[njsteve]

Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to start your day. :-)

[70RAlll]

I am still confused..has anyone found these part numbers listed in a Pontiac MPC?? I can't find anywhere... it is strange..

[Brewster]

Like most of the parts used on our second gen cars I would think Gates was NOT the only supplier.

[Held for Ransom]

Originally Posted by 70RAlll

I am still confused..has anyone found these part numbers listed in a Pontiac MPC?? I can't find anywhere... it is strange..

Bill, which PN's?

The 1776 is listed as fitting the '71-2 A-body inlet too. Someone with a '71 and '72 A-body assembly manual needs to look at the PN for the hoses and post them. As well as original markings.

[70RAlll]

Hey HFR.. I have the 481776,posted the 72 MPC page showing that.. Its the 489867 that has all the pictures shown on this thread and Bossbird showed a picture of what he said could be an original on a 71 and it has a 483115 hose.. I think I just have too early of a MPC,but I also use PY's parts lookup which is a few MPC's combined. Can't find the '115 or the '867.. Would really appreciate if someone can find these numbers in a parts book.really don't know why this is bothering me so.. I don't have later than 71 model year cars..but it is.. Seems too many have accepted the '867 as correct for the 73 up birds.. just has me wondering how the part number wouldn;t be in the PY lookup.. Plus found a 1977 dated Firebird MPC and it wasn';t there either??

[Held for Ransom]

You have to look in the assembly manuals to find the part numbers. In the '73 manual, you can see PN 489867 was 483115, drawing changed on 1-17-72. What I am surprised at is the NOS units having the 489867 PN inked on them instead of the 1776 (trim to fit???).

[70RAlll]

Originally Posted by Held for Ransom

You have to look in the assembly manuals to find the part numbers. In the '73 manual, you can see PN 489867 was 483115, drawing changed on 1-17-72. What I am surprised at is the NOS units having the 489867 PN inked on them instead of the 1776 (trim to fit???).

Thanks HFR for showing this.. As far as NOS units not having the '1776 number, the two pictures I show,one with white stamping and one with yellow stamping are both NOS hoses-these are not restamps. I guess these two '1776 hoses I have were for 71-72 model year Pontiacs and the other part numbers started in 1973.Someone else stated that 72 assembly manual showed the '1776 number as does the 71 assembly manual.. So looks like 73 up was the 489867 number, same hoses just a different number for some reason. And the cut to fit I don't know why we say that. I saw where someone suggested this in one of the previous threads, but never seen it in a MPC> I have seen other upper hose part numbers in MPC where its tates "cut to fit" but never seen that with teh '1776..I think the cut to fit was just a suggestion or guess..

[70RAlll]

I also see in this assembly manual it shows 480200 for the lower hose. I know many sell 480200 for the 70-71 lower hose as well, but it was actually 480201 for the 70-71 years, wonder if 72 assembly manual shows 480201 or 480200 for the lower hose??

[carnut4life]

1972 assembly manual shows 483115 for the upper hose and 480200 for the lower hose.

[Transamric]

Here's another original Gates made 03B '73 TA hose removed from my L75 car.

[70RAlll]

Originally Posted by 70RAlll

I thought I would add this to Greg's post. Performance Years has a parts look up service(on the main forum page) that shows the 481776 as being correct for 71-72 TA's and up to 79 TA's. Here is a 1977 dated MPS ,Group 1.159, it as well shows 481776 correct for 71-72 and 73-76 Cars.This is a parts list just for Firebirds..ALso, here are pictures of a NOS yellow and a NOS white stamped 481776 hose.. Funny how all the MPC's show 481776,including the assembluy manuals. The other part numbers do not show up anywhere in my parts catalogs.. Nowhere?

http://www.teufert.net/partbook/67-76/1-p.pdf


The 1st two pictures are of a all yellow '776 hose, the last 2 are of one with white number stamp, but yellowish EB numbers stampings..so the white hose actually has yellow and white stampings??

