I wish online parts vendors would get their act togather

[junkyardjeff]

Whoever rebuilt the 390 in my 65 mercury did not install the dipstick tube but since there was none I had to look for one,looked on Macs website and all that would come up were ones for a 289 in the 60 to 72 full size section for a 65 so I had to get one from the thunderbird section.  I am now ready to install the gas tank and thought I ordered the right fill tube seal but my tank took the O ring style seal and I ordered the newer version,I had to go to the thunderbird section again to get the right seal.  One would think that someone would have done some research in what they offered and put the parts in the correct sections.

[padgett]

Thinking you want ? Twice this year have ordered small things on e-bay that claimed to e one thing but weren't. Latest one has been two weeks and still having trouble convincing them (English apparently a second language) that something guaranteed to fit my car doesn't.

[Matt Harwood]

I always try to remember that nobody can possibly be an expert on every part for every car, and regardless of what parts books they're using or how they're cataloging stuff, there's always something that won't get through. It's easy for me to criticize vendors who offer, say, 1941 Buick parts and get it wrong because I'm an expert. Then I remember they're probably not as well-versed in the car as I am--how could they be? And when dealing with the millions of small, undocumented little changes that an automaker would make during production or the slight variances between one model and a similar but not identical model, well, I can't be too angry that they don't know every nut and bolt on every car. I try to do my homework and make sure I get the right part, but sometimes it takes two tries. I'm just glad so many things can be purchased with a phone call or E-mail--imagine we were still tracking down all these parts not from the comfort of our favorite chair but waiting until the next swap meet in hopes that someone might have it sitting there.

 

So cut them some slack. It's not perfection, it's not an OEM parts department at the dealership, it's an aftermarket doing its best to get us what we need. If they're able to supply the right stuff even 80% of the time with just a phone call, I think that's miraculous.

[padgett]

And near as I can tell some are just web storefronts. They take an order then they order the part from their supplier. Sometimes it takes weeks for them to get the item (and the order is "processing") and then reship. Meanwhile they charge your credit card immediately. I look for "in stock" and "fast and free". Doesn't always help but often. Do tend to order a lot mostly from Amazon but even there had two orders just disappear - showed "delivered" but not here and my name signed in one but not by me.

Only thing is when ordering from someone I do not know, use "paypal" "guest"

[joe_padavano]

"Online" has nothing to do with it. There are just as many errors in paper catalogs as in electronic ones. Most parts vendor application data comes from the part's manufacturer, which is where the errors originate. Don't even get me started about the applications errors in listings for Oldsmobile parts. If you're relying on a vendor's application listing, that's your first mistake. Worse is that most of these vendors don't even want to hear it if you try to point out an error. After several "Thanks but no thanks" form letter responses, I've stopped wasting my time.

[lump]

36 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

I always try to remember that nobody can possibly be an expert on every part for every car, and regardless of what parts books they're using or how they're cataloging stuff, there's always something that won't get through. It's easy for me to criticize vendors who offer, say, 1941 Buick parts and get it wrong because I'm an expert. Then I remember they're probably not as well-versed in the car as I am--how could they be? And when dealing with the millions of small, undocumented little changes that an automaker would make during production or the slight variances between one model and a similar but not identical model, well, I can't be too angry that they don't know every nut and bolt on every car. I try to do my homework and make sure I get the right part, but sometimes it takes two tries. I'm just glad so many things can be purchased with a phone call or E-mail--imagine we were still tracking down all these parts not from the comfort of our favorite chair but waiting until the next swap meet in hopes that someone might have it sitting there.

 

So cut them some slack. It's not perfection, it's not an OEM parts department at the dealership, it's an aftermarket doing its best to get us what we need. If they're able to supply the right stuff even 80% of the time with just a phone call, I think that's miraculous.

Well said, Matt! 

 

In past years I have produced many of these parts catalogs for dozens of the larger parts vendors in our industry...(including Mac's Antique Ford parts, back when the McIntosh brothers still owned it). People have NO IDEA how difficult it can be, because they have never been involved in the process. It is much easier to sit back and criticize and b***h about such things, than it is to put the time, effort, and tens of thousands of dollars and man-hours into such a gargantuan project. Then there is the fact that the information which goes into these catalogs is not always correct from the original source. I cannot tell you how many times we have corrected the information on an individual part from how it was listed in the OEM parts catalogs. 

 

Frankly, we car collectors ought to be thankful that the vast majority of these parts vendors do such terrific jobs in providing parts and supplies for our vintage cars. Example: Just imagine for a minute what the price would be for, say, a 1969 Camaro front fender, if the ONLY source for parts were used fenders? (How many folks have an idea of how much the tooling costs would be to stamp out one new fender? Then there is the opposite side fender, inner fenders, braces, etc, etc.)  What would it take to restore a 57 Chevy interior to exact correct appearance if no one had spent many thousands of dollars reproducing the pressed-vinyl seat cover material? 

