C2 PowerGlide shift lever in '64

[Garry E.]

Are there differences in height in the P/G shift levers used in the the '63 and '64 cars? My roadster is a late May production '64 and the chrome P/G shifter knob sits quite low to the center console. I have seen other P/G shifters on some '63s and some '64s which appear to be "taller" and the knob is higher above the console. This is a numbers-matching car and the drivetrain has never been out of the car.

I've been through several Corvette books and haven't been able to get much information on changes in the P/G system in '63/'64. Clearly, the P/G transmission was a "stepchild" to the more popular 4-speed, but I would like to know if there were differences..... Thanks

Garry

[Joe L.]

Re: C2 PowerGlide shift lever in '64

Garry------

According to GM only one gearshift control lever was ever used for 1963 and 1964 Corvettes with Powerglide. That lever was GM #3830216. It was part of control assembly GM #3830215. However, the 3830215 control assembly was NEVER available in SERVICE, although component parts of it, including the 3830216 lever, were available.

The GM #3830216 lever was discontinued from SERVICE in August, 1971. So, it's been gone for a LONG time. Perhaps, other parts have been "pressed into service" on some "needy" cars when replacements were required over the years since.

In reproduction, I believe that different shifter control assemblies are specified for 1963 and 1964 Corvette Powerglide applications. However, I can't find any basis for that in GM information. However, I have no personal experience, at all, with these 63-64 Powerglide shifters, so I can't say anything beyond what the GM information indicates.

I will say this, though: the 3830215 part number for the control assembly implies the POSSIBILITY of a later 1963 model year release. So, it's possible that there was another shifter assembly, including a different shifter lever, that was used for early 1963.

[Michael H.]

Re: C2 PowerGlide shift lever in '64

Garry,

How much shorter is the stick? Is this about 1/2" or more substantial?

[Michael H.]

Re: C2 PowerGlide shift lever in '64

I'm a little surprised that no one had an answer for your question. Here's the story. It has nothing to do with the shifter. Both 63 and 64 used the exact same unit without change. Then why does it look shorter in a 64? Body mounts.

The 64 body was mounted on rubber cushions that raised the body off the frame at least 1/2" (probably more) higher than a 63 body that used no mounts. The result is a shifter that appears shorter for 64. This is never seen with a manual transmission shifter because the entire assembly was new for the 64 MY.

Also, The 64 center console was a bit thicker which made the shifter look even shorter.

[John H.]

Re: C2 PowerGlide shift lever in '64

Michael -

I thought the body mount brackets were lowered 1/2" on the '64 frame to accommodate the additional thickness of the new-for-'64 rubber body mount cushions?

[Michael H.]

Another Myth Bites Yhe Dust

John,

If you look behind the rear wheel of a 63, you see a very narrow vertical dim between the frame and body. That same view of a 64-67 would show a much larger dim. The body is a lot closer to the frame rails of the 63. The difference is at least 1/2", and likely more.

This is the reason why it's more difficult to remove a manual transmission from a 63. There's less clearance between frame and body. It also makes it more difficult to install/remove the top ign shield on an FI car. This list goes on.

There were quite a few parts that had to be slightly redesigned for 64 for this reason. The small lower steering column brace was changed slightly because of the different angle that the column would have when passing through the firewall. The clutch rod required a slightly different bend, etc etc.

Even the bumper brackets changed number and design. (not just because the 64 brace became thinner)

I can't remember all of the parts that required a slight design change but there were several.

Maybe someone can measure the frame to body gap of a 63 so we can compare it to 64-67.

[Garry E.]

Re: C2 PowerGlide shift lever in '64

Michael:

Thanks for the comments..... At a recent regional judging event, the "lower" shift lever had several of the judges scratching their heads. They deemed the lever correct and original, but couldn't explain why it appeared so much lower than a P/G '63 also being judged....

