|
Re: Correct 70-71 E-Body Windshield Washer Pumps
[Re: mccannix]
#265386
03/25/09 10:41 AM
03/25/09 10:41 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
David Walden
|
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
The theories presented here about the 3431295 being a one year wonder can probably be backed up by the fact that in this 1971 Chrysler price guide dated Jan 1,1972, 2809013 is available for $9.28...
I can only go by the original findings that we were able to document, accompanied by the input from those who actually worked at the factory. Barry was able to show a unit that defied the “one year” application but Chrysler always did seem to have a few oddities and contradictions in the mix of things. I believe the service bulletin that Bill Embree showed me, explains the purpose and reasoning for the differences. I am going to see Bill this weekend when Mike Ross comes up for a weekend visit. I will see if I can copy the sheet and post it to help answer some of these questions. If you think about the physical changes of the pump outlet and the different applications for the various year water bottles, it does make sense!
|
|
|
Re: Correct 70-71 E-Body Windshield Washer Pumps
[Re: Snoopy]
#265390
03/25/09 05:05 PM
03/25/09 05:05 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
David Walden
|
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
There were at least 5 Revisions of the 70 only Parts Book (Sept, Oct, Dec 69, Mar & May 70). 3431295 was not listed in the Sept 69 revision. It would be interesting to find out exactly when it first showed up in the 70 Parts Book. When a new part is shown for the first time in a parts book, it is indicated by a "#" preceding the part number.
The time frame for this part may have been very limited. It may have been used for only a few months and then replaced by 2809013.
Could these have been a one plant only option, LA or Hamtramck?
Hi Earl,
By viewing a couple of pictures that forum members were kind enough to post, there are some variations that may never have a documented explanation. I know the VIN pictures posted below have nothing (directly) to do with this particular subject matter. I am only showing them because it reminded me of a recent discussion that I had with a customer. Both VIN decals are from the the LA assembly plant. The customer wanted to know if I could match the "correct" font so he supplied me with his original title for verification and a sample picture that he borrowed from his friend's car. He was not aware that the "batch factory production line" font had a completely different appearance than the picture he supplied. The reason his friend's font had the odd "typed" look was because the car was built with a factory sunroof. This particular car was taken off of the assembly line in order to have the necessary roof alterations performed. By doing this, it received a VERY RARE font type VIN decal. I have the factory blueprints and regulation bulletins for the Cert/VIN decals but this "manual" process was NEVER mentioned anywhere.
The point is that many cars ended up with items or scenarios that required a certain change but were not documented by normal protocol. If I wouldn't have explained this concept, the customer would have believed that this "typed" font was the Rule rather than the Exception.
Concerning the washer pumps, one might ask, did the engineered part run out only to be replaced by an alternate (but functional) part? Was there a short period of time (not mandated by engineering specs) that required a substitute version? Who knows! All of these factory pump variations certainly existed. The facts are facts but may never be substantiated with any verifiable proof or explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
