Help from owners of '66s: Rag jt orientation poll

[Gary B.]

Recently I posted a question about the orientation of the rag joint (steering coupler) on 66 cars with non-tele steering. I've heard back from a few people who believe, as I do, that the 66 TIM&JG is too strict when it says that the steering coupler was always installed with the riveted flange closest to the steering box and the bolted flange closest to the firewall. My car (66 L79) and a bowtie-quality 66 (L79) that I judged last week, both have the riveted flange closest to the frewall. I am fairly certain that both of these cars have never had the original coupler removed or replaced. Since the orientation of the coupler does not affect function, a reasonable hypothesis is that the couplers were installed either way and the JG is too narrowly worded. I would like to conduct a poll and ask owners of 66s to take a look at their coupler and report back to me. My e-mail address is: beaupre@rrdmail.stanford.edu. So,

1) if you have non-tele steering

and

2) if you believe your coupler has never been removed

could you please tell me if the riveted flange is closest to the firewall or closest to the steering box. It would also be valuable if you could tell me your VIN. If you don't know what I'm referring to with regard to the coupler orientation, I can send you a (325KB) JPG photo showing a coupler and pointing out the riveted flange.

Once I get enough responses, I'll tally them up and let people know the results, including the 66 revision team, if the results warrant such.

Thanks in advance,

Gary Beaupre

[Larry S.]

Re: Help from owners of '66s: Rag jt orientation p

You know gary I appluad your effort here on this.

But If we are not asking original owners of the cars I would think we are making a mistake with this poll.

This sunday I had a vistor stop by my house with a 1969 Mustang Mach 1 I had restored and sold him in the earley 80's.This car is used as a typical collector car with minimal use and always garaged.

I did the car concour style all of the paint duabs,over spray,bare metal(no stainless fastners) just they way ford did it.

So seeing this car some 20 years latter up on my lift,had I not personally restored this car I would think it was an original UN TOUCHED/UN RESTORED car.But its NOT every nut and bolt was removed and re installed.I had even replace the floors and torque box's (Even thought the floors look correct they are not)They are from a 68 none were available for the 69/70 when I did the car.Anyways if its not a suvivor car then we should not polling them on the rag joint.

I guess what I am trying to say is some one could have replaced it or had it out of the car some 15 to 30 years ago and we are assuming its original from the factory. I am only commenting on this because of the mustang I seen on sunday.Again had I not personally did this car I would have assumed it was an original unrestored car with new floor boards.

THANKS FOR YOUR EFFORT

I have a 66 and would not beable to join your poll because reguardless of its position I would questions its originality because of the age of my car.

[Philip Whitaker Member# 2024]

Re: Help from owners of '66s: Rag jt orientation p

I don't know about 66 Corvette rag joints, but I do know what the 64 AIM shows, as far as non-telescoping rag joints (all 63-64s are non-telescoping). In section 9, sheet 4, view B, they show the rag joint to be installed with the riveted flange closest to the firewall, and the bolted flange closest to the steering gear.

In the 63-64 JM (second addition) on page 129, under coupler, it says "the upper flange is bolted to the rag, while the lower flange is riveted via two pins to the rag".

Being that I'm not the original owner of my car, I can't swear that the rag joint was never out of the car in the 38,500 miles it was driven before I bought it. But I did find the rag joint to be installed as called out in the AIM.

Why is the JM in conflict with the AIM. Has NCRS documented enough original owner cars to determine that all couplers were placed in the cars backwards to what the AIM calls for? Or am I miss interpreting the JM?

Phil #2024

[Gary B.]

Larry; Yes and No re; orginal owners

Larry,

I understand what you're saying about the value of polling original owners. Unfortunately, I think I would received only few or no responses. Also, as an example, I'm the 5th owner of my 66. I've talked with all previous owners and I "know" that my coupler is original. Others may be in a similar situation regarding talking with previous owners and knowing what has been done. Even if they aren't, if 95% of the responses come back saying the JG doesn't match their car, I think this evidence will be convincing, given the caveats.

Gary

[John H.]

Re: Help from owners of '66s: Rag jt orientation p

Just an insight from someone who spent over twenty years in GM assembly plants in the 60's and 70's and has seen thousands of rag joints and steering gears assembled; the rag joint came from Saginaw Steering Gear as part of the steering gear, and the riveted end of the safety pins (and the hex end of the captured threaded bolts used to attach to the upper flange) face the steering gear - the clamp on that end is distinctly different from the clamp on the upper end that mates with the splined steering column shaft. I'd be inclined to call any coupler with the riveted end of the safety pins facing the firewall as an improperly-installed replacement. The rag joint is a primary safety system, and I doubt if Saginaw Steering Gear put any of them on backwards. Just my two cents.

[Larry S.]

Re: Larry; Yes and No re; orginal owners

Well this is a scary thought.Because at this point in time.Some 36 years have passed since the car was built and again who's memory is this good as to what has been off and what has not been off.during the 36 years.I for one have a problem remembering when and if I have even replaced the tires,brakes,shock,s on my dailey drivers.So I really think we should be refering to the aim as factual,Not 36 years latter counting on someone veiwing there car thinking it the way it came from the factory.

Again I have always felt you (or for sure me personally) would always see the difference between a restored car and an unrestored car.And since this sunday seeing a car after its been properly restored and 20 or so years have passed it looks like an original car.

Again I applaud your efforts here,Not trying to cause waves or a debate.But I think at this time to RE-Rite the judging manual that was written long ago we may be making a mistake.TOO MUCH time has passed,I would say the best spot to start would be with studying any and all factory photos we can find.

[John H.]

Re: Help from owners of '66s: Rag jt - Addendum

My previous post refers to the '67-up rag joint configuration, which differed somewhat from the pre-'67 design which had nuts instead of rivets securing the ends of the safety pins to the flange. I have no personal experience with the pre-'67 design, although I'd expect the finished end of the safety pins to face the firewall - that was standard GM practice.

[Gary B.]

Error in '66 JG will be fixed!

Everyone,

I happened to be contacted by Roy Sinor about another topic a few minutes ago and he took the opportunity to tell me that the '66 revision team knows that the 66 JG is incorrect wrt the orientation of the steering coupler and the error will be corrected when the 4th edition appears, sometime soon I hope.

Roy says the 65 JG will be corrected when it is next revised. I don't know about any other years, if indeed they are incorrect or not.

Gary

[Tim E.]

Re: Help from owners of '66s: Rag jt orientation p

I pulled this 1966 base motor 4 speed convertible out of the original owner's field in Indiana last year. It's a 58,000 mile car that is very original (and very rusty, as you can tell) including all 4 shock absorbers.

I'm not sure how this helps or hurts the discussion, but the rag joint appears to be installed as Gary has observed (bolted flange toward steering box). This car is s/n 24431.

[Joe C.]

Re: 65, 66,67 Manual Strg Couplers...........

......I welcome a phone call from Roy Sinor, because there are more anomalies in the AIM, than most are willing to percieve.