[Farrell in Vancouver]

Can anyone out there provide us with any tips or tricks to use when swapping the top of the Rad support to the GTO lower?
They dont reproduce the Lemans Rad Support so I bought the GTO model and saved the top from the original Lemans.
The new piece comes from Taiwan, and is a bit thinner in material so they spot welded it 82 times as apposed to the original 36 spots on the top of the Lemans.
Looking for any guidence from the experience you may have on doing this project.
TIA

[mrennie]

Not sure if this is what you are asking, but If I was trying to graft the bottom rail of one rad support onto another and make it look "factory", I would drill out all the spot welds, get the bottom rail off, weld in all the holes on both pieces, grind the welds smooth, then punch new holes where your want the plug welds to be, and weld the rail to the rad support.

There is a special pair of pliers with a copper pad that you clamp under the spot weld hole that makes it easier to weld in the holes you drilled.

https://www.amazon.ca/Steck-Manufact.../dp/B000RFMAGK

Also, when I say "grind down the welds" I do not mean with a grinder, I mean with a 36 grit 2" roloc sanding disc in a right angle air die grinder. This works much faster than a grinder, is easier to use, and creates less heat when grinding.

[rustedgoat]

I know at one time there was an issue with the angle of the support in relation to the bottom rail being incorrect. I remember reading a thread about this with pictures, a search should bring it up.

[dataway]

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=835789

I started that thread, but I'm not sure if the problem applies to 1970 models. It may be that the 68-72 repops were designed for the 1970 and later models and are just improperly sold as working for 68/69 models.

[Farrell in Vancouver]

T hanks all for the interesting tips, sorry I wasnt clear, Im replacing the top of the core support removing the GTO and replacing it with the Lemans as it has the"Peak to support the Beak"as it were.
The bottom left vertical leg and bottom rail were eaten away by the battery acid and rust.
I took care of the spot welds with a spot weld cutter, cleaned the parts up and painted the inside surfaces I won't be able to access once welded together.
I have a bit more wear and tear to fix up on the top original shelf, then I'll spot it all back together using rosettes welds and then not them down to look real close to what the spot weld looked like from factory.
Wish me luck!

[dataway]

You should be fine ... the problem with the repop supports was all in the lower rail that sits on the bushings, which you will not be replacing.
Post pics of your results.

[Farrell in Vancouver]

Originally Posted by dataway

You should be fine ... the problem with the repop supports was all in the lower rail that sits on the bushings, which you will not be replacing.
Post pics of your results.

I wonder if could indulge me with a request for you to elaborate on the "problem with the repop supports"
In my case, I am indeed replacing the entire lower section of the core support, and the only stock PONTIAC part will be the top shelf as it were.
It seems the leaking battery (probably over-charging), allowed the bottom lower left leg of the support to erode away to nothing.
So if I purchased a part that will cause me more trouble, I'd like to know now.

[dataway]

You can check the thread in post #4, it explains in detail what the problem is with the support for 68 and 69, I'm not sure if it applies to later models.

The OEM support in 68 and 69 is at a 10 degree angle forward at the top. The bottom rail should made so it is flat with the ground when the support is tilted 10 degrees, instead many of the repops have a bottom rail that is parallel with the top instead of at an angle. They can be forced to work, but it screws up the core support to frame bushings and makes things like fender alignment a real pain.

The 70-72 have substantially different body work than the 68 and 69 ... could be the repops are made for those three years and vendors just assumed they fit the earlier years too. Have the current repops been retooled? I don't know, and for some reason all the vendors seem reluctant to address the question.

I don't have a 70 or later model to compare the OEM pieces. One thing you can check is ... look at your OEM support ... is the top slanted down in the front? Is the bottom rail parallel with the ground front to back? (can be hard to tell since it's narrow). If so, then you could have problems with the repops.

This thread http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=835789

has quite a few pictures which should clarify the situation. If you are desperate for a support ... sounds like you probably have the necessary tools and skills to modify the repop to work anyway. That's what I did.

[mrennie]

68-70 should all have the same forward tilt. I believe the only different between the 3 years is the 68/69 do not need the bent up section of the top rail where the rad shroud attaches, as they uses a metal top panel to attach the rad compared to the 70 that uses the plastic shroud to retain the rad.

I believe the difference between the 70 GTO and Lemans is only the top rail. Again, not 100% sure, but basing this on seeing them years ago.

If you are looking at a repop 68-70 support, hold the bottom rail flat on the floor as dataway suggests...if the sides/top are leaning forward, you have a good chance of an easy fix to simply graft on your top rail. If the top and bottom rails are parallel to each other, you are in for some extra work.

[dataway]

To add a note to what mrennie said.

