When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Damn, I was hoping that they verified performance of the car on a race track and skid pad. But the performance of a clock?.....now that's some heart stopping stuff! No weenies allowed!
There is no way to tell a well-converted solid-state radio in its original case; there is no way to tell that a Breakerless SE points conversion is done and you can "fake" plenty of things on a PV.....like making a nice grunt when pulling up on the inoperative Hurst reverse lock out handle (which got me NO deductions in ops checks or interior checks). There is no way to tell a solid-state voltage regulator conversion COMPLETELY enclosed in an original case and base. There is no discernible difference in how they operate, assuming the mechanical V/R was properly tuned for comparison.
Yes - a quartz, non-ticking, non-"snapping" clock ? Dead giveaway...
Judges are human ...
Last edited by Frankie the Fink; 01-10-2019 at 09:28 AM.
This is the norm for any NCRS question. The question got answered correctly in the first few post then after that it’s nothing but name calling and more honest questions followed by more name calling. Nothing but grade school antics by senior members
A dose of realism; along with the factory cockpit water leaks...
There are only a few IMO that can really, REALLY speak to how things were "back in the day" vs what readers of the JG and PV docs come up with...
A few examples are JohnZ and Critter1 and a handful of others....when they post something you can take it to the bank....
...
Last edited by Frankie the Fink; 01-10-2019 at 09:33 AM.
I didn't take my wife and daughter around Sebring at triple digit speeds in a car that had issues; and I R&R'ed three fuel gauges in my 63 just because I didn't like the way the fuel gauge worked. Just replaced my 63 steering box and installed an NOS coupler because the steering was a bit looser than I cared for.
My friends will tell you how **** I am about things operating at their peak...and how hard I drive my cars...
Some are just happy if they can get through a 20-minute test drive to complete a check off list an "open book test" under ideal conditions. Try limping home 25 miles at night on a country road with this:
.
Frankie, you should get extra points for creating your own window for adjusting your points.
St. Jude Donor '09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-‘19-'20-'21-'22-'23-'24
I bought my '67 in May 1968, and sold it in late '70. Not to get too from NCRS, but since the water leak issue was raised here, I've got to say that car was tight, I don't recall any leaks while I owned it, and it was a daily driver which was not garaged. Where are the common leak places on a convertible?
I hear about "the way it left the factory" if that is what everyone is shooting for the bar isn't very high.
But now, the factory worker who, 50 years ago, gang stamped the VIn numbers onto the new cars [that's the guy who hated his job, and couldn't wait till the shift was over, so he could down a few beers], is now considered an artist, in line with Van Gogh and Rembrandt.
His work is meticulously copied.
Restoring a car is a great hobby and a hobby is supposed enjoyable, but if taken too seriously, the hobby is not enjoyable anymore.
I especially liked the "not for profit club" comment. Why does a not for profit club have almost a million dollars in the bank and yet charge you for everything?
I especially liked the "not for profit club" comment. Why does a not for profit club have almost a million dollars in the bank and yet charge you for everything?
I remember a guy that got a permenent club suspension because he had the gall to suggest the club was a business, not a non profit club.
Some here confuse quality control with design intent. Or maybe better stated, most bang for the buck. Big difference but that not withstanding, in the early '70's, the direct labor cost paid out to the UAW folks on putting a full sized, steel bodied car together was about $750.. That's about $4,500 today. And everything left the factory working as intended (according to the quality control people).
You'd think the professional restoration shops could get things right for a PV since they probably charge 10 times ($45,000) what the UAW charged, don't you think? Why should the customer worry since he obviously paid out good money for quality work?
I'll give them a pass on bulbs blowing though. Many cars didn't make it out of the plant without blowing one of those cheap (design) bulbs.
Restoring a car is a great hobby and a hobby is supposed enjoyable, but if taken too seriously, the hobby is not enjoyable anymore.
I would agree, it has to be enjoyable and rewarding to you personally. However, how serious you take it is also a personal choice. I went the Duntov route, and found it not to be enjoyable. However, I took the Bowtie route (it is much more rigorous on originality) and found that enjoyable. Both were very serious and ****, but to me one was enjoyable, the other not so much.
