C2 SB Air Cleaner Wing Nut??

[Dwight P.]

Does anyone produce an air cleaner wing nut that will pass NCRS judging? And did GM use the same wing nut on other mid-year cars?

Thanks,

DP

[Jack H.]

Re: C2 SB Air Cleaner Wing Nut??

Air cleaner wing nut WAS used on other passenger cars/trucks, but form will vary (some chrome, some zinc/cad plated, some painted). The problem in trying to find original(s) off of scrap yard cars is one of the first things that get taken off cars entering the yard(s) is the carb (collected for carb core shops with standing orders at the yards). Of course, when the carb is 'harvested' the air cleaner has to come off and the wing nuts are generally discarded...

When I walk yards looking for 'bits' I literally have to 'dig in the dirt' around car engine compartments to find orignal wing nuts (one here, one there, Etc.). So, they CAN be found, but it's typically a labor of love!

[Dwight P.]

Re: C2 SB Air Cleaner Wing Nut??

Jack:
Thanks for the encouragement...I am off to the salvage yard tomorrow looking for non-DOT T-3 seal beams (especially the high beam) and the wing nut. Wish me luck.

One other item that might interest others who have purchased parts that turn out to be judged "NTP"....I was told by Long Island Corvette Supply that their wing nuts were NOS from a dealer that was going out of business. Most of the parts that I have purchased from them have been first class and right on. Never can be sure in this pursuit. Like you said, its a labor of love.

DP

[Joe R.]

Re: C2 SB Air Cleaner Wing Nut??

Hi Dwight:

I know that Rich at LIC is adamant that his wing nut is "correct." He says that it is made by the same supplier who supplied GM. He also has the GM drawing for the GM 219281 wing nut that was called out in the AIM, and was kind enough to give me a copy of it.

I have what I believe to be a "guaranteed original" wing nut and I also have a sample of the LIC wing nut. I might be able to post a comparison photo later.

In any event, the LIC part is VERY close to the original part, and differs only slightly in terms of the inside curvature of the wings and the degree of "witness marks" created by the metal forming.

The GM drawing calls for a metal thickness of 67 to 77 mils. If I recall correctly, the thickness of the LIC part is toward the upper end of that range, and my original part is toward the lower end. Nevertheless, I once got a deduction for the LIC part, because the judge said it was "too thick."

The last two times my car was judged I used the original wing nut, and the judges seemed satisfied with it.

I know that some of the other reproduction parts are far thicker than 77 mils, and are obviously incorrect. However, in my view, the LIC part is sufficiently close to the original part that I, personally, would probably not make a deduction for it if I were doing the judging.

Unfortunately, there are probably quite a few judges who know, or think they know, that the LIC wing nut is sufficiently different from the original that a deduction is warranted.

[Dennis D.]

Re: Hows this one *NM*

[Dennis D.]

Re: which stud

Same stud for dual snorkle as open element? 70 L-46. Sorry not trying to highjack the thread

[Dwight P.]

Re: C2 SB Air Cleaner Wing Nut??

Joe:

Thanks very much for your thorough explanation of the "wing nut mystery".

The wing nut purchased from L.I.C.S. was penalized a point at the NCRS San Antonio National show. The judge was very adament that the wing nut was not original and went to great lengths to describe the differences between the L.I. C.S. nut and an original. I could not dispute his position because I have never seen a bonified original wing nut placed next to the L.I.C.S. wing nut.
The penality is not a big deal (1/4500th). But when you are striving to eliminate many 1 and 2 point items and want to achieve that elusive 100 point goal (HA, HA) it is purturbing.

DP

[Joe R.]

Re: C2 SB Air Cleaner Wing Nut??

Hi Dwight:

The photo attached below shows what I believe to be an original wing nut on the left compared to an LIC reproduction on the right. It is fairly difficult to tell these apart when looking at either one in isolation, but with them placed side by side some differences become apparent.

The main difference that I see is that on the original part the inside edge of the ears is cut fairly straight, while on the LIC part the edge is rounded.

The following URL will take you to a photo that shows the same two wing nuts from the top:


The metal used for the LIC part is just a tiny bit thicker at 72 mils, versus 67 mils for the original, but unless you use calipers it is hard to detect the difference when looking at just one part in isolation. As I mentioned earlier, the GM drawing calls for a thickness of 67 to 77 mils, so both parts are within spec per the drawing.

