Belts

[John H.]

Re: From a practical point of view

Mike -

I agree with your point (we've both been there), but that didn't stop Chevrolet from designing Corvettes (and other carline SHP applications) with "captive" belts between the crank and water pump pulleys; tension wasn't an issue on captive belts in those days - the belt either went on or it didn't. We put the crank pulley on first, wrapped the belt around it, fitted the water pump pulley to the other end of the belt, and attached the pulley to the water pump hub - sometimes had to use a "stretcher" fixture with an over-center toggle on it to get the water pump pulley holes to line up. Certainly not like today's processes.

[Loren L.]

Re: Belts

I certainly hope that you all realize that you have "crossed the line"; the very idea that you have brought forward original owners and factory line photos to show that "those who know" are wrong or at least didn't pay attention during the manual review is heretic. My god, the next thing you know, they might agree that the factory photo of 1960 # 2269 taken one week after it was produced has an identification dot in the middle of the ballast resistor. But they'll probably stick to the "it was a fly" story.

[Clem Z.]

Re: From a practical point of view

john, some chevy engines used just the belt around the WPP and the CSP but some also had a extra adjustable pulley for this shorter belt. i think chevy did this on the SHP engines because they had the problems of throwing off the long belt at high RPMs. we stopped the problem of losing the long belts by installing a belt guard on the generator/altenator pulley because this is where they were climbing the pulley.

[Peter J.]

Re: From a practical point of view

Good point! When I first bought my 66 L-79, I called Quanta about belts for this engine and they sent me two belts and told me to keep the one that fit and return the other one. One fit like a glove and the other was too tight.
My understanding about the two belt setup was that the water pump to crank belt was there to keep the car from over heating if you threw off the alternator belt at high rpm.

[Henry J.]

Re: Belts

I am involved in this belt/pulley controversy with my own 66 L79 (with P/S) but I have a document that I received from GM of Canada which may be of interest.

The title page of the document is as follows: "Original Copy, 1966 Corvette Specifications, December 1965 Revision, Chevrolet Engineering Center, Engineering Product Information Department, Warren, Michigan". It looks pretty official to me.

On page 13, under the heading "Belts", it clearly states:
Number Used, V8-327 Cu.In.(RPO L79).....Two
Angle of "V".....38 Degrees - 42 Degrees
Pitch Line [Fan, Generator, and Water Pump Belt] V8-327 Cu.In.(RPO L79)...54.00
Pitch Line [Fan and Water Pump Belt] V8-327 Cu.In.(RPO L79)...34.40
Width...0.380

Similar information is presented for the other engines, for example:

The base 327 is shown as having only ONE belt.
The 427's are shown as having TWO belts.

There is no mention of belt-driven accessories in this section of the document, so I assume that this information applies to engines without P/S and A/C.

In my case, (very unmolested, 25,000 mile L79 with P/S) I have all the correct pullies called out in the AIM, with the exception of the "required" single-groove add-on C/S pulley (which appears to be completely unneccessary). The only way my existing pulleys line up are with the rear belt routed around the C/S, W/P and ALT pullies and the front belt routed around the C/S and P/S pullies. This leaves me with an empty forward groove on the W/P pulley.

The car received its second Top Flight in June, but the judges were certain that what they saw "couldn't' be right, as it didn't agree with the TIM&JG.

In my opinion, this whole matter of (1) number of belts and (2) their routing needs urgent clarification.

[Mike McKown]

Re: From a practical point of view

Interesting process!

[Tom Merkel]

Re: From a practical point of view

Well put, Mike. My '67 L-79 had two belts installed from new, and way-back-when when the water pump leaked, upon reinstalling a new pump, I discovered exactly how difficult is was to (a) find the properly sized second belt, and (b) how difficult it was to get it back on.

It was a chore, and I never did fit the second belt (CS/water pump) on, because....well, it was impossible for a driveway-type mechanic like me to make happen. (I guess I could have sought help or asked for advice).

Whatever. So, although my '67 L-79 had two installed at delivery, it hasn't seen a second belt for probably 30 yrs. And it runs just fine, thank you very much.

Tom

[Gary B.]

Henry; that's excellent information! *NM*

[Peter L.]

[Gary B.]

Pete; what's the procedure to appeal

Pete,

What's the approved procedure to appeal to the TIJG revision team
for them to consider a change? Write to the team leader and and cc Roy Sinor and send them a copy of your post, Henry's post, any other testimonials that I know of?

Gary

[Peter L.]

Re: Pete; what's the procedure to appeal

Gary - That should get the ball rolling. Formal transmission of information with supporting evidence is one of the keys, after all it is our organization and we're always learning things about these cars. Fact is just recently, John Hinkley did a survey of '67 base motor intake manifold casing dates because a goodly number of these manifolds appeared to have been produced more than 6 months (the general NCRS acceptance window) before the car and engine assembly dates. It's my understanding that the next revision of the '67 TIM&JG will include this info. So, get your stuff together and forward it to the judging folks and work with them on getting is verified and accepted. Pete

[Duke W.]

Re: Pete; what's the procedure to appeal

Gary - yes, write the team leader and cc Roy. Also, be sure to include copies of supporting evidence. Perhaps Pete could send you copies of the parts catalog belt listings and copies of these posts would be useful.

At the National Convention I turned in a letter with supporting documents including a copy of a TSB to the '63 Team Leader and Roy. Haven't heard anything back, but I assume they will consider my correspondence and the backup documentation.

Duke

[Craig S.]

Re: Pete; what's the procedure to appeal

I went through a similar process for 67 L79 KH cars for the A.I.R. bracket being listed incorrectly in the JG as stamped steel vs cast. Between my actual pictures of 66/67 part with casting number, and the subsequent newer part, plus Joe Lucia's support, Kieth was very responsive and is correcting the next revision of the JG for 67. It really made me feel like I had contributed something to the hobby....Craig

[Craig S.]

Re: Pete; what's the procedure to appeal

Now I am thinking this same error is in the 66 manual, I will have to look. It probably needs coordination between Kieth and Roy...Craig

[Peter L.]

Re: C2:L79-# of V-belts(Another data pt.)

Gary - Additional checking shows Quanta lists a "Water Pump Belt, 350 H.P. w/o A.C. and/or P.S.), their Part #B-075, for 1966-67 Corvette (Small Block). I figure there must be an application or else they wouldn't make one. Pete