Hood to Fender Bumpers

[cwmcobra]

I received the hood to fender bumpers from Fusick today (HB652B) and was able to compare them with an original bumper and with the Metro bumper (HF 26B) that I had bought previously.  Here are my conclusions:

• The Metro bumper is about 1/4" shorter overall and is shorter from its bottom to the point where the rubber tang fits into the hole in the fender.  This means the when installed, the bottom will not reach to the surface on the fender that it is supposed to "rest on".
• The Fusick bumper is about 1/16" shorter than the original, but is the same dimension from its bottom to the point where it inserts into the fender.  So it should fit tight to the fender surface when installed.  The thickness of the bottom of the bumper is the same as the original, but the contour is slightly different.
• The three bumpers are all approximately the same width.  The slotted hole in the fender that the bumper tang fits into is about 3/4" wide, as is the original bumper.  The Fusick bumper is a hair wider, but I'm sure it will still fit into the slotted hole.

Bottom line....The Metro bumper is much different than the original and will not fit the fender well.  The Fusick bumper is slightly different than the original, but is by far the closest in size and configuration.  And it should fit well on the fender. 

The Fusick bumper is the keeper!

Pictures below....

 

Chuck

[yachtsmanbill]

So Chuck... whats the consensus on the difference between OPGI and FUSIK?  Heres the comp. Are they the same. One is seeming to be missing the installation slot for the "pusher" tool. Hmmm   Bill

http://www.fusickautomotiveproducts.com/prodinfo.asp?number=HB652B


OPGI is part # prodinfo.asp?number=HB652B

The OPGI link comes up as FUSIK here as well, but the pics look different as well as the $$$. Are they the same company? Thoughts?  Am I missing something? 

CARS part from ebay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1961-1975-Buick-Hood-to-Fender-Bumper-Narrow-HFB610/182153008715?fits=Year%3A1965%7CModel%3ASkylark&epid=665964342&hash=item2a692a564b:g:8FEAAOSw7FRWZc-f:sc:USPSFirstClass

[elagache]

Dear Chuck, Bill, and mid-60s Buick caregivers,

Thanks Chuck for the detailed report! 

I'll try to make a similar comparison when the CARS bumpers I ordered arrive.  They are due soon.

Cheers, Edouard 

[gssizzler]

Still looking for those nos ones to compare hard to get a good look at the originals as most are smash down ripped up, or missing! Thanks for posting Chuck!

[cwmcobra]

Bill,

I can't seem to find the Fusick part on the OPGI website, but if it's the same Fusick part number, it should be the same.  I did find on the OPGI site a part that looks just like the CARS bumper on eBay.

All I know is the original bumpers do not have the split in the front like the OPGI and CARS bumpers do.  And the dimensions of the Fusick part are darn close to those of the original.  The picture on the Fusick site is very representative of the actual part.

 

Chuck

[yachtsmanbill]

Still curious. Even tho the belt sander (or bench mounted wire wheel) works good on shaping rubber parts, the closer to OEM the better IMHO.  For the sake of thred continuity, this is a pic of my '72's. At best, these are OEM '72, and and least, they were what was available in 1990 from the PO that did a frame off back then; and he was NOT too fastidious LOL.   I might get some measurements off this later today. If not, I am gearing up towards a start up on the '64. Keep yer toes crossed!  Bill

[Loren At 65GS]

Just throwing my $.02 worth in, but I have never seen original '65  hood bumpers with the slit in them like those pictured from CARS.

  Loren

[WkillGS]

I checked the parts book.... it varies by year. The 64-5 1366537 is also used by Olds for 1965, and is a replacement for the original 1362260 used in the 1964.

The 66-67 1369335 was superceeded by the later 69-72 1231283 piece.
The 64-65 1366537 was also superceeded by 1231283 in 1974

The Cars is supposedly a repo of the 1231283, therefore it can be considered a 'replacement' for 64-72 since that's what GM did.

The Fusick has a HB64 for 64-67 Olds, and a HB68 for 68-70 Olds

I'll let you guys check for possible Chev or Pontiac matches.

Some links used for research:
64-77 Buick master parts book:
http://65gs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/1964-72-Buick-Master-Parts-Catalog.pdf

GM Parts Wiki to research part number history:
http://www.gmpartswiki.com/query

64-72 Canadian Olds parts book:
http://www.oldsmobility.com/mpc/group8000/text01.htm

Fusick, rubber parts:
http://www.fusickautomotiveproducts.com/products.asp?dept=137

[WkillGS]

Ames Pontiac 64-67, $2.00 each:

[gssizzler]

Here are a couple shots of a nos one!

[cwmcobra]

Here are a couple shots of a nos one!

Jon, can you put a measuring tape on a few of those dimensions please?

Thanks,

Chuck

[WkillGS]

Jon and Chuck, Great info, Thanks!

Jon, do you have a part number for that NOS piece? Wondering if it is the original 1965 or a superseded part.

[elagache]

Dear Chuck, Bill, Loren, Walt, Jon, and mid-60s Buick parts hounds,

I checked the parts book.... it varies by year. The 64-5 1366537 is also used by Olds for 1965, and is a replacement for the original 1362260 used in the 1964.

The 66-67 1369335 was superceeded by the later 69-72 1231283 piece.
The 64-65 1366537 was also superceeded by 1231283 in 1974
. . . . . .

Thanks Walt for taking the time to assemble the sequence of events in "da' crime."   Thinking about when GM superseded these parts, I started to wonder if GM itself was to blame for the less than perfect fitting parts.  I suppose that the original inventory of 64-65 and 66-67 parts was eventually depleted.  The "right" thing to do was have more manufactured.  On the other hand, if GM had a part that was "close enough," they could substitute that for the dealers and suppliers.  By 1974, some of these cars were 10 years old.  At that point GM was probably itching to get people to buy a new car and didn't mind if the repairs weren't has nice as they otherwise could be.

When companies decided to make reproduction hood bumpers, they poured over the GM cross-reference books and picked the part that was most common to reproduce.  They certainly didn't check every possible classic GM car to make sure it was a good fit.  So the reproduction manufacturers might have been victimized by General Motor's own desires to cut costs and move inventory many decades earlier.

Cheers, Edouard 

P.S. I have the CARS bumpers but it is an especially busy weekend with Mother's day.  I'll try to get around to photographing them sometime next week.

[gssizzler]

So the bumper measures 1 3/16 for height,11/16 length,5/16 width, and 1 1/16 width to the end of the barb! Also of note is the base of the bumper is radiused on the bottom edges! and full radius on the back of the barb! And Walt  these are the 65 1366537 parts fresh out of the trishield stamped pouch!

[elagache]

Dear Jon and mid-60s Buick caregivers,

Well, it is Thursday but still within this week!  First here is a photo of Biquette's OEM bumper to validate Jon's info:



Belatedly, here are the photos of the CARS reproductions of the hood to fender bumpers.  They are not as awful as I first imagined.  Here is the side view:



Here is front view:



The CARS reproduction is 1/16" thinner than the original according to Jon.  They aren't nearly as tall on the fender.  However that isn't as serious an issue.  I would hope 13/16" of rubber would be sufficient to protect the fender and hood.

Chuck, could you post the actual dimensions of the Fusick bumpers?  I'm wondering how much closer they are to the OEM bumpers.

Cheers, Edouard