63 Shock Washer Mystery Solved

[Michael H.]

Re: "The Change"

Danny,

Front shock washers for 63 Z06 were the same as regular production/standard suspension 63. The same would be the case for 64 with F40 HD suspension. No different than any other 64.

[Michael H.]

1962 Or Earlier AIM

What does the 62 or earlier AIM show for a part number for the shock washer? Is it the same as the 43468 shown in the AIM for 63? Anyone have their original shocks/washers from a C1?

[Verne Frantz]

Re: 1962 Or Earlier AIM

This may or may not help anyone, but in the '63 AIM for Passenger cars, the "retainer" listed for the upper and lower front sway bar links is part number 5544049. The number is hand-written on the page, which may indicate that the number changed from '62. (can't find my '62 book right now) I've verified that '61-'64 full size Chevys all used the same part though, so finding used ones should not be a problem in the yards. 8 per car.
For those going to the yards, there were no washers on the front shocks, and the rears used a different one that was installed concave side facing rearward. Just grab the ones on the stabilizer links.

Verne

[Peter L.]

Re: "The Problem"

Jim - Per your posting,

"The problem I surmise is, the nuts kept comming loose causing damage and a potential warranty problem for the General. SO, why not put a hexagon indent into the retainer and problem solved!!! The rubber under the retainer would not allow it to move and the sharp edges on the nut held it from turning. That change would require a new part number, hence the second design retainer"

is an interesting analysis and conclusion; but in thinking about it in light of the upper shock washer introduced on the 1965 Corvette and used into the 70s which is thicker and larger in diameter but does not have the hexagon indentation, it seems to me that we're back to a situation similar to the first design and I'm not familiar with 65 and up Corvettes having a problem with the upper shock nut coming loose.

Pete

[Michael H.]

Re: "The Bag"

Jim,

There are a number of reasons why GM changes the part number on a part. Unfortunately, we often times are never able to see the actual change. It may have been a material change, or even a change for the plating. It's not necessarily a major physical dimension change.

As far as the non hex washers, I can't possibly say that it didn't happen, but I do believe that the hex design seems to be what was used, at least through the vast majority of builds for the entire 63 run. I've now spoken to a few more people that own well documented cars that have never ben apart, in any way, and all agree that their original shocks that have never been removed, have the hex washer.

The 1st design washer part number goes back well into the 50's and was used through at least the middle of the 63 run. Several people have emailed and confirmed this style on pre C2 cars. I also received a scan of a sway bar bolt assy with it's washers that has been off the car for over 40 years. The washers definitely show the hex.

Again, I'm not saying the non hex washers that you have are incorrrect, but they certainly do seem to be the odd couple of the bunch. Anything is possible, or at least some strange things are possible, in production, but my personal opinion is that the hex washer is most likely the one I would expect to see on an all original car.

As far as the service parts being different than the parts used in production, I agre that there are a few that differ in some small way but this is definitely the exception, not the rule.

[Jim L.]

Re: "The Bag"

Well, I just got back from Omaha Nebraska, helping that chapter with their chapter judging meet. There were 4 of us master judges, Howard Loomis, Jack Humphrey, Eckhard Pobuda and myself from the Rocky Mnt. Chapter there doing what we love doing best ------ helping new judges. Man was it HOT and Humid!!! This chapter is an up and comming star chapter with a Great team of people like John Osterholm, James West and the rest of their crew. Thanks for the opportunity to help out...
Now to business.... I have to concede this one with the overwhelming evidence presented for the hex and thumbs down on the non-hex. This resolution could not have been reached without the vast number of inputs to this exercise in what is and isn't. Thanks all for your feed-back. BTW, i didn't put the non-hex type on untill i had what i call absolute investigation of, to render direction!!!! Now I know.
Joe, as for the ball joints, you make a strong argument, so why not post the right stuff for those who may read it in the archive posts.
Jim