Correct "graphics" for 69 BB Velle upper rad hose

[MosportGreen66]

I'm just throwing an observation out there. Not a knock or bash on anyone here.

That hose is clamped to the thermostat housing with a new style hose clamp not an original style tower clamp. Is it possible that the hose picture is a new unit? I have seen reproductions with the exact same stamping. They might have been a home made stamping like the original style oil filter stampings members here replicate. Like I said, it was just an obervation.

[Don_Lightfoot]

I noticed that too Dan, but was only concerned about the hose itself. Graphics could very well have been replicated to that of an original, or other clamps were used when the original hose was put back on.

If that is in fact an original hose I don't see me trying to paint those characters on. I guess I'm really debating about putting a stripe on like Bill did.

[Xplantdad]

Are any of those hose markings correct for a 66 Chevelle though?

[Don_Lightfoot]

[ QUOTE ]
Are any of those hose markings correct for a 66 Chevelle though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Bruce, quit stealing "MY" thread, go back to "YOUR OWN" rad hose thread

Here is a picture of Mike Crown's (MYSTERY CHEVELLE) 66 engine bay. I believe his car has won everything that can be earned and I would assume he would have the correct hose. Hope this helps pal.

[Xplantdad]

[mrrec]

I've never found hoses for anything that had the "right" markings. And they don't exist for a Z16.

Using orig factory photos (not restored cars!!!),original hoses and one NOS hose, I did the graphics on the computer and had my vinyl lettering sign people make a stencil. A little white ink, a little blotting to tone it down.......

Note that the upper and lower hoses have different style and size "GM" and other characters. The letters appear a little more subtle than in this flash photo.

Dave

[Nova Research Project]

mrrec;

Note the A-Y and the AU. This means two different manufacturers made the hoses.

[Don_Lightfoot]

Well, shall we add a little more confusion into the mix? Thanks to member Keith Tedford for sending me some pictures.



The picture on the left is a 69 COPO and was taken the day the owner brought it home new. It appears there is a stripe on the "driver's" side of this hose. But no indication from what we can see of any lettering or part number.

The picture on the right is Keith's COPO and was taken in 1970 or 1971. This one appears to have a stripe on the "passenger's" side of the hose. the picture did not cover the other end of the hose.

As has been mentioned, these hoses obviously differed at certain times and probably at different assembly plants due to the suppliers.

At this point I'm not sure if I'll do any replicating to my hose, just thought I would add something extra for observation.

[Enoch]

Dan, my thought is when the 427 was dropped in they replaced the tower clamp with the screw clamp as the tower clamps are very hard to use over again. They don't seem to have the same clamping power in retightning as the whole clamp streaches apart. My uneducatued guess is that Harrell used as many originl parts as possible within reason IE: the hose was retained and the clamp was changed because of function. Just a thought
Rich.

[68l30]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just throwing an observation out there. Not a knock or bash on anyone here.

That hose is clamped to the thermostat housing with a new style hose clamp not an original style tower clamp. Is it possible that the hose picture is a new unit? I have seen reproductions with the exact same stamping. They might have been a home made stamping like the original style oil filter stampings members here replicate. Like I said, it was just an obervation.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm sure the factory clamp disappeared when the intake was changed to the dual four configuration by the DH crew....( they may argue that point today) This would make the most sense to me on this pure of a car. Ever try to reuse a tower clamp in a hurry?


Steve