1963 Rear Suspension - Jam Handy - Metallic Brakes

[Russ U.]

I digitized a 1963 Jam Handy film that focuses on the rear suspension. The film contains many slides showing the metallic brake option. This was a training film for GM mechanics.

To view - go to my Jam Handy Filmstrip page. Scroll down to 1963 Corvette - Rear Suspension. You can play either a PC or Mac version. 7MB to 10MB in size.

Russ

[Joe L.]

Re: 1963 Rear Suspension - Jam Handy - Metallic Brakes

I digitized a 1963 Jam Handy film that focuses on the rear suspension. The film contains many slides showing the metallic brake option. This was a training film for GM mechanics.

To view - go to my Jam Handy Filmstrip page. Scroll down to 1963 Corvette - Rear Suspension. You can play either a PC or Mac version. 7MB to 10MB in size.

Russ

Russ-----


Thanks for posting this. While this instructional film was developed for 1963 Corvettes, it's actually applicable to all 1963-82 Corvettes. There are a few minor differences for 65-82 with disc brakes but the the basics are the same.

The one puzzling thing I will note, though, is the pressing tool they show for removal of pressed-type spindles. I do not understand how this sort of a tool would work for any pressed-in type spindle.

[John H.]

Re: 1963 Rear Suspension - Jam Handy - Metallic Brakes

The one puzzling thing I will note, though, is the pressing tool they show for removal of pressed-type spindles. I do not understand how this sort of a tool would work for any pressed-in type spindle.

Joe -

I saw one identical to the one in the filmstrip at Carlisle last year - it has "ears" on the ends that hook behind the rolled flange in the opening in the trailing arm. Probably superceded later by the one that attaches to the caliper bracket.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1963 Rear Suspension - Jam Handy - Metallic Brakes

Joe -

I saw one identical to the one in the filmstrip at Carlisle last year - it has "ears" on the ends that hook behind the rolled flange in the opening in the trailing arm. Probably superceded later by the one that attaches to the caliper bracket.

John-----

Yes, I figured that it would have to "anchor" in that manner. However, it would seem to me that the trailing arm would distort from the force applied long before the spindle would budge. I suppose it was the only way a tool could be used to press the spindle out prior to the disc brake flange being present to allow the use of the re-designed bearing press. In fact, if the puller shown in the film had worked well, there would have been no need for the re-designed pressing tool. I think the earlier pressing tool was "wishful thinking" on GM's part.

[Joe R.]

Re: 1963 Rear Suspension - Jam Handy - Metallic Brakes

John, Joe and others,

The 1963 and 1964 bearings were not pressed on the spindle. They were originally slip fit. I've done several 63 and 64's that just slid out and then there were those that didn't.

On untouched originals all you had to do was remove the nut and pull them out with your hands.

GM, for some reason changed to the pressed fit when they introduced disc brakes. Probably because of the operating temp or safety issues.

JR

[Mike M.]

Re: 1963 Rear Suspension - Jam Handy - Metallic Brakes

John, Joe and others,

The 1963 and 1964 bearings were not pressed on the spindle. They were originally slip fit. I've done several 63 and 64's that just slid out and then there were those that didn't.

On untouched originals all you had to do was remove the nut and pull them out with your hands.

GM, for some reason changed to the pressed fit when they introduced disc brakes. Probably because of the operating temp or safety issues.

JR

joe: i believe only the early 63's had their spindles/bearings machined for a slip-fit. mike

[Duke W.]

Re: 1963 Rear Suspension - Jam Handy - Metallic Brakes

John, Joe and others,

The 1963 and 1964 bearings were not pressed on the spindle. They were originally slip fit. I've done several 63 and 64's that just slid out and then there were those that didn't.

On untouched originals all you had to do was remove the nut and pull them out with your hands.

GM, for some reason changed to the pressed fit when they introduced disc brakes. Probably because of the operating temp or safety issues.

JR

There is a TSB that describes the history of the rear wheel bearing design. There was an interim design adopted in the October/November 1962 time frame, and the final press fit design went into production on Dec. 1, 1962, and this essentially carried through to 1982. One interesting note is that the 30K mile bearing repack schedule called out in the 1963 Corvette Shop Manual was eliminated with the implementation of the final press fit design.

I believe the tool shown to remove a press fit spindle would probably work on a drum brake car with only a few months or maybe a few years in service. The spindles on disk brake cars have more tendency to seize because they get hotter due to the lower resistance thermal path from the disk to spindle than drum to spindle.

No doubt some trailing arms were damaged trying to use that tool to remove spindles after years - or decades - of service.

Great stuff, Russ!!!

Duke

[Duke W.]

Re: 1963 Rear Suspension - Jam Handy - Metallic Brakes

My SWC (I'm the original owner), just short of sequence number 11,000, build on March 19 had (and has) press fit rear wheel bearings as I found out when I tried to disassemble the pack at about 60K miles. I gave up and let them be until about 115K when I rebuilt the brakes, axle, and rear suspension.

Now you can believe whatever you want, but I'll believe a detailed Chevrolet TSB (that leaves no doubt including the St. Louis production dates for the original, interim, and final press fit design) before I accept anecdotal evidence taken from used cars with no detailed service/repair records, and it was common in the field to "convert" press fit back to slip fit, but probably not by Chevrolet dealers. In fact, it is still being done today, against the advice of more knowledgeable souls.

