1963 FI Convertible Observations/questions

[Joe S.]

A couple of observations made regarding a recently purchased late (July/3rd week - #119761)63 FI convertible.

1. The area under the trim tag had the paint ground off before welding. This looks correct and original. There is some yellow oversray on the support bar. All numbers check out as well as many dates.

According to Nolands book this practice wasn't started until the 64 model. But this sure looks like that's how it is. There is also some surface rust where the paint was removed. Anyone seen this before on a 63?

2. The Alternator is a 1100633-52a with a date code of 3A14. According to Noland's book this Alternator was only used on Air cars (C60). Although the date code is a little early, there were others in the same serial number range that used 3Axx alternators. Can this be correct?

The distributor is the correct 1111022 and also has a similar date code of 3A4.

3. The Master Cylinder is a 64 Type. Looks like it's never been removed or replaced but after 40 years anything is possible. Again, according to the book there were no 63's made with a 64 style MC (no PB). Anyone ever see a late 63 with a 64 MC? I have a 63 that I picked up used that I am having rebuilt. But was curious anyway.

Body, engine, heads, exhaust manifolds, intake, FI Unit, expansion tank, rear, tranny, etc. all check out ok.

Any insight or info would be appreciated.

ps: I wonder approximately how many Ermine White (originally with a white top and white walls), AM/FM radio, (no pb, no ps, no air, no PW's), 4:11 posi, Fuel Injected convertibles were made? Too bad I'll never know!




Joe 63 FI Convertible

[Boyan B.]

Re: 1963 FI Convertible Observations/questions

My 63 ser# 15099 has the same ground off primer and paint on the vin plate. It's a May 14th build date, 340 HP.

[Mike Cobine]

Re: 1963 FI Convertible Observations/questions

Two things to remember - Corvettes don't necessarily follow the rulebooks in how they were built and in 40 years, a lot can and did happen.

That said, never change anything unless you are 100% it is wrong. Even then, save the old part.

Mine is about 70 ahead of yours and it has the paint ground off. You needed to to get a good weld.

Most likely the '64 style MC became the one available in parts houses and could have been replaced at anytime. I have the '63 on mine and sure it hasn't been changed.

I also have the roller gas door, something that supposedly never appeared after somewhere around 18,500. Yet I am very sure that mine is original to the car.

[Duke W.]

Re: 1963 FI Convertible Observations/questions

I agree with the previous observations and opinions. The thumb screw cover master cylinders pretty much disappeared after the end of the sixties. If you can find a date code, it might be instructive.

The alternator is an interesting situation. It was unique to '63s with C-60, and only 274 C-60 cars were produced. In fact, I don't think C-60 was released until well after start of production. It's possible that a surplus of 633s could have been available late in production and a decision was made to use the excess inventory on non-C60 cars. Such temporary deviations were often engineering approved via TWIX, so it's unlikely that any documentation will ever be uncovered. There is no technical reason why a greater capacity alternator could be substituted for a smaller capacity unit. I think the 633 has the same frame and physical geometry, including the electrical connectors, as the 628, so engineering approval of the substitution would be a no-brainer, and GM hates to have excess inventory of parts that will not be used in the next model year production.

I'm not saying this happened, but it's a scenario that COULD happen and did many times in production over the years. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to document such temporary changes, and if few cars were involved, enough examples may never be found for NCRS to consider that it might have been a bonafide production deviation without documentation to prove it.

Duke

[Scott Butville]

Re: 1963 FI Convertible Observations/questions

As a former production supervisor for GM back in the mid-sixties I can tell you for sure that the scenario Duke described happened many times. I can also say with certainty that similar substitutions were also made without engineering approval under "emergency" conditions, like having to stop the assembly line or use a functional but incorrect part. This is particularly true with things like fasteners and more frequent at either end of the model run. Back then, this type of "keep the line running no matter what" ingenuity was greatly appreciated by the senior management.

[Robert L.]

Re: 1963 FI Convertible Observations/questions

Ditto on the grindmarks/spotwelds pattern under the VIN tag on my #15014 Coupe.
Bob L.

[Mike Cobine]

Re: 1963 FI Convertible Observations/questions

Substitution happened a lot, sometimes with management approval, sometimes without. And trying to restore a Corvette with that information is like shooting in the dark - pure luck if you get a hit.

Neighbors worked at the St. Louis Plant, and lots of tales to tell. Ever have a friend or acquaintance tell you that their 327 was a dog or that their 283 would outrun anything? Well, these guys talked about how they kept engine stickers in their pockets. If they were running and suddenly out of 283 2 bbl, well, a 327 2 bbl looks just like it with the right stickers. And vice versa.

I had one of these. A 283 out of a '64 Impala, that had an extra 40 cid under the heads.

Or the guy dragging parts over brought the wrong ones. You stopping the line to wait for an alternator when the ones in your bin will fit?

And not everyone working at the plants were the "brightest and the best". They made mistakes. If it looked right and it fit, then it did, correct number or not. Anything to keep the line moving and the boss off your back.

Most restorers forget, it was simply a 7 to 4 job, punch the clock in, do the work, then punch the clock out. In between, it was an assembly line, and that can get pretty monotonous. They weren't building classics, they were earning a paycheck, and that is all.

And if you were in the plant at night, a lot of things went on that the daytime engineers and supervisors never saw or knew about.

As someone said about the Driveline and event guidelines, the Corvette specs are a good guideline. They are not law. They cover 90% of what was produced, but there are (were) plenty of examples that differed. Unfortunately, most have been "restored correctly" and those "errors" are gone.

[Joe S.]

Re: 1963 FI Convertible Observations/questions

Thanks everyone for the input. I guess the decision I would have to make is do I want to swap out what I believe to be a correct part, regardless of how it got there, for something that is correct for judging purposes. Seems like a bit of a delemma to me.

I've been following the discussion regarding distrbutor caps also. Seems there is a difference of opinion on the correct cap. I was in search of a correct cap. Before dropping $150 for the right one, it would be good to know what that is.

More to follow... Thanks...




Joe 63 FI Convertible