I am starting to think the white 481776 stamping maybe the earlier of these two NOS hoses. Seems the production line ones always have "Radiator" spelled out vs the "Rad" we see on some. Granted the yellow hose of these two looks better with all the stripes and large letter script.. what does the board think??

[Held for Ransom]

Originally Posted by 70RAlll

Thanks HFR for showing this.. As far as NOS units not having the '1776 number, the two pictures I show,one with white stamping and one with yellow stamping are both NOS hoses-these are not restamps. I guess these two '1776 hoses I have were for 71-72 model year Pontiacs and the other part numbers started in 1973.Someone else stated that 72 assembly manual showed the '1776 number as does the 71 assembly manual.. So looks like 73 up was the 489867 number, same hoses just a different number for some reason. And the cut to fit I don't know why we say that. I saw where someone suggested this in one of the previous threads, but never seen it in a MPC> I have seen other upper hose part numbers in MPC where its tates "cut to fit" but never seen that with teh '1776..I think the cut to fit was just a suggestion or guess..

I had it backwards on what was printed on the NOS hoses, didn't I. Still is strange why they marketed the '1776 (which was also shown for usage in the Pontiac engined B-bodies, '73 until '77) as the '9867.

Originally Posted by 70RAlll

I also see in this assembly manual it shows 480200 for the lower hose. I know many sell 480200 for the 70-71 lower hose as well, but it was actually 480201 for the 70-71 years, wonder if 72 assembly manual shows 480201 or 480200 for the lower hose??

480200 is a hose assembly (480201 hose and the spring). I wonder what was marked on the later original lower hoses.

[70RAlll]

Originally Posted by Held for Ransom

I had it backwards on what was printed on the NOS hoses, didn't I. Still is strange why they marketed the '1776 (which was also shown for usage in the Pontiac engined B-bodies, '73 until '77) as the '9867.



480200 is a hose assembly (480201 hose and the spring). I wonder what was marked on the later original lower hoses.

NO the 480201 is a separate part number see the pictures below.. It was used on 70 and 71 cars. It is in the mPC and assembly manuals. This picture is of a NOS one, has a creme like colored stripe down the side. The upper in 70 had a turquoise stripe..

[Held for Ransom]

From the '70 assembly manual. It shows the assembled number and the pick number (what was stamped on the hose).

[Pepi]

So who sells the correct 489867 Hose? I am looking for an upper hose for my 73. I tried searching PY and the RPE129GM doesn't have a picture to show whether or not it is the correct one, and looking at a different thread from about 5 weeks ago, it was stated PY didn't sell the correct one.

[165th]

Originally Posted by Pepi

So who sells the correct 489867 Hose? I am looking for an upper hose for my 73. I tried searching PY and the RPE129GM doesn't have a picture to show whether or not it is the correct one, and looking at a different thread from about 5 weeks ago, it was stated PY didn't sell the correct one.

Hi Pepi, I have one for $40 shipped to you. You can Paypal gregsm@earthlink.net

[formula kid]

In the 74 manual Section 6K2 The part # is 489867 when you ordered the part from GM the number is 481776 in yellow print. The code on my part is 3FO2A This is a 30 plus year old part ordered through the dealer. Print on the top is
GM 481776 NA (symbol for a triangle)
RAD ( arrow point to rad)
The word rad is smaller font than GM and takes up the same space.
The end of the arrow starts at the leg of the #4 and the point ends at first leg of the N in NA.
hope this helps.

[Pepi]

Thanks Greg, I'll send the information to you.

[West Coast GTO]

I posted a couple of weeks ago about PY not having the correct hoses as told to me by the customer service/ order department. I went to another source ( Aames) and , after a mess up on that order, they sent me a hose marked GM AU 481776NL in white stencil.
I am not happy.

[Pepi]

Greg actually I was going through my dad's garage today and found an old Dayco hose that has the correct bends. It is not stenciled but I will just go with that one for now. So I will not be needing the ones you have. I will keep it mind though for future possibilities.

Thanks,