'63 factory test car?

[Darell Murphy]

I purchased a '63 split window coupe in 1976. The seller told me he thought the car had been a factory test car. The body was never drilled for emblems and the dash has extra Stewart-Warner oil pressure, water temp, and oil temp gauges where the radio would be. Also, the car did not have a heater. Could this be a test car? How would I verify this?

Any help would be appreciated.

Darell Murphy

[Joe L.]

Re: '63 factory test car?

Darell----

Yes, the car could be an engineering test vehicle which somehow got sold or otherwise out of GM's control. However, it could also be a production vehicle which was stripped down/modifed by some prior owner for racing purposes.

The first thing I'd do, if you haven't already, is check the VIN and trim plates for any unusual markings or codes. Beyond that, I don't know of any other means to verify the car's origins.

[Joe L.]

Re: '63 factory test car?

Darell----

Yes, the car could be an engineering test vehicle which somehow got sold or otherwise out of GM's control. However, it could also be a production vehicle which was stripped down/modifed by some prior owner for racing purposes.

The first thing I'd do, if you haven't already, is check the VIN and trim plates for any unusual markings or codes. Beyond that, I don't know of any other means to verify the car's origins.

[Loren]

Re: '63 factory test car?

First, in order to gain some perspective on the time element, the VIN # and the Trim Tag information on the car is required. Second, ALL '63 nose pieces (including pilot line cars) had the depressions for the back of the nose emblem formed into the piece - are these missing or filled on your car? Third, it is far more simple for engineering to just simply build a normal car and then request its delivery to Milford, Flint, Mesa or whereever than it is to disrupt the process by asking for the deletion of emblems and the like. Fourth was the car built with a radio? Fifth, were the heater control holes drilled? Sixth, with AC-Delco standing by, it's highly unlikely that Chevrolet would turn to S-W for gauges. But then ... we need more information.

[Loren]

Re: '63 factory test car?

First, in order to gain some perspective on the time element, the VIN # and the Trim Tag information on the car is required. Second, ALL '63 nose pieces (including pilot line cars) had the depressions for the back of the nose emblem formed into the piece - are these missing or filled on your car? Third, it is far more simple for engineering to just simply build a normal car and then request its delivery to Milford, Flint, Mesa or whereever than it is to disrupt the process by asking for the deletion of emblems and the like. Fourth was the car built with a radio? Fifth, were the heater control holes drilled? Sixth, with AC-Delco standing by, it's highly unlikely that Chevrolet would turn to S-W for gauges. But then ... we need more information.

[Bill Clupper]

Re: '63 factory test car?

Generally, "Test cars" came from two sources, preproduction builds which were used for engineering development prior to release, and thus were never serial numbered or sold, or early production "Pilot" cars which were deemed as not suitable for sale to the public for a variety of reasons, generally related to non-functional quality/appearance items. Such a car could have entered company service and been "executive driven" and later released for public sale as a used vehicle. If a Pilot vehicle were truly used for "test" (ie-proving grounds) service. I know of no instance in which proving grounds vehicles are subsequently offered for sale. As far back as 1963, the disposition of true "test" vehicles was to crush at the end of test life. In the event of a pilot vehjcle sold as used, it should be identifiable by an unusually low serial number.

[Bill Clupper]

Re: '63 factory test car?

Generally, "Test cars" came from two sources, preproduction builds which were used for engineering development prior to release, and thus were never serial numbered or sold, or early production "Pilot" cars which were deemed as not suitable for sale to the public for a variety of reasons, generally related to non-functional quality/appearance items. Such a car could have entered company service and been "executive driven" and later released for public sale as a used vehicle. If a Pilot vehicle were truly used for "test" (ie-proving grounds) service. I know of no instance in which proving grounds vehicles are subsequently offered for sale. As far back as 1963, the disposition of true "test" vehicles was to crush at the end of test life. In the event of a pilot vehjcle sold as used, it should be identifiable by an unusually low serial number.

[Patrick H.]

Re: '63 factory test car?

Bill,

Actually, at least one 1964 FI coupe that was used at the proving grounds was released for later sale, and is documented by Milford PG records. This car was in an article in one of the major Corvette mags a couple of years ago.

Patrick

[Patrick H.]

Re: '63 factory test car?

Bill,

Actually, at least one 1964 FI coupe that was used at the proving grounds was released for later sale, and is documented by Milford PG records. This car was in an article in one of the major Corvette mags a couple of years ago.

Patrick

[Jack H.]

Re: '63 factory test car?

What was policy and what was reality sometimes varied. As an olde Detroit schoolboy there WAS a grey market in test track parts that were to be 'destroyed' but somehow managed to jump a fence and wander around town....

At Chrysler, when engineering purchased a vehicle for test (dyno run, endurance, mock-up mod, Etc.) it was a Chrysler engineering asset and final disposition was up to cognizant engr mgr. It was NOT uncommon for these cars to wind up being sold as used with balance of warranty transfered to buyer through normal dealer channels.

One of my employees whose brother worked the Chrysler hot line got wind of a dyno car that would be sold. Town & Country wagon with 440 magnum. When asked how he wanted the car equipped he said to put everything on it. Engr folks gasped, EVERYTHING!

