I'm getting conflicting ideas on which direction the horn's opening should point. The judging manual says that in 63' they should both point straight down, however two people, who are "one owners" are positive that they point to the middle of the car. Point me in the right direction Please
-
-
I've owned my '63 for 37 years and I swear...
...it's always been that way. This is a real trap. I've fallen in it, and probably have a better memory than most, nothwithstanding the fact that I've done almost all the work on my car over the years. AIM Section 12 Sheet A7.00 has a very clear illustration of the horns and the outlets points down. There might also be a locating tap on the horn mounting bracket - not sure - haven't reinstalled mine yet.
Although a lot can be learned from observant original or early owners, I consider the AIM to be the most authoritative source - better than the shop manual and better than the Judging Guides. The AIM was an engineering document and was continuously maintained. That means errors were corrected and assembly info was updated based on build experience. The only problem is that what we have represents it's final form and late production data, but a clue as to earlier production can be found in the change record.
Duke -
Re: AIM vs Cars - details *TL*
Duke,
I prefer to use the cars as a final point of reference. Partly because the AIM, as you point out, is only from one point in time and we do not have all the change records (once the box is filled up the earlier changes drop off the radar screen), and I am not as convinced as you that the factory people were so diligent in keeping up or following the AIM records.
It is off this thread, but I can cite you an instance where the 1969 AIM called for a change (cotter pin to hold in front trailing arm shims), but that feature didn't appear on the cars until last week of 1970 production. I would have to look to be sure of the time frame, but I am sure it was more than a calendar year - I think, too long for them to have been using up the old style shims.
I certainly believe the assembly line workers took short cuts that the AIM did not spell out. The position of the gas tank boot drain (behind left or right bumper brace) varies from car to car in the 1968 to 1972 time frame, yet the AIM is specific on which side it is to empty. Does it matter - I doubt it, except to us. The inspectors likely decided it didn't matter in production (if they even noticed it) and so let the assemblers put it where they found it convenient.
Terry
TerryComment
-
Deep thoughts
You bring up some good points, Terry. I'm still wrestling with these issues. One thing we must remember is that the AIM change record records the date the AIM was changed, but it does not tell us when the new parts were RELEASED, and then arrived on the asembly line. Also missing is the disposition of superceeded parts. In many cases it was probably "use until exhausted", so it's possible the old parts were used for some time after the AIM change. Conversely, new parts or procedures may have been implemented BEFORE the AIM was changed, especially if the change was a result of a saftey issue or warranty problems.
No doubt the assembly crew "fudged" on a few things. Routing of the fuel filler boot drain hose was probably arbitrary on the part of engineering and the assembly guys knew that. This could have also applied to the horns. If there weren't any locating tabs and enough wire length in the harness, there could have been a range of locating positions. In that case, what does NCRS accept - the way is was supposed to be or the way it was actually done, or either?
Some of these issues can probably only be solved by using the "preponderance of evidence" standard in civil law cases, which would include observations of actual cars, but how do we know what was done to a given car over a 18 to 47 year time span. If there is no preponderance of evidence the AIM is probably the best bet.
I'll hopefully understand more next week, after spending a weekend at the Lake Tahoe Regional as an observer judge.
DukeComment
-
Surprise! Surprise! 10 points for Terry!
Okay, so I go looking for my horns this morning (I shoulda done it last night, but I get lazy after midnight) and it turns out they're on the car. The bracket is vertical per the AIM, but the trumpet outlets are pointing "down and in" at about a 45 degree angle from vertical.
The AIM is wrong, at least as far as the trumpet outlet orientation is concerned. My horns have never been disassembled. In order for them to appear as in the AIM they would have to be disassembled and the two halves reoriented by at least one increment of fastener arc, then installed on opposite sides.
With my confidence thus shaken, I wonder if my other posts last night have any validity.:)
DukeComment
-
Re: Surprise! Surprise! 10 points for Terry! *TL*
No points needed here Duke. Do look forward to meeting you in Tahoe.
What does NCRS accept: Preponderance of the evidence most of the time. We are always learning however. I changed my opinion of original distributor cap lettering after seeing a 1971 with 4K miles at Montauk. There is always something to learn.
Don't know beans about your horns, however it is either side for the gas tank boot drain in 1970-1972 in spite of what the AIM and judging manual say.
A very wise man with far more judging experience than I once told me never to change anything on the car that I though might be original in spite of what all the judges, Judging Manuals and AIMs say.
Terry
TerryComment
-
I'll bring you some candy to go with my crow!
Terry - Really looking forward to meeting you and all the other Board guys who come to Lake Tahoe. I'll be making the trip with Wally Wyss who is writing a 400 question Corvette "trivia book". Wally wants to get some pictures and talk to some of the guys to verify information. I've been helping with the editing and asking questions on the Board to verify information. Wally managed to shoehorn a 2000 C5 out of the Southern California GM press pool for the trip. I've been complaining to him because it's an automatic. Hey, I should be so lucky, but engineers are never satisfied!
DukeComment
-
Re: Confirmatioin
Duke My horns are the same as yours and have been on the car since new. I installed an air horn in 1963 since no one would get out of my way with the factory horns. I just left them on the car and removed the air horn when I restrored it in 1980. DaveComment
-
Comment
-
Dave...
Were you the guy who started this whole "road rage" mania that the press keeps hyping.:) The air horn is a great idea. It's tough to flash your high beams during daylight hours at the anti-destination leaguers with a SWC
DukeComment
-
Re: Defensive Driving
Not road rage just defensive driving. They kept aiming for me and before they hit me I wanted to let them I was coming through. It was amazing how they would move over when they thought an 18 wheeler was behind them.Comment
-
Re: Surprise! Surprise! 10 points for Terry! *TL*
Well Ken - I will have to say that the path of least resistance is to go your way - and I guess I would if points were what I was after, but if everyone changed parts at the whims of the judges then "restoration" could be summed up as "By part A from vendor X, and part B from vendor y"....and so on. Of course that would never lead to correct manuals or cars. They would all be what we wish they were....
On second thought.....MMMMM, maybe I shouldn't go here.
No I am sure he was right. If you believe strongly enough to stand up for what you believe is right, in the end you will have the satisfaction of knowing you did the right thing. There can not and should not be enough of this disagreement to cost one an award unless there is a lot of other deviations on the car.
Terry
TerryComment
-
Re: I've owned my '63 for 37 years and I swear...
You're whistlin Dixie Duke! The AIM is one of the most screwed up documents of all. In 1961-62 it calls for the 441 horn on the passenger side and the 442 on the driver's side. The cars were built just the opposite! I can cite many more instances of inaccuracies.
Dale.
CLICK HEREComment
-
AIM accuracy
Dale - I hope the AIM doesn't have as many errors as the GM parts catalog. At least it's more comprehensible.
DukeComment
-
Re: AIM accuracy
You got that right Duke. The parts Catalog has errors as well. So does Noland Adams' C1 Book, the C1 judging manuals, and a lot of the stuff I write! Nothing's perfect in this world. When you look at an unmolested 1962 4 star you think, Ah Ha! this is the irrefutable standard by which all the published documents may be judged. That is, until you look at the NEXT 1962 4 star!
The bottom line is, THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES in Corvette manufacture or judging. I find that the true challenge, in being a judge, is to figure out a way that a "non-typical" configuration, finish, date, installation or completeness could have occured at the factory. If there's the slightest "crack" in the door, the owner gets full points.
Varooom!
CLICK HEREComment
Comment