Early 63 PCV

[Justin A.]

Is this supposed to be a rubber grommet or a metal sleeve????

[Timothy B.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

Justin,

I think it's a rubber grommet and the GM metal sleeve service part came later. Look in archives as there is a detailed discussion about this from a few years ago..

Long story short, I think the sleeve bushing is the only available part.

[John D.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

When did the rubber grommet replace the sleeve/grommet assembly? Thank, JD

[Justin A.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

I am under the impression that all 63's until May 10 had the steel sleeve, and after that it went to a rubber grommet.

[John D.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

Justin, The May 10th date we have seen mentioned here or elsewhere appears to be in error. The sleeve/grommet assembly is used much later than May. How late I do not know. Thanx, JD

[Justin A.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

So what was used previous to this. Was it still the steel washer.

[Michael H.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

Is this supposed to be a rubber grommet or a metal sleeve????

The original design used two separate pieces. A steel sleeve that was pressed into the block, and a grommet that fit inside the sleeve.

The 63 AIM does call out a change from the two separate pieces to a single grommet in May of 1963 but the change didn't actually occur in production until later. Unrestored cars as late as some in the 19,000 VIN range still have their original sleeve/grommet.

If someone happens to have a good pic of both styles, it would probably help those that have never seen the original sleeve design.

[John H.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

So what was used previous to this. Was it still the steel washer.

Justin -

The first design (steel sleeve and rubber grommet) was used until well after the change date shown in the Assembly Manual, as noted by Michael Hanson.

The '63 JG Revision Team should note that there is no reference at all in the new 5th Edition to the first design, which ran for most of the model year; only the second design (grommet only) is mentioned in the JG.

[Lynn H.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

My car is a late build (19210) and is original and has the steel and rubber version.
Lynn

[Michael H.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

My car is a late build (19210) and is original and has the steel and rubber version.
Lynn

Thanks Lynn. It's beginning to look like no 63's up to at least the 20,000 VIN range had the later issue rubber grommet without the sleeve.

[Joe L.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

My car is a late build (19210) and is original and has the steel and rubber version.
Lynn

Lynn-----


I'll bet that rubber grommet is about "rock hard" and cracked by now.

[Harry S.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

Lynn, can you post a picture?

Thanks

[Lynn H.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

Harry,
I will try to do so later this afternoon, as I have a previous appointment this morning. I will also have to clean it up so I get a good look at it. When I went out last night to investigate this, I found it to be rather greasy around this area. I will try to get a good photo to post.
And Joe,
You are probably right, as I stated it was pretty greasy back there when I investigated last evening, so maybe all that grease "preserved" it a little. It did seem to be a little hard when I stuck my thumb nail into it, but at first glance it did not appear to be cracked, or leaking around it. I am in Michigan, but my car spent the first 39 years in a much better climate (California) with the original owner, so that may have helped a little also.
I will definitely get a photo and more info later today.
It also surprises me somewhat that the latest JG does NOT mention this setup (from post by Mr. Hinckley) if it was the primary one used that late into the build. I would think the revision team for the JG would certainly want to look into this further.
Lynn

[John D.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

The problem we have with parts such as this PCV Sleeve assembly etc is that sometimes we let the AIMS be our guide to determine if a part was used in a certain time factor and this doesn't pan out.

I am looking for a nice pic of a NOS sleeve and grommet assembly and will send it to Hanson so he can post it as I never learned how. JD

[Michael H.]

Re: Early 63 PCV

The problem we have with parts such as this PCV Sleeve assembly etc is that sometimes we let the AIMS be our guide to determine if a part was used in a certain time factor and this doesn't pan out.

DeGregory is correct. (that's twice, now) A change date in the AIM is NOT the same as the date the item/procedure actually changed on the assembly line.
In some cases, it IS close, but in many/most others, it's not. The actual/physical change on the assy line can be weeks/months after the AIM date.