Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

[Joseph T.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

IMG_1848.jpg66 Vin 23058 the nut is on top ,however, 65 Vin 6427 the nut is on the bottom. My research on the 67 Corvettes showed that typically the nut was on top on 80% of the cars surveyed.

[Tony S.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Thanks Jay! Stay dry!

[Gary B.]

[Mark F.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Sorry, but I don't know how to import an Excel Table...which would look much better than this...
Anyhow, here's a quick and dirty on this string so far - sorted by lowest to highest VIN for 1965 and 1966:

1965 VIN	Heads up; Nuts down	Nuts up; Heads down
1491	1
6427	1
14790	1
16786		1
17752		1
18789	1
21429	1
22205	1
Totals	6	2
Percentages >	75%	25%
1966 VIN	Heads up; Nuts down	Nuts up; Heads down
00143		1
00657	1
4429	1
8989	1
16009		1
19112	1
19676		1
23058		1
24930		1
26xxx	1
Totals	5	5
Percentages >	50%	50%

[Gary B.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Thanks. Great info.

Gary

[Tony S.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Thanks Mark. Let's keep this going. I'd like 25 cars as a sample size for each year. 👍 Tony

[Mark F.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Thanks Mark. Let's keep this going. I'd like 25 cars as a sample size for each year.  Tony

Will do, Tony.
this is how it looks in the Excel spreadsheet:
Heads UP Nuts down 65 66 a arm bumper attachment_001.jpg

[Tony S.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Thanks Mark. Add:

1966. Car no. 1592. Bolt head up.
1966. Car no. 2758. Bolt head up.

Thanks, Tony

[Mark F.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Not very pretty, Tony but here's the updated data with the two cars you added:
(Does someone know how to paste in a Table to a TDB post and it keeps the Table format from Word or Excel?)

1965 VIN (8 so far)	Heads up	Nuts up		1966 VIN (12 so far)	Heads up	Nuts up
01491	1			00143		1
06427	1			00657	1
14790	1			01592	1
16786		1		02758	1
17752		1		04429	1
18789	1			08989	1
21429	1			16009		1
22205	1			19112	1
Totals	6	2		19676		1
Percentage >	75%	25%		23058		1
				24930		1
				26xxx	1
				Totals	7	5
				Percentage >	58%	42%

[Tony S.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Great. Thanks Mark. Let's keep it going. Let's see how this blends with Jay's 67 survey. 👍 Tony

[Gary J.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Just out of curiosity how many ‘67’s were in the survey?

[Joseph T.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

86 Corvettes from 1967 were in the survey. All Corvettes were observed by myself and were unrestored with several Bowtie or Benchmark cars. The problem is there was no correlation with production dates and the way the bolt was installed. It was installed both ways throughout production. The National 67 Chassis judges currently accept either installation as correct.

[Tony S.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Thanks Jay. Good to know. Hope you are well and dry! Tony

[Gary J.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Jay, what year did this go into effect that either installation is correct? It would be nice if there was an addendum added to the Judging Manual.

[Joseph T.]

Re: Survey: 1965 and 1966 Lower A-Arm rubber bumper bolts installation orientation.

Probably around 2018 the 67 Chassis team decided the bolts could be installed either way in the lower A-Arm bumpers. Also, the lower A-Arms and ball joints are only worth 5 points total so typically that bolt installation would only warrant a note and not a deduction.