Guys, as this thread is still generating reasonable questions, answers and comments, I’ve cleaned it out this morning by deleting various comments to whining, crying, etc. Please refrain from that reference and the accompanying result of guessing who you are referring to.
I was around in the 50's and 60's and the crap Detroit was putting out then was not that great, a car of that era, considering the quality control in effect then wouldn't even be considered a good daily driver today.
I hear about "the way it left the factory" if that is what everyone is shooting for the bar isn't very high.
Detroit didn't start building quality cars until the Japanese started kicking their asses with nothing to offer other than better products because of better quality control.
Restoring a car to the standard it left the factory isn't a very lofty goal, however restoring one to the standard that some folks perceive it should have left the factory is a different matter all together, especially considering the junk called restoration parts available today, I guess they are built to the quality standards of the 50's and 60's era.
Bill
This , in my life-experience, is dead-on. As an automotive pro working on thousands of cars from the late '70's to present, I have found this to be the case. I slightly disagree about an 'as-new' '60's car being unacceptable today----I've owned well used but still totally comfortable and practical cars of the era....1961 Thunderbird, 1964 Galaxie, Pontiac GTO's, etc. etc. My '67 Pontiac GTO has served me well for the past 36 years and 132,000 of it's 253,000 miles....and remains my newest car. Reliable, now economical (2.56 rear gear transplant), and comfortable on long drives. And nowhere near the standards of any NCRS inspected car, as the clock now works intermittently, and it has been painted the wrong color. I have seen so many over-restored cars in the past 30 years it's insane. When I saw Bunkie Knudsen's show Sting-Ray and another GM show car Sting Ray at the Pierce Arrow museum in Buffalo last year, they wouldn't even place in one of today's shows. They were simply '60's show cars. Not Rolex watches.
I hope they never offer a PV on the owners. According to my wife of 30 years, I have a leaky O ring, exhaust leak and take way too long to get up to operating temperature.
You guys are confusing lousy build consistency with poor design. GM designed these cars well and the inherent build variation often made them less-than reliable. It wasn't possible in 1963 to build a car with the tolerances we routinely utilize today, without using the fixtures, and robots, and CAD drawings, and much more, that we routinely use now. You cannot compare the two, its apples to oranges.
My point earlier was that restored cars are not high-volume production cars in any sense. That is both good and bad. Good in that more time might be taken to fit something or make it look right. Bad, in that no matter how bad the assembly process was executed in the plant, it was designed and perfected to do exactly the same thing every time, exactly the right way. Restorers don't have that knowledge and experience and don't necessarily know why you might have to do something a certain way. Believe it or not, many of the high volume procedures were much more effective at accomplishing the design intent than can be done by a restorer. If you don't believe me, go work on the line and learn how good you quickly become at doing the job perfectly (you may not always do so, but that's a different subject). Restorers are always going to do some things less effectively than the plant did, because frankly, as I said above, the build documents don't tell the whole story. A car may be over-restored to absurdity, but that doesn't mean it will stay together as effectively as one built using the production assembly process.
There was a NCRS meet in Carlisle PA at "Corvettes@Carlisle" and I had never seen one before so I walked over. I spotted a gentleman who owned a pristine 1963 Split window coupe that was being judged at that time, he was walking around like a expectant father and was very nervous. I spoke to him regarding his car and its achievements for a bit and left him a while later. After a couple hours passed I saw him again, this time he was very very disappointed as his car only scored a High 90's because the condenser in the ignition system was painted the wrong shade. The other "problem" with the car was he had metric wheel weights... His car looked like it was right off the factory floor to 99% of the people, except to the 1% who judged his car. After seeing that I decided not to try to get my C3 restored back to original.
I think the NCRS is doing a good job of keeping some of these magnificent machines in their original configuration. I love my Corvette for the way it was designed and built! I am also aware that my car turned 51 years old last October. Trying to bring a car back to that condition required by the NCRS would be ridiculously expensive, especially when it is a car that has been the "Rodney Dangerfield" of Corvettes. (The 1968 C3 gets no respect!) I have an early 1968 (which could only be a convertible) that came with a big block. I have owned this car for 27 years now and it gets a bit better every year as I try to keep it up and running. I am appreciative that the NCRS has the materials to help me when I need it, I am very glad they exist but for I have never joined them and probably never will.
