[War eagle]

The original mold was probably of a 3 part design. Today it would be fairly easy to CNC the mold cavities, IF you had a reasonable original. This is the kind of stuff local tech schools like to see walk in the door for their students. They write and transfer to a flash drive and you then move on to the machining center at the school for a test. Then it gets tougher. If you can find a small hand rubber press, you can squirt as many seals as you want.
John the picture you posted in the old thread looks like the lip is just a bit ripped. like mine, but usable.
Surely someone here at the forum can write a program and get this started. I don`t have the time. There must be a good useable seal out there for duplication if Johns is not available.

[8LUG]

MPC(9-15-65) picture. No date on picture

[War eagle]

8lug I have that page in my 64 P&A also and puzzled over it. The seal looks nothing like the other 2 styles but more like the 61-63 design. The T/6 and T/8 in my 1964 catalog use the same seal.

[bill ryder]

Correct # is 0.829 #9776826 MPC 9/64 (Covers `65) - #384239 `61-`63 A/Bodies Same One - Superseded to: #9776826 Disc. `74 -- BELLOWS, Clutch Pedal

This from Rod Folsom. As he says "I have one NOS, probably the last NOS one on the planet". Not for sale.

Guess I'll keep looking!!! "Bill"!

[bill ryder]

http://http://pontiacparadise.com/shoptalk/2013/03/


This a link to someone who, supposedly, is working on reproducing the tri fold boot. I posted in the WANTED, BIG Cars and someone gave me the link.. "Bill"!

[War eagle]

Bill the http you list does not work.

[bill ryder]

Hi War eagle; Never checked it yesterday. DOGONEIT. Look in the BIG PONTIAC parts wanted. My thread on tri fold boot should be near the top. Address is in that post. "Bill"!

[John V.]

Try this:

http://pontiacparadise.com/shoptalk/2013/03/

Though I don't see how the big Pontiac bellows would be same as the early '64 Tempest.

All these different applications show different p/ns in the MPC.

Even though the '61-'63 Tempest bellows was apparently superseded by the late '64 thru '66 Tempest bellows p/n 9776826 from what Bill posted, it looks to me that this was just a substitute for an obsoleted part. Doubtful that it looked the same and not even clear that it would fit correctly without also changing the retainer.

And to add further confusion, does the '64 MPC list p/n 384239 as the bellows for the '61-'63 Tempest?

If so, how come the '66 MPC shows p/n 539632 for the '61-'63 Tempest application?

384239 is listed by Chevy as the '64-'65 Chevelle 1st design. They then list 9776826 as the '65-'66 2nd design.

The '63-'64 big Pontiac lists p/n 544852, the '61-'62 big Pontiac lists p/n 538526.

They may all look very similar, but I wouldn't count on them all being identical, else they would likely not have different p/ns.

I would still be interested in pursuing a repop of the 3 fold design if I could obtain a decent original to have copied.

But nobody had a complete original to work from.

Bill, in your earlier post, you say Rod Folsom has an NOS one, but it isn't clear if you meant he has a 9776826 bellows or if he has the 384239 bellows. Or something else.

If the 384239, any chance he can provide a jpeg of it to compare with the illustration of the 3 fold bellows in the MPC (and what remains of it in my car)?

[War eagle]

Bill I guess I don`t see the gain with a "Big Car" bellows being reproed for a Tempest. Also the 64 P & A shows a very different Tempest bellows than my car. Assuming this is the first design, the retainer is held by 2 screws at the firewall. I have the 3 screw design. A look in group 9.038 Cover strg col. chevelle part #384255 which would indicate the 3 screw design and the 826 bellows. Whether the early bellows and retainer would fit the cover is just not known. I would like to see an early example of this design. Even with the design being changed fairly early to the 826 bellows, there should be one out there to examine.

I note that my original bellows has been molded with FO and below 25. No other idicators are present. Definitely a tri-angle design of the bellows and retainer. Not the oval shape shown in the P & A.

[bill ryder]

Just got back my fan clutch, hopefully correct. Most seem to agree the one I used since 1989 was not correct so I asked Santa for a correct one. Hope he is up on his Pontiacs! ALWAYS something to make better. "Bill"!

[bill ryder]

These pieces are a lot more interesting. I recently purchased them from one of our "well known" forum members. They appear to have been removed when a vac tri power was converted. Hoses appear to be original, even have the overspray the judges DID NOT like on mine. I was mainly interested in the plastic bulls eye check valve. Harder to find than hens teeth. The overspray is the darker color for later years, I believe. The fitting I was not sure of; maybe for a PB car. I'm sure someone knows. "Bill"!

