63 Shock Washer Mystery Solved

[Tracy C.]

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

OK that helps some. I was thrown off the wagon by the "no cigar" comment above.

I looked through the "shocks and bushings" section of the 63/4 JG and there is no mention at all regarding shock washers. Maybe this information should be added with the next revision.

Anyway, I'm glad this is being to clear up.

tc

[Chuck G.]

Amazing

After months of angst, we've come back to the shock washer that is virtually identical to those coming with current day shocks. I have about a dozen of them.

Called my neighbor. He went through his collection, and brought about 6 or 8 of his over to my house.

The shock washers pictured DO HAVE the indented hex inside.

On the car, I think just about anything would "fly" for judging, unless there is some gross difference in diameter, etc. Chuck.

[John D.]

Re: Thanks for posting the pics Michael

Michael & Bob, The shock washer mystery is out in the open now. I am still confused as usual though on one thing. I thought the 2nd design '63 washer did not have the indented hex? But since your GM package is the real deal I think the shock washer problem is not as difficult now that we see what is real. I believe the OD is about 1-3/16". Is this right Bob? The current replacement ones are thicker and have a bigger OD. Nice job Bob. Those little jewels should warm the hurts of the boys. Hope Dr. Chuck sees this post. Now Michael are you going to send off this info to help Carlton so he replace the '65 up style with the correct ones? I know you will. So this is the same washer used on the stabilizer bolts? Thanks again, John D.

[John D.]

Re: Amazing

Dr. Chuck,Even the Mexican shocks I bought (but didn't use) had a washer that looked like Bob Jorjorians except they were much thicker and had a bigger OD. The package came with a large washer, two rubber bushings and a smaller washer and nut. OD was about 1-3/8". Trouble with using the readily available ones that GM and others have is that when you tighten the nut the washer doesn't dig into the rubber bushing and make it swell a touch and expose some rubber like the correct ones do. Still if you can't find ones like Bob's these are better to use than the '65 up style. Joe's #25628204 would be worth buying to check out also. Meanwhile I bet between the two of us we have a hundred washers. Yesterday I was working on my '63 with my friend Dave and he said you have to help me sort out all the front shock washers you have and take the rest home. So we picked out a couple which are correct and now we move on. Someone should count the number of posts on this little washer. But it's been a fun thing and we all can all sleep sound tonight. Jerry Bramlett started this whole thing you know by sending me some pics of his pilot car shock washers. Jerry's and Bob's are almost the same. Maybe Jerry's is the first version and Bob's in the 2nd version. John D.

[Michael H.]

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

Thanks Tracy. I just got an email that also confirmed that there is no discription of the washer in the 63-64 JG. I think there was some discussion here on the board about the 65 style being correct for 63 though. I agree, it probably would be a good addition to the manual. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of 63-64's out there with 65 style washers.

[Michael H.]

Re: Amazing

I agree Chuck. Once installed, it may be difficult for most to tell the difference between an original early 63 and a currently available replacement from GM, or possibly any auto parts store.

[Peter L.]

Re: Upper Shock Washers-New Found Treasures

Now I'm going to have to go out in the garage and collect all those old upper shock washers and stabilizer bolt washers I thought were junk and put them in the safe with my 67 TRICO (only) stamped windshield wiper holders. You gotta love this hobby. Pete

[Michael H.]

Re: "The Washer"... At Last

Replacement pic for above. The original seems to display at times but not consistantly.

[Jim L.]

Re: "The Bag"

Michael,
Why would the General change the part number from the first design to the second without any physical change in the part, unless they just wanted to give it a new number w/ no engineering change to the retainer. I don't think that's what happened. What I do believe is what I observed on ser # 0894x with original dated shocks and link bushings in un-restored condiction. With the owners permission I photographed these parts. The retainer on top of the shocks and link bushing retainers were the same as your picture except there was NO indentation of a hexagon on the retainer. It was a flat indented surface. Now, this would be a different part and require a different part number. That makes sense.
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.
Now to explain your NOS part from a dealership parts department. Old part number but new style part, cause you don't always have the same exact part used on the assembly line as the dealership recieved. For example, ball joints used on the assembly line had an aprox. 1/2" un-threaded end on them for alignment needs. But the service replacement ones generaly did not from the dealership. There was no need for this configeration after assembly to align at the dealership service dpt. Same part number/different part???
In conclusion, I believe the retainers I observed on that unmolested car are as factory installed. My analogy for the different configerations has merit. I posted the pictures of what I believe are the two style of retainers and have installed the first design on my 63 SWC ser # 0876x. Along with my 340 HP like NOS air cleaner w/ original filter!!! And like NOS Firestone non-dot tires. This is the third time I am changing these retainers to now what I know to be correct for my car. Your comments are welcomed for any feed back you may have.
Jim

http://www.freewebs.com/jimlennartz/shockmnthwd.htm

[Michael H.]

