69 Idle Solenoid

[Erv M.]

Re: 69 Idle Solenoid

I would STRONGLY suggest that this web page be modified to list contact phone numbers, an email address is the only contact information provided therefore that is the avenue I chose.

As you can tell I am more than a little miffed over this issue. Consult the AIM as I believe it calls out which engines the solenoid is used on, not the observation of one car.

[Erv M.]

Re: 69 Idle Solenoid

I would STRONGLY suggest that this web page be modified to list contact phone numbers, an email address is the only contact information provided therefore that is the avenue I chose.

As you can tell I am more than a little miffed over this issue. Consult the AIM as I believe it calls out which engines the solenoid is used on, not the observation of one car.

[Chuck S.]

Re: 69 Idle Solenoid

Erv, at first I didn't even read your post because I have little or no knowledge on underhood configurations for 68-69.

If this one item is the only thing on your car not in perfect harmony with the judging manual, you are fortunate. Even the worst interpretation of this statement is not a criticism of the judging manuals...it is a realistic view that the judging manuals are imperfect and evolving as more data is collected. (No point discussing here how long it should take to revise a judging manual...this has been a frequent topic of heated debates here and the result is ALWAYS an impasse.)

The only advice I can give you is FIRST restore the car to the best of your ability with integrity. Personally, my attitude is to sacrifice judging points if I AM CONVINCED that a certain attribute found on my car is orginal, but in conflict with the judging manual. If there is not enough originality remaining in the car to make a judgement, then restore it to the AIM. If you are fortunate to have an AIM that was used when your car was built, the probability that your car was built to the AIM is VERY high (Yes, there will be exceptions). The problem is that most reproduction AIMs will only be correct for a short period of time, often at the end of the model year.

Finally, take a look at the practical impact of the deduct on your score and determine if it's worth having an anxiety attack over. If you think the attribute is correct as restored, but it disagrees with the judging manual, you can demonstrate integrity and character by refusing to change it...OR, you can cave and change it to insure you get the judging points. Your call. If you want to keep it like you believe it should be, and take the hit, you'll have to find another area where you can make up the point loss.

[Chuck S.]

Re: 69 Idle Solenoid

Erv, at first I didn't even read your post because I have little or no knowledge on underhood configurations for 68-69.

If this one item is the only thing on your car not in perfect harmony with the judging manual, you are fortunate. Even the worst interpretation of this statement is not a criticism of the judging manuals...it is a realistic view that the judging manuals are imperfect and evolving as more data is collected. (No point discussing here how long it should take to revise a judging manual...this has been a frequent topic of heated debates here and the result is ALWAYS an impasse.)

The only advice I can give you is FIRST restore the car to the best of your ability with integrity. Personally, my attitude is to sacrifice judging points if I AM CONVINCED that a certain attribute found on my car is orginal, but in conflict with the judging manual. If there is not enough originality remaining in the car to make a judgement, then restore it to the AIM. If you are fortunate to have an AIM that was used when your car was built, the probability that your car was built to the AIM is VERY high (Yes, there will be exceptions). The problem is that most reproduction AIMs will only be correct for a short period of time, often at the end of the model year.

Finally, take a look at the practical impact of the deduct on your score and determine if it's worth having an anxiety attack over. If you think the attribute is correct as restored, but it disagrees with the judging manual, you can demonstrate integrity and character by refusing to change it...OR, you can cave and change it to insure you get the judging points. Your call. If you want to keep it like you believe it should be, and take the hit, you'll have to find another area where you can make up the point loss.

[Erv M.]

Thank You *NM*

[Erv M.]

Thank You *NM*

[Patrick H.]

Re: 69 Idle Solenoid

Erv,

Yes, but the AIM is also not without errors. Even GM blueprints do, on occasion, have errors and don't match the parts as installed. Only real, untouched cars can tell us what REALLY was installed on the cars.

I believe that Chuck's phone number is in the Restorer, as well as on his website:

http://www.stillcruisincorvettes.com

Patrick




Chuck Berge

[Patrick H.]

Re: 69 Idle Solenoid

Erv,

Yes, but the AIM is also not without errors. Even GM blueprints do, on occasion, have errors and don't match the parts as installed. Only real, untouched cars can tell us what REALLY was installed on the cars.

I believe that Chuck's phone number is in the Restorer, as well as on his website:

http://www.stillcruisincorvettes.com

Patrick




Chuck Berge

[Dick W.]

Re: 69 Idle Solenoid

The more you learn, the less you know. I just looked at a '68 wiring schemetic and it does not show a feed wire for the solenoid. The AIM you say calls for the solenoid. From prior experience the AIM is a very incomplete document with references to things that never happened ('70 LS-6 and '69 LT-1 are two examples)

[Dick W.]

Re: 69 Idle Solenoid

The more you learn, the less you know. I just looked at a '68 wiring schemetic and it does not show a feed wire for the solenoid. The AIM you say calls for the solenoid. From prior experience the AIM is a very incomplete document with references to things that never happened ('70 LS-6 and '69 LT-1 are two examples)

[Chuck S.]

No LS6 in 70...You're Thinking of LS7

Yes, there is an LS7 section, but the AIM was never intended as a guidebook for the novice...the original users had documents and other information sources that helped them past the inconsistencies.

If you knew nothing about 70s, you might also expect from the AIM that tri-carbs (RPO LJ2) and sidepipes (UPC N14, Sheet A1) were available that year. Of course, you would have to ignore those big "Canceled" stamps. I admit not all non-applicable pages are so stamped, but it only results in temporary confusion if the novice sets out to determine why "The Black Book" doesn't show quantity for these options.

[Chuck S.]

No LS6 in 70...You're Thinking of LS7

Yes, there is an LS7 section, but the AIM was never intended as a guidebook for the novice...the original users had documents and other information sources that helped them past the inconsistencies.

If you knew nothing about 70s, you might also expect from the AIM that tri-carbs (RPO LJ2) and sidepipes (UPC N14, Sheet A1) were available that year. Of course, you would have to ignore those big "Canceled" stamps. I admit not all non-applicable pages are so stamped, but it only results in temporary confusion if the novice sets out to determine why "The Black Book" doesn't show quantity for these options.

[Clem Z.]

dick even if the solenoid is missing

the wire should stll be in the wiring harness some place if it originally had the solenoid

[Clem Z.]

dick even if the solenoid is missing

the wire should stll be in the wiring harness some place if it originally had the solenoid

[Chuck S.]

Mmmm...I Don't Know, Clem...

If there was a running change to eliminate the solenoid during the model year, it's possible that changes to the harness would be avoided.

Eliminating the wire from the harness would provide no savings and the change could result in supply problems. It would probably have made sense to simply have the assembly plant snip the wire off close to the harness for the remainder of the model year. This was often done to avoid two unique harnesses for different options, e.g. C60 versus no C60.

If the elimination of the solenoid carried over to the next model year, the elimination of the solenoid wire from the harness would likely have occured at the model year changeover IMO.