judging added features

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

I have enjoyed reading all the replies. I think they have been well thought out. I would like to add a comment or question to further this discussion along. I appreciated Dave Houlihan researching our Standard Deduction Tables, I agree with Terry, further research is necessary. In reviewing my Standard Deduction Table, dated March 2019, sway bars are not listed. Therefore should the chassis team then refer to our Judging Standard using C.D.C.I.F? In this reply TFP refers to Typical Factory Production. Is this bar configured like a TFP unit? If applicable is the datecomplete? Is this bar installed correctly? Is the finish of this bar consistent with a TFP bar? I will not offer any opinion regarding a point deduction, just curious if C.D.C.I.F. is the next resource a chassis team should refer to before making a determination.

John
I have said it before and will say it again: The responses to this thread are all well thought out and exceed my expectations when I posted this situation. I am with you all the way regarding the amount of participation and the quality of the responses.

In this case we were assessing, the car is a 1971 LT1. It is a very original low mile (less than 10K) car. The rear sway bar looks in every way a factory installation: If one didn't know the engine installed one would think one was looking at a big block rear suspension. Sadly no information regarding the original owner is available, and we have no claim of factory installation. The current owner just says: "It is the way I bought the car."

[Mark F.]

Re: judging added features

"It is the way I bought the car."

The current (I believe) revision of the JRM essentially states "Controversial Items: If you suspect something to be controversial about your Corvette, but you believe it to be historically authentic, please bring documentation to support your case

I'm all in favor of, and totally support giving the owner the benefit of the doubt (basic rule of judging that needs to be applied to all), but I'm not sure that "It is the way I bought the car." (if it is the only "proof" provided) qualifies as "supporting documentation" for the stated condition in question for this string.

Based on the length, response and diametrically opposed positions (100% deduct vs 0% deduct) presented in this post string, I think this equates to a "Controversial Item Good job, Terry! you have us all thinking, eh?

[Dan A.]

Re: judging added features

John

the car is a 1971 LT1. It is a very original low mile (less than 10K) car. The rear sway bar looks in every way a factory installation: If one didn't know the engine installed one would think one was looking at a big block rear suspension.

Low mile LT1. Now we know the rest off the story.

BB rear suspension, that would mean the the final drive is configured as a small block? I'm assuming C3's have u bolt attachment of the half shafts to the stub axles rather than caps with bolts.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

Low mile LT1. Now we know the rest off the story.

BB rear suspension, that would mean the the final drive is configured as a small block? I'm assuming C3's have u bolt attachment of the half shafts to the stub axles rather than caps with bolts.

Dan
In the era in question (11968-72) LT1s, Big Blocks and all Automatic equipped Corvettes had the so called "Heavy Duty" differentials with the caps and bolts. They also got the shot peened half shafts. I am sorry I didn't add all the necessary product knowledge to my first post.

[Richard M.]

Re: judging added features

Rich

you are not evaluating if the sway bar may be original. You are judging what is typical factory production. On a small block car that bar was not TFP. So, it is an added option (or part of one), or it may be an owner or dealer added accessory such as a luggage rack. If the owner has proof the bar came from the factory that way, that could help you make your call. Otherwise, treat it like an added accessory is my call. No deduct.

Don, Yes I follow and agree it's all based on TFP, but the word Typical leaves a little bit on the table. Typical is not Definite, right, so there has to be some cases where the judges have to allow a bit of a possibility of a different scenario. And yes we have to go by the book or it gets out of hand and inconsistent and we have to follow protocol.

Right, IMO, no deduct for added accessory as long as no holes are drilled etc. Makes sense. Kinda look at it like adding a tissue dispenser under the dash by using the existing screws holding the glovebox door on, etc.

But, here's another thought, maybe it was NOT originally a LT1. Huh? Rich, what are you crazy.... even thinking that?

Maybe it was originally a big block car! Yikes! There's no original doc, no window sticker, POP, Invoice, etc. Maybe the SB is a stamper? Maybe it was done so well it wasn't even considered a stamper motor. As Terry said last night it's common knowledge that the Diff uses caps/bolts and shot peened half shafts on 68 up cars. The fuel line is the same on BB or SB. I learned that from seeing C3 L88's restored at a friends shop here in FL. edit.... The rear diff ratio code and date is not a judged item. Did anyone get the code and date? Maybe it's a BB diff.

Are we sure the front springs are SB springs? Are they BB springs? Were the coils counted and the wire diameter measured? I bet not because we're all not as limber as we used to be and can't crawl under there easily. I may be missing some other obvious SB/BB differences but is this even possible on this car? C3 experts, school me some more on this please.

This has happened before, right? Yes. We know the possibilities are endless on 50-60+ year old cars.

Case in point.... I once inspected a '67 with a big block hood, It had a 283 in it. A Hot-Rod. Then we find out from the original owner(he had the original Title), that it was originally a L71! He blew the motor up, dumped it in the junk yard, and put a built up 327 then a 283 from a old Impala in it.

Rich

[Richard M.]

Re: judging added features

Patrick, The stamp pad for a L89 is JH so would be a sizable deduct with the JE stamp and the aluminum heads.

Rich
PS Sounds like a nice setup though.

