C2 original exhaust extension part#

[Rob A.]

The price exhaust tips with the seam AND part# are selling for make me ask this again....did originals have the part# on them.? My understanding was they did not have the part#. (I realize parts often sell for much more than they should to uninformed buyers...but these have been going for big blucks consistently, considering they are not original)

[Harry Sadlock]

Re: C2 original exhaust extension part#

Rob, from a 1963 viewpoint, NO part number on original installed tips. Also, the metal was very thin.

I also believe that 64 to 67 was the same, but others will chime-in.

Harry

[Kent K.]

Re: C2 original exhaust extension part#

Rob ---- I believe mine ('67) have no part number and are original to the car.
Regards, Kent Keech

[Gary B.]

'66 TIM&JG

Regarding tailpipe extensions, the '66 TIM&JG says "most have visible part numbers". That phrase is one reason that people spend big bucks for the NOS extensions. Whether the JG is right or wrong I don't know, but given what the JG currently says, I'm going install my NOS extensions that have the stamped number when the time comes.

Gary

[William C.]

Re: '66 TIM&JG

I think most of the serious judges are ahead of the JG revisions. There were NO numbers on originals, First set of numbered pipes I ever saw were a set I bought new from a Chevy Dealer in about 1973. I was not pleased when I compared them to the originals.

[Gary B.]

Bill: '66 TIM&JG; what revisions?

Bill,

What TIM&JG revisions are you referring to? Is the '66 JG description of the extensions in the process of being revised?

Gary

[John D.]

Re: C2 original exhaust extension part#

Rob, That part# thing has been floating around now for many years. My 63 has original extensions-no part number. Yea on the auction site the bidders go nuts over those fak ones. Jr.

[William C.]

Re: Bill: '66 TIM&JG; what revisions?

That was partially in jest, but I expect the JG will catch up with reality at some time.