Author Topic: NOS vs Reproduction  (Read 11739 times)

Wallington

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2473
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #40 on: March 25, 2024, 04:11:27 AM »
A few quick pics. I picked up a set of the 76-78 nosecone upper support brackets #527359. The 74-75 models used an earlier version #492636 which had a shorter slot, replaced by the later version.

I'm not sure who makes them, they were supplied by Firebird Central. Firstly, they look neat and dimensions are very good. I'd already spotted an issue straight out of the pack. The channel sides are a much tighter fold, not curved, may not be as solid as a result but both were flimsy anyway. Plain, no stamped details.

Firebird repro 527359 nosecone support brackets (2) by Ben, on Flickr
Firebird repro 527359 nosecone support brackets (4) by Ben, on Flickr

Here's the issue, the bend shown on a NOS piece. The radiator support on these cars is not vertical, leans forward, and the brackets should match this. Not only does this give an incorrect angle at the bolting face to the fibreglass inner support, it also sits the entire nosecone lower than it should be by about the size of the already enlongated hole.
NOS GM 527359 Firebird 76-78 nosecone support bracket 3 by Ben, on Flickr

And here's the repro just sitting loosely next to originals on my car. The bend doesn't loose quite as much but the repro was also balancing and not sitting quite as flush, you get the idea. Now to try and sell them.
Firebird 527359 nosecone brackets stock vs repro (4) by Ben, on Flickr
Firebird 527359 nosecone brackets stock vs repro (2) by Ben, on Flickr
« Last Edit: March 25, 2024, 08:42:41 PM by Wallington »

FormTA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5703
  • Life is short, have fun, Drive a T/A
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #41 on: March 25, 2024, 11:14:18 AM »
I love this thread. Hopefully others can contribute to it!
79 Trans am low buck LS swapped
79 Formula 301 (Work in progress)
67 RS Camaro (waiting it's turn)
69 Dodge charger on late model charger chassis
49 Ford F1 on a 2003 Chevy ZR2 Chassis (current project)
Names, Luke. If I hear anyone telling me they're my father....

FormTA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5703
  • Life is short, have fun, Drive a T/A
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2024, 05:11:20 AM »
Unfortunately I haven't had to buy anything in recent years and I mostly used nice original pieces on my car. The only aftermarket parts I used were door handles, door stikers and the center console lid. I don't think I have the pictures anymore but the door handles I got from OER were absolute junk but I had a set u bought years prior and forgot I had them (I have hundreds of parts) . These were also OER buy totally different, different from the other OER and different from my originals but I was able to make them work and they seem to be holding up. The OER striker was also completely useless, it was too long and hit the actual door... I ended up going through my parts and using original strikers that I cleaned up. The oer center console lid was the only pice I used but the black color is a bit off from the original black console. It's not as black, you would think the original part would have faded but it looks the other way around.  I may dye it but it isn't too bad and doesn't bother me too much.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2024, 11:26:55 AM by FormTA »
79 Trans am low buck LS swapped
79 Formula 301 (Work in progress)
67 RS Camaro (waiting it's turn)
69 Dodge charger on late model charger chassis
49 Ford F1 on a 2003 Chevy ZR2 Chassis (current project)
Names, Luke. If I hear anyone telling me they're my father....

Wallington

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2473
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2024, 05:36:26 AM »
From memory OER and a few other main brands and suppliers used 2-3 different brands or castings for their door handles. It may have changed again now or stock was previously mixed. The door handle thread covered a lot of this. After getting several 'different' brands and finding half were the same casting repackaged or rebranded, I found a couple that were decent in quality, chrome and didn't have the twist out of the box. Of course, when I ordered another set I ended up with one of the next lot matching and the other being another casting. So I ordered a third time and eventually won. Winning also means having a tub full of brand new and overpriced poor quality door handles that we don't mention!

FormTA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5703
  • Life is short, have fun, Drive a T/A
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2024, 11:28:56 AM »
Did you ask for pictures of them or something? If so I missed it. I have a box somewhere with a few original door vents.... Sorry
79 Trans am low buck LS swapped
79 Formula 301 (Work in progress)
67 RS Camaro (waiting it's turn)
69 Dodge charger on late model charger chassis
49 Ford F1 on a 2003 Chevy ZR2 Chassis (current project)
Names, Luke. If I hear anyone telling me they're my father....

Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2024, 11:28:56 AM »

Wallington

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2473
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #45 on: May 08, 2024, 07:31:26 AM »
I found a spare nosecone top bracket #527359 in my collection so a couple extra comparison pics to add to those a few above.

It's a nice reproduction, it's just terribly incorrect and useless. Naturally,  I contacted both the seller and the manufacturer. No reply, easier to ignore and keep selling.

Firebird nosecone top support brackets used GM 527359 vs repro (1) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird nosecone top support brackets used GM 527359 vs repro (2) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird nosecone top support brackets used GM 527359 vs repro (3) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird nosecone top support brackets used GM 527359 vs repro (4) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird nosecone top support brackets used GM 527359 vs repro (5) by Ben, on Flickr

81Blackbird

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1364
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #46 on: May 09, 2024, 05:26:59 AM »
Thanks for the photo's.  And yes they keep pumping out the wrong shape and keep selling.  I needed a Turned Swirl Silver Dash Metal Filler Plate.  Put it in and about a month later, since I only drive the car once every two weeks.  I noticed the
Swirls where 180* off.  Called C.I. and told them.  He pulled one out and he agreed and would check into it.  Never heard back.  Seems like someone placed the stamped plates in the finishing machine incorrectly.

Wallington

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2473
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #47 on: May 09, 2024, 05:35:32 AM »
That same panel, probably made by the same guys for all, were advertised by another of the big name shops claiming they had all 4 options possible. I asked what about the 5th option for 1981 models with demister light and different spacing. They got snotty, said clearly that was a custom overseas thing as they saw I was in Australia. I said absolutely not. So they blocked my messages. Meh. Probably all swirled backwards too.

Wallington

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2473
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #48 on: November 22, 2024, 07:10:21 PM »
NOS vs Used.

Just a variation on the theme. I had an older NOS wiper motor to suit 75-81 Firebirds with depressed parking and non-pulse. These changed numbers a few times over the years but were the same thing. Figured I'd throw a few pics up just to show new condition, but also minor changes that occurred over the years.

NOS GM #4960951 (#22048252)

Firstly, while the label applied often implies this is a 1975 model motor, I believe this one would be a 1985 spare part supply. From scrolling through NOS and used pics, it seems that this system of single digit year lasted until 1985. In 1986 they listed 86, not 6, and soon after didn't list the work station or shift number also seen.

Another hint is the 80's version black plastic cover. I'm not sure when this type started, #4961110, but has a few minor changes to the original 70's version, which I believe may have been #4918437. It is not listed in the standard parts manual and not cast into the cover either. The main differences are the larger plug opening, combined with cooling vent (?) where shorter sponge seal is still used over the terminals inside. The top edge has a continuous straight edge that overhangs the motor casting, rather than 2 curves. And the motor housing recess is round instead of having the pointed tip of original. Both swap onto each other. This original cover is now reproduced by one of the Corvette Resto shops, but of course it was used by many GM models. A Corvette parts manual would probably list the part number too, I'll try that another day!

2 other differences are the coloured electrical wiring used and the cover screws are now plated, mine were blackened. That could be variations in batch, different years, who knows what, things to check out in original pics if that sort of thing interests you. The part number on the label didn't always match GM either, Delco did their thing, GM kept updating and changing. The box also features the 1980+ part number #22048252, so another way to see it's a 1985 part and not 1975.

