FC Standard question

[fe2ek]

Should an original FC Standard sedan have the chrome quarter panel fins like the special or would they be
classed as an accessory for one?

Regards Geoff

[4hammers]

Hi Geoff.
I have asked the same question & have been told they were standard. Apparently,  the top of the quater panels had holes in them for the fins right from the press, so it was easier & cheaper just to bung a set of fins on.
Rob J

[RET]

That's my understanding as well - all FC Sedans had the fins.  They're listed in the parts catalogue as standard equipment for FC/215, FC/217 AND FC/225.

I believe the stainless strip below the tail-light that separates the body colours on '58 and early '59 Special FCs is also on all FCs, including Standards, probably because it was more trouble than it was worth to delete them and fill the holes some other way.

They're also fitted to late '59 FC Specials, even though once that third paint-scheme was released none of the Sedans actually required the trim for colour separation.  No doubt the cost of retooling the panels to delete the holes was much more than the cost of producing/fitting the stainless trim and pins.

cheers
RET

[craiga]

RET,

It's an interesting point about GMH still fitting parts that weren't really needed - fins on standards/stainless on late 59 paint schemes.

What about the change to the 'A' pillar stamping on the very late 59's. As you know my car has round FB door light switches fitted to the 'A' pillars which required a completely diffrent mounting hole than the switches used on previous FE/FC's.

Makes you wonder why they made the change? You wouldn't think it was just because they had exhausted supplies of the earlier switch,  and it doesn't operate any differently, so you really do wonder why they did it.

Another GMH mystery......

Cheers,

Craig.

[mike]

My November 59 standard does not have the stainless paint separater but does have the round hole in the A pillar for the door light switches but mine being a standard doesnt have any switch just a hole,
regards mike.

[RET]

That one is a bit of a mystery.  There are definitely two different part numbers for that panel, one for FE/FC and one for FB/EK.  The individual component in question (when purchased separately) is shown as being the face panel from the bottom of the lower windscreen corner to the scuff plate.  It's possible, looking at the pic, that the FB-EK one is exactly the same basic shape, since it appears to start below the knee-fracturing windscreen.

If it is the same, perhaps one or all the plants making bodies switched over to the new ones late in the piece.  Do you know what month your car was made?

Here are the images from one of the parts catalogues.  What do you think?

cheers
RET

[RET]

Mike's reply came through while I was stuffing around with the scanner.  That's interesting. Maybe I've got the standards confused with single-tone FC specials which definitely do have that piece of trim.  There are different part numbers for the rear quarter panels, one for all FE/215, FE/217 and FE/225, and then one for FC/215, FC/217 and a different one for FC/225.  So given that, maybe the difference is the pin-holes for the stainless trim?

Maybe I should just let Ken answer

cheers
RET

[mcl1959]

Yep sorry RET, FC std had the fin moulding but not the lower strip below the t/light.  Part # is 7411400 in section 12.116 and is only listed for FC 225 and 229.
re the switch, it was obviously cheaper than the earlier one (2 screws not needed) and faster to install.  I guess they ordered the new ones when they thought they would have enough for the FC but demand was very high for FC so perhaps they underestimated and could not get more stock of the old switch. The tooling change to the panel was probably not a huge issue, they probably waited for a standard tool replacement time and put the new change in.

Ken