I would be very interested to hear the judge's explanation of why your LIC part was incorrect. Was his explanation consistent with the differences in these photos?

[Joe R.]

Re: Hows this one

Hi Dennis:

It's hard to tell from the image you posted whether the "GM" wing nut shown is more similar to the LIC reproduction or the original. See the photo I posted for a comparison and let me know what you think. Do you have one of these that you could carefully inspect and compare to my photo?

[Dwight P.]

Re: C2 SB Air Cleaner Wing Nut??

Joe:

WOW! Great pictures....

In answer to your question, yes the judge mentioned the metal thickness and the shape of the "wings". There is no question that there is a difference between the original and the L.I. nut, but is there enough difference to warrent a deduction?
It is my opinion that some, and I stress SOME, judges are overly picky. And this is a good example. There should be items that are "NOTED" on the score sheet but carry no deduction or that carry partial deductions. Another example on this subject is the deduction for TRIM AUTO PARTS door handles. They are absolutely beautiful in all respects and there is no discernable difference from the originals, unless you feel the bottom edge of the handle.
Our goal is to present a car that reflects as close as possible the original product. The original cars rolling off of the production line did come under the same scrutiny that our NCRS judges give them today.
Thanks,
DP

[Dennis D.]

Re: Hows this one

Sorry about the photo. Not very clear. I wanted you to see the spec for it. The claim is .072. Thought this was thinner than yout LI piece, but I see further down the post that's the thickness you mention as well.

[Wayne M.]

This is a tough call

Here's what I have on my '65 SB; not original to the car, but it's been on it for at least 20 years.

The "bowl" looks shallow (Like your LIC example), and I'd say the tops of the ears also are angled like the LIC. But the thickness is more like your original.

How would the judges call this --- seems to me that anything that close shouldn't get a deduct.

[Joe R.]

Re: This is a tough call

Hi Wayne:

I think your wing nut looks like an original. In the photo below I have circled the feature that I think is the most visible difference between the original and the LIC version. The inside edge of the ears is fairly straight and slants back on the original, while the on the LIC part the inside edge curves inward first and is more rounded.

[Joe R.]

Re: C2 SB Air Cleaner Wing Nut??

Hi Dwight:

Regarding the door handles, this is an area that I have studied extensively. I have a nice collection of original, replacement, and reproduction door handles.

I think that many judges do not know quite what they are looking for in the door handle, and they simply feel the handle to see if the lower edge fees "sharp." In reality, the main characteristic that makes the edge feel sharp is that the inside edge of original handles is concave, and where it meets the outside edge there is *usually* a small flat surface that feels "sharp" to the touch. However, the degree to which this small flat surface appears on original handles varies from part to part.

Some reproduction handles are not at all concave on the inner surface. The Trim Parts handles are concave on the inner surface, but not quite as much as the originals. In addition, the definition of the small flat surface is not quite as pronounced on the Trim Parts version as it is on *some* originals.

When I judge door handles, I use a combination of tactile feel for the concave inner surface and visual inspection of the lower edge. I usually don't deduct for what I believe to be Trim Parts handles because they are very close to some of the originals that I have on hand.

For my own car, I went through my collection of original handles and picked out the two that had the most well defined lower edge. I had them rechromed with instructions to preserve that edge to the fullest extent possible (often the edge gets buffed off during the prep phase for rechroming). Mine came out pretty well, with only slight degradation to the edge, and they have done fine in judging. However, they are still only slightly better than the Trim Parts version.

[Dwight P.]

Re: C2 SB Air Cleaner Wing Nut??

Joe:

I am about to send my original door handles off to be re-chromed, so I am very glad to know that I need to give specific instructions about the lower edge.

I just returned from the salvage yard with a T-3 highbeam(NonDOT), 3 original wing nuts and a ballast resistor. Not a bad day of rummaging. The wing nuts were off of mid-60's GM cars(Pontiac and Olds). They appear to be very, very close to the orig in your photo, but they do need to be thoroughly cleaned and then chrome plated.
Tell me what you think of this approach...At the next show(Waco Regional Oct)prior to judging, I will show the three wing nuts to the C2 Chief(usually Ray Morrison)and get his opinion as to the most correct wing nut. There must be one of the three that is correrct.

Thanks,
DP