Nolan Adams published C2 FI data in "Corvette Restoration Technical Guide Vol.2"

[Gene C.]

There is data for C2 specific to VIN and S/N on FI units printed that shows random non-sequential and rather mixed array of VIN numbers vs FI 7017375 unit S/N's gathered from C2 owners at the time of Noland Adams publishing "Corvette Restoration Technical Guide Vol.2".
Is there any other source of this data for comparison, as we all know that when the 7017375 unit in 1962 and 1963 was grabbed from the pallet at the factory for installation on the 327 motor, not all went well for C2 assembly (ie units had to come off due to casting errors and non-functioning FI units for several reasons; therefore the units 'went to the bench for rework' and later found 'a home' on another VIN C2 Corvette more than likely out of sequence by large numbers. Also, several running changes (change orders) from development by engineering predicated design changes, that also accumulated on the assembly floor.
As we know, our NCRS judging staff dictates that 'all 7017375 FI units' when judged should fit an orderly sequential range' when judging Corvettes and penalize a correct assembled factory Corvette due to a VIN with an out of order S/N range FI unit.
What say NCRS members on this subject ?

[Rick A.]

Re: Nolan Adams published C2 FI data in "Corvette Restoration Technical Guide Vol.2"

Gene - this topic gets recycled every so often as "newer members" come online with fuellies. The information in Noland's book is NOT gospel nor should it be taken as such. The information was collected as a survey question that Noland threw out to the Corvette community. We do NOT know how many of the responses are actually the REAL DEAL units for the car VIN reported, as back in the day, fuel units were swapped out all the time. We may NEVER know the how and why of car VIN to 375 VIN correlation.

The following is a cut-n-paste from a post by Michael Garver where he attempted to put some sanity to that how and why.

For those of you who wish to check your unit, here is an equation:

FI Unit Number = (.179 * car#) + 976.

This should be within a few units, certainly within 100 of the correct number, although some cars probably got repaired units at St Louis which would mean their number could be much lower.

So for my car, 3922, it calculates thusly: FI Unit Number = (.179) (3922) + 976. This equals FI unit #1678.

My FI unit is actually #1567, a number which could easily have still been in the plant on November 28, as it should have been installed on November 13, two weeks before my build. As a matter of fact it should have been on car 3301, which was built the same day as yours, I think, Robert!!!!!!

Your FI unit should have been on a January 23 built car, # 7435 or so. Find me #1678, and my #1567 is yours, Robert

Last edited by Michael Garver (49693); January 7th, 2013 at 05:12 PM.

[Loren L.]

Re: Nolan Adams published C2 FI data in "Corvette Restoration Technical Guide Vol.2"

In addition to Rick's "cautions" I can also offer face-to-face communications with the gentleman charged with FI warranty repairs out of the Philadelphia office, who told me that in both 1957 and 1963, his two employees who serviced FI ONLY would ultimately make calls with a full unit in the box and 65% of the time, if the cause was NOT totally obvious, the unit would be changed out and the offending unit returned to Rochester to be fixed.

[Steven B.]

Re: Nolan Adams published C2 FI data in "Corvette Restoration Technical Guide Vol.2"

I know of one unit that was on three cars and when the owner of the third car was questioned he swore it was original to his car. The previous owner of the third car was in a discussion with the owner of the first car and myself and wished he had not sold the unit and distributor for $150. FI's and hardtops were traded and sold like marbles.

[Gene C.]

Re: Nolan Adams published C2 FI data in "Corvette Restoration Technical Guide Vol.2"

Thank you Loren.
All the more for 'judges' to consider when FI's are judged with 'real cars - Vettes' !
ie. a much later dated and out of sequence serial numbered 7017375 unit installed on a 1963 early car with FI problems 'out-of-the-box' !

[Michael J.]

Re: Nolan Adams published C2 FI data in "Corvette Restoration Technical Guide Vol.2"

All these same problems and issues also exist with the later 380 units.

[Dan A.]

Re: Nolan Adams published C2 FI data in "Corvette Restoration Technical Guide Vol.2"

Thank you Loren.
All the more for 'judges' to consider when FI's are judged with 'real cars - Vettes' !
ie. a much later dated and out of sequence serial numbered 7017375 unit installed on a 1963 early car with FI problems 'out-of-the-box' !

Warranty cylinder cases do not receive full credit because the car is being judged as it would be typically configured at the time of final assembly with the addition of necessary Dealer prep. Where detectable replacement parts including warranty parts or assemblies will receive the appropriate deduction.

What consideration in judging of your non typical fuel unit which is not typical factory production are you proposing?

[Michael G.]

Re: Nolan Adams published C2 FI data in "Corvette Restoration Technical Guide Vol.2"

While the equation quoted by Rick is a pretty good estimate of the "ideal" relationship, certainly there's lots of room for earlier units to have gotten on later cars at St. Louis. As I said earlier, once the unit's in the plant, there's really no predicting what car it actually got put on.

What's very unlikely, is for a car to have a unit 200 or more above that predicted by the equation. Such a unit wouldn't even have been in St Louis yet when the car was shipped....

Mike

[Alan D.]

Re: Nolan Adams published C2 FI data in "Corvette Restoration Technical Guide Vol.2"

Except for those cars that were pulled for a problem, got a regrind, then returned much later, and . . . . So some exception to the 200 idea was possible, however you never said never so a reasonable assumption

[Gene M.]

Re: Nolan Adams published C2 FI data in "Corvette Restoration Technical Guide Vol.2"

Except for those cars that were pulled for a problem, got a regrind, then returned much later, and . . . . So some exception to the 200 idea was possible, however you never said never so a reasonable assumption

Yes, Possible exception is possible but NCRS has to judge to the NORMAL standard or else all kinds of crap will be going thru.

One has the option of compliance or just shrug it off and go on. The burden of the proof is on the owner. I’m pretty certain proof has to be unreputable to gain acceptance.