224 Tung Sol Flasher
Does this appear to be a correct turn signal flasher for an early Shark, with the little split nipple in the center? Thanks
-
-
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
Neat Pat!,
Is it dated too? (three small no.'s on the side)
Kevin -
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
Well I'm not sure yet ...
. I bought this flasher on Ebay because it seemed to be close to the descriptions I read in the archives; this is the auction picture.
However, what I got in today appears to be a blue metal top with no nipple, and Tung Sol on the side along with the numbers 409 (40th week of 69?).
I could and may return the flasher simply because it didn't match the auction, but I'd like to know what's correct first.
Kevin, does your comment mean you think the picture's correct?Comment
-
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
Pat,
Pete Lindahl is THE flasher guy. He will get around to commenting; but his day job doesn't allow much "surfing."
Do the legs (electrical connections on the bottom) have holes in them, or are they solid?
Does the top have DOT stamped in it?
Answers to these questions will help Pete when he gets around to commenting.TerryComment
-
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
Terry, the auction claimed there was no DOT mark on it. But since I wasn't sent the one in the picture, I can't confirm this or whether the legs have holes on that flasher.
The flasher I was sent (unlike the photo) has no DOT mark and no holes in the legs.Comment
-
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
Pat,Well I'm not sure yet .... I bought this flasher on Ebay because it seemed to be close to the descriptions I read in the archives; this is the auction picture.
However, what I got in today appears to be a blue metal top with no nipple, and Tung Sol on the side along with the numbers 409 (40th week of 69?).
I could and may return the flasher simply because it didn't match the auction, but I'd like to know what's correct first.
Kevin, does your comment mean you think the picture's correct?
What you are describing that you actually received sounds more like the earlier 224 flasher that is correct for 64, 65, and possibly early 66. The early 224 flashers had the blue metal can without DOT marks. In 66 it was changed over to the plastic variety. The attached pic is of a correct 64 - early 66 224 flasher, so you can compare with what you actually received.
DonLast edited by Donald T.; June 18, 2009, 03:54 PM.Comment
-
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
Don - Bingo! That's exactly what I was sent. Now I know it's not correct for my 70, so all I need to know is if the picture I posted IS correct.Comment
-
-
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
That's the third revision packaging of the 224 flasher... The first version was, as others have mentioned, came in a metal can. The second version was in a blue plastic can that LACKED the 'split nipples' as you call them on top.
The third version introduced the 'split nipples' which were a means of 'snapping' the flasher into a square hole for retention vs. having a discrete flasher holder.
The third version can be found with and without DOT marks. The second version is DARN HARD to find apparently because it was so short lived...Comment
-
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
Oh, I doubt that (version two = 1970)... There are so few of these, that it's my gut feeling they worked themselves through the system in 1966 never to be seen again! As far as pix, shore nuf, happy to provide. But, I wouldn't be looking for this version of the part on your '70....Comment
-
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
Pat - Please send it back if it is not as the eBay picture described. The date is probably 1979 rather than 1969 particularly if it does not have the split in the top piece. FYI, the split top is really a 1/4 turn screw that was used on Fords
to attach the flasher to a rectangular hole in a metal member under the dash. GM products did not need the screw feature because they used the clip that would hold both the round cover OEM flashers, such as Tung-Sol & Ideal and the rectangular cover OEM flashers, specifically Signal-Stat. Pete
Comment
-
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
Jack - Neat piece. Any production date info on the cover? PeteComment
-
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
Pat - Since it's a metal cover 224, it's probably a 1969 production rather then a 1979. I don't know that they manufactured the metal cover 224s into the late 70s. PeteComment
-
Re: 224 Tung Sol Flasher
OK Jack and Pete - please forgive Captain Obtuse .... So what the heck does a correct turn signal flasher look like for a 70?? 
Comment
Comment