NOS vs Reproduction

[Wallington]

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

[FormTA]

I love this thread. Hopefully others can contribute to it!

[FormTA]

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.

[Wallington]

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]

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

[Wallington]

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]

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]

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]

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 ( 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

[wheels78ta]

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.

[Wallington]

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

[wheels78ta]

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.

[Wallington]

Cleaned up nicely. I think mine was dull with surface rust, so wire brush on drill stand for just about everything! Had no idea. Years later tried to replace a few items and basically junk from the wire gouges. Interesting re: wiring, will have to study some pics, saw mention of relocated circuit board or similar. Will study some cover off pics for the part number change.

[Wallington]

More trivial details.

Picked up a new reproduction foam seal for wiper motor, super exciting...but well overdue.

Repops brand closed-cell foam seal vs 45 year old original that was wiper over with silastic for reuse 20 years ago.

Firebird wiper motor new foam seal  (1) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird wiper motor new foam seal  (2) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird wiper motor new foam seal  (3) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird wiper motor new foam seal  (4) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird wiper motor new foam seal  (6) by Ben, on Flickr

And re-uploaded video of the park mechanism in operation. Can still see previous seal in place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxHhBaOjTU

[FormTA]

Thanks for keeping it updated!

[Wallington]

Hard work posting in this group, could have posted and walked away in any other and I'm still uploading files elsewhere, being told my 3rd account is about to be locked as full, and then have to cut and paste here. Not worth the trouble.

Exhaust hanger brackets, NOS, Used and Repro.

GM NOS #340361

Exhaust hangers NOS original1 by Ben, on Flickr

Repros by The Parts Place/Gardner. Unless there is also a smaller GM bracket this one copies, not sure why go to the effort and not try to match. Not many stock setup exhausts where a smaller bracket of same look gives the extra clearance needed that the exhaust doesn't.

70-81 Firebird tailpipe exhaust hangers TPP repro and used GM by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird repro exhaust hangers Gardner plated by Ben, on Flickr

Mint but used original with Pypes/Walker reproduction. Less of a repro, more of a direct replacement.

Firebird spliiter exhaust hangers repro Pypes vs Used GM (2) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird spliiter exhaust hangers repro Pypes vs Used GM (3) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird spliiter exhaust hangers repro Pypes vs Used GM (4) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird spliiter exhaust hangers repro Pypes vs Used GM (5) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird spliiter exhaust hangers repro Pypes vs Used GM (6) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird spliiter exhaust hangers repro Pypes vs Used GM (7) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird spliiter exhaust hangers repro Pypes vs Used GM ( by Ben, on Flickr


While the Pypes bracket mounts exactly the same as GM, the smallest difference is that even with new rubber bushes, the exhaust is held 1/2" higher than GM. The marks on the tape show the heights of the two brackets. This may or may not make any difference when swapping mounts unless you already have tight clearance or hitting things.

Firebird spliiter exhaust hangers repro Pypes vs Used GM (9) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird spliiter exhaust hangers repro Pypes vs Used GM (11) by Ben, on Flickr

[Wallington]

These are the screws to secure the door jamb body vents. The blackened screw is a used original. Plated is reproduction. I found a listing that says 70-76 used a plated version with smaller head, 77-81 used the slightly larger blackened type shown. I don't have any particular GM record or photos to support this. An original owner may be able to see the different types in use.

The blackened type certainly fits better in my original vents. And neither will fit the reproduction vents as they don't have the recessed screw hole, even if they use NOS GM pics instead of their own pieces, many do this, supply stock photos with a recess yet their parts do not have it.

Firebird original blacked door jamb vent screw vs plated repro (1) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird original blacked door jamb vent screw vs plated repro (2) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird original blacked door jamb vent screw vs plated repro (3) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird original blacked door jamb vent screw vs plated repro (4) by Ben, on Flickr

[roadking77]

Good info. I will be installing mine very soon. They were out when I got the car so I have no idea what was originally there. I have an assortment of auto trim screws in a kit, there are some black ones that look similar to the black ones you posted.

