Challenger Grill emblem • The Dodge Challenger Message Board

by **Eddie** » 15 Aug 2007 21:30

I ordered a new Challenger emblem from Year One and when I recieved it the stamped steel fasteners just spin on the stud. There are three non threaded studs that goes through the grill, then the stamped steel fasteners are gently hand tightned to achieve the desired torque. Whats the "trick" in getting them to stay in place and recieve that torque? They just spin around the shaft/stud. The old emblem must have had a stud broken off because only two of the stamped steel fasteners were found as I was detailing the car. :?:

by **Eddie** » 15 Aug 2007 21:33

As I removed the old emblem the fasteners just fell off and the studs looked as if they had been compressed or mashed with vice grips then attached. it appears as the assemblers were thinking the same thing as I. There has to be a better more professional way of attaching them than just smashing the studs and then tightening them down.

by **dave-r** » 16 Aug 2007 7:44

The reproduction emblems I have seen recently are not cast as well as the originals and the pins on the back do not seem as thick to me. When they are thick enough the nuts grip well.

Also it helps a lot if you tap the nut flatter with a hammer so it is more like a virgin nut. It's "teeth" have to bend out to the correct size for the pin.

by **Eddie** » 16 Aug 2007 12:59

The stamped steel "nuts" are weird shaped, almost like a miniature hub cap for a wheel. The outer edge has a radius which would be difficult to compress,(flatten), and retain it's round shape. I have a few extra fasteners so maybe I will compress one carefully then try and attach it. What about wrapping the "studs" with cloth fabric tape as used on eletrical harnesses?

I also have a silver soldering iron, would "building up" the studs with soft "pot metal" help?

by **dave-r** » 16 Aug 2007 14:49

You don't have to squash the nuts if I remember. Just tap that bit in the middle that actually grips the post.

Solder will not take. Tape will just make a mess of it and you will be no further forward.

by **Eddie** » 16 Aug 2007 18:42

You're right Dave. It worked very well,(you're idea). I used a flat punch head and lightly "tapped" the middle, it worked like a charm! Thanks!! :mrgreen:

Whenit "rains" it "pours" around here. I just noticed my Dodge Turbo Diesel 6 Speed has a small red leak on the floor. It's right below the Power steering unit. Looks like a hose. :frown:

by **Eddie** » 16 Aug 2007 19:53

Here is a pic of what the problem is.

by **Eddie** » 16 Aug 2007 20:23

I used both a 3/32 and 7/64 centering punches to achieve the desired effect. Not wanting to bash them into submission, I lightly tapped them until the fasteners cut into the "studs". Thanks again Dave :thumbsup:

by **dave-r** » 16 Aug 2007 20:35

I think we will have to club together to buy Eddie a digital camera with a "Macro" setting so he can take close-ups in focus.

by **Eddie** » 16 Aug 2007 20:40

Aha, I read the 4" thick manual,(at least one page), the flower thingy is for close ups! I set it Dave! It should clear up those close of shots of.... :mrgreen:

by **Eddie** » 16 Aug 2007 20:46

Here is the finished results. With the micromode adjusted! Or whatever it's called. :roll:

Is this better Dave? Looks the same to me. You gotta understand I bought this camera at Tawain Terry's used furniture, tools and adult novelties, swear thats the name, It was new for 39.95! maybe I need a bit better quality camera, and a much better quality operator!! :mrgreen:

by **Jon** » 16 Aug 2007 22:01

On my Kodak the flower setting won't allow the flash to work. Better off using the "auto" mode unless well lit. Also a steady hand Eddie. :wink:

by **Eddie** » 17 Aug 2007 12:40

Thanks Jon! I really dont have the time or patience to study this huge "enginering manual" for the camera. :mrgreen:

Thanks for the tip! :thumbsup: