Original 63 FI Dist Cap
The original short tower cap from the Salyer car. Car was delivered in Nov or Dec of 62.
The original short tower cap from the Salyer car. Car was delivered in Nov or Dec of 62.
-
-
Re: Here's the Delco D-310 cap
John-----
I have not seen a D-310 with an "R". I do know that there never was a cap with the Delco nomenclature D-310R (which was done when the D-308 and D-309 changed to D-308R and D-309R, respectively, and the "R" appeared on the cap). Also, there was never a change in the GM part number of the D-310 as there was for the D-308 and D-309 when they changed to D-308R and D309R, respectively.
However, it may be that GM changed the specs for the D-310 without changing the Delco or GM part numbers just to make for manufacturing convenience after the 1969 change for the D-308 and D-309. There was never an application for the D-310 that required the change that the "R" represented.
I must admit, though, that I have not looked at a lot of these caps. They're not a piece that's ever really interested me too much.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: Original 63 FI Dist Cap
Michael, You sure have a lot of good stuff. Between your vast photo collection and the goodies you are most fortunate. I used to have a lot more but lost it in the big robbery couple of months ago. Where's RJ been? John
P.S. I remember when I first joined NCRS back in 78 or 79 we used to think that the 63 FI's used the high tower caps. So I put it on one of my 63's and also had the straight terminals end wires. Then the distributor cover wouldn't fit with a sledge. heeee. So went to the local AC dealer and bought some good wires with 90 degree bends and then stuffed the cover back on and the car had a miss. Took the dist cover off and it ran fine. Left it off for years. Sold the car with the cover in the back seat. Hope the guy changed the cap. NAPA had a nice replacement low tower cap you know. Black with copper. Cheep. Think the number was RR168 but don't quote me. Jr.Comment
-
Re: Original 63 FI Dist Cap
Wish you could have seen it BEFORE it was cleaned. Had several unique paint smears, or areas, that looked grained, exactly like the material of a plant workers canvas glove that had been lightly coated with a combination of orange and silver paint. Unfortunately, most of the silver vanished but the orange is still there.Comment
-
Re: Original 63 FI Dist Cap
RR168 is a "low tower" '63-'65 FI window cap according to my research, and AFAIK it is still available.
DukeComment
-
Re: Here's the Delco D-310 cap
Joe, I have seen plenty of D310 caps with the R. In fact they have been on ebay from time to time. Have seen them come in the door on unrestored distributors. True story: One time about 5 years ago or so I bought 4 of "NOS" D310 supposedly with no "r"s. So I opened the box on my kitchen table and noticed that two of the caps were very shiney and two were very dull. All four boxes said D310. So I thought to myself-no my friend would not make a "mistake" like dat. Took the two shiney D310's over to my desk where I had a cheep magnifying (not magnitized) lamp and sure enough someone zipped the R's off and you could see evidence of them. The rest of the story is not worth repeating and is x-rated. But the R low tower caps do exist. JohnComment
-
Re: Original 63 FI Dist Cap
Duke, Since Standard took over Echlin the caps are reboxed. So be careful guys and girls if you buy a RR168. Take it out of the box before you pay for it because last year I ordered a bunch and some of them were "high" tower caps with the RR168 number. Bubba was obviously working the line. JohnComment
-
Re: Here's the Delco D-310 cap
Joe - I agree with John DeGregory on Delco-Remy D-310 w/ the "R" on the top of the cap. They exist. Obviously, you need one of each (NOT FOR SALE, of course) for your collection. Just kidding on the D-310s for your collection. Happy NY. PeteComment
-
Re: Original 63 FI Dist Cap
I heard the same regarding vacuum advance controls. The ID of the part in the box does not match the box part number for that ID, or even the ID is correct, but it doesn't meet specs.
DukeComment
Comment