[Wallington]

These original screws were bagged up when I asked a guy to send some of the vents. I didn't even think of the screws, often already removed or heavily rusted. But these were nice, and great that he thought to include them. Thr other problem is that my car has the holes drilled out much larger, had rusty chrome screws in there. Original screws barely touch the sides, will need a repair of sorts, maybe a threaded plate bonded to the rear inside the panel. And yes, the used vents fit without all the clearance filing of the repros.

[FormTA]

Sometimes you and put a block behind the hole and hammer the metal down slightly squishing the hole back to a smaller diameter.
I do this on the door pull screw holes and it works well. Just don't dent the do jam all up doing it. Maybe use a bunch of masking tape.

[Wallington]

Yes, I've considered that, or holding a solid block and adding a few pin punches around the perimeter. But they are fairly oversized. I even kept the screws that came out, like 2 sizes larger, not just slightly worn and doesn't tighten. Best part is that there is low strength required, just a single screw that firms up and nothing more. Many panel bonding adhesives would do the job perfectly and no one would even know.

[Wallington]

Following on from the above posts, not NOS but mint for 45 years old GM #8788235 vs OER reproduction door jamb body pressure vents.

As mentioned in other posts, I had all sorts of trouble trying to fit this OER set of vents. After heavily filing the retainer area and test fitting, it was still so snug that one cracked along the base, and that was that. Slight casting variations in the centre pressings, trivial but help to ID genuine from front.

GM on Left, OER on Right.

Overall appearance is fine, the small details are where it falls short. The screw hole is not recessed, even though many ads show this to be the case, their products do not match. The GM version has equal border surround, OER is bottom-heavy.

GM vs OER repro 8788235 door jamb vents  (1) by Ben, on Flickr

GM vs OER repro 8788235 door jamb vents  (2) by Ben, on Flickr

GM vs OER repro 8788235 door jamb vents  (3) by Ben, on Flickr

GM vs OER. The OER by this stage already has a lot of filing away of the thick plastic retainer, and tapering it to allow it to slip into place as nicely as the GM piece does.

GM vs OER repro 8788235 door jamb vents  ( by Ben, on Flickr

On the backs, GM has hatched texture on melted pins, repro just plain. Have a look at how poor the rubber flap seals are on the OER piece, they just hang there and seal nothing, so many ripples. OER has casting numbers, GM has no part numbers on them, pics reversed for this area.

GM vs OER repro 8788235 door jamb vents  (4) by Ben, on Flickr

GM vs OER repro 8788235 door jamb vents  (5) by Ben, on Flickr

GM vs OER repro 8788235 door jamb vents  (6) by Ben, on Flickr

GM vs OER repro 8788235 door jamb vents  (7) by Ben, on Flickr

And just in case you thought the GM plastic was black, here it is on a black car! Same piece as above.
These were originally sealed to the paintwork too with AC box type mastic beading. A super thin and compressible neoprene tape may be the preferred method these days.

Firebird body vent door jamb test fit original screw (2) by Ben, on Flickr

[b_hill_86]

Wow, without a side-by-side, not sure you’d note any differences. Kind of amazing it looks so close yet doesn’t fit

[5th T/A]

Ben, great job pointing out all the flaws in the OER part. Likely you prevented a lot of aggravation, for anyone spending time and money on them. The question is where do you go for a suitable replacement? Not a lot of 2nd Gen F bodies around anymore. I wonder if any other GM cars used the exact same part?

[Wallington]

Buying used sets, shipping across the world and finding 1 in 5 of them were in the condition fit for reuse. That's already from a 1 in 5 of ads that don't show damage or cracks, before you even get to the cost r if they even will. Needless to say, I have plenty of damaged used vents, some went straight into the bin, not suitable for a driver, or keeping spiders out of a wreck.

This is the OER (Classic Industries) ad below. They list a fair few models that use this part, including 3rd gens. Note the pic details, recessed screw hole, casting pattern, border width. This is not their item.

https://cdn.classicindustries.com/assets/images/ProductImg/8/8788235.JPG

Not sure anyone is saving money reading these. It's even costing me extra locating different options to prove a few things simply for these posts. Only takes several big-name shops or an online graveyard goose with topless trash wife telling suckers anything they want to hear for a sale. I hear his 3D-printed mirror gaskets to suit everything are really popular, as are ill-fitting droopy mirrors.

