|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: Paul Jacobs]
#77002
07/01/08 01:37 PM
07/01/08 01:37 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,802
Ontario, Canada
mccannix
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,802
Ontario, Canada
|
Dave and Steve I applaud your adamant ambition and stunning arduous accomplishment in this masterpiece. Your incredibly undaunted desire to assimilate this time capsule will predictably ensure your imminent prestige among your peers and will be unrivaled for some time by even the most resolute learners.......... ..uh..did I say that.  ..night school does pay off. Congratulations Dave and Steve on a job well done. I cant wait to see it in person at the Nats....
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: gtx6970]
#77007
07/03/08 01:31 PM
07/03/08 01:31 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
David Walden
|
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
but what about the upper hose ?
this application should have the 2863257 upper hose. but by the looks of it, it has 2806186
I had the pleasure of spending the afternoon with Richard Hiedbreder and looking at his collection of low mileage survivor cars yesterday. Dave Stuart and Steve also made the trip. Earlier in the day Dave was kind enough to give us a tour of the Chrysler training facility. (That is a story in and of itself.) Here are some photos that I took to document a couple of characteristics that probably would have been deductions by some judges at certain shows. Notice the original upper hoses (A/C cars) are the same as what we used on the Challenger project but have been considered suspect for the application. The other shows the plug that Paul J. had questioned on the car. We all agree that these cars had various differences and/or vendor suppliers. This certainly helps to solidify that realization.
   
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: ECS]
#77008
07/03/08 01:59 PM
07/03/08 01:59 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,741
KY
65pacecar
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,741
KY
|
Quote:
Quote:
but what about the upper hose ?
this application should have the 2863257 upper hose. but by the looks of it, it has 2806186
I had the pleasure of spending the afternoon with Richard Hiedbreder and looking at his collection of low mileage survivor cars yesterday. Dave Stuart and Steve also made the trip. Earlier in the day Dave was kind enough to give us a tour of the Chrysler training facility. (That is a story in and of itself.) Here are some photos that I took to document a couple of characteristics that probably would have been deductions by some judges at certain shows. Notice the original upper hoses (A/C cars) are the same as what we used on the Challenger project but have been considered suspect for the application. The other shows the plug that Paul J. had questioned on the car. We all agree that these cars had various differences and/or vendor suppliers. This certainly helps to solidify that realization.
Excellent photos, Thanks! That is exactly what I was referring to in the earlier post regarding different vendors, build dates, inspections, etc. The judges need to consider several issues before assuming there is only one correct method, part, finish or mark.
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: 65pacecar]
#77009
07/03/08 02:25 PM
07/03/08 02:25 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,765
quick77rt
Parts Problem
|
Parts Problem
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,765
|
Awsome post, and great car. Its no wonder people travel great distance to see and doc. org cars for future use. I have known auto workers most my life and have been told no two cars will ever be exactly the same from a production line where a human being does the work. Moods, attitude, day of the week, its no wonder each sticker might not be straight, in the exact spot, one thing stamped clear vs smudged. No one cares much for the f-body cars but ive taken apart some that I have owned that were 3 digits apart on the vin and much was different. What is right, what is wrong? Do you think the guy on the production line cared if he had one run here or two.....probably not. Then, just as it is now it was a 8 hour a day factory job, each car is the same yet different. I think since more of the newer cars are so much more automated in production they are bound to be more equal andthe same vs the cars of the past. None the less this is a great post and alot more pics seen here then we will ever see in a mag feature 
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: ECS]
#77010
07/03/08 03:46 PM
07/03/08 03:46 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 21,962
Enjoy life today, It has an ex...
gtx6970
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 21,962
Enjoy life today, It has an ex...
|
Dave,
all due respect. but the low mileage 1970 GTX would be extremely suspect - wrong plug wires, wrong radiator cap, added electronic ingition.and you can;t see enough in the challenger pic to make a determination. how about a pic of the hose(hoses) from the opposite side.
If you have it , whats the pt number called for on the buildsheet for the upper hose.
My parts book calls for 2863257 (used from 1969 thru 1971 on B+ E bodies with max cooling OR with A/C ) .which is shaped nothing like what you have shown.
