Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Differences restoring a St.Louis vs. Hamtramck plant? #1443993
05/28/13 11:03 PM
05/28/13 11:03 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



I know that there were some differences in the assembly procedure / application that varied plant to plant. I know that the under coating was applied a certain way with 1" tape over the holes and other areas masked off. Was there any differences between the two plants with b bodies such as black painted leaf springs vs. natural heat treated ones?

I am in the early stages of starting to freshen up a 69 GTX convertible and would like to get some knowledge on the St. Louis plant before I really dive into this resto.

Thanks,

Brian

Re: Differences restoring a St.Louis vs. Hamtramck plant? [Re: ] #1443994
05/29/13 09:41 PM
05/29/13 09:41 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 641
western australia
1
1cuda Offline
mopar
1cuda  Offline
mopar
1

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 641
western australia
I have a 69 charger st Louis built August 68. I will check out the leaf springs for you. Anything else? It is a very low miles unmolested car with great information on how it was done at the factory.all the best Frank

Re: Differences restoring a St.Louis vs. Hamtramck plant? [Re: 1cuda] #1443995
05/29/13 09:46 PM
05/29/13 09:46 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,367
Iowa
burdar Offline
Owen's Dad
burdar  Offline
Owen's Dad

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,367
Iowa
I thought the GTX was in really good unmolested shape? The car will probably tell you what you need to know.

Re: Differences restoring a St.Louis vs. Hamtramck plant? [Re: burdar] #1443996
05/29/13 10:25 PM
05/29/13 10:25 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,505
N.E. OHIO, USA
A12 Offline
Too Many Posts
A12  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,505
N.E. OHIO, USA
Quote:

I thought the GTX was in really good unmolested shape? The car will probably tell you what you need to know.




In most cases I would agree but in some there are things that you can't take for granted.....example: My '69 GTX (LA-"E" assembly plant) was in pretty much "unmolested" condition but "someone" sprayed most of the undercarraige with black paint. So knowing only how Lynch Road Assembly and St. Louis did '68/'69 B-bodies I was confused as to what to do about that...........I'll wait for the Moparts experts (and I mean that in a positive and good way ) to chime in and you'll see what the OP has a good question because I never knew this

Re: Differences restoring a St.Louis vs. Hamtramck plant? [Re: A12] #1443997
05/29/13 10:28 PM
05/29/13 10:28 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,505
N.E. OHIO, USA
A12 Offline
Too Many Posts
A12  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,505
N.E. OHIO, USA
engine compartment when I got the GTX, pretty sure it wasn't restored before

Re: Differences restoring a St.Louis vs. Hamtramck plant? [Re: burdar] #1443998
05/31/13 08:42 AM
05/31/13 08:42 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Quote:

I thought the GTX was in really good unmolested shape? The car will probably tell you what you need to know.




Burdar,

The vehicle is in fantastic shape. However, like A12 said, there are a lot of little differences such as how and when the undercoating was applied that I am finding out. Other areas such as painted leaf springs vs. natural heat treated steel are in question as they seem to have black paint on them but a previous owner had painted the rear axle (but fortunately masked over the center bump and preserved the original paint marking) gloss or semi gloss black. As my time is very valuable to me, I would only like to restore it once. lol







Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1