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.
Couple of questions about carb removed from very original, one owner ‘69 442.
Carb number: 7029251 RJ
My understanding is the last digit being an odd number (in this case 1) indicates carb is for manual transmission.
However this car has an auto trans.
With the exception of the last digit, the rest of the carb part number seems to correspond correctly with the make/model/date of this car.
Question 1. Have there been documented exceptions where carb with odd last number was documented as original to a car equipped with an automatic?
2. What are the differences between a manual carb vs. an automatic carb of this vintage? (ie tranny kick down lever, an extra vacuum port etc ???)
Given the fact this is a low mileage, one owner (my grand mother) car...AND the fact all other numbers in the part numbers correspond correctly to the make/model/date of the car, I’m very surprised to find this.
I guess there’s possibility the carb could have been swapped early on at the dealer. But given the reliability and rebuild-ability of Qjets, I‘m doubtful of that.
Couple of questions about carb removed from very original, one owner ‘69 442.
Carb number: 7029251 RJ
My understanding is the last digit being an odd number (in this case 1) indicates carb is for manual transmission.
However this car has an auto trans.
With the exception of the last digit, the rest of the carb part number seems to correspond correctly with the make/model/date of this car.
Question 1. Have there been documented exceptions where carb with odd last number was documented as original to a car equipped with an automatic?
2. What are the differences between a manual carb vs. an automatic carb of this vintage? (ie tranny kick down lever, an extra vacuum port etc ???)
Given the fact this is a low mileage, one owner (my grand mother) car...AND the fact all other numbers in the part numbers correspond correctly to the make/model/date of the car, I’m very surprised to find this.
I guess there’s possibility the carb could have been swapped early on at the dealer. But given the reliability and rebuild-ability of Qjets, I‘m doubtful of that.
Thanks
Adrian Jacobs
First, stop believing everything you read on the interwebs. That "odd number for manual trans" thing is NOT true. '9251 is the correct carb for a 1969 442 with AUTOMATIC trans (and that same carb was used on all RWD 455 cars also, including Delta 88s and Ninety Eights). The correct carb for a 1969 442 with a manual trans is the '9253. The carbs are externally identical. The differences are in the jetting - MT engines used a different cam and were rated at 350 HP vs. 325 HP for the AT engines. And of course the W-30 cars got yet another different cam and thus used a different carb number than either of these two.
Dealer "Mechanics" as they were called back in the day, did not have the luxury of rebuilding small parts such as Carburetors. They were only given a certain amount of time to do a (repair) any longer and it was on their dime. So to make money, instead of rebuilding a part they just replaced it. I remember the Mechanics were referred to as parts changers back then. I'm a little surprised that the Carb. does not have a date code stamp in it, could be a service replacement.
Dealer "Mechanics" as they were called back in the day, did not have the luxury of rebuilding small parts such as Carburetors. They were only given a certain amount of time to do a (repair) any longer and it was on their dime. So to make money, instead of rebuilding a part they just replaced it. I remember the Mechanics were referred to as parts changers back then. I'm a little surprised that the Carb. does not have a date code stamp in it, could be a service replacement.
It actually looks more like a restamp, but the number is correct for the OP's car.
Sometimes there's a date code stamped on the base for many of the 68 and 69 carbs. Don't know the rhyme or reason for that. If someone changed bases or what not, that doesn't help you much, however. This appears like a restamp of some sort, but can't say definitively. Most of the time, the stamps were more shallow than this one, although that doesn't really mean much. I think it's a restamp because of the deep stampings, but who knows. At least it's straight. Maybe they went back over the original stamping to help enhance it? I don't think it makes much difference at this point.
Same part number for 69 H/O as well, but some H/Os came with 29251 carbs as well, without the "70" stamping in front. Don't know if other cars came with the sans "70" stampings.
My '69 4-4-2 (Fremont car) has a 29251 carb with the RJ broadcast code and a date code of 3518 all on the carb body. I've never seen a full number 7029251 RJ carb with a date code on the carb body or base plate. I've seen lots of 7028251 carbs with dates on the base plate and that's what my '68 4-4-2 (Lansing car) has.
Given that grannys442 is pretty much all original, was owned by someone who probably didn't do a lot under the hood, and the car being in storage for awhile, I have a tendancy to believe, based on the picture, the carb is original and not a restamp. If it's a restamp, it looks very authentic!
Sorry, Norm, but you're looking at an optical illusion. This phenomena first came to light (pun sadly intended) during the Apollo missions to the moon. Photos of the moon looked like the craters were actually mounds. It's a function of the direction of the light vs what your brain is expecting, or something like that. With the Apollo photos, if you turned them around, they looked normal. In this case, there is no Rochester casting that has raised letters there, and I doubt someone actually made a replica casting to do that, so common sense should tell you these are not raised. Do they look raised now?
Sorry, Joe - I believe you are incorrect. Those are shadows being cast by each raised number & letter. Additionally (besides the broken number "5"), note the size of the letter "J" and the number "1". Also, note the inaccurate alignment of the numbers and the letters. They are not aligned. Finally, please note the recessed indentation just above the letters where there are no shadows cast.
At any rate, I'll just drop it for the sake of not arguing in order to move on with the more important information the OP is looking to address; although, they still looked raised to me.
You're correct. Wow, that is interestingly peculiar. I don't feel like an entire dolt - if they initially thought craters but realized they were mounds. Wild.
Just got the base plate back from Cliff’s after re-bush. Here’s photo of numbers stamped on it. Maybe the date code but I can’t make sense of them.
I've got one that is funky like that, also on a '29251. On yours, it looks like a previous stamping was ground off before the funky stamping was applied. Mine doesn't look altered.
June 9th, 2020, 08:38 PM