Enjoy life today, It has an expiration date
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: quick77rt ]
#77011
07/03/08 03:51 PM
07/03/08 03:51 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,855
Georgetown Ontario Canada
anlauto
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,855
Georgetown Ontario Canada
|
The GTX hose appears smooth while the Challenger hose appears as we would textured slightly. I would guess either two different hose suppliers or the GTX is not original.
Why would the correct hose be in question if it's marked on the BCS?
CHECK OUT MY NEW WEB SITE !
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: gtx6970]
#77015
07/04/08 12:55 AM
07/04/08 12:55 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
David Walden
|
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
Dave,
all due respect. but the low mileage 1970 GTX would be extremely suspect - wrong plug wires, wrong radiator cap, added electronic ingition.and you can;t see enough in the challenger pic to make a determination. how about a pic of the hose(hoses) from the opposite side.
If you have it , whats the pt number called for on the buildsheet for the upper hose.
My parts book calls for 2863257 (used from 1969 thru 1971 on B+ E bodies with max cooling OR with A/C ) .which is shaped nothing like what you have shown.
Thanks for the pictures Bill. You have actually illustrated a point that I am starting to believe concerning these hoses. In you’re previous post you had mentioned plug wires, ignition, and cap. Sounds like a car that probably had a tune up some time during it’s 11,000 mile existence. Hardly proof for assuming that items like the belts, radiator hoses, heater hoses, etc….. were replaced. Richard and his son Ryan were kind enough to spend the day showing us between 30-40 survivor vehicles. One of the areas that I specifically referenced were the radiator hoses. It wouldn’t do you a lot of good to see the other end of the hoses Bill because NOT ONE of the original radiator hoses had a part number or Pentastar printed on them. I am starting to believe that ALL factory hoses had a printed stripe that ran the length of the hose and DID NOT have a part number or Chrysler logo. If you want to disagree please answer just one question. How could EVERY SINGLE one of his cars, collected from different areas across the country, ALL exhibit this single stripe characteristic? Either it is one huge, hose conspiracy or there is a repo manufacturer out there that no one is aware of except Richard. His yellow Hemicuda, purple convertible Challenger, green Superbird, 71 two tone Sixpack Cuda, AAR Cuda, etc…. ALL had radiator hoses that exhibited ONE stripe with a date code and five digit number. It appears that our hobby has bought into using re-stamps of period correct “service hoses” and are pawning them off as assembly line originals. I guess the question really should be, how can anyone determine the correct hose (specific to the build sheet) if it does not have the part number printed on the hose? Also how could three different survivor A/C cars ALL have the exact coincidental “wrong” radiator hoses on them? Richard certainly didn’t come across as a “story teller” but maybe you guys know more about his vehicles than he does. He said the hoses were original on ALL of the cars that we looked at!
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: anlauto]
#77016
07/04/08 01:02 AM
07/04/08 01:02 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
David Walden
|
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
I would guess
Please stop "guessing". It ruins the hobby and confuses those who sincerely search for the facts.
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: ECS]
#77018
07/04/08 01:20 AM
07/04/08 01:20 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,760
N.E. OHIO, USA
A12
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,760
N.E. OHIO, USA
|
Quote:
“I am starting to believe that ALL factory hoses had a printed stripe that ran the length of the hose and DID NOT have a part number or Chrysler logo.”
Dave, can you please clarify your statement? Do you mean ALL factory hoses including heater hoses etc., or just the top radiator return hose?
|
|
|
|
|
) Since you made mention of the computer part of the process I thought it might be a good idea to show a bit of what you referred to. It is actually one of the same examples I showed you yesterday. One reason I say our decals are exact to the originals is because they basically ARE the originals made at this day in time. (The time portal works in both directions I guess.) 
The items you receive from ECS are EXACT duplicates of what came on your cars when they were new! Here is an abbreviated sample of a 1971 B Body trunk jacking decal and how the images are recreated. I actually scan an original and re-draw every single line and detail. My first one took over 100 hours some 11 years ago. EVERY decal we manufacture starts with this same process to guarantee authenticity to the "nth" degree. The top picture shows the original artwork and the reproduced lines. The lower illustration is without the original background. 
....well, that's one way to make sure the spelling is correct. 
