1970 with 69 part dates?

[Leslie Forsman]

Background: Got a 70 L-46 w/AC, NOM. VIN Sequence 14481 and Trim Tag Date G06 puts it on 6 July 1970. Purchased from Second Owner who claims he knew original owner, and says vehicle had a CE warranty block put in within days of purchase. Vehicle was parked in 1973, sat for 20+ years, he bought it to rebuild with son and after 10+ years of gathering dust in his garage, he got as far as stripping the paint, and taking the motor apart. It’s now spent a number of years gather dust in my garage.

Car has a large number of original (unrestored) parts still installed on the vehicle, that support the claim that the car was taken off the road in early 70’s. Tires from 72, Original T-3 Headlights, Starter, all Glass, radiator, etc.

Here’s the rub... Some of parts are wildly out of date with the 6 months build window. The Alternator (that I personally took off the wiring harness) is a 1100825 AH27 61A. The Carb is a correct model 7040507 EV but the build date is 2209. The carb is still attached to the manifold BTW, with hose and original PCV valve on the assy.

Is it possible that towards the end of the year they were installing parts from the back of the bin? Or is that an unreasonable assumption? Is it worth chasing down a new set of parts just to get the proper date code, and for the alternator the right part number?

Thanks for any insight.

[Stephen B.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Keep in mind that 1970 was a strike year and a shorter year. In my opinion, some of the parts might actually be original and out of the 6 month window. Don't change a thing on the car until its judged at an NCRS meet. I have a 1970 myself. Thanks, Bunky

[Michael H.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Leslie,

I'm not exactly sure which month was "start of production" for the 1970 model but it was likely around September of 1969. (could have been August?)The "A" code did not apply to January for body build but was instead the first month of production. That would make a March build if the code on the trim tag is G.

I'm far from a C3 expert so if this isn't the case for 1970, I'm sure others will let us know.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Michael and Leslie------

1970 production beagn in January, 1970, so a "G" trim tag code would, indeed, represent a July, 1970 build.

I do think that the carb and alternator are original to the car, regardless of the seeming date code inconsistency, assuming that the car is an original California car and an L-46. The GM #7040507 is a fairly rare carburetor and, assuming that it's otherwise correct for the car, I doubt that it would have ended up on the car by "ccident"at some later date.

[Michael H.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Yup, I wondered about that after I posted. I should know better than to try to answer C3 questions.

[Dennis D.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Assume its a california car. January was the first month. G would be July.

[Terry M.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

You got good information about the build date and the carburetor date. And your speculation that they may have been cleaning out the parts bins late in the model year is not unreasonable. You should see some of the weird things on early 1971 big blocks, but that is another story.

Can you please clarify the alternator date?

"1100825 AH27 61A" Just doesn't work. I could make some assumptions, but I really don't want to do that.

[Terry F.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

The 6 month window thing is a joke. Sorry, not trying to offend anyone. It is just a rule of thumb. It is very easy for parts to precede the build date by more than 6 months. It is just my observation that it does happen often. I would strongly advise that those are probably all original parts to the car. Terry

[Mike E.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Terry, if you're not trying to offend anyone, then why use the word "joke"? I fully understand that the 6-month statement is only a guide, and that parts can and do fall outside of that window. I've written several articles for the restorer with exceptions like that included as part of the article. I'm working on another article to that effect right now. But what better guideline do you suggest? "put a part with any date on it that is not later than the car and we'll give you full credit for originality whether it is original or not"?
It's very "in" to bash those who have spent thousands of hours observing original cars and putting together judging manuals that are imperfect, but always improving. Please don't join that group.

[Leslie Forsman]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Thanks to everyone for the assistance!

To answer the follow-ups, it is/was a California car (meaning I spent entirely too much $$$ for it).

The Complete Altenator code is: 1100 825 61A 8H27 12V NEG. So, I originally made an error typed in an "A" where I should have put an "8". But that makes it even more non-sense making.

Again, thanks for the advice.
Leslie

[Chuck S.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Because the carburetor is an ultra-low volume carb, and it's specifically a 70 MY carb stamped with a 69 date, I might believe the carb is original in spite of it being dated 1 year and 2 days before the car build date.

The alternator is another story...it's essentially an alternator built in August 68 for an early 69 car with C60. For someone trying to find a replacement alternator for your car, the correct alternator would be the "rumoured-to-have-existed" 1100884. Since my car came after yours (G30, base engine with C60), and it still had the 1100884 alternator, I'm inclined to believe the alternator is non-original. That early 69 alternator should have been cleaned out at the end of the 69 model year.

I would much rather try to figure out the originality of a car formerly owned by a cholo with a "need for speed", than one partially restored by a someone who knew a little bit about "matching numbers" restoration. You can pretty much know that a chrome-plated "Mr.Gasket" thermostat housing is non-original, but if they start buying "matching numbers" parts, it will truly muddy-up the waters.

