Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

[Richard R.]

This is a rant.

I'm working on a 69 L46 convertible and have been buying repro parts as needed when originals were not available. I do appreciate there are so many vendors to choose from when looking for corvette parts and they are generally very helpful. There have been a few pieces I bought that were really close to the original but for most, the repro parts are not correct. The fit isn't quite right, the finish off a bit, the script is different, the material is wrong, the color off, the plating incorrect. And it goes on and on.

I have worked in manufacturing my whole life so I truly understand the compromise of quality vs cost. But I can't understand why these vendors just can't get the parts right. Is it lack of original examples to duplicate from, is it licensing rules that prevent an exact reproduction, is it concern that the increased cost will drive the cost beyond what we're willing to pay, is it poor quality control, do they think that close enough is good enough, is it more important to the vendors to get it done vs getting a part sourced/made correct?

And I know it is not just corvettes restorers that suffer this. I helped a friend restore a 54 GMC pickup last year and he had the same problems. Fenders not quite right, brackets bent the wrong way. Trim cut wrong, etc, etc.....

Are we the problem? Do I care too much? By accepting these deficiencies do we encourage the suppliers to keep cutting corners? I know I have returned lots of incorrect parts and suffered restocking charges, lots of extra freight and comments like "we never had the problem before" etc. Sometimes I just give up and make the best of it that I can. In fact I am doing that right now on some interior parts.

But darn it, why can't they do it right?

[Frank D.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

I don't have an answer, I've been restoring cars Mustangs, Chevelles and now vintage Corvettes since the 70's and the parts paradigm went through OEM/Service Replacements, and when they started drying up really, REALLY bad Chiwanese crap (pre-Internet), now its a bit better but not much...
CAD/CAM, 3-D printers, etc... and the vendors can't seem to make a reasonable facsimile of 60 year old, low-tech produced parts. Like headlight switches, steering couplers, glove box light switches or dash gauges. Its totally mystifying to me..

As to cost, I would pay a healthy premium to get a part that's correct and functions properly over cheaper nonsense that doesn't fit or doesn't work or fails quickly...

[Joe L.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

This is a rant.

I'm working on a 69 L46 convertible and have been buying repro parts as needed when originals were not available. I do appreciate there are so many vendors to choose from when looking for corvette parts and they are generally very helpful. There have been a few pieces I bought that were really close to the original but for most, the repro parts are not correct. The fit isn't quite right, the finish off a bit, the script is different, the material is wrong, the color off, the plating incorrect. And it goes on and on.

I have worked in manufacturing my whole life so I truly understand the compromise of quality vs cost. But I can't understand why these vendors just can't get the parts right. Is it lack of original examples to duplicate from, is it licensing rules that prevent an exact reproduction, is it concern that the increased cost will drive the cost beyond what we're willing to pay, is it poor quality control, do they think that close enough is good enough, is it more important to the vendors to get it done vs getting a part sourced/made correct?

And I know it is not just corvettes restorers that suffer this. I helped a friend restore a 54 GMC pickup last year and he had the same problems. Fenders not quite right, brackets bent the wrong way. Trim cut wrong, etc, etc.....

Are we the problem? Do I care too much? By accepting these deficiencies do we encourage the suppliers to keep cutting corners? I know I have returned lots of incorrect parts and suffered restocking charges, lots of extra freight and comments like "we never had the problem before" etc. Sometimes I just give up and make the best of it that I can. In fact I am doing that right now on some interior parts.

But darn it, why can't they do it right?

Richard------


I believe this is the root of the problem: PRODUCTION parts are manufactured in large quantity to fullfill PRODUCTION quantity requirements, PRODUCTION validation standards, and SERVICE parts needs. They are manufactured using high quality tooling which is capable of producing a large quantity of PRODUCTION quality parts. For as long as this tooling exists and is serviceable (or until GMSPO otherwise decides), high quality parts can be produced.

Once the tooling is scrapped or becomes non-serviceable, it becomes nearly impossible to manufacture PRODUCTION quality parts. Anyone reproducing such parts cannot afford to obtain PRODUCTION quality tooling as it would be far too expensive to justify based upon the very limited market. Inferior tooling=inferior parts. Plain and simple.

[Frank D.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

I hear all that but when I read about undergrads making serviceable prosthetic limbs for children on 3D printers in a college lab for a few hundred dollars, it makes me wonder. Granted, I don't know all the nuances of producing metal reproductions. At any rate here is the repro grill that was on my 61 when I bought it (replaced with a nice Paragon repro). Ugh!

[Richard G.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

Sometimes their just isn't an excuse. I purchased a bolt set for my valve covers. It's as simple a purchasing the correct style head from a screw vendor. I just figured it would be easy enough to add these to an existing order. The ones that arrived weren't correct. It was the difference between a fillister head and a pan head. No excuse for purchasing not getting this correct. BTW I had mine re-plated.
Some items were beautify done, the 1963 shift console was one example. Only the sheen was off a little from an NOS item I had.
The rockers panels were ok, but the black contrasting paint job was pathetic. Looks like they were bent when view from an angle.
One would have thought getting the stamping correct would have been the difficult part. Then to screw it up at the finish line.
Lack of attention to detail, and zero continuous improvement loop. However, some vendors do take it seriously.
Exactly why the first restoration is the most difficult. This group helps cull the junk! Thanks to everyone that has been there done that.
Cheers
Rick

[Joe L.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

Frank------


Well, maybe now that 3D printing is coming into the mainstream there will be better reproduction parts out there.

