I'm trying to sort out what the correct date codes on my '68 should be. I've seen examples in the JG that show date codes for some components that are within a week (!) of the car's build date. Which dated components should be before the engine block date, which should be after it, and assuming normal production days by the plant/suppliers, how far in advance of the engine or car build date would these various components TYPICALLY be dated ? Thanks.
-
-
Re: '68 Date Coding Time Lines
Everything came together on the final assy line at St. Louis. Some items were individual parts, others part of a sub-assy that shipped to St. Louis as a complete or partially completed item. So, there was a 'race' condition at work with individual items being pulled from various inventory bins/shelves with NO FIFO/LIFO inventory control. The general NCRS rule is for dated components to preceed the car's final assy date (interpolate from the VIN number) by a 0-6 month period. There are isolated exceptions which appear in the specific Judging Guide for your car and/or in the standard deviations section of the NCRS Judging Reference Manual.
Note, that the engine was a large partial assy shipped from either Flint (small block) or Tonawanda (big block). The stamp pad on the engine documents when it was assembled at Flint/Tonawanda.
BUT, not all engine components were present then. You'll see quite a few 'bolt-on' items called out in the Assembly Instruction Manual (starter, carb, alternator, Etc.) meaning these were NOT part of the basic engine sub-assy that came from Flint/Tonawanda. They were pulled from on-hand inventory at St. Louis and mated to the engine on the power train feeder line at St. Louis just before everything came together on the final assy line.
The reason for the latitude in the 0-6 month rule is that there was no specific inventory control and there WERE cases where this/that component fell to the 'bottom' of the bin, wound up sitting at the back of the shelf, or failed for one reason or another, was repaired and returned to inventory at a later date.... -
Re: '68 Date Coding Time Lines
Thanks, Jack. I really appreciate the information. I have only a few remaining questions: 1) Was the distributor installed at the engine plant, or in St. Louis ? 2) Were the exhaust manifolds installed in the engine plant, or in St. Louis ? 3) Is it true there was no way a customer could have ordered a '68 Corvette without the A.I.R. system ? Thanks again for your comments.Comment
-
Re: '68 Date Coding Time Lines
I'm not Jack, but Ithink I know what he would say. We will see how right I am
1) Engine plant
2) Engine plant
3) No way covers a whole lot of ground, but I believe the answer to your question is "yes."TerryComment
-
Close, Terry...
Instead of giving direct answer(s), I'd take the opportunity to 'teach' so the poster can answer the questions himself and not have to return for answers to similar questions. Here's the 'lesson'.
This is +99% true (universal but not quite). Look in the AIM. If you see the part called out for assy (ie, there's a PN for it on the drawing), that means it was supplied to and installed at St. Louis as part of the final assy process.
If it's simply depicted in the AIM drawing without a direct reference to its assy by way of a PN call out, then it came to St. Louis as an integral component to a sub-assy item supplied by another GM Division or outside supplier....
There was an accounting motivation to try and maximize the number of components that were received and installed at the final assy point vs. being integral to incoming sub-assy items. Consider the alternator....
Did Flint/Tonawanda HAVE to have an alternator on an engine to build it and test fire the engine? No!
So, if Flint/Tonawanda purchased the alternator from Delco Remy and bolted it onto the engine before shipping the engine to St. Louis, Delco would have to make profit on the alternator, there'd be freight cost to ship it to Flint/Tonawanda, then the engine plant would have to make a profit + add freight to get it to St. Louis.
GM accountants would work harder to cross-eliminate the 'false' profits earned from two divisions (Delco + the engine plant) instead of just one division (Delco) and GM would wind up paying extra freight costs (real not 'false') for double shipping the alternator. So, the more items that could be shipped directly to the final assy plant, the better!Comment
-
Re: Close, Terry...
And the philosophies on that issue varied widely between GM Divisions; Chevrolet watched every penny, but Buick/Olds/Pontiac/Cadillac didn't, and their engines arrived at the assembly plant in a MUCH higher state of dress than the "bare-naked" Chevrolet engines. Drove the multi-car-line GMAD assembly plants nuts, as the Chevrolet engines coming down their engine dress lines required FAR more parts and direct labor to complete, which made it very difficult to balance work assignments without over-cycling operations when a Chevy engine came by and under-cycling operations when a B/O/P/Cad engine came by. Chevrolet didn't start to change until the very late 80's (after they lost all their assembly plants to GMAD).Comment
Comment