[Chuck S.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

"Because the carburetor is an ultra-low volume carb, and it's specifically a 70 MY carb stamped with a 69 date, I might believe the carb is original in spite of it being dated 1 year and 2 days before the car build date."

Actually, the carb is dated just two days short of a year before the car's build dated. Too bad our discussion board software doesn't have an edit feature for those of us that make a lot of mistakes.

[Mark #28455]

825, 882, 884 alternators

They all existed, it's a fact. However, I seriously doubt they were all present at the same time. It appears there was a progression. The 825 was first, then the 882 and finally the 884. The 825 wasn't just for C60 (A/C) cars. My late October '68 L88 has one. I've owned it for 10 years, it's still a basket case. The prior owner bought it for $1000 around 1990 and didn't even think about restoring it - he was planning to build a street machine! The owner before that had owned it since 1977 or 78 and had no clue what an L88 was, so I am certain nobody tried to restore it yet.

My late Feb '69 L89 has the 882 alternator - same story, my brother and I bought it as a basket case in 1984 from a guy who didn't even know it was an L89 and had no intention of restoring it.

That being said, anything is possible regarding what parts found their way onto certain cars. We need to keep in mind that the NCRS is just a CLUB, not the "be all end all" for Corvette knowledge! The judging manuals were not written in 1970 by factory personnel, but in current times using a snapshot based on less than 10% of the Corvettes produced in any given year (most of which aren't original, but restored at one point or another). The main reason we have chosen to judge date codes is because we all needed to agree on a certain number of things we could assign points to for the purpose of giving out awards in our club - and that the average member could understand and have FUN scrounging for the correct parts. Unfortunately, the fun of the "scavenger hunt" has been replaced by professional restorers and by owners with little knowledge and a lot of $$$ who like to argue that their car MUST be right because the paid restorer knows everything.

I would LOVE to see a database just listing the date codes on these parts. So far, every original one I have seen at swap meets or on e-bay seems to hold to this progression.

I bet the parts are likely to be all original, but the rules of the game are clear too. Keep your original parts and be willing to accept a 1 point deduction (stick an NCRS sticker on the car for the bonus points)- just smile knowing in this case you probably know more about YOUR car than the master judge!

Mark

[Terry F.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Sounds like I offended you. It was not intended. I do have a gripe though. My gripe is with "the people" that are fixed and rigid and not informed. I respect your postion on the judging manual and I am not bashing them directly. But, sometimes wording could be a little different and specificly state that there are exceptions to nearly all the rules. Maybe there is such a thing and I am not aware of it. I consider that one of my small beafs.

My larger beaf has to do with this. I have been doing this for years now. I have done my time with the hobbie. I have done it willingly and with a passion. The ole "Labor of Love" thing. 68 corvette has been my focus. I owned my 68 corvette since the begining when it was considered a curse to own because of its reputation. In the process of preserving it and learning about it I have met a lot of people. Come to find out that some of those people never worked on a car in their life or the most they have done is changed the oil and filter or maybe put air in the tires and maybe vacuumed out their car or maybe waxed it. And.....those same people happened to read a judging manual and are suddenly an expert on all corvettes????? I have been told emphaticly by people that an engine block was wrong or faked, body panels were replaced, an alternator is wrong, glass was wrong, or an item was simply not right because it was outside the 6 month window, or something was missing or something did not belong, etc, etc. It was a big turn off. Eventually, I shunned those few individuals and followed my own path. Durning that time, I let my subscription to the NCRS expire Times changed and I lightened up and I figured I could tolerate those people if they could tolerate me. Actually, I just ignored them. Since that time I have noticed a change in the NCRS and I see less of this fixed and rigid attitude.

Please note, I apprciate the articles in the restorer very much and I appreciate the time that has gone into the judging manuals. I try to contribute to this board and I try to make it meaningful to those that are in the hobbie.

As for the word "joke." I guess I wanted to get the attention of the readers. There are all sorts of people coming to this board. Some of them are beginers (like I was) and some of them are old timers with incredible experience on these cars. I will never ever match there level. It just won't happen in my life time. But, my practical experience and crawlling around in junk yards in the dead of winter or the middle of summer has educated me well. I am somewhat protective of the new guy out there. I want them to know that exceptions are common. I also don't want them to get turned off to the hobbie/NCRS as I did at one time and walk away as I did. I want everyone to feel as though they can contribute to the board. I would like them to also have a realistic perspective on these cars. I hate to say this but sometime the impression I got is that these cars were assembled by perfect beings "Gods" at a plant somewhere in St. Louis.

If I ever manage to finish my car I think I will have my car judged. Couple reasons....1) Just for the fun of it. 2) Out of respect for all those that have put up with me on the board off and on throughout the years. 3) I would like to meet Dick and Rebba Whittington

I shall step down now Take care and have lots of fun and happy holiday's to everyone. Terry

[Mike E.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates? *NM*