[b_hill_86]

Ben, great job pointing out all the flaws in the OER part. Likely you prevented a lot of aggravation, for anyone spending time and money on them. The question is where do you go for a suitable replacement? Not a lot of 2nd Gen F bodies around anymore. I wonder if any other GM cars used the exact same part?

For the record I have one I’d give away for the cost of shipping if anyone needs one.

[b_hill_86]

Only takes several big-name shops or an online graveyard goose with topless trash wife telling suckers anything they want to hear for a sale. I hear his 3D-printed mirror gaskets to suit everything are really popular, as are ill-fitting droopy mirrors.

  Don’t get me started

[langss]

Just a thought on the "Oversize Hole". With the vent out, and you can get to the other side, why not cut a small piece of metal, predrill and run the correct size screw through the hole, and then tape it in place, or use your choice of adhesive to hold it while you replace the vent. Nobody will ever see it....Just my .02.


 

[Wallington]

Yep, that was one of the ideas I had. I was considering the pinpunch idea but they are already too large, same with punching any thread or burs flat, there are none. Reminded me when test fitting for pics. The screws are very short but should be enough to pick up a thread or two, just don't overtighten.

[scarebird]

Just a thought on the "Oversize Hole". With the vent out, and you can get to the other side, why not cut a small piece of metal, predrill and run the correct size screw through the hole, and then tape it in place, or use your choice of adhesive to hold it while you replace the vent. Nobody will ever see it....Just my .02.

Not sure if a nut clip would work here - the thickness (0.043" or so) may cause issues, but would never wear out.

I am very impressed at your attention to detail here.  As much as I like TAC, I note it's frailty server-wise and would love to see similiar posts on PY for a much wider audience and longevity. 

This work you have done would save a lot of us money/time/aggro had we known earlier!  Some of us try to do the same thing: 

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4975256&postcount=51

[Wallington]

I had about 4 profiles on PY and they blocked each one. Facts bother a few moderators there. Yes, this forum is tedious when others simply let you attach pics instantly. It's a lot of hard work for very little reward or value to anyone. Its a sign that if I'm doing this, nothing is getting done on the car.

[scarebird]

I can understand that sentiment. 

[Wallington]

There's a few egos in there and they enjoy the crowd hanging off their every word. If the unknown guy comes along and says that's not quite right and here's proof rather than simply saying things, they don't like that.

If I was looking at custom pieces and had more money, I like the look of these pieces. Seem neat when black rather than alloy bling, especially with contrasting mesh. But they still don't have the recessed screw hole to keep things slimline, and they are only a vent, no pressure-control flaps that open and close. Actually, the orange one has countersunk screw hole.

For those wanting a cheaper custom look could simply pull the front off used GM and add mesh.

https://cdn4.volusion.store/klmat-yytxn/v/vspfiles/photos/INT-1610-3.jpg?v-cache=1608220030

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/auto-detailing-appearance/666075-billet-door-vents-fesler.html

[langss]

There's a few egos in there and they enjoy the crowd hanging off their every word. If the unknown guy comes along and says that's not quite right and here's proof rather than simply saying things, they don't like that.

You are spot on. I get that its there "Rice Bowl" But totally throwing up on someones post because the person posting isn't a favorite son is B.S. And its not just "Car" related forums. I find exactly what you described in many of my other interests.     

[roadking77]

I bought reproduction inside door latch/handles for my 1979 trans am. The quality is really good, and they compare well with the originals. There is a rivet that needs drilled out to remove the originals, and I used a similar installation method. For the parts cost of $11. I think its a pretty good upgrade to handles that have become a bit pitted over the years.
20250211_140246 by Kerry Grubb, on Flickr20250211_140324 by Kerry Grubb, on Flickr

[Wallington]

Good one, certainly a good upgrade.
Years ago I 'improved' a set, mind you it would have worked for NOS or used as well. I simply cut a fibre washer or two, took a pie slice out of each so C-shaped and slipped in above handle. Just took some slack and excess movement. So simple, although results were more feel good, still better to operate! I'll post a pic, think I had one. Instead of a rivet I used a small bolt, easy to remove if needed.