Clutch Fork Boot

[Mark D.]

Has anyone ever had a judge mention anything about the clutch fork boot during judging? Do any of you chassis judges make a point of determining if the boot is real or Memorex?

I know it's a boring question but, I would really like to know how they are being judged. I'm especially interested in the C2 and early C3 cars.

Thanks,

Mark

[Michael G.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

Has anyone ever had a judge mention anything about the clutch fork boot during judging? Do any of you chassis judges make a point of determining if the boot is real or Memorex?

I know it's a boring question but, I would really like to know how they are being judged. I'm especially interested in the C2 and early C3 cars.

Thanks,

Mark

In my judging experiences have not had a mention of the boot....never

[Joe L.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

Has anyone ever had a judge mention anything about the clutch fork boot during judging? Do any of you chassis judges make a point of determining if the boot is real or Memorex?

I know it's a boring question but, I would really like to know how they are being judged. I'm especially interested in the C2 and early C3 cars.

Thanks,

Mark

Mark------


There were TWO clutch boots used in PRODUCTION over the 1965-81 period. From 1965 through 1972, boot GM #3844208 was used. From 1973-81 boot GM #3993851 was used.

Boot GM #3844208 was discontinued from SERVICE in October, 1965 and replaced by GM #3841738. The latter was discontinued in August, 1971 and replaced by the GM #3993851. Finally, GM #3993851 was discontinued in December, 1982 and replaced by GM #14007355.

I don't have an example of the 3844208 but I do have NOS examples of all the others. They are pictured below. The only difference I can discern between the 3841738 and the 3993851 is the type of rubber they are molded from. The earlier part is a stiffer type of rubber and the latter is much softer and more pliable. Otherwise, they appear the same to me. The 14007355 is also molded from the softer rubber but is also configured a bit differently than the earlier boots.
DSCN2674.jpgDSCN2673.jpgDSCN2672.jpgDSCN2671.jpg

[Joe L.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

A few more. Also, note that the "sag" at the top of the 3841738 is not part of its design but simply the result of long storage in the package.


DSCN2675.jpgDSCN2676.jpg

[Michael G.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

This is good information Joe but would be interesting to see what judges have to say about Mark's inquiry.

[Mark D.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

Thanks for the PICs. Here is a pic of an NOS 3844208...

[Mike E.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

Interesting that this thread and the one about the graying of the NCRS are on the same page. If we start one about the expanding girth of many of us, that would also help explain the non-judging of the fork boots. Fwiw, we don't have to judge those on 61-62, because in spite of what vendors say, the factory didn't install any.

[Joe L.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

Thanks for the PICs. Here is a pic of an NOS 3844208...

Mark------


It will be interesting to see what original boots on cars look like. I just do not recall the original boot on my car being configured like the 3844208. Of course, it's been a LONG time since I replaced it and my recollection is "cloudy", at best.

It may very well be that the change from the 3844208 to the 3841738 occurred for PRODUCTION about the same time it occurred for SERVICE but was never changed in the AIM's. Or, it may be that both were used alternately in PRODUCTION. Certainly, both were released about the same time.

[Dick W.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

Agree with Reverend Mike, there is no danger of me, Mark, or a few more on this forum being able to judge the boot when installed on the car.

[Vinnie P.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

Agree with Reverend Mike, there is no danger of me, Mark, or a few more on this forum being able to judge the boot when installed on the car.

In Scottsdale someone posed the question of the distance from bottom rail of chassis to ground on a '62...told them about 10 yrs ago was the height of my stomach when lying on my back...however, now I'm at least 3" too big...I offered to lie down and let him measure...but he didn't see the humor....

[Mark D.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

I've seen Freddie Grimm so far under a car all I could see were the bottom of his shoes

It seems to me with a mechanics mirror or one of those fancy gizmo's like Papa's got, one could easily judge the boot. I think that 208 boot has to be one of the rarest parts out there and was just wondering if repops were being gigged.

[Wayne M.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

......It will be interesting to see what original boots on cars look like. I just do not recall the original boot on my car being configured like the 3844208. Of course, it's been a LONG time since I replaced it and my recollection is "cloudy", at best. .....

How's this ? About mid-90's I removed what was left of the boot from the "403" bellhousing of my L78. You can see the 3844208 in the rubber, and the replacement service part tag 14007355, as Joe L. mentions.

Notice the light mist of orange paint on the rubber edge with the cast numbers. Being a Tonawanda big block, the bellhousing was all orange. Can I assume that the fork boot was installed prior to painting ?

[Mark D.]

Re: Clutch Fork Boot

That's a good lookin' boot, Wayne

My guess is that boot got orange on it when someone went by there with orange paint the second time. Unless 65 is different, the AIM would indicate it was installed in St. Louis.

Great pic!