Correct 70-71 E-Body Windshield Washer Pumps

Quote:

---

Snoop, does your original 1970 only parts book have 2 different pt numbers listed for various applications?

---

Quote:

---

Bill R,
I wonder if 3431295 was a production line part that never made it to the dealer. Chrysler would have assigned a new part number for a new part and put it in the Parts Book. But never put it in the supply chain because there was already a suitable substitute available, 2809013. That may explain the lack of NOS 3431295 pumps.

Just thinking out-loud.

---

Quote:

---

2

---

Quote:

---

Closeup of Barry's pump markings.
335 9 = Dec 1, 1969

---

Quote:

---

Notice that this is a 1970 "down" outlet version pump!

---

Quote:

---

This was an area that we researched for months trying to find the reasoning for the various styles. One of the first things that someone needs to do is document and research ONLY original cars and their applications. You can reference all the NOS pieces in the world but remember that none of them were installed on a vehicle, so no conclusion can be drawn regarding their actual application. Every original 1970 vehicle that we inspected had the “down” style outlet. EVERY original 1971 vehicle we inspected had the “side” style outlet.
The E Body was a new vehicle for 1970. In that particular year, the outlet pointed down towards the frame rail on production line E bodies. As many of you know, this made it very difficult to remove or install the rubber hose.

In 1971, Chrysler redesigned the pump (side outlet) to help facilitate the installation of this particular part. It saved a lot of aggravation in trying to connect the hose for the workers on the assembly line. The problem with this scenario was that in 1972 Chrysler completely redesigned the E Body washer bottle and the early 1970 style pump worked better for the new design. Since the 1971 style ended up being a one year only part, the majority of NOS replacement pumps were manufactured to accommodate the majority of the manufactured years. (They were not concerned with how hard it was for someone to service or replace the part. That is why 99% of the NOS pieces have the down type outlet.) The “down” outlet version was used in 1970, 72, 73 and 74. I still have many of the old units (from the 1970 and 1971) that we removed from original E Body cars. As stated before, every original 1970 had the down type outlet and every original 1971 we documented had the side type outlet! Bill Rolik posted two pictures of original samples where the outlets point towards the engine compartment. I would guarantee that both of those units are from original 1971 vehicles.
Care to verify Mr. Bill?

---

Yes, both are originals from my own vehicles. I will have their numbers and vendor codes tomorrow. By the way: Per our conversion earlier this evening...Get a real phone. Either that, or you did not pay your cellular bill

BR

Quote:

---

By the way: Per our conversion earlier this evening...Get a real phone. Either that, or you did not pay your cellular bill

BR

---

Bill, I wouldn't know about that "not paying my bill" thing! Are you speaking from experience? (I have three other cell phones....maybe I should give you one of those numbers.) Talk to you later Mr. B!

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...

---

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.