 

Whenever you find an error in a catalog, why not send a cheerful friendly note to the company, suggesting the specific correction? We stored such tips from our clients in our system, and then made the updates in the next edition of that catalog. We can all work together to make the information better. 

[lump]

Another contributing factor to errors is the fact that OEM's save money on replacement parts by combining multiple different parts into a single "supercession" part. IE: One GM example are the outside rear view mirrors of the 1960's, which were eventually replaced with generic units which were pretty close for many models, but not factory-exact replacements for any. 

[joe_padavano]

27 minutes ago, lump said:

 One GM example are the outside rear view mirrors of the 1960's, which were eventually replaced with generic units which were pretty close for many models, but not factory-exact replacements for any. 

 

Not according to any parts book I have.  Dealerships may have offered generic replacements, but the parts network listed the model-year-specific mirrors, and stopped listing them when they were dropped from the parts network.

More to the point, a repro parts vendor is attempting to sell correct reproduction parts, not JC Whitney generic replacements.

[Lebowski]

Bummer about the wrong parts. This 7 minute Waukegan video should take your mind off of those issues. It covers the centennial parade in 1959 with Jack Benny plus a lot of old pics of places like Victory Park, Genesee Street, Louie's, etc. It should bring back some memories of the good old days....

 

 

 

[padgett]

And other excuses: "Certain high-demand parts need to come straight from the manufacturer and take 20 - 25 business days for you to receive. "

[junkyardjeff]

I ran into the same issue with Year One trying to get 69 Camaro parts,I was trying to get those little rubber bumpers for the seat and a console light lense and they were not in the seat and console parts. I found them accidently looking for other parts and I know it must be a pain setting up a website but when you type in seat bumpers everyone they offer should come up and not having to find them when you type in for another part not even related.

[Matt Harwood]

I find that part frustrating, too. When I don't know what to call a part, how do you find it. For example, I need this for a 1965 GTO convertible:

 

 

I don't know what it's called. It's not windshield surround, it's not windshield trim, it's not a rain gutter, it's not a vent window trim, so what do I call it and how do I find it on a supplier's website? I don't know. I've tried every possible permutation of whatever it is and still come up blank. 

 

I feel your pain in that department, brother.

[padgett]

That's why the second half of a GM parts manual is "Illustrations" with references back to the numerical parts book.

Also need to know that a bumper is a "chromed styling panel".

 

That is probably in grp 10.093 and a Mldg, Plr Fin -RT

 

[John_Mereness]

Nice to be able to have some options though (ex. I hear a lot of complaints about quality, but sometimes not the best reproduction is far better than nothing at all) - a lot of us have cars that there are near no parts available reproduction and are reinventing the wheel when we really need to be focusing on frying other fish.   That said, my periodic gripe is that a lot of needed reproduction parts are needed by those involved in a business and a lot of the suppliers really are hobbyist - it makes it a "house of cards" to restore a car.

[junkyardjeff]

Starting to get irritated at the local part stores too,on my last two 65 full size Fords I had been substituting the rear wheel cylinders from late 70s to mid 90s Ford half ton trucks and now they are not keeping them in stock.    NAPA had one and the other will be here on monday but was suprised that they had the 77-9 T bird rear brake hose in stock that I used on the Merc since its close to the original,I guess the parts that I consider late model are getting older but one would think they would have had rear wheel cylinders in stock for a 92 to 96 F 150 since there are plenty still on the road and are the same back to the 70s.

[lump]

On 8/14/2020 at 1:14 PM, joe_padavano said:

 

Not according to any parts book I have.  Dealerships may have offered generic replacements, but the parts network listed the model-year-specific mirrors, and stopped listing them when they were dropped from the parts network.

More to the point, a repro parts vendor is attempting to sell correct reproduction parts, not JC Whitney generic replacements.

Exactly, Joe. The parts books DON'T show many changes that were made to make a part more generic, such as those outside rear view mirrors. IE: Factory-installed original mirrors on Camaros, Chevelles, and others had a bowtie emblem embossed on the back side. GM superceded that part number, and replaced them with mirrors with no bowtie, so that the same mirror could be sold as a replacement for non-Chevy GM cars. 

[joe_padavano]

33 minutes ago, lump said:

Exactly, Joe. The parts books DON'T show many changes that were made to make a part more generic, such as those outside rear view mirrors. IE: Factory-installed original mirrors on Camaros, Chevelles, and others had a bowtie emblem embossed on the back side. GM superceded that part number, and replaced them with mirrors with no bowtie, so that the same mirror could be sold as a replacement for non-Chevy GM cars. 