Heck they had options in the labs that were documented but never released to the factory for production. Within policy, they complied and when the car reached the delivering dealer, the hood/doors were quickly opened with the mechanics looking here/there in a crowd -- "Jez, is that what one of those widgets really looks like"....

As others have stated, I'd be real dubious on this claim of an engr test 'special'. There were times where special cars were built at the factory under EO (engineering order) but mods/specials were kept to a minimum to not overwhelm the order of the production line. Even with an EO, there had to be a drawing package to document what to do and in most cases it was just a lot simpler to order a standard car, ship it to where ever, and have engr/tech do the changes that it was to crank the drawings out and hand walk 'em to/through the production process.

Saw what was billed as the earliest known 396 at a couple of shows. Current owner HAD the EO build order to support the car. There were probably four sets of 'wacks' on the stamp pad documenting changes in configuration over time. Real interesting and rare....

There's a COPO (central office production order) '69 L-89 here in town. Tank sticker calls for delivery to GM Public Relations and this L-89 had A/T with the build sheet calling out TWO rear ends!

Looks like the game plan was to build a 'hot' automatic that would absolutely/positively burn rubber because L-89 with automotic in '69 (pretty rare) was restricted in what range of final gear ratios it was allowed to have (warranty concern?) and the second rear end line item was a roasty 4:11! Suspect St. Louis built the car as a standard L-89 automatic, pulled it into a repair pit, and changed the stock rear differential.

Question we've all had is did they ship the car to Detroit with the original differential sitting inside? If not how was the accounting nightmare of shortage/overage handled at St. Louis?

[Jack H.]

Re: '63 factory test car?

What was policy and what was reality sometimes varied. As an olde Detroit schoolboy there WAS a grey market in test track parts that were to be 'destroyed' but somehow managed to jump a fence and wander around town....

At Chrysler, when engineering purchased a vehicle for test (dyno run, endurance, mock-up mod, Etc.) it was a Chrysler engineering asset and final disposition was up to cognizant engr mgr. It was NOT uncommon for these cars to wind up being sold as used with balance of warranty transfered to buyer through normal dealer channels.

One of my employees whose brother worked the Chrysler hot line got wind of a dyno car that would be sold. Town & Country wagon with 440 magnum. When asked how he wanted the car equipped he said to put everything on it. Engr folks gasped, EVERYTHING!

Heck they had options in the labs that were documented but never released to the factory for production. Within policy, they complied and when the car reached the delivering dealer, the hood/doors were quickly opened with the mechanics looking here/there in a crowd -- "Jez, is that what one of those widgets really looks like"....

As others have stated, I'd be real dubious on this claim of an engr test 'special'. There were times where special cars were built at the factory under EO (engineering order) but mods/specials were kept to a minimum to not overwhelm the order of the production line. Even with an EO, there had to be a drawing package to document what to do and in most cases it was just a lot simpler to order a standard car, ship it to where ever, and have engr/tech do the changes that it was to crank the drawings out and hand walk 'em to/through the production process.

Saw what was billed as the earliest known 396 at a couple of shows. Current owner HAD the EO build order to support the car. There were probably four sets of 'wacks' on the stamp pad documenting changes in configuration over time. Real interesting and rare....

There's a COPO (central office production order) '69 L-89 here in town. Tank sticker calls for delivery to GM Public Relations and this L-89 had A/T with the build sheet calling out TWO rear ends!

Looks like the game plan was to build a 'hot' automatic that would absolutely/positively burn rubber because L-89 with automotic in '69 (pretty rare) was restricted in what range of final gear ratios it was allowed to have (warranty concern?) and the second rear end line item was a roasty 4:11! Suspect St. Louis built the car as a standard L-89 automatic, pulled it into a repair pit, and changed the stock rear differential.

Question we've all had is did they ship the car to Detroit with the original differential sitting inside? If not how was the accounting nightmare of shortage/overage handled at St. Louis?

[Loren]

Re: '63 factory test car?

I will admit to not getting ALL of the magazines; therefore my Unofficial index to what I have on hand is, be definition, in complete. But I can find nothing relating to a 64 PG vehicle in private hands. More direction, please.

[Loren]

Re: '63 factory test car?

I will admit to not getting ALL of the magazines; therefore my Unofficial index to what I have on hand is, be definition, in complete. But I can find nothing relating to a 64 PG vehicle in private hands. More direction, please.

[Bill Clupper]

Re: '63 factory test car?

Patrick, any info as to how to locate the article? I'm intrested in the definition of "used" Fleet vehicle-very probably, would have been sold through employe sales or if not purchased sent to auction, Test vehicle? Nothing is impossible prior to MVSS (1966 MY) but would have been a very intresting exception for a "test" car.

Clup

[Bill Clupper]

Re: '63 factory test car?

Patrick, any info as to how to locate the article? I'm intrested in the definition of "used" Fleet vehicle-very probably, would have been sold through employe sales or if not purchased sent to auction, Test vehicle? Nothing is impossible prior to MVSS (1966 MY) but would have been a very intresting exception for a "test" car.

Clup