C2s Long Throw Shift Setting from the Factory � Why were none Short Throw ?

[Mark F.]

[Leif A.]

[Duke W.]

[Mark F.]

Thanks for your detailed response and insight, Duke,

1963 Corvettes don't have the short shift throw option, but they do have a short clutch throw choice. I don't think it carried through to the end of C2 production. I believe the short throw shifter choice began with the Muncie four-speed in 1964 and went through at least '67. Did not know that.

You could ask why they didn't offer the short clutch throw choice from the plant, but it was easy for a DIYer to convert to either the short shift throw or short clutch throw choice on models where it can be done. Not all owners were as mechanically adept as you – so that would add un

The fast ratio steering choice was only available from the plant with power steering, but, again it was easy to change in the field with manual steering.

One could also ask why weren't radial or racing tires offered from the plant or six tail lights or four twin choke Webers like you could order on a Cobra. One could go on and on with more "why didn't they..." questions. You’re talking options that have added cost (some of which could be significant – 4 Webers; maybe radial or racing tires back then, etc.). I’m saying take it from a check box on an order form (short shift throw; short clutch throw; fast steering); punch it into the broadcast sheet; line worker installs the clevis pin and retainer in hole 1 vs 2. Other than printing costs for putting a check box on the order form, short throw or fast steering (I’ve never done that adjustment) and there’s no assembly cost implications at all.

Same concept with paint color (granted, not commensurate w/ undercar adjustments like these). Different paint colors were not Options – they were standard and you just checked (or wrote in) the one you wanted. BTW, those different available paint colors had significant costs associated with them that were spread across all colors available (back then). The Paint & Oil houses I was in had enormous vats of each color plus one larger one for solvent to clean all the guns between each job (or maybe just drums in the case of Corvettes because of the low production rate). Not like today where you can whacked $500 or more for a particular “red” you may want…

Changing the insertion of a pin does not rise to that level…But, it doesn’t change the assembly station time at all (at least not for a short throw shift and probably the other two you mention). Why not do it at the factory so you know it was done right and covered under warranty ?

These cars were designed to a price point and did have plenty of factory options, Yep, I know from mild to wild. At some point adding options and optional assembly procedures begins to really complicate the production process < for the one I’ve asked about, I don’t agree that it’s complicated; fitting Webers at the Engine Plants is a different storyand increase cost and the chance of errors. < I do agree with this. Ask a line guy to do one thing the same way all the time, the chance of errors is less than if you ask him to do one thing in one of two ways. The chance of errors increases.

GM learned in the seventies that having a stripped down "price leader" base car with a zillion options when most imported cars were "fully equipped" was a loosing proposition and cost them a lot of market share.

Personally I don't like the short throw shifter option. It makes the shift action "too notchy" in my option, but I really appreciated the short clutch throw and fast steering option. The limiting time shifting gears is cycling the clutch, not the shifter. Having had a 1938 Ford w/ a 3 foot long shifter w/ no synchros – I’m pretty sure I’d have liked a short throw clutch on that, too ! Double-clutch downshifts would have been much easier…

The OE General Jetaires on my SWC literally started disintegrating after spending a day hot lapping Kent in the summer of '63 and I mounted a set of Michelin X radials not long after that survived several more days of hot lapping Kent and lasted 47K miles until 1968. Decent tires should have been offered as an option. Agreed. I rarely drove on my repro bias ply tires (Kelseys), but even on the PA turnpike sometimes I felt the car had a mind of its own. I have almost no fear w/ my radials….

Nowadays, cars have myriad "personal choice" options if you want to spend frustrating hours going through screens and figuring out how to set things up. I'd rather get out the tool box and make the simple changes that were explained in the applicable service manuals. I think fewer and fewer people are like you…they want to get in; turn the key; and have it just the way they want it w/o any fiddling on a cold concrete floor .

[Owen L.]

[Mark F.]

Mark, I do agree that it seems like it's a simple checkbox choice.