Re: "The Bag"

Jim,

I must admit, your point and pic's are very interesting. The washer without the hex was what I thought was correct from the beginning until I saw the NOS washers that Jorjorian sent. I was also convinced that there was no hex indentation in the pic of the washer that I posted last month of a nearly brand new 63. I have to wonder if there was more than one design of this part being used during this time, even though they all had the same part number. I suppose it's also possible that these came from different sources but used the same part number.

It's also true that the parts used on the line are, at times, slightly different than those supplied for service, especially with misc hardware.

I'm going to look a little deeper and get back to this on Sunday.

[Joe L.]

Re: "The Bag"

Jim-----

A few things to keep in mind here: first of all, these retainers were used across the GM carlines for most cars and trucks. I'm sure they were used in absolutely HUGE numbers. They were used for both shocks, front sway bar attachment and other applications, as well. So, there were undoubtedly a lot of these things being manufactured and likely by more than one supplier. There may have been differences in the tooling used between suppliers. This would not, of course, account for the differences between the "hex type" and "non-hex type". That's a true design difference and would not be accounted for by differences in tooling or manufacturers.

Second, the GM #43468 is the oldest version of this retainer I can find. This is an OLD part number. It dates back to the 1930's. It would seem strange that GM would go from a "hex type" to a "non-hex type". If, for example, the 5544049, the "second version" we know of, were the "non-hex type", then that's what would had to have happened. There's another possibilty here, though. Perhaps the the retainers in Robert Jorjorian's parts envelope are not the original retainers that resided in the envelope. It's possible that these were a later design (and part number) and somewhere along the way, they got "switched". The style packaging pictured was phased out about 40 years ago, so that's a long time for things to get changed.

Third, several of the part numbers used for this retainer are DELCO-released part numbers and not Chevrolet part numbers. This includes the 43468, 5544049, 4941130, and 25628204. I don't know what the 396797 was; it may have been Delco, too. Delco may have been less "discriminating" as far as the strict adherence to a specific part being identified by a certain part number.

I'm quite sure that there were some differences in the design and specification between the various iterations of this retainer. I think that the differences are quite minimal, though, EXCEPT for the "hex" versus "non-hex".

Lastly, you are incorrect regarding the differences between GM PRODUCTION and SERVICE ball joints. BOTH PRODUCTION and SERVICE ball joints had the unthreaded "extensions" on the ball stud. AFTERMARKET ball joints, including those sold through the Delco parts system, did not have the extensions, though.

The 63-82 ball joints used in PRODUCTION and sold in SERVICE BY GM were absolutely identical except for ONE feature. That feature is that the 3 retaining fastner holes in the UPPER ball joint were 9/32" for PRODUCTION joints and 11/32" for SERVICE ball joints.

[Robert Jorjorian]

Re: "The Bag"

The washers in the bag are the correct parts that originally came in the bag. We compared them to a known originals I personally removed from a 17XX vin car.
The superceded part numbers (starting with 5544049) are ALL noticeably thinner. Another interesting was the plating was the same in color from the bag washers and the original but not the same on later washers that were NOS or used.
Michael and I posted the picture and the bag so everyone could see what the "ORIGINAL" part number looked like that was called out in the AIM. If anyone thinks variations were possible it makes no difference to the information we provided. Until somebody PROVES these were not used in the applications called out in the AIM these remain the most proven part recorded to date.

[Chuck G.]

Re: "The Bag"

Great pictures Bob. Could you post a pic next to a scale/ruler, or could you measure the OD and height?

TIA. Chuck

[Chuck G.]

Re: Amazing

True, John. We can put it "to bed". Maybe we can get this change into the JG. Chuck

[Danny Pantuso]

Re: "The Change"

So what about front shock washers for a 63z06 car, are the washers the same as showing or are they diffrent also, Danny