Garry

[Tracy C.]

agree John. I'm almost postive the height of

body mount #2 #4 & #5 are taller on a 63 due to direct mounting without the cushion. The dimesions from the datum line for these mounts in 63 are 15 23/32" for #2 & #4 and 22 5/8" for #5. Anyone with this information for 64 - 67s?

tc

[Tracy C.]

Re: Another Myth Bites Yhe Dust

Mike, I can't speak to the body/frame clearance variance but unless the 64-67 used rubber cushions at all locations there would need to be some change to at least some of the body mounts on the frame.

Don't think the 64 - 67 use rubber cushions at #1 and #3 (verts). Am I mistaken?

tc

[Michael H.]

Re: Another Myth Bites Yhe Dust

Tracy,

The 64-67 cars used either rubber cushions or metal spacers that was the same dim as a compressed rubber mount. This would raise the body by the thickness of this mount/spacer. Also, the new for 64 floor pan had slightly deeper depressions for the mount in an effort to cancel more of the frame to body noise that plagued the 63 car. These two items added just about 3/4"-7/8" to the body height off the chassis.

The frame mounted body mount stands did actually change position, moving down roughly 1/4". This does somewhat cancel the effects of the thickness of the new body mount and floor pan mod but it's not nearly enough. The total addition was still in the range of 1/2"-5/8".

All of the body mount positions received the new mount/spacer with the exception of the core support. The difference was made up in the location of the support side mounting holes in the skirt/reinf instead. That way, a 63-65 universal core support could be used to service all three years. (63-65)

You can actually see the difference in body height if you look at two side view shots of a 63 and 64. In the 64 pic, more of the lower part of the frame is visible below the rocker mldg.

[John H.]

Re: agree John. I'm almost postive the height of

Tracy -

The '67 Chassis Service Manual frame diagram shows 15-1/4" for the first two, and 22-1/4" for the rear one, measured from the datum line to the BOTTOM surface of the mount brackets. The 1963 Corvette Shop Manual shows the first two at 15.72" and the rear at 22.63", but it doesn't say whether those dimensions are to the top or bottom surface of the brackets.

Assuming that the 1963 and 1967 datum measurements were made the same way, the #1 and #3 mount bracket heights were reduced by 1/2", and the #4 mount bracket height was reduced by 3/8".

[Tracy C.]

Re: agree John. I'm almost postive the height of

Thanks John,

My earier comments pertained to a vert frame with 5 mounting stations. I believe your answer is relative to a coupe with only 4 mounting stations.

Such that:

Vert/Coupe

#1 = #1
#2 = #2
#3 = n/a
#4 = #3
#5 = #4

Is this how you see it?

tc

[Michael H.]

Re: agree John. I'm almost postive the height of

John,

The print for the 63 frame shows 15.72" on #2 and #4. The print for 64-65 shows 15.40". The 15.25" dim was 66-67. However, the 66-67 print specifically states that the dim is measured to the underside of the pad. The 63 and 64-65 are measured to the top surface. That would probably be the difference between the 64-65 dim and the 66-67. The difference between 63 and 64-67 is .320".

Next 63 you have a chance to look at, check the close fit between the body and frame behind the rear wheel area. Compare this to your 67.

[Tracy C.]

Re: agree John. I'm almost postive the height of

Thanks Mike, What is the dim for the rear mount on the 64 - 65 print?

tc

[Michael H.]

Re: agree John. I'm almost postive the height of

Tracy,

The 63 rear body mount dim is 22.63" The 64-65 rear is 22.38". 66 and 67 are shown as 22 1/4".

The 66-67 print used the dim from datum to the underside of the mount bracket. This would be the difference between the dim for 64-65 and 66-67 (roughly 1/8") so all 64-67 are actually the same, just measured differently.

The dim for 63 and 64-65 is measured from the datum to the top surface of the frame bracket.

I can send these prints if you would like. (64-65 is a large file, near 500Kb)