NOS GM Firebird wiper motor non-pulse recessed 22048252 4960951 4961110 (20) by Ben, on Flickr

NOS GM Firebird wiper motor non-pulse recessed 22048252 4960951 4961110 (22) by Ben, on Flickr

NOS GM Firebird wiper motor non-pulse recessed 22048252 4960951 4961110 (26) by Ben, on Flickr

NOS GM Firebird wiper motor non-pulse recessed 22048252 4960951 4961110 (29) by Ben, on Flickr

NOS GM Firebird wiper motor non-pulse recessed 22048252 4960951 4961110 (33) by Ben, on Flickr

NOS GM Firebird wiper motor non-pulse recessed 22048252 4960951 4961110 (34) by Ben, on Flickr

NOS GM Firebird wiper motor non-pulse recessed 22048252 4960951 4961110 (36) by Ben, on Flickr

Here's my original wiper motor next to the NOS wiper motors. For context, the label was missing when I got the car, and I clean and polished it up 20 years ago to how it looks here. Also, my car was originally a Pulse wiper car, so this wiper motor was swapped in at some point, why, who knows, although the dash conversion suits his one, it's still an original from the same era.

Motor cover differences are shown, even took them off to compare better and test swapping. Blackened vs plated screws are shown. The grommets would have been plated, were well worn and I basically cleaned up to bare metal that browned off with time. Note the ground strap on both as part of the grommet, most kits don't include this as are generic, or use the early 1st gen type with short strap. I think the Corvette Resto shop also does this version if needed. One difference is the later version has a small tab that stops it turning and twisting when tightened. Another thing is that some of the repros are bent at right-angles like a Z shape, whereas the originals were simply curved tightly and installed.

Fiebird wiper motors used vs NOS 4960951 4961110 (3) by Ben, on Flickr

Fiebird wiper motors used vs NOS 4960951 4961110 (4) by Ben, on Flickr

Fiebird wiper motors used vs NOS 4960951 4961110 (8) by Ben, on Flickr

Covers......Part number, round raised centre and longer plug opening is 80's NOS, plain with pointy mid section and shorter plug opening is original 70's, different upper edge shape, shown on right in this pic.

Fiebird wiper motors used vs NOS 4960951 4961110 (9) by Ben, on Flickr

Fiebird wiper motors used vs NOS 4960951 4961110 (11) by Ben, on Flickr
« Last Edit: Today at 12:07:12 AM by Wallington »

wheels78ta

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 436
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2024, 10:25:50 PM »
Great information, Ben.

The label on my non-pulse is

1667738
354  7  1B

Which would make it Dec, 20 1977.  Build date is March, 3 1978.
Willie

1978 Gold Y88 4 spd W72 WS6 project
2006 Chevy Silverado Z71----Hers
2005 Chevy Suburban 2500---The Hauler

Wallington

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2473
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2024, 11:49:36 PM »
Excellent!! Turns out my Formula is also a March 78 build. Wiper motors built 3 months before being installed.

My own saved pics and records have #1667738 as a '76-'77 only production number, of the many these seemed to carry, even though the box they were in said something again. I don't even recall seeing a '78 dated one. Of course, that could also mean they had large amount on stock produced a year or two earlier with older dates, and the number changed again for the 1980-ish part number renewals.

Actually, I do have a saved 78-dated label (334 day + so a 79 model) with the 4960951 number, also with the later version black plastic cover, still working on that one.

Were my comments on par with what you can see on your original motor? Plastic cover type, blackened screws, wiring etc? Good info, thanks.

For the hell of it, here's a test video I just took before removing motor again. This shows the 'park' mechanism operating before and after the regular wiper operation, for those who haven't seen how it works. Ignore the small clunk, I need to adjust those sliding bronze bushes, plus no heavy wiper arms installed so the linkages tend to flick when first kicked into action. The bottom of the D-side wiper mount is where it seems to tap.

Click on pic to open video.

Firebird NOS wiper with park mechanism test 11-24 by Ben, on Flickr
« Last Edit: Today at 12:04:49 AM by Wallington »

wheels78ta

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 436
Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #51 on: Today at 01:11:58 PM »
The first pic is before I cleaned it up and replaced the bushings.

Second pic is after cleaned up and new bushings.

There are no wires coming from the side of the unit.

The motor cover screws were black. 

The bushing kit came with 3 new bushings, 3 screws and the ground strap.

Willie

1978 Gold Y88 4 spd W72 WS6 project
2006 Chevy Silverado Z71----Hers
2005 Chevy Suburban 2500---The Hauler

Re: NOS vs Reproduction
« Reply #51 on: Today at 01:11:58 PM »
You can help support TAC!