1969 factory hurst date codes

[bergy]

Good info. Just curious - did they explain the different applications for the round (rubber inserted) shifter rod holes versus the holes with the two securing "tangs" in them (look kinda like a bow tie cut out)?

[HawkX66]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bergy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good info. Just curious - did they explain the different applications for the round (rubber inserted) shifter rod holes versus the holes with the two securing &quot;tangs&quot; in them (look kinda like a bow tie cut out)? </div></div>
I'm sorry, but I can't recall anything in particular. There's a guy &quot;Joe&quot; from either RI or CT that really is a guru when it comes to the Hurst shifters. History etc. He's been out on Camaros.net quite a bit in the past. If anyone would know, I'd reason to bet it would be him. &quot;Crash&quot; might as well.

[JoeC]

In the past, Pete S. has said GM OEM shifters were not date coded but I think has changed his mind because it has been documented with many examples.

The 1969 shifter levers (on the shifter) have the rubber molded on the shift lever rod holes. The holes are not round but have two notches in them to accept the rubber.

The transmission forward shift levers have the same hole with notches. Some of them had the rubber molded on but some didn't. The AIM drawing shows the transmission shift levers without the rubber but shows the holes with the notches. I always found this to be odd because you don't need the notches if you don't add the rubber.
The Camaro reverse trans lever has a round hole with no rubber. In general, most trans Levers have a round hole no notches.

Pontiac used the same transmission forward shift levers with the rubber and used a different reverse lever with rubber.
I have seen the transmission forward shift levers with rubber and without on original 69 Camaros.