67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

[David S.]

Hi,

Can someone provide me with the original part numbers for 67 BB 2-1/2 side pipes.

Thanks,
Dave

[Wayne M.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

Hi,

Can someone provide me with the original part numbers for 67 BB 2-1/2 side pipes.
....

LH # 3872969; RH # 3872970. Gr 3.701. Covers '65 thru '67 BB exhaust.

[David S.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

Thanks Wayne.

Does anyone know if originals are supposed to have a mandrel bend mark between the flange and the galvanized pipe?

Thanks,
Dave

[David S.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

For instance, would this pipe pass NCRS judging?



Thanks,
Dave

[Joe L.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

For instance, would this pipe pass NCRS judging?



Thanks,
Dave

Dave-----


This appears original to me. Why did you have to remind me of sidepipes? I've been working for a long time to forget about them. YUCK!

[Paul D.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

Joe,
I've never been a big fan of sidepipes myself, but was wondering what fuels your apparent disdain for them. Also, how many sets do you have in your collection (none for sale, of course). Chip.

[Russ S.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

There's nothing more pleaseing to my ears than the great sound of the side pipes. Love em.

[Wayne M.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

..... Why did you have to remind me of sidepipes? I've been working for a long time to forget about them. YUCK!

Joe -- turn your eyes away from this post .

Here's an NOS set I bought about 6 years ago, just before Robert Pelland bought out the whole North American GM stock .

I do see some smoother mandrel marks. Also on mine, the part # was stamped; I'm not saying that all service pipes were so.

[John H.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

Does anyone know if originals are supposed to have a mandrel bend mark between the flange and the galvanized pipe?

Thanks,
Dave

Dave -

Just to clarify, Corvette exhaust pipes were NOT mandrel-bent; they were bent with clamps and external forming dies (which is why they frequently show wrinkles on the inner radius of the bends). Mandrel-bending is a very expensive process requiring very expensive tooling, and wasn't used for production exhaust pipes.

[Joe L.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

Dave -

Just to clarify, Corvette exhaust pipes were NOT mandrel-bent; they were bent with clamps and external forming dies (which is why they show wrinkles on the inner radius of the bends). Mandrel-bending is a very expensive process requiring very expensive tooling, and wasn't used for production exhaust pipes.

John------


Absolutely correct. In fact, I should have mentioned that correction to the original post. That's also one of the reasons that I'm almost certain that the pipes shown in the original post are GM----die-formed pipes (with the "wrinkles") are almost always OEM.

[Joe L.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

Joe -- turn your eyes away from this post .

Here's an NOS set I bought about 6 years ago, just before Robert Pelland bought out the whole North American GM stock .

I do see some smoother mandrel marks. Also on mine, the part # was stamped; I'm not saying that all service pipes were so.

Wayne-----

I expect that these are a much-later manufactured set of SERVICE pipes. I think the ones shown in the first post here are older.

[Joe L.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

Joe,
I've never been a big fan of sidepipes myself, but was wondering what fuels your apparent disdain for them. Also, how many sets do you have in your collection (none for sale, of course). Chip.

Paul------


To me, side pipes are loud and obnoxious----not a sophisticated sound, at all. In fact, the sound is virtually indistinguishable from open pipes (i.e. no mufflers). They're very similar to "lake pipes" used on hot rods. I never liked them on hot rods, either, but they are a lot more appropriate there than on a Corvette. Basically, I consider them "rude-and-crude". On the other hand, stock Corvette mufflers have a wonderful, sophisticated sound. It's like the difference between listening to Stradivarius violin and a base drum or tuba. I'll take the Stradivarius every time.

Beyond the sound, to me side-pipes ruin the beautiful lines of either a 1965-67 or 69. To hang these things on one of the most beautiful, flowing, "voluptuous" lines of any car ever made is almost "criminal", in my opinion.

How many do I have in my collection? Absolutely NONE. I had plenty of opportunity to buy these things when they were still available from GM, but I never did. I never even thought about doing so. I bought neither pipes, covers, or any other component of the system. And, I do not regret that decision for a minute.

[Michael F.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

have to disagree with you Joe, I like the look of the side pipes on midyear but sound is annoying after any amount of drive time, even on my young ears of 21 back in the day, plus they rob horsepower with the sharp bends, today I much prefer undercar exhaust for sound as you do. but to each his/her own and glad people have and show both.

[David S.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

Hi all,

Thanks for your help. I guess these are the real deal!

Thanks,
Dave

[Wayne M.]

Re: 67 BB Side Pipe Part Numbers

....I expect that these are a much-later manufactured set of SERVICE pipes. I think the ones shown in the first post here are older.

(also to John Hinckley) ... I agree that my new GM pipes must be from the last service batch made (by Walker ? as there's a "W" stamped suffix to the stamped part #). In fact, I'll bet that over the years GM sold 10 times more sets of N14 for C2 cars than the approx. 8600 '65-'67's originally so-equipped; some as replacements, but most as conversions from under-car exhaust. If it was a C2, it had to have side pipes .

So to further the mandrel versus crimp discussion, I checked my 396, originally an under-car exhaust, to which the owner of 1983 added N14. So we might be talking of the 2nd or 3rd generation "production run" to stock N14 service demand. These pipes of mine are smooth with two exceptions; one is a single wrinkle on the passenger side (thumbnail), the other is a mandrel-type "flat" on the driver side where the pipe crosses under the frame [IMO, to add clearance]. Other than that --- nada ! So they must have perfected a bending method that minimized deformations at that time.