[BOB VIDAN]

I've seen those pieces somewhere before but I could be wrong.

[bill ryder]

Oh, probably not ole buddy! "Bill!"

[62 bv]

hi who did the resto on the fan clutch thanks brody

[bill ryder]

Hello Brody, I was thinking about you today. Thought you might be interested.
Kirkconnell Corvettes
Go to their website. This is who Jim Mott uses. Two week turn around. "Bill"!

http://www.kirkconnellcorvettes.com/

[John V.]

Bill, consider this my opinion, I have struggled to discover exacting details for the vac system for the '64 GTO tripower. And since there were some year to year changes and possibly mid year changes, plus so many of the vac systems were changed to mechanical systems when new or later when the vac systems crapped out, I don't ever expect to figure it all out.

1st, I would be skeptical that the vac system was in place when the Engine Plant assembled, then painted the engine. The Thermostatic Control on the front I think was installed, and the support bracket for the tee perhaps as well, so if I recall correctly, they would be painted engine color. But I would figure the rubber hoses went on at engine dressout after the engine was painted, so shouldn't be factory overspray on that hose. I would expect that was a result of a later paint touch-up.

But I don't know for sure, so if somebody thinks otherwise, I'd like to know about it.

I don't know if any of your pieces were changed year to year. Any idea if they were removed from a '64, '65, or '66? Reason I ask, in '65 & '66, the vac system was only installed for auto trans, '64 of course was man trans or auto trans.

The rear of front carb 3 way fitting was used to supply vac to the auto trans and/or power brake booster if the GTO was equipped with either or both of these options.

If neither option was included for '64, I believe there would be a plug of the Threaded Sleeve type that was installed in the left side of the tee.

'64 may have used a different type of fitting from this carb tee to supply the auto trans & PB vac at least for part of the year.

I call it the solid pipe extension. There was no rubber hose between the rear of carb fitting and the fitting where the PB hard pipe and/or auto trans hard pipe connected just adjacent to the front carb.

The revised extension used the short stub as seen in your pic, then a rubber hose, then a tee fitting which also had a short stub.

Not certain if this latter style was used in '64 but seems to have been the revised arrangement for '65 for sure. The solid pipe extension did not seem to be offered for service, only the short stub extension that required the use of a rubber hose between the pipe stubs.

If you have the '66 MPC, there is a good illustration of the rear of front carb fitting set up for auto trans and/or PB on page C-957. It pertains to the '65/'66 big Pontiac with TH400 but it is same as used for the '65/'66 GTO with auto trans.

Since the vac system for '65 & '66 was only used for the auto trans GTO, all of the vac system setups for those years would have used the fitting with the short stub as seen in your pic.

The short stub actually consists of a Threaded Sleeve type 1/4" nut and the short piece of 1/4" Pipe. Threaded Sleeve type fittings do not use pipe flares, cheap and simple to install on the assembly line.

For a '65 man trans application with standard brakes, the TS 1/4" nut and pipe were not used, a TS pipe plug was installed in the rear of front carb left side outlet instead, same as in '64.

The tricky one for me is the man trans with power brake option.

It may have been set up differently than with auto trans (the extension from the rear of front carb may not have been used) and may have used a different hard line between the booster and the carb fitting.

But I do not know the details and not sure if it was different between '64 & '65.

By deduction, I would guess that your pieces were original to a '66, just based on the engine paint color. If so, it was auto trans equipped, so the TS nut and pipe stub in the rear of front carb fitting would be correct.

But it would beg the question, if it was a take-off for a vac to mech linkage conversion, and it was a '66 auto trans GTO, if the rear of front carb fitting was removed, where did they hook up the auto trans vac line afterwards? And what became of the 3 way fitting aft of the rubber hose where the auto trans hard line would have originally connected?

You are definitely right, these pieces ARE interesting. I'm a big fan of the vac system.

I know about its operational warts. But by design concept, I think it was a quite elegant piece of engineering design.

And I love to see them on nicely restored (or original) GTOs, especially my personal favorite, the '64.

