1963 Judging question

[John K.]

[Lynn H.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

John,
I don't think all your dates add up to be a 63. The last 63's were built in July 63. Your block casting is a 64 date, so probably not original to your car. I would recommend the judging process regardless, before you spend a lot of time and money. You may find it to be a very valuable and rewarding experience, and learn many things in a short time, being very helpful to your "restoration". If you do not make "Top Flight" the first time out, you can always try again!!
Lynn

[John H.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

John -

You indicated that you have an "SWC", which is a '63; if so, it wouldn't have had a block cast in August of 1964, which was the beginning of the '65 model year. Also, the build date of the car couldn't be February, 1964 if it's a '63. Do you have a '63 or a '64?

[John K.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

John Yuo are correct. The vin for the car is 30837S1093XX. It is a 1963 for sure. I had a type-o on the date.

thanks for the catch.

john

[Lynn H.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

So John,
Just so I understand correctly your car #93XX was assembled 2-22-63? If so that would coincide with a Feb 63 build for that vin #. But your block IS H 20 4????? If so that would indicate a block cast in Aug of 64 which would most likely be correct for an early 65 car, and NOT for your 63 SWC. The lack of markings on your block, would indicate a pad that has been resurfaced (decked). Are the broach markings present?? Maybe you could post a photo of the pad for an opinion on originality.
Lynn

[John H.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

John Yuo are correct. The vin for the car is 30837S1093XX. It is a 1963 for sure. I had a type-o on the date.

thanks for the catch.

john

John -

Certainly the car is eligible for judging! You have the correct block casting number, but will take a deduction for the casting date and the pad stampings. Have it judged and learn more about your Corvette!

[John D.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

John, Highly suggest you get involved with your local NJ chapter and see if they can include your 63 in a judging school. This would help you out big time. The service replacement engine is going to cost you a ton of points in judging though. Notice that the back side of your block on the drivers side most likely has a Shift clock. That in itself is a dead giveaway that the engine is not a 63. The shift clock started in 1964. Now if I am wrong i am sure the members will correct me.
Study the Judging Reference Manual and of course the 5th edition JM for other info on your situation. Good luck and holler if you need anything. JD

[William C.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

Do a search of the archives, there was a pretty complete analysis of how engine castings are judged in the last few weeks.

[Jack H.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

There are only a handful of reasons for why a given Corvette can't be judged...

(1) The owner failes to maintain his NCRS membership in good standing.

(2) The car lacks a properly affixed VIN tag (even State issued replacement VIN tags are accepted)...

[Dan D.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

I had a 1963 870 block that did not have a pad stamp. I can trace the car and engine back to about 1968 and I have a hard time believing that the block was resurfaced in its first 5 or so years of life. And it sure did not look like it had been machined. There was no NCRS, judging, car shows back then, no reason for decking. The engine was in my 57 and may have been a crate engine. I'm just wondering if some crate engines (or short blocks) had pad stamps. There certinally would not have been a VIN # for it. The block was cracked and I junked it, but it was a 340/360 engine. It had steel crank, 11.25 pistons, windage tray, trap door oil pan. -Dan-

[Lynn H.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

I had a 1963 870 block that did not have a pad stamp. I can trace the car and engine back to about 1968 and I have a hard time believing that the block was resurfaced in its first 5 or so years of life. And it sure did not look like it had been machined. There was no NCRS, judging, car shows back then, no reason for decking. The engine was in my 57 and may have been a crate engine. I'm just wondering if some crate engines (or short blocks) had pad stamps. There certinally would not have been a VIN # for it. The block was cracked and I junked it, but it was a 340/360 engine. It had steel crank, 11.25 pistons, windage tray, trap door oil pan. -Dan-

This is something I would bet you could find some information on in the archives. I would bet this has come up before. I do not think they were stamping the CE on a service block as early as 63, so it may be possible that you could have gotten a 870 service or over the counter block with a blank pad. Probably some more reliable facts on this from some of the other members.
Lynn

[Dan D.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

This makes sense Lynn, and probably is the same for John's engine too. Seeing how we are on a roll, I have another one for you. In March 1962 I bought a complete 870 engine brand new - 300HP version. Block date code B142 (February 14, 1962). This engine does have a pad stamp. F0215RB. So that must be a February 15 machine, assembly date. 1 day after casting??? And I do not know what the "RB" designates. That is not in my little book. Like I said, I bought this brand new, it has never been out of my sight, and I still own it. Some things never change. -Dan-

[Lynn H.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

This makes sense Lynn, and probably is the same for John's engine too. Seeing how we are on a roll, I have another one for you. In March 1962 I bought a complete 870 engine brand new - 300HP version. Block date code B142 (February 14, 1962). This engine does have a pad stamp. F0215RB. So that must be a February 15 machine, assembly date. 1 day after casting??? And I do not know what the "RB" designates. That is not in my little book. Like I said, I bought this brand new, it has never been out of my sight, and I still own it. Some things never change. -Dan-

Dan,
I have seen quite a few machined and assembled only one day after casting over the years. The RB coded motor for 62 is for full size/passenger car, high performance, w/manual trans. I have it listed in a couple different books.
Lynn

[Michael H.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

In March 1962 I bought a complete 870 engine brand new - 300HP version. Block date code B142 (February 14, 1962). This engine does have a pad stamp. F0215RB. -

Dan,

In the 60's, a complete engine assembly sold through GM would have had a Flint/date stamp, just like the one you have.

A partial, or short block from that period, however, would not have been stamped at all.

As mentioned by others, somewhere around late 1968, all partial engine assy's would also have had the engine plant date stamp.

One day between cast and assembly is common.

[Dan D.]

Re: 1963 Judging question

Okay, I am really learning good stuff now. And answering a lot of questions I have had for a long time. So service replacement engines, tin cars as well as Vettes, were all built at Flint - not Tonawanda? And also interesting is the fact an engine was cast at Saginaw, allowed to cool, sent to Flint, machined and assembled in one day!!! They must have really been under the gun back then. I would think that it would take several hours just to cool the block down. And if you cooled it too fast, I would think it could crack. Apparently they did it. -Dan-