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.
Why on Earth would GM engineers utilize such a poor design in the first place? Even with the first gen C3s in '68, they had to realize a better system was needed for long term use.
There was nothing wrong with the original switches. Jeez, most of them have lasted over 40 years without any servicing!! They were constructed of the best quality materials and provided well better than expected service for a vehicle that was only intended to last less than 10 years.
Their aftermarket replacements, however, are made of much poorer materials...especially the 'budget' contacts which seem to get fried in very short order.
Not sure what you expect from a 'general production' vehicle built in the 1970's, but it seems that your expectations are higher than the requirements for a Rolls-Royce.
Last edited by 7T1vette; Mar 21, 2016 at 02:23 PM.
I was not referring so much to the switches but more as to the circuitry design. The system should have had some kinda' relays to better handle the amp load... and yeah, I know the cars are 40+ years old now.
They could have done a lot of things to 'improve' the C3...but 'better' would have cost 'more'; and that's something GM did not want to do in the 1970's. In the 1980's the Japanese demonstrated that if you give the customer MORE than they expect and design the car with better quality, it would be well worth a little extra cost. THEN the American manufacturers started to 'up' their game. But, that big step in design and production quality didn't come easily to the U.S. The "Big 3" fought against it until the customer's dollar$ proved them wrong.