-
-
Gary------
I believe the original GM #3708378 grommet had the reduced diameter extension on only one side and "smooth" on the other. In other words, it was configured like the 3790341 but smaller in major OD. The 3708378 was discontinued from SERVICE in July, 1966 and replaced by GM #381957 with later supersessions of GM #6264018 and GM #6270752 which remains available from GM. The 381957, 6264018, and 6270752 have the reduced diameter extensions on both sides. In this manner they can be used for multiple shock and stabilizer bar end link applications. I expect the "Reactec" supplied bushing you picture is a GM #6260418 or 6270752. They will work perfectly for your application and no one will ever know the difference from the 3708378 once installed. By the way, while the GM #3708378 was discontinued from SERVICE as I described, GM says it was used in PRODUCTION through 1982. I kind of doubt it but it's certainly possible.
The GM #5544049 retainer was used for the "upper-upper" and "lower-upper" for L1963-1964 (E1963 used GM #43468 for both). The GM #5544049 was, according to GM, used in PRODUCTION for the "lower-upper" right through 1982. It was also used for the stabilizer end link application for 1964-82. The GM #43468, 5544049, and subsequent supersessive SERVICE part numbers GM #4941130 and GM #25628204 were all virtually identical. I have compared all side-by-side and dimensionally and, for all practical purposes, they are identical. It's even possible that the different part numbers represent different GM division part numbers for the same part. These retainers do differ from the "Reactec" "lower-upper" retainer you show. All of the retainers I mentioned have a hex recess surrounding the center hole. This is used as a locking feature. However, this feature is completely superfluous and unnecessary when the retainer is used for the "lower-upper" position. So, the retainer supplied with the shocks would be completely functional for the "lower-upper" retainer application for any 1963-82 Corvette. I believe it's virtually impossible if not totally impossible for this retainer to be seen once installed. If you wish to use an originally configured retainer with hex recess, they are very easy to find (although not the 5544049). Would I do it? Absolutely not.
By the way, the hex recess style retainers and grommets for the "upper-upper" shock application were used for virtually all Chevrolet applications of the period and for many years including, as I mentioned, 1963-64 Corvettes. The GM #3790342 retainer and GM #3790341 grommet were used only for 1962-68 Chevy II and 1965-82 Corvette. In fact, the Chevy II was the original application for the parts. Why were these used for the Chevy II and Corvette applications rather than the far more common hex recess retainers? I have no idea.In Appreciation of John Hinckley -
-
Comment
-
Gary------
I can only see the rear of the Reactec-supplied "upper-upper" retainer. However, if it has the hex recess on the other side as I expect, then it would be identical to the "lower-upper" retainer originally used. Since you are not going to use these for your "upper-upper" retainers, you could use them for the "lower-upper". To be honest, though, I think I'd use the "lower-upper" retainers you have even though they are not of the original configuration. To me, these are the perfect retainer to use with the "smooth-on-one-side" as-original grommets you have.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
“You'll note it's (approx) 5/16" thick, but UNLIKE a regular not, there's absolutely NO bevel on the edges. Straight cut all the way around.”
I can’t speak to the accuracy of that statement or the knowledge of the poster. Have you ever seen such a nut?
Gary
Comment
-
Gary-------
The configuration described in the Camaro web-site regarding the 1365067 nut is absolutely correct. That's exactly how the nut differed from otherwise similar nuts. Why? My guess is that this was a feature intended to ensure the nut remained in the hex recess on the retainer.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Gary------
I do not. The connecting rod nut might be OK. However, the ends of the connecting rod nut, GM #225854 which remains available from GM, are not completely flat. The points are tapered. My recollection of the shock nuts is that the ends were completely flat.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Alan,
From the camaros.org discussion board, someone said nut 1365067 was superceeded by 3866766, which, as you noted, was a connecting rod nut. But as Joe speculates below, nut 3866766 has the typical beveled corners that we see in virtually all nuts. So, not the completely flat geometry of the original 1365067.
GaryComment
-
Gary------
The original GM #1365067 was 5/16" thick (standard thickness), zinc plated, and with completely flat ends.
The GM #1365067 was superseded by the GM #3866766 in September, 1975. The primary application of the 3866766 was a connecting rod nut. It is a HD nut and is 3/8" thick, slightly thicker than standard nuts. It does have slight tapers on the ends at the points as do most standard nuts. It is phosphate finished rather than zinc plated.
The GM #3866766 was discontinued in October, 1994 and replaced by the GM #225854. The primary application of the 225854 was also as a connecting rod cap nut. It is not a HD nut and is thus standard thickness. It also has the tapered corners at the points. It is zinc plated and remains available from GM.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
Upper front shock hardware for �66
Comment