[Bill M.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

I read somewhere years ago that if a part is not officially licensed it cannot be an exact reproduction or risk lawsuit with original manufacturer

[Joe L.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

I read somewhere years ago that if a part is not officially licensed it cannot be an exact reproduction or risk lawsuit with original manufacturer

Bill------


I don't know about that. However, I do know that a lot of the parts that ARE OFFICIALLY LICENSED are not true to the originals in form or function.

[Terry M.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

I believe a lot of the lack of 100% reproduction configuration and attention to detail is because 90+% of their market is to people who just don't care, so the producers (not necessarily the vendors on the retail level) just don't care either. We have to remember we represent only a small fraction of the reproduction market. We are like the tail trying to wag the dog.

[Frank D.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

If demand is ultra-limited they just stop making the nice repros (or never started); e.g. there never were any repro 63 power brake booster boots (that I know of) and not many repro 63 one-year-only glove box door skins (I may have gotten the last one from Trim Parts).

Even "high burner" repro parts that are common replacements can be made so badly they need replaced in a few years; like the 63-66 repro clutch pedal....the welds at the cross shaft tongue are a built in defect IMO. I'd rather not pay for a part that's a POS and prefer they don't even offer it than have to struggle with some of the stuff I've seen...

[Mark B.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

Wow. I came on to look up p-brake cable replacement and saw this thread. 1 hour ago I was just ranting to my Daughter about the same thing.
The root of the problem is you have a retail business or an individual ordering manufactured parts. I seriously doubt there is a detailed set of drawings that go out with the RFQ. I doubt it even more that there is a qualified QA person checking the incoming orders. They really can't if there isn't a drawing in the first place. Someone in a 3rd world paradise is handed an example and asked if they can make an exact copy. Of course their answer is "yes", the family wouldn't eat with a no answer. Maybe the example is from the last batch before the tooling was scrapped for excessive wear. It barely fit when new. Without a good drawing or file it doesn't matter if it's 4D printing.
As the guys have said, with such a limited market who would invest the money? The only way it could happen is to pick one part at a time. Then have members that do this everyday do one step in the process.

[Mark B.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

It looks like GM is guilty also. I just found out that the recently purchased, in the box GM front P- brake cable (3842936 1995 sticker date) doesn't fit. The ends of the original cable are 3/8" and the new one is 1/2". The new one doesn't have the proper recess to catch the bolt on the rear mount also. This is on a '66. More calls, more aggravation.

[Joe L.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

It looks like GM is guilty also. I just found out that the recently purchased, in the box GM front P- brake cable (3842936 1995 sticker date) doesn't fit. The ends of the original cable are 3/8" and the new one is 1/2". The new one doesn't have the proper recess to catch the bolt on the rear mount also. This is on a '66. More calls, more aggravation.

Mark-------

Are you saying that the part as received by you is not usable or are you saying that it's not NCRS "correct"? I do not see how the different size cable ends could make the cable unusable, albeit "incorrect". In that regard, GM makes no guarantees as to NCRS correctness for any part they supply.

The GM #3842936 cable was released in 1963 for the 1964 model year. The last use of this part was 1966 and, other than Corvette, I can find no other GM applications for it. It is still available today from GM for about 60 bucks, GM list, 57 years after its release and 54 years after its last use in PRODUCTION. I'd actually say that's pretty amazing. In any event, often times parts will change over the course of such a long history. When they become SERVICE only (after 1966 for this part) I believe that GM oversight and inspection "tails off".

[Dan B.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

I worked on many GM cars from the 60's where there simply were very few or NO reproduction parts and unless you could find an NOS replacement, the Western junk yards were your friend. I had to fabricate many parts on my own. Imagine trying to make a pair of OEM 61 Olds door panels from scratch. We are fortunate to at least have some parts options for these cars after 50+ years. Depends on what parts you are talking about as well. Trim Parts has exceptional stuff, LL wiring harnesses are better quality than original IMO, AK & CA interiors also, Dewitts radiators, and other vendors who use GM tooling to re create, but switches and electrical components, they can't get it right (temperature senders, fuel senders ect...). It's a mixed bag, but we still have it much better than many. That being said, whenever possible I will go the extra mile to save an original part. Luckily, much of our original stuff can be restored with some effort.

[Mark B.]

Re: Is it really that much extra effort to make it (reproduction parts) right?

Joe
It isn't a direct replacement functionally, the pic will show it isn't judging material.
The solid ends of the housing are 1/2" diameter while the original is 3/8". The cable clamps are formed for the 3/8" and I doubt the retaining bolt would mate with the recess in the end if I spread it. The back cable clamp grabs the housing farther back and has a recess for the bolt accordingly. I suspect with all the pressure on these that the bolt is more responsible for keeping the housing fore/aft location than the clamp. The red arrow facing left in the pic is the back end of the cable and points out the recess. It's a good bit further back than the front location. Need to do some searching around.100_2546.jpg