'63-'64 bumper front bumper arms

[Mike McKown]

There is a thickness difference in '63-'64 front bumper arms. I have some parts that measure about .175 and some that measure about .250 thickness. Myself and several others have forgotten the story here. What's the scoop?

[Michael Hanson (4067)]

Re: '63-'64 bumper front bumper arms

That's correct Mike. The fat brackets/braces were 63 and the thin ones 64.

[Mike McKown]

Uhhhhhh, guess it'd be too much to ask if this

is in the judging guide? Do you know anything about a "D" stamp on the arms?

Thanks.

PS. The next question is a little harder.

[Michael Hanson (4067)]

Re: Uhhhhhh, guess it'd be too much to ask if this

I believe it is mentioned in the judging guide but I'm not 100% sure. I'll look.

[Rob Axel (20302)]

Re: Uhhhhhh, guess it'd be too much to ask if this

I know that the "D" is stamped on '66 & '67 original braces...

[Kenneth Schurr (4760)]

Re: Uhhhhhh, guess it'd be too much to ask if this

In the 4th edition it simply says: "In 1963 models, the metal braces are 1/4 inch thick. In 1964 models, the metal braces are 3/16 inch thick." There is no mention of a "D" stamp.
Ken

[Mike McKown]

Thanks. *NM*

[Chuck Gongloff (5629)]

Re: Uhhhhhh, guess it'd be too much to ask if this

Hmmm. I measured the originals on the front of my 63, and they're 3/16 with the D stamp.

Using my limited math skills,

.250 is 1/4

.175 is roughly 11/64.

.187 is roughly 3/16.

So, what's the real scoop here? Chuck

[Michael Hanson (4067)]

Re: Uhhhhhh, guess it'd be too much to ask if this

Chuck,

As far as I know, the thick 1/4" braces were used for the duration of the 63 model year. Supposedly, the thinner 3/16" braces were SOP of the 64 model year. I don't know if there was an overlap one way or the other but it's possible some very late 63's used the thinner 64 braces. I know a very late 63 #211xx had the thick 1/4" braces.

All of the 63 brackets/braces changed part number for the 64 model year.

[Chuck Gongloff (5629)]

Re: Uhhhhhh, guess it'd be too much to ask if this

I went out and measured them again. Used a micrometer. Set it at 6/32 or 3/16. Fit is perfect.

Set it at 8/32 or 1/4 and it's way too big.

SO, this is a July, 63 car, 19,5XX ish VIN.

I've owned it since 1967, nearly 40 years. It's never been hit, and never had a panel put in it, and I've certainly never replaced the bumper braces.

I've had the bumpers off and on a number of times, but have never replaced the bracketry. Chuck

[Michael Hanson (4067)]

Re: Uhhhhhh, guess it'd be too much to ask if this

That's interesting. I had 19,746, an all original car, including paint, that had never been apart. It has the fat braces. It's unlikely that the new style braces would have been "mixed" with the fat 63 braces in production but I suppose anything is possible.

[Chuck Gongloff (5629)]

Re: Uhhhhhh, guess it'd be too much to ask if this

Here are a few pix I took the other day for a fellow member. Chuck

[Chuck Gongloff (5629)]

Re: Uhhhhhh, guess it'd be too much to ask if this

AND pic #2. Chuck

[Michael Hanson (4067)]

Re: Uhhhhhh, guess it'd be too much to ask if this

Probably impossible to tell in the pic but this brace certainly looks like the thick style. Wish I had one of each here to measure.

[Mike McKown]

I just measured some left front braces

3-4 of them. Depending on where you put the calipers they were .171-.179 for the thin ones. I think i measured two thick IB braces, the straight ones and they(it) was .25? something or other. The thickness probably varied a little with each different shipment of steel stock.