Interior Mirror For 64 coupe

[Art A.]

Re: Interior Mirror For 64 coupe

Thanks John, all afternoon I have been trying to figure a way to explain the 3 Fs.....Form, Fit and Function and just how it relates to the Engineering releasing system.


Michael
My earlier comments were to try (I guess I failed) and point out that the Engineering releasing system (and the down stream systems) were actually very good and considering the complexity of the process, their were very few errors made.

For example of the complexity, in the early 80s GM did an internal diagnosis of just how many combinations of the 'B' car were available. Before I give you the results, just take a wild a** guess...............................



I will give the answer later, but I will give you a hint.............the Chevrolet "B" car could be produced for an entire model year run without ever producing the SAME exact vehicle.

I'll chime in with one - both the Eaton and Schwitzer clutches meet exactly the same Engineering requirements in terms of their friction-vs.-temperature profile for controlling fan function, and both install exactly the same way and are dimensionally the same in terms of lengths, bolt circles and fasteners, so both are shown in the A.I.M. as being 100% interchangeable in terms of function (and stayed that way for many years for many other GM vehicle usages as well).

However, they use different technology in their internal design, were designed by the suppliers (not by GM), and each supplier separately patented their design and technology long before they sold them to GM. When GM adopted them and gave them GM part numbers, each supplier's design got a unique part number due to their technical, physical, and configuration differences (not their functional similarity).

When Delco "copied" the Eaton clutch design and manufactured fan clutches for several years, those Delco clutches got yet another set of different part numbers (until Eaton sued for patent infringement and Delco had to stop producing them).

[Michael H.]

Re: Interior Mirror For 64 coupe

Jack, I not going to get in the middle of this pi**ing contest, but I do know that this statement is not correct:

"TWO part numbers (primary and secondary supplier). It's pretty typical for one of these to have been GM's Guide division while the second was an outside vendor."

It didn't matter if a part came from GM division or an outside vendor, the part number would have been the same for a like part. The Engineering releasing system could not/did not allow a like part to have two different part numbers.

I have not done research to determine the reason for the two part numbers in the AIM that you mention, but I'm sure it has some other explanation.

I was agreeing with Jack Humphrey's statement that there were two different part numbers for the standard inside mirror. It sounded to me like you disagreed. That's why I mentioned the few other parts that would be listed in an AIM that also had different part numbers but were installed the same as one another.

[Art A.]

Re: Interior Mirror For 64 coupe

I was agreeing with Jack Humphrey's statement that there were two different part numbers for the standard inside mirror. It sounded to me like you disagreed. That's why I mentioned the few other parts that would be listed in an AIM that also had different part numbers but were installed the same as one another.

Michael
Yes, I do disagree. It was/is highly unlikely that Engineering released two parts that were IDENTICAL in form, fit, and function.

et all
I guess no one cares or wants to venture a guess on how many combinations were available?????????

[Michael H.]

Re: Interior Mirror For 64 coupe

Michael
Yes, I do disagree. It was/is highly unlikely that Engineering released two parts that were IDENTICAL in form, fit, and function.

et all
I guess no one cares or wants to venture a guess on how many combinations were available?????????

Yes, I agree. But that's not what Jack was talking about. He specifically stated that there were two different part numbers for the inside mirror shown in the AIM. I agreed. Your reply to Jack was;

"Jack, I not going to get in the middle of this pi**ing contest, but I do know that this statement is not correct:

It didn't matter if a part came from GM division or an outside vendor, the part number would have been the same for a like part. The Engineering releasing system could not/did not allow."

Jack is correct. The AIM does show two different part numbers for the mirror. I agree that it is unusual but there are a few different parts in the C2 AIM's that have an optional second part number.

There were a lot of things that went on at GM and the assy plant 40-50 years ago that will probably never have a logical explanation.

[Art A.]

Re: Interior Mirror For 64 coupe

Michael, Your are correct, What Jack stated was OK.....sorry Jack.

I was confusing your statement......"And, the reason both of these fan clutches ALREADY had their own part number is because they were shown and available in service under their own part numbers before the AIM for that model year was released. The parts book shows two clutches for the same application without a physical description." with his.

I didn't feel that your above statement was correct (I think John Hinckley addressed the situation well) and someone (earlier in the thread) made the statement that they were identical parts....................that's what I was trying to clarify. Engineering would not have released two part numbers for IDENTICAL parts.

Sorry for the confusion!

Yes, I agree. But that's not what Jack was talking about. He specifically stated that there were two different part numbers for the inside mirror shown in the AIM. I agreed. Your reply to Jack was;

"Jack, I not going to get in the middle of this pi**ing contest, but I do know that this statement is not correct:

It didn't matter if a part came from GM division or an outside vendor, the part number would have been the same for a like part. The Engineering releasing system could not/did not allow."

Jack is correct. The AIM does show two different part numbers for the mirror. I agree that it is unusual but there are a few different parts in the C2 AIM's that have an optional second part number.

[Michael H.]

Re: Interior Mirror For 64 coupe

Michael, Your are correct, What Jack stated was OK.....sorry Jack.

I was confusing your statement......"And, the reason both of these fan clutches ALREADY had their own part number is because they were shown and available in service under their own part numbers before the AIM for that model year was released. The parts book shows two clutches for the same application without a physical description." with his.

I didn't feel that your above statement was correct (I think John Hinckley addressed the situation well) and someone (earlier in the thread) made the statement that they were identical parts....................that's what I was trying to clarify. Engineering would not have released two part numbers for IDENTICAL parts.

Sorry for the confusion!

Thanks Art. I think, in a way, we were all saying the same thing.

On the reference to the existing part numbers, I think both the 3814137 and 3814560 fan clutches were both available in service under their respective part numbers as far back as the SOP for the 62 model year.