C3 fuel pump

[Jeff W.]

I had to replace my fuel pump a while back on my 72 with 56K on it and I kept the old one. How can I tell if it was the original and worth having it rebuilt? It has AC stamped on the upper sides, but no other part numbers that I can see.
Thanks
Jeff

[Kent K.]

Re: C3 fuel pump

Jeff,

Look at the side of the base that bolts to the engine. There should be a number identifying the pump.
I too would like to know who rebuilds fuel pumps or, is it easy enough for DIY?

Regards, Kent #6201

[Jeff W.]

Re: C3 fuel pump

Kent, After a little cleanup and a magnifying glass, I saw the part number on the lower left hand side of the flange that bolts to the engine #159L40769. Good advice. Now can anyone help me decipher that number? Is it just a serial number or is there some dating info in there? I have spoken to Goat Classics in the past and I am pretty sure that they will do rebuilds.
Thanks for the help.
Jeff

[Chuck S.]

Re: C3 fuel pump

For your 72 base engine, the TIM&JG says the fuel pump should have 40769 stamped on the bottom of the mounting flange. No mention is made for date coding...If the pump isn't date coded, then there is no way originality can be determined IMO. NOS fuel pumps with the correct AC logo weren't impossible to find 10-12 years ago, but if you found one, you were happy.

As to rebuilding, I don't think the newer style fuel pumps can be rebuilt. The can portion of the pump is fairly heavy gage sheet metal, and it's strongly crimped to pump head. I don't know of anyone that can successfully undo that crimp, and put it back without altering the appearance of the pump or incurring significant liability risk.

[Jack H.]

Re: C3 fuel pump

There ARE some who rebuild the later era 'crimped' fuel pumps. You see them from time to time listed on eBay and, if memory serves, some advertize their services in Hemmings Motor News.

But, as Chuck mentioned, the base is crimped to the body and one has to ask how reliable it is to de-crimp and re-crimp the base without introducing fatigue strain in the metal along the crimped edge. In other words, do these rebuilds actually hold up over time?

[Terry M.]

[Chuck S.]

Corvette Archeology

However, if Jeff would let us know his VIN or build date, some of us with no reputation to protect might be willing to make a swing. How about it, Jeff?...Late 72, maybe mid-June or later build date?

[Jeff W.]

Re: Corvette Archeology

All right smart one!! June 28 engine build, July 11 vehicle build. Maybe I will see you at the Mid-Atlantic judging this Spring. I am going to bring it in to see what I have left to do to get a top flight.

[Chuck S.]

Re: Corvette Archeology

The first three digits make most sense as a Julian type date...Day 159 of the year. Assuming that the date is to work for your 72, that would make the manufacture date June 7, 1972. I expect the "L" may be a year code in AC's system, but it would only be guessing...You would need a couple more known original pumps to figure it out for certain.

Like Terry said, if you're writing a reference, you have to KNOW that what you're saying is right. But, if you're a hip-shooting Board poster with no rep to protect , you can push the limits of what you know to try and figure things out...if you're wrong, you can always blame your lack of knowledge (Duh).

Terry knew this was probably a Julian date better than I, but he's a Corvette scientist...he won't tell you the conclusion until it's proven. I've never heard him tell anyone bad advice.

[Terry M.]

I appreciate your vote of confidence,

Chuck, but I have on occasion shot from the hip on this board -- and in public -- much to my regret. I try to avoid doing that, but I still give in to temptation once in a while. I expect I will continue to do so -- it is my nature.

There are even a few (very few) guesstimations in the TIM&JG. The one that comes to mind is in the wheel codes. The first number one in the wheel code is identified as the product line Chevrolet in the TIM&JG, when in fact it stands for the plant where the wheels were made. Alan Colvin deserves the credit for unearthing the true meaning of that code.

Your point, however, is very well taken -- and I expect the next revision of the 1970-72 TIM&JG will be more accurate than the earlier one. When writing for posterity one should be more mindful of the need for accuracy than when posting for internet consumption.