1974 Rear bumper
Hello, I have a customer who needs the rear bumper replaced on his 1974. Can anyone recommend a quality replacement that will not crack and disintegrate like the origionals? I know several vendors supply them, but would like a recommendation on the best replacement. As always, thank you in advance for any and all help. John
-
-
Re: 1974 Rear bumper
John, I remember this a few years ago. Martin Novak 74 Convertible looked really nice. I'm sure others might bring you up to date now.Good Luck.
https://www.forums.ncrs.org/showthre...74+rear+bumper -
Re: 1974 Rear bumper
John
There are a number of alternatives available. The right choice for the owner is determined by their objectives. There is no replacement available that means NCRS originality standards so some level of deduction is inevitable. The following represents by opinion of each alternative although others may feel differently:
Alternative #1 :
Two piece design made of flex-fiberglass. This design normally will have the least deduction and it probably is the highest cost alternative. The material has more flexibility than fiberglass but more rigid than the original urethane. Since there is some flexibility it is easier to get a good fit between the bumper and the body and may result in less body shop hours to get a good fit. To my knowledge, Eckler's is the only source for this design.
Alternative #2
Two piece design made of fiberglass. With proper installation, this design will have a pleasing appearance because there is no flexibilty and the appearance will match the fiberglass body nicely. However, getting a good "bolt together " fit of the rigid bumper and rigid body requires body shop skill and time. Several suppliers offer this alternative. This alternative will normally get higher deductions than the flex-fiberglass design.
Alternative #3
One piece design of fiberglass with a simulated joint that is intended to give the appearance of a two piece design but is easily detectable. This design has the same appearance and fit issues as alternative #2 and probably has a lower total than the other two alternatives. Several suppliers offer this design.
In summary, the best choice depends on the owners' objectives in regard to originality, appearance and cost. I suspect that all alternatives represent a significant improvement in durability from the original urethane material.Comment
Comment