63 radiator decal/label/marking

[Paul J.]

Re: 63 radiator decal/label/marking

Syd,

It's fish oil so it shouldn't hurt the paint.

Rich

Bad information. WD 40 does not contain fish oil.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/090724-wd-40.html

http://www.wd40.com/about-us/myths-legends-fun-facts/

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/wd-40.asp

If you don't believe any of this, check the MSDS sheets. It is mostly petroleum based solvents and oil.

Like any mild petroleum solvent it will remove paint, but only in small and controllable amounts. I've also found that it has practically no effect on certain paints. It's a more effective paint remover on flat and semi-gloss paints than on glossy paints.

[Richard M.]

Re: 63 radiator decal/label/marking

Okay, I stand corrected.....it is not fish oil.

Apologies Syd. I must have heard that myth long ago that is explained so well in one of those three very informative links. Fish oil or not, I would use it to remove the residue from the label. I have used it before with good results on delicate paint and plastics.

On my can of WD-40 it says it....
Cleans: Grease, Grime, Tar, Adhesives, Gum, Tape, Crayon, Scuff marks, & Water Deposits.

Rich
p.s. WD-40 also works great as a paint protector against bug juice too, especially "acid" blooded Florida Love Bugs.
BTW, maybe they don't actually contain "acid", but they will eat through the paint if left in the sun.

[Sydney G.]

Re: 63 radiator decal/label/marking

Rich,

The '16CT' on my Dewitt rad seems to be an Ink Stamp, not a Sticker so I'm not sure if the WD40 will work.

Seeing that my coupe is unrestored, I don't think that I'll go Mike's route of repainting the top of the rad at this point to just lose the incorrect stamp. Although by messing with the new part I guess I'd probably end up matching it to the rest of the car.

I suppose I can always place the caution sticker over it.

Syd

[Richard M.]

Re: 63 radiator decal/label/marking

Rich,

The '16CT' on my Dewitt rad seems to be an Ink Stamp, not a Sticker so I'm not sure if the WD40 will work.

Syd

Ok I see.......I would call Tom Dewitt and ask his advice.

Rich

[Paul J.]

Re: 63 radiator decal/label/marking

Rich,

The '16CT' on my Dewitt rad seems to be an Ink Stamp, not a Sticker so I'm not sure if the WD40 will work.

Syd

Syd, I'd still try Rich's suggestion. WD-40 is a mild solvent. It's not aggressive like acetone and toluene. You can rub fairly hard and nothing will happen.

Work on a very small area and see what happens. If you're concerned about harming the paint, test a small spot on the bottom or side.

If that doesn't remove it I'd try a more harsh solvent, and I'd be careful.

Paul

[Martin M.]

Re: 63 radiator decal/label/marking

Rich/John,
My rad has 63F stamped in it, so should be correct for July 63 car?, I know it is original rad. I had the CT stamped on it where the "caution" label should be, had caution label on the expansion tank, so will change that. I can still see the old green number 3 on my rad, so will put a new one over it. John

Perhaps a little history is in order for those of you who were not around 25 years ago. David Van Weele was the original owner of a 1963 Z06 Small Tank, no K/O car. It was a later build, as he waited for the knock-offs that never arrived. After many many road miles he decided that the car needed a complete restoration, and he and another NCRS member did a great one.

He had kept any part he removed from the car. As I understand it, his original radiator had the 16ct stamp on it. He made a stamp to restamp the radiator. Then made a few more and sold them. To my knowledge this is how so many cars now have it. Works for me. Maybe it was not on all cars. It was certainly on his.

As an aside, I was with Dave at a NorthEast Chapter meet in Mystic, CT, around 1985 (Anyone remember 'Video Restorations?) where he submitted his car for judging, mostly so other owners could reference it. After judging he was told it was not bad, but there were several things wrong. One of them was that the alternator belt was much too thin and rode too low in the belt. Dave responded that it was OK as it was the original belt which he had kept, and it was supposed to be that far into the pulley so it would stay on at 6000 rpm. Then he was told that his tires had stuff all over them, and they had deducted for that. Even when Dave showed them the pics he had taken at the dealers when he picked it up new, and the stuff was on the tires then. He told them they were 'Gum Dipped' tires and were supposted to be that way. They left the deductions as is. So - the moral is - be careful where the information you are passing on came from.

