63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

[Thomas B.]

Is this the correct way to attach the spring to the carburetor?

[Edward J.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

Tom, the cotter key is not correct, I believe the spring loops through the hole, personally I like the cotter key, I would change it up only if you decide to judge the car.

[Leif A.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

Thomas,
Remove the cotter pin and loop the return spring through the hole where you currently have the cotter pin...done.

[Duke W.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

I agree!

Duke

[Thomas B.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

Thank you for your responses. I've seen them set up the way you suggest but my AIM Sheet C1.00 shows a cotter pin and seems to show the spring installed the way I have it. Was there an update in the AIM that I don't have? This is the 340 hp engine.

[Harry S.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

Tom, the AIM was a living document, meaning it could have updates/changes every day. Especially in 1963 with all the running changes. You like the rest of us have a copy of a copy of a copy of the AIM. What we don't know, what version was that original that we have a copy from. Saying that, each of us could have an AIM that is different.

[Thomas B.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

Here's a copy of my sheet C1.00 on this subject. The last revision date is hard to read but I believe it was 5-11-63. Cotter pin is still indicated. The date on my Shipping Data report is 2-18-63. Was the cotter pin deleted after 5-11-63?

Thanks much

[Don H.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

I don't know if the cotter pin was deleted after 5/11/63. But, judges evaluate the appearance of originality based upon what has been observed on original cars, ie. what was typical of factory production. They do not evaluate based on what is drawn in the AIM. Oftentimes, typical factory production practices did not match the AIM.

[Thomas B.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

Don,
Are items like this that are typical of factory production but differ from the AIM explained in the Technical Information and Judging Guide?

[Harry S.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

Don,
Are items like this that are typical of factory production but differ from the AIM explained in the Technical Information and Judging Guide?

Sometime yes, sometimes no. There are several examples during 63 where the AIM does not match what actually happened in St. Louis. As you go through the car, post a question here. Lot's of 63 guys hang out here.

[Thomas B.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

Sure will. I have gotten quite a bit of good info from the forum and will continue to ask questions as I go through the car. have already straightened out quite a few things already with help of more experienced members.

For the present question, I'm with Edward J. I prefer having the cotter pin in place. Will leave it for now.

[Edward B.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

By threading the spring through the hole, the corporate bean counters would have been able to eliminate a cotter pin from each car. Personally, I like the security of the pin and dislike having the spring serve two functions.

[Edward J.]

Re: 63 340hp Accelerator Return Spring Attachment

If your 63 car has a original spring, sure would be great to see a pic. I think the repro spring loop on the ends is to large and engagement though the accelerator rod is very questionable, also the power of the return capibility, at best the loop is about a 1/3rd engaged.