63 frame tag

[Tom H.]

Re: 63 frame tag

Franz:

You sound like you have some good info. Thanks for posting it. Would it be an unusually high number to see 70 pilot frames for the 63 model ?

I'm sure there were many, but 70 sounds like a ton. What do you think ?

[Wayne W.]

Re: 63 frame tag

1. Paper
2. Cardboard
3. Steel (Usually low carbon flat stock)
4. Stainless
5. Aluminum





Perhaps John H. can chime in and provide addition lab capability info.

OK. Of those from the list, that tag has to be stainless, and its definitely the salt test judging by the frame.

[Steven B.]

Re: 63 frame tag

I spent months in Erie, PA the winter of 83-84 and used one of the company cars (GTE) alot. I usually got a white Z-28 with auto. All of the cars were GM and all were "leased" for $1.00/year. I was told by the transportation manager the cars were used to test paint deterioration and rust in that climate--snow, ice and salt. The Z-28 had a metal tag tacked to the area just below the lower left corner of the backlight and one or two others near that tag. The tag was approx. 4 inches long and 3/4 inch tall with numbers inscribed on it. There was also a single tag riveted to the left inner fender in the engine compartment, about the same size.

[Tom H.]

Re: 63 frame tag

Easy there Franz. I think you've got some of our interest here on this. If it was a salt test frame, it sure wouldn't have rotted overnight. The corrosion you see on this frame has surely come from years on the road and not any testing done in 1963.

If this car is what you've stated it may be, it did survive and may well have been sold to the public. Obviously not crushed or destroyed.

It would really be great to have the rest of the story on the car this frame came from.

[John H.]

Re: 63 frame tag

Perhaps John H. can chime in and provide addition lab capability info.

Franz -

There were no lab testing facilities of any kind at St. Louis, either in the "big" plant or in the Corvette plant. The A.O. Smith frame plant across the river in Granite City had some test facilities, but I never saw them - I was there a couple of times for weld quality issues, but only spent time in the production areas working with the process engineers.

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 frame tag

Franz -

There were no lab testing facilities of any kind at St. Louis, either in the "big" plant or in the Corvette plant. The A.O. Smith frame plant across the river in Granite City had some test facilities, but I never saw them - I was there a couple of times for weld quality issues, but only spent time in the production areas working with the process engineers.

Yup, I agree. Also, units that were used for any form of testing were typically sent to Flint after they were assembled at any assembly plant.

The #70 on the tag does not necessarily indicate that it was/is "test Corvette" number 70. It could have been #70 of any Chevrolet vehicle used for this test.

[Joe R.]

Re: 63 frame tag

Also, when cars, frames or anything was tested, it was not sold to the public but crushed. Art Armstrong will confirm this I believe.

Unless that frame got out the back door it would not have made it way into the hands of the public.

More than likely that frame received that tag from the state police or some other agency. Probably stolen and reissued a number.

JR

[Philip C.]

Re: 63 frame tag

Hey Franz Why do you bother? You were there and you know what your talking about, it blows my mind when I read this. Why in the world would a frame from a stolen car, or a junk yard be marked LAB 70 too many people watching CSI. I thank guys like yourself for your input and time to shed light on things like this, Phil 8063

[Franz E.]

Re: 63 frame tag

Hi Phil: Thanks for the thought.

Granite City also supply truck and pass car frames? Was in that facility once to coordinate an engineering change to the front spring hanger used by the truck plant.





I thought the Corvette hobby would find it interesting knowing the various methods GM utilized to identify pilotline components.

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 frame tag

However, each assembly plant had “lab” facilities to support its production activities. St Louis receiving had an inspection lab to perform sample approvals of new parts, validate engineering changes and deal with routine daily quality issues. The QC lab had the ability to check load/rate of suspension components and later corrosion test.

There may have been some sort of testing lab at the passenger car assembly plant in St Louis but there wasn't at the Corvette plant.
If any large component testing was done, it would have to have been done somewhere else. I'm very familiar with just about every square foot of that old building and it was all dedicated to assembly. There just wasn't room for anything else. It ("the Mill") was refered to as a 360,000 sq ft assembly facility in a 240,000 sq ft building.

I think most people have a somewhat distorted vision of what that place was and what actually occured (and didn't occur) there.

[Franz E.]

Re: 63 frame tag

Hi Michael:

[Ron L.]

Re: 63 frame tag

Thought you all might enjoy this. Reported to be on a 63 frame. anyone ever seen this before? Joe???

I "buy it". I mean why would somebody else put something like that on a frame years later? Only thing is, would they really use a "test" frame (if thats what it is) on a production car?

Its sure seen better days from the looks of it on the picture. Where is the rest of the car? Doesnt the ink stamp "PILOT LINE" appear on pilot cars like under the dash, or on some other parts of the body? Seems I read that before in the "Restorer" magazine a few years back.

[Joe R.]

Re: 63 frame tag

Franz and Michael,

We're not talking the same testing facilities here folks.

Yes, every assembly plant has it's own QC that primarly conducts non-destructive testing.

Warren and other facilities had the ability to do destructive testing such as salt spray, corrosion, weld testing etc. etc. After Corvettes were tested to the breaking point they were destined for the scrap yard. And yes, some were found and saved from the crusher. That was not the intention of GM.

After all that's just a rusty old frame with a Stainless Tag.

JR

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 frame tag

Franz and Michael,

We're not talking the same testing facilities here folks.

Yes, every assembly plant has it's own QC that primarly conducts non-destructive testing.

Warren and other facilities had the ability to do destructive testing such as salt spray, corrosion, weld testing etc. etc. After Corvettes were tested to the breaking point they were destined for the scrap yard. And yes, some were found and saved from the crusher. That was not the intention of GM.

After all that's just a rusty old frame with a Stainless Tag.

JR

I think it IS a GM test frame. I just don't think the test was conducted at the St Louis plant and I doubt the number 70 had anything to do with the VIN of the car. (if it actually was in a car)
There were a LOT of cars that were used for various tests. Some were used by GM employees as daily drivers. Quite possible this car was one of those if a salt/corrosion test was being conducted.

If it wasn't so rusty, we might have been able to determine if it was an early or late car.

[John H.]

Re: 63 frame tag

The "big" plant had a Receiving Inspection/Salvage Department that could do dimensional checking with table-top surface plates (granite slabs) and various measurement devices, Central Office-supplied part "go - no go" checking fixtures, Rockwell hardness testers, and things of that nature, but I've never seen anything more exotic than that in terms of what we understand as "lab testing" in any Chevrolet assembly plant.

Testing like salt spray, corrosion exposure, frame and spring stroking to failure, etc. were done at the Chevrolet Engineering Center - they had VERY comprehensive lab testing facilities, including computer-driven hydraulic fatigue/stroking machines. CEC had "Pony Express" trucks that would haul parts for testing from the plants on a regular weekly basis, and those parts were never seen again by the plants - the Resident Engineer at the plant just got the test results from the CEC lab supervisor and the release engineer responsible for the part.

The other side of the Receiving Inspection Department was the "Salvage" function. They negotiated with vendors and dealt with disposal of parts shown to be defective/unusable, and occasionally set up in-house "reworks" for existing stock to make the parts usable until the vendor could supply corrected stock.

Contrary to popular opinion, there was no such thing as "100% inspection" of incoming material, unless a particular part had a bad history and confirmation was required to ensure that required corrections had been implemented at the vendor. Parts were diverted into Receiving Inspection based on complaints from the line, or notification from a vendor that an in-transit shipment "may" have some discrepancies that slipped through.

Professor Deming and his principles were unknown in the 60's and 70's in U.S. plants.