When you stand it on the floor you have to use a 2x4 or something under the bottom rail, there is a lip on it that prevents it from standing up. See photo. Photo shows a repop .. if this was an OEM piece it would not be standing straight up like that.

Note the metal blocks I have underneath to support it by the bottom rail without the lip interfering.

It's a hard situation to describe with words. That bottom rail has to be parallel with the ground to sit flat on top of the frame mounting bushings, but the support should tilt forward 9-10 degrees, the lower radiator mounts that attach to this bottom rail are tilted to the back to position the radiator straight up and down, the repops have the bottom rail parallel to the top ... so when you tilt the support forward 9-10 degrees it does not sit on the frame bushings flat like it should. If you force it ... it raises up the whole support which raises up all the sheet metal attached to it. I think some people do this, and then just crank down on the frame mounts so much it pulls it back down, which makes for another bunch of issues.

[6T9GTO]

I believe the only different between the 3 years is the 68/69 do not need the bent up section of the top rail where the rad shroud attaches, as they uses a metal top panel to attach the rad compared to the 70 that uses the plastic shroud to retain the rad.

69'S use the shroud to retain the radiator.

[Farrell in Vancouver]

Thanks to allfor the excellant responses.
I compared thr two :stock unit-repop lower and they both sit on the floor the same so this seems to be a non-issue at this point.
Once I get this altogether I'll post some pix to see what you guys think.

[dataway]

Yeah, keep us informed, I'm very curious if this is a 68-69 problem or maybe they have changed the tooling.

Did both of them stand straight up, or were they at an angle when the bottom rail was level with the floor?

[Farrell in Vancouver]

Well it seems after reading DataWay's post I will have the same issue with this repop core support.
Definatley needs more angle to the dangle

[dataway]

Jeez, I never thought of turning them upside down to check ... way easier than my way

Your pictures very clearly show what I have spent pages trying to explain.

So it does appear they are still making them wrong. Sure wish the vendors would tell people this, I've had no luck getting them to understand.

[Farrell in Vancouver]

Originally Posted by dataway

Jeez, I never thought of turning them upside down to check ... way easier than my way

Your pictures very clearly show what I have spent pages trying to explain.

So it does appear they are still making them wrong. Sure wish the vendors would tell people this, I've had no luck getting them to understand.

I want to personally thank you for the insight you did provide. I would have missed this completely had you not made me aware of the issue.
You're dead right that we need to convey this to the venders at least, and short of that, make sure everyone is aware of the short comings before we shell out big busks for faulty parts.
I am still better off than repairing the old core support, but wished I'd known beforehand how many hours it would require to actually use this part.

Going forward, would it be safe to say the same part is being sold for 68,69,70,71, and 72? and it will not fit any of these cars correctly without modification?

[mrennie]

I'm sure many vendors are aware but couldn't care less because we keep buying them.

From a practical perspective, it would not make sense that there is a factory in Taiwan all tooled up and waiting to continually crank these out 100-200 at a time, considering the sporadic demand. I would be willing to bet they were made in a large batch of 1000 or more, and all made wrong, and until they are all sold there is no reason for the vendor's to do anything but keep them moving. Pure speculation on my part.

[dataway]

Your speculation is probably absolutely correct. The key factor being ... we keep buying them because vendors keep mis-representing them. If all those vendors started sending them back for being incorrect the situation would probably change fast. But the vendors don't really care anymore than the manufacturer does.

I agree that the part is still better than totally rusted out pieces that would need many more hours to fix than these pieces.

Farrell, we know for sure they are wrong for 68, 69, and now with your information, 1970 too. I couldn't say for sure about 71 or 72 without input from an owner. I'd like HOPE that it at least is correct for ONE year out of the five that they sell it to fit

[mrennie]

Originally Posted by dataway

I'd like HOPE that it at least is correct for ONE year out of the five that they sell it to fit

I've only ever seen them advertised at fitting 68-70, with modifications required for 68 (I thought 68-69, but 6T9GTO clarified that 69's use shroud to retain the rad so must be only 68 that needs the tabs cut off.)

The bottom and side rails are probably fine for 71/72, but top is totally different.

['ol Pinion head]

Totally agree with MRennie's assesment. It's amazing how such an important detail as the proper jig welding can be missed on a coresupport. The 82 spotwelds on the top are also Totally UNACCEPTABLE. just another of the problems one sees with most Muscle era aftermarket sheetmetal. Often I get a real kick out of folks posting on the board, "when's this sheetmetal part going to be reproduce?" Uhhh, hope you're ready to have some serious fun getting it to fitz.

Again, my hat is off to Dataway for his previous well documented topic. Fortunatley, I still have several nice clean original uprights to use in rebuilding '70-through '72 core supports, I have 3 more to restore then hopefully wont have to touch anymore for quite some while.