63 Shock Washer Mystery Solved

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Michael H.
    Expired
    • January 29, 2008
    • 7477

    #1

    63 Shock Washer Mystery Solved

    Bob Jorjorian and I haven't given up on the 63 shock washer research from a few weeks ago. Bob managed to come up with a few NOS washers and I'll be posting a pic within an hour. Looks like the mystery has been solved.
  • Chuck G.
    Extremely Frequent Poster
    • June 1, 1982
    • 2019

    #2
    Re: 63 Shock Washer Mystery Solved

    Interesting. I just today picked up 4 of the current washers available from GM. Used the PN posted here. Had to order them.

    Guess what? I got 4 of the standard "domed" washers used from 65 up.

    I thought these would "pass judging". Cost was a tick over $4.00 each, but they're not close to being correct. Chuck
    1963 Corvette Conv. 327/360 NCRS Top Flight
    2006 Corvette Conv. Velocity Yellow NCRS Top Flight
    1956 Chevy Sedan. 350/4 Speed Hot Rod

    Comment

    • Michael H.
      Expired
      • January 29, 2008
      • 7477

      #3
      "The Bag"

      Here's the old black/yellow bag that the new NOS 43468 63 1st design washers came in. The original number is clearly visible under the scribbles. The new hand written number, 5544049, is the number that replaced the original 43468 in mid 1963. It would become the correct number for 2nd design 63.




      Comment

      • Peter L.
        Extremely Frequent Poster
        • June 1, 1983
        • 1930

        #4
        Re: "The Bag"

        Michael - I can't stand the suspense. Will we get to see the "real" shock washer soon? Pete

        Comment

        • Michael H.
          Expired
          • January 29, 2008
          • 7477

          #5
          "The Washer"... At Last

          The actual 43468 1st design shock washer for early 63. Not nearly as weird as once thought, it looks somewhat similar to later release washers under several different replacement part numbers. Jorjorian has one of each (1st/2nd design) so he can answer any detail questions on some of the subtle changes between 1st and 2nd design. Case closed.




          Comment

          • Michael H.
            Expired
            • January 29, 2008
            • 7477

            #6
            Re: "The Bag"

            Be sure to "tune in again tomorrow" to see the next thrill packed episode of "SHOCH WASHER". (not to be confused with "shock theater")

            Comment

            • Harry Sadlock

              #7
              Re: "The Washer"... At Last

              Michael, can you measure it and post the dimensions? I just looked at my 63 and I think this is what I have installed. I'll pull one tomorrow while I'm changing the front wheel cylinders and measure mine.

              Thanks

              Harry

              Comment

              • Joe L.
                Beyond Control Poster
                • February 1, 1988
                • 42936

                #8
                Re: 63 Shock Washer Mystery Solved

                Chuck-----

                Which part number did you order? The 65-82 upper front shock retainer (washer) is GM #3790342. That's the 1.9" OD retainer with simple convex configuration.

                The 63 upper front washer is CURRENTLY GM #25628204. However, it had many previous "identities". Originally, it was GM #43468. Then, it became GM #5544049. Later, it became GM #396797. Later yet, it was known as GM #4941130. And, currently, it's known as GM #25628204.

                All of the above that I've looked at seemed very close to being identical in configuration. There may have been some subtle differences, though. I've not really studied this part in any great detail.
                In Appreciation of John Hinckley

                Comment

                • Joe L.
                  Beyond Control Poster
                  • February 1, 1988
                  • 42936

                  #9
                  Re: 63 Shock Washer Mystery Solved

                  Chuck-----

                  Here is a photo of the current GM #25628204




                  Attached Files
                  In Appreciation of John Hinckley

                  Comment

                  • Robert Jorjorian

                    #10
                    NO cigar bottom side different among other things *NM*

                    Comment

                    • Joe L.
                      Beyond Control Poster
                      • February 1, 1988
                      • 42936

                      #11
                      Re: NO cigar bottom side different among other thi

                      Robert------

                      The bottom side is very difficult to see when the retainer is installed on the car. Some might even say it's impossible to see. What are the other differences?
                      In Appreciation of John Hinckley

                      Comment

                      • Tracy C.
                        Expired
                        • August 1, 2003
                        • 2739

                        #12
                        Im sorry folks..I must be as dumb as a rock

                        I see NO marked difference between what Joe pictures (on left side) and what Micheal posted.. Unless we have a diameter variance or material thickness issue, these look the same to me.

                        Comment

                        • Michael H.
                          Expired
                          • January 29, 2008
                          • 7477

                          #13
                          "The Change"

                          Also of interest is the fact that the the date of the change from #43468 to 5544049 in the AIM was May of 1963, while the change in service, at least on paper, was Nov 1964. Not at all unheard of but typically these dates are closer together.

                          Glad Jorjorian was finally able to get to the bottom of this issue. In depth research provides the answer again.

                          Thanks for the pic's Bob.




                          Comment

                          • Michael H.
                            Expired
                            • January 29, 2008
                            • 7477

                            #14
                            Re: Im sorry folks..I must be as dumb as a rock

                            Tracy,

                            You are basically correct. The differences are very subtle. The main reason for this extended research exercise was to correct some information that was posted here on this board a few weeks ago. The posted scan of what was thought to be a 1st design washer looked nothing like the one we just posted, which got us interested in finding the actual story on this part.

                            Actually, if we went to an auto parts store, we could probably buy washers that are similar to the 63, and all the designs that followed.

                            The other reason, and the topic for the original discussion several months ago, was to correct the 63-64 JG, which I'm told has the 65 and later style as being correct for 63-64?

                            Comment

                            • Robert Jorjorian

                              #15
                              Thanks for posting the pics Michael *NM*

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              Searching...Please wait.
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                              There are no results that meet this criteria.
                              Search Result for "|||"