63 Frame Restoration Questions Correct or Not
I am restoring a rolling chassis for a customer in my shop to NCRS standards. In hopes to restore a frame correctly I began researching prior restoration pictures, documentation from other restorations, fellow forum members, and the parts as we see them when removed.
The car is aprox s/n 5600 with 57k miles showing on the odometer. My customer requested that the frame be brought back to the original appearance and in my talks with him we considered re-tubing the drive shaft and half shafts to make them appear correct per standards. Then I remembered seeing a picture in the Noland Adams book showing a frame on the assembly line and the half shafts were not raw.
Intrigued by this, I began researching books including the Noland Adams restoration guide. In this guide on Page 27 there is a picture of a 63 frame going down the assembly line (Pictured below). This frame clearly shows the half shafts, the strut rods, and most other parts coated black and not “raw” as suggested. I then began posting on another forum asking questions about this black substance on the suspension parts and the response there only pushed me further.
With this in mind we started to disassemble the frame and began to notice a black substance on all the parts which included the drive shafts, the half shafts, steering gear box, and just about all other items that were deemed to be “in the raw”. Note the drive shaft pictures below which show runs of this goo on the side. Now look at the shinny areas in the picture. The shinny areas were lightly coated in this same solution and when cleaned off it was bare shinny metal underneath. The metal was so preserved it looks as if it were brand new
.
In addition to these findings, we have pictures from other restorations suggesting the black out is not just a theory but indeed something that happened.
This is the second 63 frame I’ve restored, and the forth 63-64 frame restoration. Each time in the past I have followed the guidelines set forth in the judging guide but each time I remembered finding this tar like substance on the suspension. This goo coating was always a pain in the neck to remove since it slows down sand blasting, will not dissolve in acid, and has to be cleaned off before you attempt either. Personally I would rather blast these smaller parts in our blast cabinet than to use our larger blaster which makes a mess. I never paid attention to this goo until this time around and always blamed the dealerships for undercoating the car. I wonder how may people out there have found the same stuff on their cars and had the same thought.
My issues with doing this frame at first was do I restore the frame to the known judging standards, or do I restore it to what I believe is correct. Ultimately, this is not my decision and so I left it up to my customer.
I’m not trying to stir up a whirl wind here, but if enough people keep finding this stuff on frames would there not be a change in order for the JG. It has been pointed out to me that the JG is just what it states “guide” and not a manual as previously issued by NCRS.
Ernie
The car is aprox s/n 5600 with 57k miles showing on the odometer. My customer requested that the frame be brought back to the original appearance and in my talks with him we considered re-tubing the drive shaft and half shafts to make them appear correct per standards. Then I remembered seeing a picture in the Noland Adams book showing a frame on the assembly line and the half shafts were not raw.
Intrigued by this, I began researching books including the Noland Adams restoration guide. In this guide on Page 27 there is a picture of a 63 frame going down the assembly line (Pictured below). This frame clearly shows the half shafts, the strut rods, and most other parts coated black and not “raw” as suggested. I then began posting on another forum asking questions about this black substance on the suspension parts and the response there only pushed me further.
With this in mind we started to disassemble the frame and began to notice a black substance on all the parts which included the drive shafts, the half shafts, steering gear box, and just about all other items that were deemed to be “in the raw”. Note the drive shaft pictures below which show runs of this goo on the side. Now look at the shinny areas in the picture. The shinny areas were lightly coated in this same solution and when cleaned off it was bare shinny metal underneath. The metal was so preserved it looks as if it were brand new
.
In addition to these findings, we have pictures from other restorations suggesting the black out is not just a theory but indeed something that happened.
This is the second 63 frame I’ve restored, and the forth 63-64 frame restoration. Each time in the past I have followed the guidelines set forth in the judging guide but each time I remembered finding this tar like substance on the suspension. This goo coating was always a pain in the neck to remove since it slows down sand blasting, will not dissolve in acid, and has to be cleaned off before you attempt either. Personally I would rather blast these smaller parts in our blast cabinet than to use our larger blaster which makes a mess. I never paid attention to this goo until this time around and always blamed the dealerships for undercoating the car. I wonder how may people out there have found the same stuff on their cars and had the same thought.
My issues with doing this frame at first was do I restore the frame to the known judging standards, or do I restore it to what I believe is correct. Ultimately, this is not my decision and so I left it up to my customer.
I’m not trying to stir up a whirl wind here, but if enough people keep finding this stuff on frames would there not be a change in order for the JG. It has been pointed out to me that the JG is just what it states “guide” and not a manual as previously issued by NCRS.
Ernie
Comment