The only wonderings I have about the shifter throw or steering ratio choice might be the different adjustments each may require to roll the car off the line.< Not really IMHO. (My '67 has been short/quick for 4-decades so I don't recall what kind of adjustments might have been necessary with the changes.) Not huge effort for either, but it would take time and attention to make sure each choice was done properly. <YES. and most TFP adjustments were done with equipment that allowed the line worker to do it properly and within a timeframe allowing production to run smoothly.

Hi Owen,

No, I don't think the different settings/adjustments have anything to do w/ roll testing and toe-in if they had been done in the factory in either case...

The clevis goes in one hole for long throw - it goes in another hole for the short throw.

What 'kinda baffles me is I don't see two holes in the AIM, but we all apparently(?) know they are there(?)...been a while, but I did mine (?)

AIMs are not perfect (and do change throughout the model run) and if they only wanted them to all be long throw - then don't confuse the line worker with showing him two holes .

Never done the steering switch-over thingy myself - but I'm guessing it's the same scenario... 2 hole options available, but apparently no line worker was ever told to use anything but one for PS and the other one for manual steering...

Shifter throw (short or long) would have absolutely nothing to do with roll testing...the drive-off guy slams it in first gear; floors the car to get to the roll-off stand as fast as he can; runs thru the gears as fast as he can; pulls off the rolls when done laying tire to get to the toe-in pit; sets the steering wheel lock; jumps out of the car so he can walk back to do the next one coming off the line. I might add, this is not an easy job at 50 to 60 cars per hour - probably a piece of cake at St. Louis for Corvettes...(10 per hour ?)

Quick steer adjustment setting (if ever implemented on the assembly line) would also have no effect whatsoever at the toe-in pit. The steering wheel is locked in place @ 12 o'clock (as noted above) and the guy down in the pit adjusts for toe-in whether the steering is set fast or slow - he has no idea whether it's fast or slow and has no reason to care - he just looks at his equipment and when the huge dials swing up to the 12 O'clock position+ or minus spec - he's done.
on to the next car...

This is why I say fast or slow steer should have been a selection box on the order form...
THERE IS NO BETTER FRONT END ALLIGNMENT THAN ONE DONE WITH ASSEMBLY PLANT ALIGNMENT EQUIPMENT.

[Ronald L.]

[Mark F.]

ya-all are looking at this from an end vehicle function perspective. Not the assembly plant. Not really. most of my comments (other than changing the order form) are associated w/ the assembly plant processes.

You would have to have had a process sheet (AIM - pretty good for back in the day) that would have provided those work instructions. Yep. Per broadcast sheet, insert pin into hole 1 for short throw; hole 2 for long throw. Simple.

Next - Why do it - if they (the factory) wern't getting paid to is another. The line worker is already there at his station - already paid for whether he uses hole 1 or hole 2 - there's no cost implications at all.

What about the mix ups short to long and customer satisfaction? Agreed 100% ! I once heard a guy say "the number of mistakes an operator can make using instrumentation is equal to the number of knobs it has SQUARED." not the case here - only two choices available

Who & how was that going to be kept straight with no option? Check box on order form is translated to the Assembly Plant Broadcast sheet.

And then - I doubt that could be considered an option. More like dealer add ons. It's not an "RPO" (option) as in you have to pay more for it - it's the same as what exterior and interior colors you want (other than leather) which had no costs associated with picking any of them. They were all STANDARD (non-RPO) - but you had numerous selections you could make to have your car configured the way you wanted it.

How did the info of the short throws get out to the public? Apparently it didn't. And as Duke said earlier, how to do it is available in the Shop or Chassis Manual (can't remember which he referred to). So, GM acknowledged they had engineered in different ways to configure those items and showed you how to do it. But I wouldn't consider that as "letting the public know" they could do any of the various settings - how many people buy a new car with a shop and chassis manual ?

See inset responses above...

[Owen L.]

[Michael J.]

[Mike M.]

[Duke W.]

[Mark F.]

"I never want to drive this car again"
I was sad about that, but the geometries just weren't in her favor

[Michael J.]

your 63 bet also has an aluminum case.mike

You are probably right, I'll have to take a closer look. The Shelby guys really play up the aluminum case T-10 for the '65 GT350, as though it was the only car that got it.

[Duke W.]