Re: 63 vacuum advance
We've had discussions about this before, and I said that the 1116163 VAC is a boat anchor. I do not recommend it for ANY Corvette engine, even the base cam engines. The B1 ID is correct for aftermarket replacements that match the 163 spec, but this specification VAC was never used on a production Corvette engine.
Unfortunately, at some point, GM consolodated a number of OE VACs with a single replacement part number and chose the 163. Bad choice! And since the aftermarket keys off the GM replacment part number, that's why the "B1" VAC get purchased by a lot of unknowing Corvette owners.
The 1115201 is very rare because, if it was available through service parts, its life span was short. It was discontinued from service parts even when it was OE on the L-71.
I don't recall the construction details of the 201 on my 327/340 as I disposed of it 40 years ago when I replaced it with the 1116236 8" VAC to solve the idle stability problem, but I see no reason why it would be constructed any differently than other VACs of the era.
At this point in time an original would certainly have a "patina" from 40 years on the engine. I have seen a few.
Duke
We've had discussions about this before, and I said that the 1116163 VAC is a boat anchor. I do not recommend it for ANY Corvette engine, even the base cam engines. The B1 ID is correct for aftermarket replacements that match the 163 spec, but this specification VAC was never used on a production Corvette engine.
Unfortunately, at some point, GM consolodated a number of OE VACs with a single replacement part number and chose the 163. Bad choice! And since the aftermarket keys off the GM replacment part number, that's why the "B1" VAC get purchased by a lot of unknowing Corvette owners.
The 1115201 is very rare because, if it was available through service parts, its life span was short. It was discontinued from service parts even when it was OE on the L-71.
I don't recall the construction details of the 201 on my 327/340 as I disposed of it 40 years ago when I replaced it with the 1116236 8" VAC to solve the idle stability problem, but I see no reason why it would be constructed any differently than other VACs of the era.
At this point in time an original would certainly have a "patina" from 40 years on the engine. I have seen a few.
Duke
Comment