C2 fender skirt and shields

[Art A.]

Re: From my very late 396

Michael, Did you copy this wrong or was it in fact "3797275-6 was 3797275 LH & 3878876 RH". ? If it is in fact 3878876, I would speculate that the revision showing 3797275-6 you noted is just a CORRECTION to the part number error on the AIM sheet.

Yes, If an assembly procedure is only in the UPC section and not illustrated or called out in a RPO and there is no symbol (exception) next to a part number in the UPC section, then it covers ALL applications.

Also note that the revision box contains the vehicle Model number, 19000, which means that the items on that page pertain to all Models, i.e., 19467, 19437. If an item pertains only to a given model,such as C07, then the number in the revision box for that model will indicate such. In the C07 case it will of course show 19467.

Art

[Michael H.]

Re: From my very late 396

Art,

Yes, the number is copied correctly at 3878876. The original RH shield, 3797276, had to have been replaced by the 896 some time in mid 65 and almost immediately changed back to the 3797276.

I know that the 3797275-276 were the original numbers released for 63 production. Even if I didn't happen to know these numbers, their numerical value would place them in the range of newly released parts for the new 63 model. There was no such number as high, numerically, as 3878879 in 1963. The number range did not reach that level until somewhere around mid 1965, which is just about the same time these parts entered the system. (this doesn't include numbers such as Delco etc etc which were already in the 6000000 range)

The 3878xxx number range included many of the newly released parts for SOP of the 66 run. I'll try to post a scan of the page.

What does the 65 AIM show for this? I would guess that the 3878876 would appear as a mid prod change during the 65 run.

Michael

[Art A.]

Re: From my very late 396

Yes, the number is copied correctly at 3878876. The original RH shield, 3797276, had to have been replaced by the 896 some time in mid 65 and almost immediately changed back to the 3797276.

I know that the 3797275-276 were the original numbers released for 63 production. Even if I didn't happen to know these numbers, their numerical value would place them in the range of newly released parts for the new 63 model. There was no such number as high, numerically, as 3878879 in 1963. The number range did not reach that level until somewhere around mid 1965, which is just about the same time these parts entered the system. (this doesn't include numbers such as Delco etc etc which were already in the 6000000 range)
================================================== ===========================
There is some validity in to your statement about 3 878 879 numbers not being available until 1965 MY, but I can't vairify that at this time.
However.....................
Delco and every other GM division had it's own BLOCKS of numbers assigned to them, Therefore it doesn't mean that they were released before or after any other divisions part numbers. The BLOCKS of numbers were issued to ALL the divisions in the same time frame and thus each division started using their block, some starting at the 1 000 000s and another starting at the 3 000 000s and yet another starting with the 6 000 000 range. BTW Delco never had any numbers assigned to them in the 6 000 000 range.

As far as Chevrolet Engineering's issuing numbers in a given time frame, 63 vs. 65, Yes the numbers (Engineering was the biggest user of numbers and therefore they had many more blocks of numbers than any other division) did generally get bigger as they were used, BUT a group, be it drafting, fastener group, etc could and did get a portion of the over all Engineering block released to them as they needed them. A given group might use, release, numbers much faster then another group. And if said group had a bigger piece of that block pie and didn't use them as fast they might be releasing them for a very long time........maybe even years.

What I'm trying to say is that it would be very difficult to determine when a given part number was actually released for a given MY verses it relationship to the block.
================================================== =============================

for SOP of the 66 run. I'll try to post a scan of the page.

What does the 65 AIM show for this? I would guess that the 3878876 would appear as a mid prod change during the 65 run.
================================================== ============================
In this particular case I'm working at a bigger disadvantage than you are because the 65 AIM that I have available here is an incomplete issue ( not a MASTER copy) and it doesn't have any revisions at all.....sorry.
================================================== ============================

Art

[Michael H.]

You Have Mail

Art,

I sent scans of 11-13 A2 a few hours ago, complete with revisions. Hope I had your email address correct.