[Gary C.]

Re: judging added features

Patrick,

1957 Judges can request the valve covers be removed, if the 997 heads are in doubt to verify the casting number.

Gary
....

[Michael H.]

Re: judging added features

Patrick, The stamp pad for a L89 is JH so would be a sizable deduct with the JE stamp and the aluminum heads.

Rich
PS Sounds like a nice setup though.

Rich,

Looks like a 50 point deduct on cylinder heads for the Aluminum heads as they weren't available on a JE motor.

Mike

[Patrick B.]

Re: judging added features

Rich,

Looks like 25 point deduct, also it could be IU as JH would be a L89 with Air Injection reactor which I would assume would be very rare.

Mike

Thanks for the opinions. I never considered that the deduct would be based on the original block rather than the non-original heads.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

Don, Yes I follow and agree it's all based on TFP, but the word Typical leaves a little bit on the table. Typical is not Definite, right, so there has to be some cases where the judges have to allow a bit of a possibility of a different scenario. And yes we have to go by the book or it gets out of hand and inconsistent and we have to follow protocol.

Right, IMO, no deduct for added accessory as long as no holes are drilled etc. Makes sense. Kinda look at it like adding a tissue dispenser under the dash by using the existing screws holding the glovebox door on, etc.

But, here's another thought, maybe it was NOT originally a LT1. Huh? Rich, what are you crazy.... even thinking that?

Maybe it was originally a big block car! Yikes! There's no original doc, no window sticker, POP, Invoice, etc. Maybe the SB is a stamper? Maybe it was done so well it wasn't even considered a stamper motor. As Terry said last night it's common knowledge that the Diff uses caps/bolts and shot peened half shafts on 68 up cars. The fuel line is the same on BB or SB. I learned that from seeing C3 L88's restored at a friends shop here in FL. edit.... The rear diff ratio code and date is not a judged item. Did anyone get the code and date? Maybe it's a BB diff.

Are we sure the front springs are SB springs? Are they BB springs? Were the coils counted and the wire diameter measured? I bet not because we're all not as limber as we used to be and can't crawl under there easily. I may be missing some other obvious SB/BB differences but is this even possible on this car? C3 experts, school me some more on this please.

This has happened before, right? Yes. We know the possibilities are endless on 50-60+ year old cars.

Case in point.... I once inspected a '67 with a big block hood, It had a 283 in it. A Hot-Rod. Then we find out from the original owner(he had the original Title), that it was originally a L71! He blew the motor up, dumped it in the junk yard, and put a built up 327 then a 283 from a old Impala in it.

Rich

Interesting idea Rich. Yes, I think one could make a C3 big block into an LT1, with some skill. But would someone with that skill leave the rear sway bar behind (pun intended)?

To install the rear sway bar on an early C3 no additional holes need to be drilled. They are all there already.

[Michael H.]

Re: judging added features

Thanks for the opinions. I never considered that the deduct would be based on the original block rather than the non-original heads.

Pat only one deduct for the non-original heads (50 points) aluminum vs cast iron for that JE motor.

Mike

[Gary B.]

[Joseph S.]

Re: judging added features

Mike, There should be no deduction for the Block if everything there is correct. The block and stampings are judged before the heads. Once the block is judged, everything else is judged according to the information on the block. (Assuming the block is correct!)

I know this is off the original topic. I just felt a comment was necessary here.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

We can have our own mini-poll of the four Garys now. I agree with Gary Bosselman. Say the original buyer said to the dealer, OK, I agree to the price, but only if you add floor mats, a RH side mirror, a luggage rack, and a rear sway bar. We’d never knew if that’s what happened, of course, but I would judge those items with the same approach. Deduct for missing fiberglass and paint for the mounting holes for the mirror and rack, and no deduct for the mats or the sway bar. At least that’s a consistent way in my mind to approach the issue. So, two Garys for no deduct; two Garys for a full deduct.

Gary

Gary Beaupre
How did you know Gary Bosselman was involved in the original discussion? I deliberately didn't reveal who was involved as to not to sway this discussion.

Edit add: I just found Gary Bosselman's post above. I had missed it earlier because of the way I se the posts in the thread. If I post a response the posts I have not yet read are marked as read and I miss them. Usually that is not a problem for me, but this thread has been so active it sometimes gets away from me. My bad.

And it wasn't Gary's suggestion to post up here either. There were four people involved in the original discussion, and three of the four have more than 400 points and a couple have red hats. But none of that matters. Full disclosure: I have had no discussion with any NTLs nor with the NJC regarding this and I have no idea if any of them are watching.

The number of comments are slowing down, so I am close to stating my position and then asking the NTLs and NJC to chime in. I have a mini road trip scheduled for tomorrow, weather permitting. I'll add my dos centavos this evening and see where the chips fall while I view the flatland of Illinois through the windshield of my newest Caprice (1995 48K miles).

[Michael H.]

Re: judging added features

Mike, There should be no deduction for the Block if everything there is correct. The block and stampings are judged before the heads. Once the block is judged, everything else is judged according to the information on the block. (Assuming the block is correct!)

I know this is off the original topic. I just felt a comment was necessary here.

Your correct, deduct for heads only.

Mike