Who is behind the tower top hose clamp ruse?

[imported_buick5563]

While getting my car ready for Batavia, I started to wonder: Is one of the manufacturer/ replacement old part dealers behind the fact that 1955's (and I'm sure other years ) have points deducted for non-tower top hose clamps. My car had all matching clamps on all of my heater hoses and they weren't of the "official" type. The radiator hose had newer replacement modern hose clamps, so they had obviously been changed. Anybody know? I probably still have time to order some from one of the "ALLEGED"( ) kick-back firms before leaving. Thanks,

Mike

[YellowLark]

In BCA's 400-point judging, points are always deducted for non-factory-authorized items.

Sooooo, logically, if you have modern worm-screw hoses and the cars didn't have them when they came from the factory...expect a deduction.

Manufacturers may solicit business, but that is secondary to the BCA judging criteria - if a judge is knowledgable enough to know that you have non-authenic parts - then expect to have point deductions.

[FireballV8]

Mike

I have a parts book from 1956 and they clearly show Buick worm type clamps for both the heater hose as well as the radiator hose, they have the Buick Script engraved into them. So technically worm type clamps are correct for a 55 and NO points should be deducted.

[NTX5467]

By observation, what manufacturers have sold as "replacement parts" might not be exactly what they used on the assembly line. To see what is absolutely correct and was used on the assembly line, you'd need a "production manual" rather than a parts book or service manual. In the absence of a production manual, then I'd be more inclined to reference the service manual, as they would use production assemblies for their illustrations.

To me, the reality of what's "correct" is more of a moveable situation than many might suspect. If, per chance, they were supposed to be using the tower clamps and there was a parts shortage at a particular time, they might temporarily substitute some "HD Option" worm clamps until the tower clamps would be supplied again. Which might be where the people that "knew the cars when they were new" (and their recollections) would come into play.

The other suspicion I have is that the tower clamps were more mid-'60s and later than in the 1950s. Just my gut suspicion, but that might not be completely accurate. In theory, the tower clamps should provide a more uniform clamping force around the total circumference of the hose, but the downfall might be that the softer aluminum band might stretch whereas the stainless steel worm gear clamps would not stretch or lose tension.

There should be several vendors (including non-Buick-specific ones) that have repro tower olamps in their catalogs. Unless there were some different configurations, you can "shop for price and quality" rather than buying them from the first place you find them. Were they date coded?

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[imported_buick5563]

I was trying to get more conspiratorial than this. In the judging handbook it says that tower top clamps are correct. I just figured maybe the first guys who reproduced them were on the judging comittee. I will be changing over (to other clamps) since this is my first judged national and I'd much rather try to defend some other bit of "workmanship" rather than argue about something that is stated in the judging book. Like I said above, I have to make one more "parts run" anyway, I'll just add this to my list.

See ya,

Mike

[palbuick]

Most tower clamps were dated, Month and year.

Jim Schilf

palbuick

[Ron Green]

I know for a fact that mid 50's Pontiac's utilized 3 different style hose clamps, tower type, dual spring with bolt type and the standard common spring type. Different GM factories used one of these style clamps for all the hoses, but did not mix and match different clamps.

When I was going for my AACA junior I had documentation (factory pictures, manuals, etc) that any one of these type clamps were available and correct for the Pontiac year 1955. Buick being a GM make may very well be the same? A little investigative work may be required and finding correct documentation should not be to hard to find. Good luck.