 

Each subsequent parts book printing DOES encompass any superseded parts or discontinued parts as of the date of that printing. That's why you can't rely on a parts book to tell you what was "correct" when the car was built. They only reflect the parts that were in the network as of the printing date of the book. For example, Oldsmobile superseded the front fenders on the 1970 Cutlass line with the ones for the 1971 models. Externally they were the same, but the 1971-72 fenders incorporated dimples on the underhood reinforcing angle that allowed for a crumple zone in a front end collision. The 1970 fenders are flat and do not crumple (they aim a steel angle iron at your chest in a front end collision). The January 1972 printing of the parts book shows the 71-72 fender P/Ns as appropriate for the 1970 cars also. Functionally they are fine, but for a concourse restoration they are not correct. There are countless similar examples of such items as cylinder head castings, pistons, etc. The parts books absolutely reflect superseded part numbers. In fact. GM periodically published a Parts History Catalog to supplement the parts books that specifically documented parts that were deleted or superseded.

 

[padgett]

a) have a few of those GM "Parts History Manuals" but can't even trust those. Sometimes a part was superceeded before the book even came out. Case in point PF-23 vs PF-24 oil filters.

b) "guess the parts that I consider late model are getting older " hard to realize my Judge is 50. I remember them being new cars.

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by padgett (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

22 minutes ago, padgett said:

 

b) "guess the parts that I consider late model are getting older " hard to realize my Judge is 50. I remember them being new cars.

 

 

I'm the same way - anything after 1972 is a "new car" to me. 😉

[lump]

7 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

 

Each subsequent parts book printing DOES encompass any superseded parts or discontinued parts as of the date of that printing. That's why you can't rely on a parts book to tell you what was "correct" when the car was built. They only reflect the parts that were in the network as of the printing date of the book. For example, Oldsmobile superseded the front fenders on the 1970 Cutlass line with the ones for the 1971 models. Externally they were the same, but the 1971-72 fenders incorporated dimples on the underhood reinforcing angle that allowed for a crumple zone in a front end collision. The 1970 fenders are flat and do not crumple (they aim a steel angle iron at your chest in a front end collision). The January 1972 printing of the parts book shows the 71-72 fender P/Ns as appropriate for the 1970 cars also. Functionally they are fine, but for a concourse restoration they are not correct. There are countless similar examples of such items as cylinder head castings, pistons, etc. The parts books absolutely reflect superseded part numbers. In fact. GM periodically published a Parts History Catalog to supplement the parts books that specifically documented parts that were deleted or superseded.

 

Understood, Joe. I have those supercession catalogs too...going back into the 1940's or so. But when a parts-selling person looks up a part number in whatever catalog he/she is working from, they cannot be sure that the part numbers are accurate (compared to factory installation) without checking old catalogs, new catalogs, and multiple supercession catalogs (the same numbers often change multiple times). The mirror that I used in my example had one part number for Chevy, originally, and others for other product lines. As the replacement parts ran out of stock, GM replaced multiple mirrors with a single generic replacement unit with no logos on the backside. Yet it's likely that there were multiple part number supercessions across the different GM brands at different times. That's my point.... Getting this info perfectly correct is really tough, and GM, Ford, and Chrysler catalogs often add to the challenges. And when a client has LOTS of catalogs featuring LOTS of brands, models, platforms, and model years...., well, it really is a colossal job. 

[joe_padavano]

5 minutes ago, lump said:

Understood, Joe. I have those supercession catalogs too...going back into the 1940's or so. But when a parts-selling person looks up a part number in whatever catalog he/she is working from, they cannot be sure that the part numbers are accurate (compared to factory installation) without checking old catalogs, new catalogs, and multiple supercession catalogs (the same numbers often change multiple times). The mirror that I used in my example had one part number for Chevy, originally, and others for other product lines. As the replacement parts ran out of stock, GM replaced multiple mirrors with a single generic replacement unit with no logos on the backside. Yet it's likely that there were multiple part number supercessions across the different GM brands at different times. That's my point.... Getting this info perfectly correct is really tough, and GM, Ford, and Chrysler catalogs often add to the challenges. And when a client has LOTS of catalogs featuring LOTS of brands, models, platforms, and model years...., well, it really is a colossal job. 

 

Fair enough. I usually start with the Product Information Manual (aka, Assembly Manual), which for GM anyway is a compendium of the engineering drawings used to assemble the car. These have the part numbers used in each assembly, but obviously those drawings were revised over the course of the model year and usually there are revision notices on each one of them. Of course, from that one can figure out when a P/N change was implemented during the model year.