Chassis Pull Dates

[Peter M.]

I saw an earlier thread re 1968 chassis pull date wherein it suggested that 1966 was the last year for grease pencil pull dates. I have a 2 owner 1966 unrestored (except for factory color repaint in 1989) Coupe built 1st week April 1966. I interveiwed both owners and I am sure the chassis is original right down to the original dated F41 shocks front and back. I took my sidepipes off and cleaned up the 1989 overspray on my frame rails this weekend. I was pleased to find all original shim marks for each body mount as well as frame stencil marks and build date/pull date - with a mystery --- I found the expected 303196 frame part # but no other part number. Following that number - to the rear is a stenciled assembly date of 4/1/66. I found no evidence of a crayon marks for assembly or pull date yet all the shim crayon marks were present. According to Noland Adams Volume 2 book on page 316 - markings were as follows:

Noland Adams book (photo fall 1965 photo)
1) shim marks
2) crayon date
3) frame part number stencils (2 numbers)
4 )shim marks

My car is: (spring 1966)
1) shim marks
2) frame part number stencil (1 number)
3) assembly date stencil
4) shim marks

Does anyone know if the later frames in 1966 changed stencil and marking configuration ?

[Everett Ogilvie]

Re: Chassis Pull Dates

Here is the info from a couple of '66 cars;

This car was built late April;
303196-27 AO Smith's part number-unknown (27)
3871317 4-6-66 GM's part number and a date (Wednesday)

This car was built 5/31, and is a Bowtie car - untouched;
3871317-27 GM's part number-unknown (27)
303196 5-26-66 AO Smith's part number and a date (Thursday)

No grease pencil on either car.

[Peter M.]

Re: Chassis Pull Dates

Everette
This is really interesting information that you have provided. It seems to contradict the 1965 factory assembly line photo showing the grease pencil marks and may support that there was a change marking technique that was carried forward. What do you think ?

[Everett Ogilvie]

Re: Chassis Pull Dates

I have seen several late '66 cars that don't have a hand written date on the frame, and that do have a stenciled date. I don't know when the change occured.
The April car - there is a big gap between the frame stencil date and the car assembly date which I can't explain.
The Bowtie car has a 5 day gap between the frame stencil date and the car assembly date, but there was a weekend and Labor Day in there, so those dates make sense to me. By the way, the body build date on this car is 5/27 - one day after the stenciled frame date. This jives with John Hinckley's post in the thread above about timeframes.

[Gary B.]

Everett, a follow-up question

Everett,

In the case of my '66 which has a K20 (July 20) body build date, what would you suggest in terms of the frame pull date? The stencil I just got from Quanta does not have a date as part of the stencil, and you're saying that some 66 cars did not have a hand written frame pull date. Would you suggest that I just use the Quanta stencil and simply not hand-write any frame pull date, so that my frame would have no date of any kind? Or do all 66s either have either a stencil date OR a hand written date?

Gary

[Everett Ogilvie]

Re: Everett, a follow-up question

Gary, I think if you go one day before body build date or one day after, you will be fine. It is only recently that I started really looking at the relationship between these dates, and whether the date was hand written or stenciled, so I am no expert. I wish that I could post a pic here of my frame stencil date - but I don't think it is allowed. A friend with another late '66 car contacted Quanta when he found the stenciled date on his frame - he sent them pictures of it, and they made one up for him.

[Tom B.]

[Gary B.]

Boy is this confusing! *NM*

[Everett Ogilvie]

Frame Dates

I have to say that I agree with Tom (by the way, Hello Tom - long time), and I don't know where this "pull" stuff is coming from - Quanta? I don't believe that any date on a frame (hand written or stenciled) is a so-called "pull" date, applied by St. Louis.

Assume that frames were dated when built. Assume they were piled up at St. Louis. Then it is easy to understand that they were pulled "off the shelf" so to speak, as needed. It follows that you would see a spread of frame date to body build date, just as you would on any dated item.

I have seen early '66 frames with hand-written dates. I have seen late '66 frames with stenciled dates (my 5 Star Bowtie car is just one of them). I have not seen frames with both - it is one type or the other. I have seen '66 frames with a date one day before the St. Louis body build date (my 5 Star Bowtie car), and I have seen '66 frames with a date almost two weeks before the body build date. The date relationship can be further complicated when comparing frame dates to A.O. Smith body build dates because of the time lag on shipping A.O. Smith bodies.

I believe frame dates were applied by A.O. Smith when the frame was built, and not at St. Louis. The only "quirk" here is the method used to apply the date (hand-written or stencil). The stencil I described in my earlier post is from my Bowtie car - the date is part of the stencil, which we know was applied at A.O. Smith. There is no grease pencil date on this frame.

[Tom B.]

Re: Frame Dates

Hi Everett. Seems like old times .

You're about the first of anyone to come out and say they agree. You don't necessarily have to agree with this, but time lag shouldn't be much of a problem. 2-7 days is possible if you'd think a small block engine could be assembled in Flint, Michigan and ready to install on the assembly line in St. Louis within 3 days or so. For the 1963-67 frames, A.O. Smith in Granite City, Illinois was a lot closer. Tbarr

[Everett Ogilvie]

Re: Frame Dates

I think you and I are on the same page Tom. I think John Hinckley is also, as he and I have discussed this several times recently, but I am not speaking for John. Recently I have been tracking Muncie trans assembly dates with respect to car assembly dates. You see the "normal" variation due to units being pulled from shelves and installed. I think frames are the same. A friend has one of these late '66 cars with a stenciled frame date that is about two weeks before the car assembly date. Some of the guys thought that could not make sense for a frame "pull" date - and it doesn't - which is why this pull stuff is nonsense. If you look at the "famous" picture in Noland on page 316, the frames on the line in the foreground have the date written like this 20-9-65. Look at the stack of frames that are waiting, in the background. It is very hard to see, but to these old eyes the date looks something like 9/1x/65. Now, if these were pull dates, why would the frames actually being worked on have the later dates? They wouldn't...

[John H.]

Re: Frame Dates

I agree - I think the "St. Louis-applied lumber-crayon pull date" stuff is another "urban legend" that has arisen as a result of folks who don't understand OEM production systems. After spending 37 years in assembly plants, I can say with some confidence that assembly plants don't put dates on parts - suppliers do. Almost every part in a car has some form of date on it, which was done by the supplier who manufactured it; in the assembly plant, they just took the part out of the bin/box/gondola/rack or however it was packaged and put it on the car; the only "writing" of numbers on the car or parts was the Broadcast Sequence number (or Body Shop "job number") so the proper parts were identified and sequenced in the system to meet up with the right car on the line; there was absolutely no reason of any kind for anyone in an assembly plant to write a date on any part. The only "parts" that had dates applied in the assembly plant were trim tags and certification labels (on later cars). It should be patently obvious by looking at a "pull date" on a Bowtie car that pre-dates the car's final assembly date by two weeks that it was applied by A.O. Smith, as the frame was "pulled" at St. Louis the same day the car came down the Trim Line.

[Mike M.]

Thanks, John, a couple of Hypotheticals....

I could never understand why anyone at St. Louis would need to date anything that was already staged for access of assembly. Never mind the General paying for any unnecessary activity. No one has ever confirmed what the dates really meant. The term "Pull Dates" are used most often, but, pulled by whom? The assumption has apparently been GM at the plant, but, Since the frames were probably built in batches and Granite City being just accross the river, could the hand dating have been for the daily or periodic groupings or a projected assembly date by AOS for shipping to STL. You mention "Logic" like the General actually applied some. However, with their embryonic exercise in J.I.T. inventory, it makes the possibilty feasable thereby lengthening the time span from "Date" to "Assembly". How were the frames usually delivered to the plant? Your thoughts...
Thanks

[John H.]

Re: Thanks, John, a couple of Hypotheticals....

Frames were delivered from A.O. Smith-Granite City stacked upside down with four spacers between frames on flatbed semi trucks, and were off-loaded sideways with hi-lo's onto the "Frame Pad" at St. Louis, where the stacks sat out in the weather until they were brought inside one stack at a time and staged at the beginning of the Frame Line (you can see a staged stack of frames in the background on page 316 of Noland's book). There was no conscious effort made to bring the stacks indoors in date order - the closest stack to the door came in first.

I don't put any stock at all in the St. Louis-applied "pull date" theory; there was no reason at all for St. Louis to put a date on anything, and if you look at frames with no stenciled date, they have crayon dates; the ones with stenciled dates have no crayon dates. I believe the so-called "pull date" was applied at A.O. Smith, and there is anectodal evidence that some were stenciled during or after the point where they were loaded on the truck at A.O. Smith.

[Mike M.]

Thanks, John *NM*