65 ID Help

[Harry Sadlock]

Re: I'm confused- more confused

How about looking at the numbers on the frame to verify an original frame/body combination. If they do not match, I think it may be a collection of parts to make a car. If they do match than the birthday calculation would be verified and then the engine is suspect!

Harry

[Loren L.]

Be careful with the weatherstrip/splash

pan argument - I think if you check, you'll find that this is an ECR with a date of sometime in June 1965 - in my 1965 AIM, it does NOT appear, but it does show up in 1966. Any original owner side pipe cars out there?
FWIW, I know of a 16000+ BB whose production was delayed because the side pipes he (Bonneville 200 MPH member then) wanted were NOT available - finally picked the car up at St Louis with under the car exhaust

[John H.]

Re: I'm confused- more confused

Ignoring the January 12th A.O. Smith body build date, the VIN says the car came off the end of the Final Line at St. Louis on January 20th, which rules out any engine dated after that.

[Mike Cobine]

Re: I'm confused- more confused

What is confusing?

Body built Jan 12th.
VIN indicates car built Jan 20th or close.
Engine assembly Mar 22.

There is no way this engine is original.

Forget AO Smith shipping delays, parts on the back of shelves, etc., there is no way the engine can be built 2 months after the car VIN and still be original. After the body, yes, but not after the VIN.

Once you have an engine with a stamp that indicates it isn't original, then it all becomes a mute point.

One possibility no one has mentioned, maybe the dealer replaced the engine and restamped it, or the car sat in the plant for some plant or engineering work, blew the motor, and the factory stamped a new engine in it to move it out the door at the end of March.

[Mike Cobine]

Re: 65 ID Help

George,

I stand with my original advice.

1. If an original car is important to you, find another one to buy. This one has too many flags that says it isn't original.

2. If original isn't important and you like the car a lot, buy the car as you know it and the owner. Just don't pay extra for it being original, because at this point, there is nothing to say it is. And just figure you take the hit on engine points if you show it.

3. If this is a close friend, procede cautiously. If you try to get the price down because it isn't original, he might get offended and you lose a friend. So you be the judge, decide how much he will accept, and weigh how much your friendship is worth as opposed to insulting his lack of Corvette savvy 15 years ago. It might be better to pay a little too much, or just simply walk away, to keep a friend.

4. Personally, I would never sell to a friend. I've had too many friends sell to friends who end up mad over the deal. Things like a water pump dies 6 months later and they are mad the friend didn't tell them it might be bad. And so on.

5. I would buy from a friend but I buy under the thought that as of that moment, it is my car. If the transmission falls out on the way home, it is my tough luck for not checking it better. Any other way of thinking destroys a friendship.

Good luck.

[George D. #31849]

Re: I'm confused- more confused

WOW !!!!!!!! I didn't expect this to cause such a fury of differing opinions. I did not get a chance to check out the block today as I planned because of my work. I plan on getting the block info tomorrow and will post my findings. I do however have a question on re-stamps. This car has been sitting idle since 1988. When did re-stamps become popular? Also, I find it hard to believe that someone would re-stamp a foward date. It doesn't make sense to me.

[Clem Z.]

hey john

any chance they had trouble with the orignal engine at the factory after the final assy and they had to change it before it was shipped?

[Eugene B.]

Re: I'm with Mike

Gents,
I hope that none of you will be offended by my remarks, but this is a slam-dunk, done-deal thing in my mind. Per my original posting on this subject, there is no way that the engine that is in the car is the car's original engine.

After all guys, that's why Corvettes have numbers on just about everything. This is simply not a "numbers matching car".

Best regards,
Gene

[Craig S.]

Re: I'm confused- more confused

Joe - my 67 327/350 KH suffix engine with K19 has a 2/24/67 engine assembly date and 4/29/67 AOS Dow Body date, with a 5/11/66 VIN birthday date. All verified by Al Grenning. However, am I missing something in this case, we are discussing the engine assembly being completed AFTER vs BEFORE (my case). Granted, there is that 10 day lag to rail transport the body to St Louis from Ionia, but, if I understand the original post, the cars VIN date was a Jaunuary 65 VIN completion, and THAT date would have to be AFTER the car was assembled, including the original engine....right? We are talking a March engine build date....unless I a missing something, there is no way that the car could have had this engine originally. I can buy that the body date is before the engine date to some degree, but the VIN build date would have to be AFTER the engine build date right? Are you saying the car could have been sitting around waiting for an engine repair for 2 months after other January 65 cars left the line...somewhere in a corner...and was really shipped with a January sequence VIN in March? This seems impossible to me, unless I am missing something....Craig

[Joe L.]

Re: I'm confused- more confused

Craig-----

My interpretation of George's "the car being built date" is that he is talking about the body build date. That's the basis on which I responded. If the "car being built date" is really the date as determined by the VIN number and the "birthday book", then everything changes. Even in this case, though, it's not completely impossible for the engine to be dated after the vehicle's original assembly for exactly the reason that you mentioned. It's extremely unlikely, though.

In the case of a 10 week lag between A.O. Smith body build and engine build, I, personally, think that's much more possible for the reasons that I described earlier. It would be interesting to see how the engine VIN stamping on this car compares to Al Grenning's stamp pad library.

[Craig S.]

Re: I'm confused- more confused

Thx Joe - in the original post, it appears the VIN is a January 65 date....which was the premise of my assuing the engine was not original...Craig

The vin# is 194375S107431.
Front Pad # 5107431 F0322HE
Trim Tag Reads:
F 12 A-1303 Body
Style 19 437 MM Paint
Trim STD

I could not read the engine block number and date because of the shielding.

Thanks,
George

[Craig S.]

Re: I'm with Mike

Gene - I agree. I think the discussion is valid for engines two months before the car's vin date, and to some degree after the AOS body date, but not after the VIN and birthday book date....especially 2 months....Craig

[Craig S.]

Re: I'm confused- more confused

Thx Bill, that helps add clarity. I was on the point however that John indicated no Smith cars got sidepipes at all, and Art indicated there was paperwork saying they did. Not necessarily related to this car, but a general view of sidepipes from Ionia....Craig

[Art A.]

Re: I'm confused- more confused

Craig, I may have pulled the trigger too fast. I did find the N14 option in the AO Smith AIM, and I assumed therefore, that they would have produced said option. I don't have any inside information to that effect.

Sorry if I added to your confusion.

Art

[Craig S.]

Re: I'm confused- more confused

Thx Art...appreciate the clarification!...Craig