the 'black' strap color for 64 came from, my originals were always the 'clear' ones, 63 and 64.
Dan

[John D.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

going over my judging sheets i noticed i was "dinged" for no spring for fuel overflow hose spring. exterior, item 9. if interpret the aim, it specifys a strap, p/n 2328616, no spring. am i missing something? thnx in advance, pappy. 63 swc dec 62 build date.

Pappy, I see you didn't talk the judges out of that ding. I did. That spring is a common misconception for a 63. The 63 uses a very small hose compared to 64 and later. Once again 63 is all by itself. No spring is used either. Just a piece of cheep hose that is either even with the bumper edge or in say a tad-3/8" - held in place with a typical yellowed strap., (white)
Lets see. Did the nice judge have a chew? No it wasn't him this time.
See page 59 in the 5th. CC is 100% correct. Spring didn't come out till approx '64 vin 4000.

[Bob J.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

Well, RJ is correct, 63 didn't have a 'spring', different pn for hose from 63 to 64. Spring was added to 64 AIM on 10-14-63 for 64 model year. Also, the 'T' strap is pn 2328616 for both 63 and 64 which is also the same strap used in the engine compartment, both 63 and 64 are the light 'clear' color. Don't know where the 'black' strap color for 64 came from, my originals were always the 'clear' ones, 63 and 64.
Dan

Dan, that is exactly right in that no 63 had a spring.
The filler neck seal (boot) , the nipple for attaching the hose to the seal, and the hose itself were unique to 63.
The 63 hose is smaller than the later hose.
Few 63s survive with their original hoses because they became clogged easily and were removed. Bob

[Timothy B.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

Dan, that is exactly right in that no 63 had a spring.
The filler neck seal (boot) , the nipple for attaching the hose to the seal, and the hose itself were unique to 63.
The 63 hose is smaller than the later hose.
Few 63s survive with their original hoses because they became clogged easily and were removed. Bob

Is there anyone that can explain the difference in the boot, nipple and hose for the 63 cars, any pictures will help.

[Michael H.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

Is there anyone that can explain the difference in the boot, nipple and hose for the 63 cars, any pictures will help.

Tim,

Here are the two designs for 63 and 64-67. The fat one is 64-67.

[Timothy B.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

Thanks Mike, that's exactly what I am looking for, it's obvious that the hose size would be smaller but I would like to know what's the difference in the boot, I may have the correct boot on my car. I can't find a reproduction nipple for a 63 car.

[Perry M.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

To the best of my knowledge, nobody makes the 63 nipple or hose. All the venders sell the hose for 63 to 67, with a spring inserted, but they are wrong. My 63 has the original nipple but the hose has been cut short and is stiff. I have been looking for the original hose for some time now. It is supposed to be a hose with 3 ridges as the larger one for the 64 to 67 hose but only has a 3/16'' ID. Does anybody have a source for the correct hose?

[Timothy B.]

Re: exterior/fuel filler area judging

Perry, At least now I know the hose size for the 63.

On my 67 the hose looks like a 3/8"ID and has ribs like you describe and is much stiffer than the reproduction hose that's sold. I did not see any spring inside either and it really does not need one but I will probe further up inside and see if I can find a spring. I understand this hose is 45 years old and it's thin wall rubber but nowhere like the flimsy repro rubber hose.