I've got an early 67 BB around sn#2900 (Nov 2or3). The engine was assembled on 10/12/66 in Tonawanda but the starter and Alt is dated 6K10 and 6k25. I would think that the starter and Alt should be dated prior to the engine assembly? Assuming that at least the start was put on at Tonawanda. Would these dates be accepted for judging? Whats is an acceptable range for judging? Thanks for everyones input.
-
-
Re: 67 Assembly sequence
Chris, Need more info! You have an interresting case. Can you get some more #s for us? Vin, Build date, Distrib. band date, carb date. Time between part date and engine assem. is usually 5-10 days, but many things can change this. That is why the NCRS alows 6mo's time on all parts dates AHEAD of assembly. -
Re: 67 Assembly sequence
I believe the starter and the alternator were installed at the assembly plant, St. Louis, therefore the dates do not necessarily have to precede the engine assembly date. If you refer to the assembly manual you should find the installation of these items there.Comment
-
Re: 67 Assembly sequence
Bill, the alt. and starter were installed in St.Louis ,but the dates were stamped at their respective assem. plants BEFORE the St. Louis assem. date.(usually aweek or two ahead)Comment
-
Re: 67 Assembly sequence
Bob,
Maybe you're talking about the build date of the car, but the BB engines were assembled and date stamped at Tonawanda. Only the VIN was stamped at St. Louis. TBarr #24014Comment
-
Re: 67 Assembly sequence
Bill,
That's a good point about the starter installation shown in the AIM. I was aware of, or at least had seen mentioned, that the alternator was installed at St. Louis but was unsure of the starter. TBarr #24014Comment
-
Re: 67 Assembly sequence
Thanks Tom ,I realize that. What I was refering to was the assembly of the starter and the alternator before the assembly of the engine in N.Y. ei; before the assembly of the car in St. Louis. The only way that a starter and alternator could have a later date than the stamped assem. date on the stamp pad is the engine sat in Towanda for a month and the alt./starter tested bad and new ones installed. Or, they found the bad parts in St.Louis and replaced them there.... Could happen, Unlikely, but as you know, anything could have happened.Comment
-
Re: 67 Assembly sequence
Sorry for any confusion Bob, but the way you've got it worded still sounds like you're saying the starter and/or alternator were installed at Tonawanda. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but I don't think they were installed at Tonawanda or do I have first hand knowledge that maybe they were or weren't. But as Bill mentioned, the instructions for assembly (AIM) at St. Louis would indicate they were installed there at St. Louis.
One good point that you mentioned is the possibility of an engine remaining at the Tonawanda plant after assembly. But it was more than unlikely, it was very possible, and mentioned in some references. The biggest contributor were engines that failed a test run and were rebuilt or depending on the malfunction had parts salvaged. TBarr #24014Comment
-
Re: Add on: Chris
Chris,
Some of this could be a moot point if the assembly and production date of your car have worked out to November 2nd or 3rd like you mentioned. If that is the case then it is appearing that your alternator and starter dates are CLOSE but still not correct or close enough. I realize what the JM states and I think you do too, but since I'm no NCRS official then that should be left to the proper individuals to answer. TBarr #24014Comment
Comment