I understand what you're saying about the uneven distribution of part numbers but it's usually limited enough to be able to select a model year from the numerical value of a part number. In 63, for example, there were no part numbers in the range of the 3878876. They probably wouldn't have appeared in the system until some time around early 65. The number range for the 63 model year was somewhere around 3797xxx to 3845xxx.

In my May 1963 printing of the parts book, there are no numbers in the 3878xxx range. The highest in the three million category is probably around 3845xxx.

I'll try to find some info on the 3878876 but I doubt I'll find any. I'll bet it was a production line only shield, just like the 3833389 for 63 and later A/C cars.

[Wayne M.]

Oct '62 and '64 Parts History Index shows

following range for the SERVICE (?) changes. In my Oct'62 P&A30, arliest change was 3800261, removed on 2-60; latest changes were a whole bunch in my Oct'64 P&A30 showing revised date of 10-64, but the highest # was 3868643. In all, there were roughly 1880 revised/removed part #s starting with 38xxxxx in this P&A30.

Just thought this would be helpful in the discussion of potential timing of new part listings.

[Art A.]

Re: Oct '62 and '64 Parts History Index shows

Thanks Wayne.

Michael, I thinks this points out what I have been trying to say.................The blocks of numbers were issued to the divisions way before the 63 MY time frame and it all depended on how fast or slow a given group within a division released parts.

Off the top of my head, I think all of the 7 digit numbers were ALLOCATED to divisions by the GM Engineering Standards Group by the late 1940's. They of course didn't start using them right away as they had to release them in order from the lowest to the highest.
To make matters even more complicated, some divisions didn't even use any of their allocation and their blocks were reassigned to other divisions who were using running out of their blocks.

Art

[Michael H.]

Re: Oct '62 and '64 Parts History Index shows

Wayne,

I'm curious about the 3800261 being removed on 2-60. That's very interesting. In 1960, the number range wasn't even near that high. Probably closer to 3780xxx. I don't show the 3800261 in my August 63 parts history index. Must have been deleted by that time.

The highest number, numerically, that's shown for the 3 mil range in the Aug 63 history is 3847597.

Also interesting that the highest number in your Aug 64 history is 3868643, 21,000 numbers higher than the 3847597 in my Aug 63 index. That falls right in line with most of the other C2 years.

The 63 number span for Corvette is the wackiest though. Because that car was on paper for a few years before it was actually produced, the numbers start very early/low. Much wider span than the other C2's.

I always chuckle when I see "correct original NOS" parts for 63's on ebay with numbers over the 3900xxx range. No such thing existed in 1963. (that's late 66 and most of 67)

The part number for the splash pans, 3797275-6, immediately tell me these were SOP for the 63 MY, just by their numerical value.

[Michael H.]

Re: Oct '62 and '64 Parts History Index shows

Art,

I agree the 3800261 that Wayne mentioned could have been on paper before 2-60 but that would certainly not be the normal time for a number in that range. If someone has a 1960 printing of the parts book, it's likely they would not find any numbers higher than 37xxxxx. (again, not talking about any numbers higher than the 3 million range) I'm not sure but I don't think it flipped over to 38xxxxx for the 61 MY. Most were probably still in the 37xxxxx range.

I agree, the blocks of numbers do destroy the regularity, but only to a point. You won't see a part with a number in the 3700000 range that was designed specifically for a 67. If it was designed for a 67, it will be in the range of 389xxxx-391xxxx. If there's a part in the 67 AIM in the 37xxxxx range, that part was not originally designed for that car. It was borrowed from some earlier MY.

When you look through a parts book that was printed in 1974, you see many parts for 63, for example, that are much higher numerically than they would normally be. That's because many of the original numbers have changed over the years and were replaced with parts from later MY's.

I've been thumbing through my July 1963 printing of the parts book between posts and, so far, I haven't seen any numbers higher than 3849087. The same is true for the 63 AIM. You probably won't see any numbers in the 3850000 range. Most will be 384xxxx and lower.