The C3 I have came to me in sad shape, it had been in a barn for years prior to my buying it. I looked at my Corvette as a painter looks at a blank canvas.... I built the car the way I wanted it but saved all the parts so somebody in the future will get all excited when they find my stash of 1968 original parts.
NCRS folks, I think you guys are great and I appreciate what you do! Just don't tell me that my 1968 C3 is the "Wrong shade of Yellow" or that I don't have the "right" markings on my intake manifold bolts. You create museum pieces and I will enjoy my poor C3 that gets no respect because it is not a mid-year. I have wider gaps in the body panels than the 69-82 C3's do but that does not make the car any less special to me. Carlisle@Corvettes even blew off all the 1968 models but jumping over our year, they just don't like 1968 Corvettes instead they brought in newer 1978 cars that were all identical (Pace-Cars). The 1978 C3 owners were all happy, but we, the few, the proud owners of 1968 Corvettes felt we had been ignored.
Hello fellow Virginian. Thank you for the overview of Corvettes of Carlisle, and the apparent NCRS meet that was held there. As is often the case, the owner you spoke with over oversimplified and generalized, or you filtered what you heard him say through you anti- NCRS bias and formulated a characterization of the judging experience that is less than truly accurate. The deduction for wrong shade of paint on the distributor condenser would be no more than one point, if there was such a thing. But there isn't because the distributor cap is not removed during judging. And, I don't believe the ignition condenser is painted any color. And any deduction for metric wheel weights is at most 1 or two points. In any case, the total deductions for these "descrepancies" would be 3. Out of 4500. So, yes, I would say he scored in the high 90s, as in 99.9%. I suppose if that owner felt his car was "perfect", that would be a disappointment. He did not reach 100. But most would say that was a darned good score. I would be very happy with it. If this example was meant to illustrate what you believe is bad about NCRS, I would say you missed the mark.
Finally, I am a 64 owner, and I like outcast corvettes. As such, I think your 68 is cool.
You guys are confusing lousy build consistency with poor design. GM designed these cars well and the inherent build variation often made them less-than reliable. It wasn't possible in 1963 to build a car with the tolerances we routinely utilize today, without using the fixtures, and robots, and CAD drawings, and much more, that we routinely use now. You cannot compare the two, its apples to oranges.
My point earlier was that restored cars are not high-volume production cars in any sense. That is both good and bad. Good in that more time might be taken to fit something or make it look right. Bad, in that no matter how bad the assembly process was executed in the plant, it was designed and perfected to do exactly the same thing every time, exactly the right way. Restorers don't have that knowledge and experience and don't necessarily know why you might have to do something a certain way. Believe it or not, many of the high volume procedures were much more effective at accomplishing the design intent than can be done by a restorer. If you don't believe me, go work on the line and learn how good you quickly become at doing the job perfectly (you may not always do so, but that's a different subject). Restorers are always going to do some things less effectively than the plant did, because frankly, as I said above, the build documents don't tell the whole story. A car may be over-restored to absurdity, but that doesn't mean it will stay together as effectively as one built using the production assembly process.
Mike
Well said and exactly correct about the good old days vs today.
NCRS folks, I think you guys are great and I appreciate what you do! Just don't tell me that my 1968 C3 is the "Wrong shade of Yellow" or that I don't have the "right" markings on my intake manifold bolts. You create museum pieces and I will enjoy my poor C3 that gets no respect because it is not a mid-year. I have wider gaps in the body panels than the 69-82 C3's do but that does not make the car any less special to me. Carlisle@Corvettes even blew off all the 1968 models but jumping over our year, they just don't like 1968 Corvettes instead they brought in newer 1978 cars that were all identical (Pace-Cars). The 1978 C3 owners were all happy, but we, the few, the proud owners of 1968 Corvettes felt we had been ignored.
I don't know what Carlisle did, but last year's NCRS National convention in Las Vegas celebrated "Year of the '68", as has been their tradition on the 50th anniversary of a model year.
01-10-2019, 09:08 AM
