|
Post deleted by moparts
[Re: 62maxwgn]
#77082
07/05/08 08:30 PM
07/05/08 08:30 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: Barnabas_Kriss]
#77083
07/05/08 08:52 PM
07/05/08 08:52 PM
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 6,446
NJ-USA
HPMike
master
|
master
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 6,446
NJ-USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have a 70 340 Cuda, built in Los Angeles, that I am presently restoring. The K-member shows NO sign of ever being painted black!!! Looks to have been bare steel from day one. Car appears to have never been apart previously. Has anyone seen another like this? I know Resto Rick states he has, on his web page! Anyone else? 
I have a 70 Challenger, that has a gray painted K-frame. Car was never apart before I got it, also had the part number stamped right on top of the gray paint. I'm sure it came that way, so I restored it the same way. Of course I get questioned all the time, but I have "before" pictures to back it up.
I have seen several grey painted K frames and transmission crossmembers with the part number as you state, but they were always service replacement parts.
Here is something that people should note. My shop is adjacent to a volume body shop that does dealership work for several dealers. At least once a week there is a NEW car there that is being repaired from damage in transit to the dealer or just from being moved around the lot. These cars are then sold as brand new, with the new owner unaware of the damage(unless it's very severe). And this is in 2008, I could only imagine that it was much worse during the time these cars were manufactured. So if I saw a grey K-frame, I would probably chalk that one up to previous damage, and not a mfg gaffe.
MB
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
#77084
07/05/08 10:14 PM
07/05/08 10:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,854
Georgetown Ontario Canada
anlauto
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,854
Georgetown Ontario Canada
|
Ok... Dave, I'm going to ASSUME that the hose on your engine picture is NOS, correct? If I read this correctly you're saying that it and the survivor ones you photographed have no visable part numbers? From what I gather your BCS says "57" meaning the 257 hose which has a totally different shape. I agree 110% that the "humped" hose looks, fits, and functions way more correct then the 257 hose would. So other then it's shape, how were you able to determine that the hose currently on the your motor is correct? I've seen paper labels on NOS hoses, did this one have any identication? Was there ANY part numbers that may help solve this mystery? As far as judging is concerned, in my opinion, even though the hose looks correct and matches that of several reference photos, it would be hard to argue that the BCS is wrong....would it not?  AGAIN...I always ASSUMED the BCS was Gospel when restoring a car? But it's clear that yours could be wrong ? 
CHECK OUT MY NEW WEB SITE !
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: ECS]
#77085
07/05/08 10:45 PM
07/05/08 10:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29,657
Hamtramck, PA
Alaskan_TA
Fluffy Balladeer
|
Fluffy Balladeer
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29,657
Hamtramck, PA
|
Quote:
The "2863257" that Frank sells is being listed for ALL the performance engines but WITHOUT A/C!!
hose#2863257- **W/383, 440 Eng. W/A/Cond. W/Max. Cooling**
A page from Frank Badalson's catalog:
257HS 2863257 upper 383, 440, 440+6 with 26 inch radiator B and E-body, 69-71$35.00
Since the car / broadcast sheet we are dealing with here is the "57" I deleted the other text, too confusing.
Please forgive me.
That said, the parts book and Frank are BOTH right from what I can see?
The parts book says the 2863 257 hose is for 383 & 440 with AC & / or maximum cooling.
AC cars and maximum cooling cars for the model year in question (1970) both used the 26" radiator.
Frank does not mention AC, but you could not get AC without the 26" radiator, so the catalog entry may be a little vague by omission, but it is accurate. 
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: Alaskan_TA]
#77086
07/05/08 11:06 PM
07/05/08 11:06 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29,657
Hamtramck, PA
Alaskan_TA
Fluffy Balladeer
|
Fluffy Balladeer
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29,657
Hamtramck, PA
|
Quote:
and the fan clutch? 69-70 had the smooth face, right? 
Barry runs and hides.....
(quoting myself because I was wrong)
Smooth face except for the AC cars, thanks to beepbeep for taking the time to set me straight. I do not get much AC car experience up here.
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
Now, about the Vehicle Traveler sheet, if anyone has an original with what should have come in the trunk listed on it I would love to see it.
The one beepbeep posted is mine, it was found under the carpet, not in the trunk.
I would also be curious to know the revision
date(s) on the originals anyone else may have as well as the actual dimensions of the page itself?
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: Alaskan_TA]
#77087
07/05/08 11:21 PM
07/05/08 11:21 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
David Walden
|
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
but you could not get AC without the 26" radiator, so the catalog entry may be a little vague by omission, but it is accurate.
Don't tell that to Dave Stuart. He doesn't have a 26" inch radiator in his A/C 440 Challenger and his build sheet coincides with what is in his car.
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: ECS]
#77090
07/05/08 11:46 PM
07/05/08 11:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29,657
Hamtramck, PA
Alaskan_TA
Fluffy Balladeer
|
Fluffy Balladeer
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29,657
Hamtramck, PA
|
Quote:
both could be correct.
I have broadcast sheets here that show the 57 hose on AC and non-AC big block cars.
They agree with the parts book. (and Franks catalog)
So, yes, they did both use the same hose. 
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: Alaskan_TA]
#77097
07/05/08 11:59 PM
07/05/08 11:59 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
David Walden
|
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
I do not get much AC car experience up here.
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
Quote:
There is no need to apologize Barry. Your input to the hobby has been a valuable asset to many, many people throughout the industry. I personally want to thank you for your support network. The first sentence of your quote is probably specific to most that are giving opinions on this subject. Then you have those that mimic the "mockingbird" and make it a practice of pirating every one else’s information in an attempt to just be part of the club. Steve and I have been researching the A/C on this car for over a year and a half. We still find it very confusing at every level. The hoses and lines were some of the most difficult pieces to find for this car. When was the last time any of you saw an NOS date coded condenser still in it's original packaging? I for one am trying to learn and by no means claim to have all the answers. When it is all said and done, I may very well end up using the “regular” #257 hose.
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: Alaskan_TA]
#77099
07/06/08 12:07 AM
07/06/08 12:07 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
David Walden
|
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Build sheets were always perfect!
I have to disagree. Check some of the broadcast sheet error examples at this link;
Barry.....just between you and me....that was a facetious statement (about build sheets being perfect) in response to my good friend and comrade, Alan G!
|
|
|
Re: Taking it to the next level? Wow!
[Re: ECS]
#77101
07/06/08 12:13 AM
07/06/08 12:13 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29,657
Hamtramck, PA
Alaskan_TA
Fluffy Balladeer
|
Fluffy Balladeer
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29,657
Hamtramck, PA
|
OK, good to know. When in a "fact" finding thread, I try to avoid facetious comments, it makes the facts hard to seperate from the BS if you assume the person is in earnest.  With that said..... If I send you a dollar will you please stop calling them build sheets? They do say broadcast sheet right at the top. Pleeeeease? 
|
|
|
|
|