[Wayne M.]

Early 1960 changes to 38xxxxx series parts

Michael -- You're right about the wacky part. Here's some more from my Oct '62 (Parts History in the back of the first issue of 1963 Chev BODY P&A book). Highest # changed/removed [for SERVICE] is 3847691 on 10-60. Another high one is 3836078 (removed on 1-60).

Of the approx. 330 part # changes listed in the 38xxxxx seris of this Oct '62 history, I'd estimate that about 25% were done in 1960, and not ONE prior to that year, which maybe subscribes to Art's block assignation in this time period.

[Michael H.]

Re: Early 1960 changes to 38xxxxx series parts

Wayne,

I almost forgot, there is one glitch in the number sequence for all of the Corvette numbers from 53 to at least 70. For some unknown reason, (to me) a lot of the 53-55 group was completely out of sync. I think the bulk of these numbers started right around 3836xxx. I have no idea why.

Many of the 53 numbers were 369xxxx, changing over to 3700xxx some time around 54 or early 55. However, there were a ton of 3836xxx numbers tossed in with this bunch.

Fortunately, most of these unique numbers were changed or discontinued BEFORE the revised system reached the 3800000 level. It may have been intentional, just to avoide confusion, or it may have been because many the 53 parts were being randomly discontinued around that time. The fact that large quantities discontinued at the same time tells me it was an effort to eliminate the out of sync 53 part numbers.

Pretty sure that's where these out of sync numbers are coming from. Much more later, have to finish the lawn before our rain arrives. There's a TON of info just in the numerical value of a part number. Been studying these for decades. I had to know all this crap from my days with Chevrolet.

[Art A.]

Re: Oct '62 and '64 Parts History Index shows

I agree the 3800261 that Wayne mentioned could have been on paper before 2-60 but that would certainly not be the normal time for a number in that range. If someone has a 1960 printing of the parts book, it's likely they would not find any numbers higher than 37xxxxx. (again, not talking about any numbers higher than the 3 million range) I'm not sure but I don't think it flipped over to 38xxxxx for the 61 MY. Most were probably still in the 37xxxxx range.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael,

You are correct in the above statement, but there are a few things that also have to be considered. The parts books only reflects part numbers that are released for SERVICE parts and were printed way after the PRODUCTION part numbers were released.

The PRODUCTION, gee I'm beginning to type like Joe Lucia, part numbers were released internally for a given MY, sometimes, 2-3 calendar years before the actual PRODUCTION run. The SERVICE parts manuals were published in a much shorter time frame and probably even during a MY run and the higher numbers wouldn't show up until the next printing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, the blocks of numbers do destroy the regularity, but only to a point. You won't see a part with a number in the 3700000 range that was designed specifically for a 67. If it was designed for a 67, it will be in the range of 389xxxx-391xxxx. If there's a part in the 67 AIM in the 37xxxxx range, that part was not originally designed for that car. It was borrowed from some earlier MY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We didn't call it borrowing, we called it a carry a over part.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you look through a parts book that was printed in 1974, you see many parts for 63, for example, that are much higher numerically than they would normally be. That's because many of the original numbers have changed over the years and were replaced with parts from later MY's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When you look through a parts book that was printed in 1974, you see many parts for 63, for example, that are much higher numerically than they would normally be."

The above is partially true, but I think the bigger reason is that even though the parts books reflected PRODUCTION (which became SERVICE part numbers) part numbers faster (calendar year wise) than initial production CY time frame is because they could catch up much faster. HOWEVER, the Service parts manuals were not published nearly as often and by the time they were it would reflect lots more for a given MY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been thumbing through my July 1963 printing of the parts book between posts and, so far, I haven't seen any numbers higher than 3849087. The same is true for the 63 AIM. You probably won't see any numbers in the 3850000 range. Most will be 384xxxx and lower.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesn't surprise me about the July 63 printing of the parts book and only the Master AIM's would reflect the revisions thru the MY run and would probably reflect more quantities of higher numbers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------