Marty #2781

[Michael G.]

Re: 63 radiator decal/label/marking

Martin,

Thanks for the history and advice. I agree that one should be careful where the info came from, so I'll tell you where mine came from:

1) The recommendations of one of the most knowledgeable 63 experts in NCRS, as well as his pics of early production cars.

2) At least six pictures in Nolan's book that show no evidence of the "16CT" mark on 63 radiators.

3) My personal review, as well as pics I took over the last year, of three original, low mileage 63 L84 cars. Not one had "16CT". I'll post a pic of one if you like.

I don't claim to be an expert now, but, I think that's pretty careful.

I don't doubt that some 1963 cars had the "16CT" mark, but I think the evidence suggests that most of them didn't. In my humble opinion, the best way to restore the cars that have no remaining clear evidence that they once had "16CT" on their original radiators, is to not put it on the restored radiator.

Perhaps a little history is in order for those of you who were not around 25 years ago. David Van Weele was the original owner of a 1963 Z06 Small Tank, no K/O car. It was a later build, as he waited for the knock-offs that never arrived. After many many road miles he decided that the car needed a complete restoration, and he and another NCRS member did a great one.

He had kept any part he removed from the car. As I understand it, his original radiator had the 16ct stamp on it. He made a stamp to restamp the radiator. Then made a few more and sold them. To my knowledge this is how so many cars now have it. Works for me. Maybe it was not on all cars. It was certainly on his.

As an aside, I was with Dave at a NorthEast Chapter meet in Mystic, CT, around 1985 (Anyone remember 'Video Restorations?) where he submitted his car for judging, mostly so other owners could reference it. After judging he was told it was not bad, but there were several things wrong. One of them was that the alternator belt was much too thin and rode too low in the belt. Dave responded that it was OK as it was the original belt which he had kept, and it was supposed to be that far into the pulley so it would stay on at 6000 rpm. Then he was told that his tires had stuff all over them, and they had deducted for that. Even when Dave showed them the pics he had taken at the dealers when he picked it up new, and the stuff was on the tires then. He told them they were 'Gum Dipped' tires and were supposted to be that way. They left the deductions as is. So - the moral is - be careful where the information you are passing on came from.

Marty #2781

[Sydney G.]

Re: 63 radiator decal/label/marking

Perhaps a little history is in order for those of you who were not around 25 years ago. David Van Weele was the original owner of a 1963 Z06 Small Tank, no K/O car. It was a later build, as he waited for the knock-offs that never arrived. After many many road miles he decided that the car needed a complete restoration, and he and another NCRS member did a great one.

He had kept any part he removed from the car. As I understand it, his original radiator had the 16ct stamp on it. He made a stamp to restamp the radiator. Then made a few more and sold them. To my knowledge this is how so many cars now have it. Works for me. Maybe it was not on all cars. It was certainly on his.

As an aside, I was with Dave at a NorthEast Chapter meet in Mystic, CT, around 1985 (Anyone remember 'Video Restorations?) where he submitted his car for judging, mostly so other owners could reference it. After judging he was told it was not bad, but there were several things wrong. One of them was that the alternator belt was much too thin and rode too low in the belt. Dave responded that it was OK as it was the original belt which he had kept, and it was supposed to be that far into the pulley so it would stay on at 6000 rpm. Then he was told that his tires had stuff all over them, and they had deducted for that. Even when Dave showed them the pics he had taken at the dealers when he picked it up new, and the stuff was on the tires then. He told them they were 'Gum Dipped' tires and were supposted to be that way. They left the deductions as is. So - the moral is - be careful where the information you are passing on came from.

Marty #2781

Thanks Marty.
Very interesting for sure. That Saddle Z06 was built just a little over 400 cars after my mid May coupe.
I had the pleasure of communicating with David several years back asking him about his original saddle seat belts and the x pattern.

I'll leave the 16CT stamp as is and get myself a caution sticker.

Syd