I did not discover the TSB until the eighties when it was published in Vette Vues magazine, which is when I first learned of the earlier slip fit design, and then realized why they were so difficult to disassemble and why I had no success disassembling them using the procedure in the 1963 Corvette Shop Manual.

Of course, if I was aware of that TSB circa 1969 I would not even have attempted to disassemble the pack because the service interval for the press fit design was eliminated, however, anyone who buys a 1963 Corvette Shop Manual will see it called out. There was never a second printing of this document, and what is sold today is exactly the same as when it first became available during the 1963 model year, so it does not cover the many running changes that were made during production.

One of the problems with automotive hobbiests is that they swear by what they see and refuse to believe otherwise even when presented with unequivocal documentation, and that keeps the many myths and misinformation circulating forever.

Duke

[Joe R.]

Re: 1963 Rear Suspension - Jam Handy - Metallic Brakes

Duke,

You might want to consider that GM may not have taken all the axles in the process of being installed on sub-assemblies or axles on the shelf and chunked them in the trash.

GM probably ordered more than a weeks supply (probably thousands) of axles.

Those axles did find their way into production and depending on the ratio it may have been sooner than later.

Some of the sub-assemblies that were 4:56, 4:10 etc may have been assembled and not used for days or weeks. Maybe John H. could shed some light on that process.

Anyway, my contention is that GM did not throw away any slip fit axles or recall any that were on the shelves of warehouses or dealers. So, no matter when the change occured on paper that change did not instantly happen.

An example of this would be the change from the Type I Jacks (because most of them had a high occurance of failure) to the Type II and later in the same year (65) to the Type III. Again, GM did not run in and throw away all the Type I jacks. They were used up.

So, again judges or team leaders should exercise a concious effort to not draw the line on running changes. Most changes did not occur on a specific date.

JR

[Timothy B.]

Re: 1963 Rear Suspension - Jam Handy - Metallic Brakes

I believe the TSB said slip fit first and after approx second week November 62, slip fit on the inner and interference fit on outer bearing. After a date in December 62 interference fit on both, the TSB is on the NCRS cd

How they figured out at that early point in time there was a problem I have no idea. The TSB also states a change to a new design spindle flange and .210" washer with 100ft.lb. torque. I think you can use the thick washer with the old spindle but not the thin washer with new spindle because the nut will bottom out.

[Duke W.]

Re: 1963 Rear Suspension - Jam Handy - Metallic Brakes

Duke,

You might want to consider that GM may not have taken all the axles in the process of being installed on sub-assemblies or axles on the shelf and chunked them in the trash.

GM probably ordered more than a weeks supply (probably thousands) of axles.

Those axles did find their way into production and depending on the ratio it may have been sooner than later.

Some of the sub-assemblies that were 4:56, 4:10 etc may have been assembled and not used for days or weeks. Maybe John H. could shed some light on that process.

Anyway, my contention is that GM did not throw away any slip fit axles or recall any that were on the shelves of warehouses or dealers. So, no matter when the change occured on paper that change did not instantly happen.

An example of this would be the change from the Type I Jacks (because most of them had a high occurance of failure) to the Type II and later in the same year (65) to the Type III. Again, GM did not run in and throw away all the Type I jacks. They were used up.

So, again judges or team leaders should exercise a concious effort to not draw the line on running changes. Most changes did not occur on a specific date.

JR

The assembled trailing arm was a different subassembly than the rear axle, and axle ratio had nothing to do with trailing arm selection. At any time in production there were three trailing arm assemblies installed depending on the installed brake system. - base, J-65, and J-56 (Z-06).

GM knew there was a problem with the wheel bearing design early on and for this reason they would not have ordered months of supply (thousands), but even parts on order are subject to directed engineering changes, and as soon as they had the engineering fix it was implemented in production ASAP. The only real change was to machine the spindle to a slightly greater dimension range to achieve an interference fit, the new thicker washer under the nut, and the increase in nut torque.

These changes would have been easy to implement on an emergency basis The spindle drawing change would have been communciated by TWX or other rapid means to the machining facility immediately upon approval by the Change Control Board.

Whenever parts are changed engineering has to determine a dispositon of superseded parts. The typical dispostions are "use until supply is exhausted", "scrap", or "rework". It's quite likey that any finished slip fit trailing arm assemblies that were in the system were returned to the plant or supplier that assembled them, disassembled, and reassembled with the new spindle. Only the old design spindles and old washer and nut would have had to be scraped. Everything else could be reused. That probably would have been cheaper than scrapping all completed slip fit trailing arm assemblies.

Less critical changes take longer to go into production and usually the parts dispostion is "use until supply is exhausted", so there are many cases where old and new parts see intermingled use over a period time.

This was not the case with the rear wheel bearing problem design. It was a reliability/saftey issue that was generating a lot of warranty claims. The TSB is unquivocal. As of Dec. 1 1962 all trailing arm assemblies installed at St. Louis were of the new press fit design.

Did any slip fit assemblies get installed after this data. Anything is possible, but this is something that the quality people would have been watching very closely. Any old designs assemblies would have been removed from assembly line access, tagged, and shipped back to the supplier ASAP.

Duke