[bill ryder]

Hi John, I'll comment on most of your thoughts later, but the interesting one to me is theengine assembly and overspray. Someone, maybe Jake64 or 8LUG, several years ago, posted pics of vac hoses and the tee fitting with a lot of overspray believing this was original. Makes sense to me that the hoses and tee and bracket and TVS were installed at engine build. The tri power is stamped on the block. Only parts left were the carb and linkage to be installed later after paint. I would think the two vac hoses and plastic check valve came with the carbs as did the throttle valve and that part of the vac system, and it was just a set them on, put the hold down nuts on and plug the vac hose to the tees. Just my thoughts and that is the way I put mine together. Like I stated earlier in another post, the judges did not like my overspray anyway... TO BAD FOR THEM> "Bill"!
I know someone else will jump in!!!!

[dld]

Originally Posted by bill ryder

Just got back my fan clutch, hopefully correct. Most seem to agree the one I used since 1989 was not correct so I asked Santa for a correct one. Hope he is up on his Pontiacs! ALWAYS something to make better. "Bill"!

Hi. Bill were you docked points for the old clutch or did they let it slide

[John V.]

Originally Posted by bill ryder

Hi John, I'll comment on most of your thoughts later, but the interesting one to me is theengine assembly and overspray. Someone, maybe Jake64 or 8LUG, several years ago, posted pics of vac hoses and the tee fitting with a lot of overspray believing this was original. Makes sense to me that the hoses and tee and bracket and TVS were installed at engine build. The tri power is stamped on the block. Only parts left were the carb and linkage to be installed later after paint. I would think the two vac hoses and plastic check valve came with the carbs as did the throttle valve and that part of the vac system, and it was just a set them on, put the hold down nuts on and plug the vac hose to the tees. Just my thoughts and that is the way I put mine together. Like I stated earlier in another post, the judges did not like my overspray anyway... TO BAD FOR THEM> "Bill"!
I know someone else will jump in!!!!

Bill, I'm open to the possibility for sure.

It occurred to me that if the hose was already installed, then that nipple on the Thermo Vac Control would be unpainted. That would be one way to try to confirm, look for paint on that nipple.

Looking at your pix, the nipple for the hose connection to the center carb vac switch looks like it may be unpainted.

Perhaps one explanation why these hoses were already installed was for the purpose of keeping paint out of the control, gumming up the insides?

The tee I am less sure about, you say evidence of overspray was found on the tee and its hose too?

I know that tee & hose was hose clamped to the bracket, but I am trying to imagine whether it would have made sense to preinstall the tee at engine assembly or wait until dressout. Again, lack of paint on the bracket where the tee & hose was clamped to it would be a good indicator of whether it was preinstalled when the engine was painted.

I think there was a bit more to dressout than you describe. Temp sender? Fuel lines? Plug wires? Alternator & brackets and so on.

I'm sure there was rhyme & reason to what went on at engine assembly and what was added at dressout or final assembly.

But I doubt any judge knows for sure on all items so on that point I agree with you! All we can do now is look at the evidence and make the case one way or the other. And hopefully, judges will conform to the evidence. For points judging, is there an appeal process? Seems like there should be. If you have pic evidence that generally shows the overspray on original hoses, you should be able to present that to the judges to counter any claim to the contrary.

[bill ryder]

[QUOTEQuote:
Originally Posted by bill ryder View Post
Just got back my fan clutch, hopefully correct. Most seem to agree the one I used since 1989 was not correct so I asked Santa for a correct one. Hope he is up on his Pontiacs! ALWAYS something to make better. "Bill"!

Hi. Bill were you docked points for the old clutch or did they let it slide
][/QUOTE]
Don, Never have been docked for the clutch. I'm just fixing from what I've learned here. It WAS on my list.


[QUOTELooking at your pix, the nipple for the hose connection to the center carb vac switch looks like it may be unpainted.

Perhaps one explanation why these hoses were already installed was for the purpose of keeping paint out of the control, gumming up the insides?

The tee I am less sure about, you say evidence of overspray was found on the tee and its hose too?

I know that tee & hose was hose clamped to the bracket, but I am trying to imagine whether it would have made sense to preinstall the tee at engine assembly or wait until dressout. Again, lack of paint on the bracket where the tee & hose was clamped to it would be a good indicator of whether it was preinstalled when the engine was painted][/QUOTE]

I didn't go to all the detail, John, on dress out. You knew what I meant.
The STV nipples, both, have NO paint. The bracket has paint front and back. The tee may have a trace of paint on the underside. I can see no paint on the larger hose band or hose.
I believe the fitting is for an auto. Doesn't the vac hose curl around the front carb and down the engine pass side to the modulator valve steel line?? Not sure on that one. Never had an auto car. "Bill"!