Wing nut nickel and dime theory

[Harmon C.]

Joe has posted that his original wing nut is .0675 thick material. He also was nice enough to check a dime .052 and a nickel .074. If I used the theory that the thickness of an original wing nut was closer to the thickness of a dime Joes wing nut is .0155 thicker than a dime and only .0065 thiner than a nickel. I would call the nut in question closer to the nickel. In later sharks the wing nut was cad and replacements I have seen are chrome so I have another way to check for originalty.

Lets see who can measure the thickness of the nut on a few original cars to check this out and to to see if at some time GM was using parts from two or more venodors. I would thik the buyer of this part at GM back in the day tried to get the lowest price so their may be more than one original but only one that gets full points at NCRS.

Food for thought

Lyle

[Wayne M.]

Are you referring to thread of Jan 10-11 ?

I couldn't find any reference to nickels and dimes in Joe Randolph's posts, but here goes. This is a top view of the same wingnut that I posted a pic on before, and that Joe R. felt was original, due to the geometry around the ears.
[I admitted that it was not original to my '65, but after 26 years of ownership, I'd forgotten where I got the wingnut].

I put a dial caliper on this at about six locations and got a consistent 0.060 to 0.063" thickness.

Hope that helps.

[Harmon C.]

Re: Are you referring to thread of Jan 10-11 ?

Bunky started the thread Jan.25th I was refering to. Your view is what I was looking for as their may be changes as Bunky's corvette is a later year than yours.

Lyle

[Joe L.]

Re: Are you referring to thread of Jan 10-11 ?

Wayne-----

The wing nut that you have pictured appears identical to the known original 1969 nut that I posted a picture of a few days ago. That's as it should be, too, inasmuch as the GM #219281 wing nut was used from 1964 to 1972 for most Corvette applications except 1965 L-78. It was also used across all GM car lines during the period for any application requiring a chrome wing nut. There were many such applications, and I'll bet that millions of these things were manufactured.

Of course, there may have been some slight differences in the nuts over the years due to a variety of factors (different manufacturers, different sets of tooling, tooling wear, etc.). However, the nut that you posted a picture of and the one that I posted a picture of appear absolutely identical.

The GM #219281 was discontinued from SERVICE in February, 1977. It's current-day replacement is GM #9440077. It's supposed to be of the same stamped steel construction and same 1-1/4" OD, but it's not chrome plated. There are likely other configuration differences, too.

[Wayne M.]

Found the "Bunky" thread

Lyle and Joe L.:

I'm no judge, but the wingnut on the RHS of Bunky's pic seems to have the 2 ears of each wing squeezed too close together, compared to Joe's guaranteed "original owner" and my suspected-original. Also, Bunky's side shot of the nut on the RHS shows no stress marks similar to those shown on Joe Randolph's side shot of Jan 11th thread, and also shown in my shot in the same thread.

[Harry Sadlock]

Re: Are you referring to thread of Jan 10-11 ?

Not sure what this is from, the metal is thin but I think it is too nice.

Harry

[Stephen B.]

Re: Are you referring to thread of Jan 10-11 ?

Harry, what's the width of the wing nut? The small, thinner wing nut pictured in my January 10th posting is 1 1/16" wide, while the thicker replacement wing nut is 1 5/16" wide.

[Harry Sadlock]

Re: Are you referring to thread of Jan 10-11 ?

The outside measurement are 1 5/16 and 11/16 across the center. Inside is 1/2 in the center circle and 1/8 in the wing.

I got this out of a parts box that was sitting for many years. I had it chromed.

Harry

[Joe R.]

Re: Are you referring to thread of Jan 10-11 ?

Hi Joe L:

I somehow missed the photo you say you posted a few days ago, and I would very much like to see it. I tried searching the archives but I don't think that the most recent posts have been archived yet. Could you re-post the photo or identify the date so I can look for your post?

FYI, attached below is the photo I posted on Jan 10 that shows a side view of what I believe to be an original wing nut next to the LIC reproduction. The thicknesses are both within the GM 219281 drawing spec of 67 to 77 mils (the "original" measures 67 mils and the LIC repro measures 72 mils), but the profile of the ears is different. I think the profile of the ears is the most obvious difference.

The following URL should take you to a top-view photo of the same two wing nuts:


Regarding the long dimension of the wing nut that has been discussed in another posting in this thread, the GM drawing for the 219281 calls for 1.250 to 1.312 inches. Both of the nuts in the photo measure 1.29 inches.

[Joe L.]

Re: Are you referring to thread of Jan 10-11 ?

Joe-----

I don't know just where the original thread is at, but I'll just re-post the photos, including one side view that I did not post previously.

[Joe L.]

Photo #2

Here's one of the top views:

[Joe L.]

Photo #3

Here's another top view. By the way, the nut pictured in all 3 photos is an absolutely known original example from my original owner 1969. I am 100% certain that this was the nut on the car from day one.

[Joe L.]

Re: Are you referring to thread of Jan 10-11 ?

Harry-----

Was there a GM part number on the box it came out of?

[Joe L.]

Addendum

Also, I more carefully measured the dimensions of the nut. The thickness of the material is 0.068-0.069". The overall length of the nut is 1.30". The width of the nut at the widest point is 0.72". The width of the ears at the widest point (top, inner) is .300-.305".

[Joe R.]

Re: Addendum

Thanks, Joe. I think the nut in your photos is pretty much identical to the "believed to be original" nut in my photo.

Interestingly, the thickness, length, and width dimensions are substantially the same for the LIC repro part as well. The main difference in the LIC part is the side view profile of the ears, which is readily visible in the side-by-side photo that I posted earlier.