1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

[Jim C.]

I received the current version of the 1966 manual today, and I have to say that I'm really impressed with its contents. Wow!! What a great job you guys did!! Here's my question/concern:

Older versions of the manual discussed small block 327 cylinder cases as having casting number 3858174. The older manuals then say "Casting number 3892657 is possible on very late cars. However, to date this is not verified."

The new manual (p. 88) says "The Flint Block casting number for most 327 engines is 3858174." There's absolutely no mention at all of the 3892657 casting number. Why was the old language deleted from the description? I know I'm in a huge minority here, but I have a VERY VERY late 1966 327 small block with an original 3892657 cylinder case. The old language was at least something I could point to if an issue ever arose during judging, etc. I was really hoping the ONLY old language to be dropped would have been, "However, to date this is not verified." Since ALL the old language was dropped, it's as if the 3892657 block isn't even "possible" anymore? I guess it falls into the "non-most" category. How will people who aren't overly familiar with 1966 Corvettes know that?

Saying "most" 1966 small block cylinder cases have casting number 3858174, without even mentioning the 3892657 block, certainly doesn't do my car any favors for future judging or even possible resale. Proving the 3892657 block is "possible" just got a lot harder. Let's be honest here, ORIGINAL motors ARE a BIG DEAL for many reasons. On this one point, it seems to me that the manual went backwards. I'm sure it will be a while before a new version is published, and I think it will be EXTREMELY difficult to, at the very least, get the 3892657 language back in there. What more can I say?

I don't want to leave on a sour note. This is still a SUPER organization, and you guys REALLY did an outstanding job on the new 1966 Manual!!! As always, your insights, experience, and thoughts are welcome. Thanks for reading.

Jim C.

[Peter J.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Jim,
What is the build date of your car? And yes the the new manual sure took a lot of work-Thanks to everybody involved in the undertaking.
Pete

[Jim C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Hi Pete,

My car's build date is Thursday, July 28, 1966, or K28, if you were looking at the trim tag. It's a St. Louis body and the VIN is 127592. Based on some very rough calculations, I always thought my car was built near the end of the day on the 28th. I see that the new 1966 manual actually has a production calendar on pages 192 and 193. According to that calendar, I guess I was right. 1966 production ended on Friday, July 29th. My Corvette was built 128 cars from the end of the 1966 production run.

Jim C.

[Gary B.]

1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Jim,

If I were you and if I were to have my car judged in the near future I would bring along the 4th edition of the TIM&JG and show it to the judges when the cylinder case assessment came up. When I read a statement like "38926757 is possible on very late cars" and your car is the next to last day of production, I would give you the benefit of the doubt even if the 5th edition of the TIM&JG no longer has that language or possibility.

I also see that John Hinckley is a member of the '66 TIM&JG team, so if you contact him he should know which '66 team members were mostly responsible for the change on the cylinder case text. I would then try to contact one those individuals and see what logic they used to make the change.

Frankly, when these kind of changes happen to the manual I find it a little disconcerting. Is the revision team now disregarding whatever evidence that was used previously to support the statement in the 4th edition? If so, why not include that new information in the 5th edition for folks in your position? Just taking out the old information and giving the impression that it never existed wouldn't be my first choice on how to deal with such changes. There's a history involved that's being erased.

Just my opinion.

Gary Beaupre
Northern California Chapter

[Jim C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Amen Gary. Exactly!!!!! Why was the language taken out?? It was in the older versions of the manual for a reason. Also, thanks for your other suggestions. Very good advice.

Jim C.

[Gary B.]

1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Jim,

I'm always of a mixed mind when I make such a posting because I can only guess at the incredibly hard work is to revise the TIM&JG and then to have a criticism like this after it's been out for less than a week must make it seem like I'm not appreciative of the large number of improvements and the important evolution of the JG. There could well be very good reasons for the removal of the cylinder case text, but the revision process doesn't always lend itself to transparency in terms of the reasons for a particular change, especially for one that can affect the value of a car tremendously.

In the 5th edition, I'm very happy to see the correct two fan belt configuration listed for L79 w/ no power options. I've seen too many L79 cars with the captive belt removed by owners based on what was written in the old JG.

Thanks for your support as well.

Gary

[Jim C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Gary,

Like I said in my original post, those guys did a GREAT job on the new 1966 manual. I was out in my garage last night checking part numbers and comparing photos in the manual to my car. I can't say it enough - "Those guys did a GREAT job!!!!"

There are probably a few other late 1966 SB Corvettes out there with the 3892657 casting number. Unfortunately, I've never seen another one. I think others exist, or at least did exist, because there are a few (mine being one) listed at the end of the 1966 chapter in Noland Adams's 1963 -1967 book. Mr. Adams's book only represents a small percentage of the C2's that were produced, so we don't really know how many 1966s may have been manufactured with the 3892657 block. Right now, I can only show you one. It's sitting in my garage.

I'm trying to take a practical, logical approach to this matter, but still wonder why the 3892657 block is no longer recognized, in writing, as a possibility for late 1966 Corvettes. I have two old 1966 manuals. The fourth edition and a second edition from 1993. Both at least mention the 3892657 block as a possiblilty. I'm bothered by the fact that the information was there at one time, in print, and now it's not. We had the information. It WAS in the manual. Where did that information originally come from? How did it end up in prior versions of the manual? Why was it deleted this time around?

For purposes of future judging, I can only hope that I'll encounter knowledgeable people, and I'll make sure to bring along my older versions of the manual. Who knows? But as I said in my original post, the deletion of the old language could potentially impact the resale value of my car. This is a cylinder case, an engine block. It's not a starter with the wrong date code, or an alternator with the wrong part number. WE ALL KNOW this is a BIG DEAL when trying to place a value on older Corvettes. Now what? The most current information basically says the 3892657 cylinder case doesn't "possibly" exist anymore in late 1966 Corvettes. Unfortunately, as time passes, this will become "FACT" and older versions of the manual might simply be deemed inaccurate. How do I get the old language back in the manual? I think it was correct.

Jim C.

[Peter J.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Jim,
I thought I had a late date car June 22 but your car is late, Wow. After I bought my car and read some literature (not NCRS) on it, I thought I had been had by the seller. My car had 462 heads when the books I was reading said 461 was the only head and my shifter was cross-member mounted and not to the transmission.
I know Gary has a late 66 car too and I think his advice is dead on for now until you and any other "657" block guys show up and find some way of sorting this out.
As strange as some of the things we have seen documented over the years with these cars the use of "657" blocks sure seems plausible to me.

[Michael J.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

This is good news that the new manual has been issued. I need to get one soon. But can anybody tell me how they handle the issue of the engine stamp pad on the first few hundred of the '66s that have the "S" in the VIN derivative?

[Jim C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Hi Pete,

Don't worry about having the 3890462 cylinder heads on your car. I have those too!!! I didn't even want to bring those into the conversation, but since you brought it up I figured I'd respond. The new version of the 1966 manual (p. 91) says those are still possible on late 1966 cars. I think those were more common on 1967 small blocks, as was the 3892657 cylinder case I've been talking about. Basically, when my car was being assembled, the guys at the factory put a 1967 motor in my 1966 Corvette. There are also a few other correctly dated 1967 parts on my car that appear to be original from the factory. These things happened.

Jim C.

[Jim C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Michael,

It seems to be appropriately covered on page 90. The manual says, "The letter "S" is found in the VIN derivatives as applied on engine pads for the first several hundred cars."

Jim C.

[John H.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

I also see that John Hinckley is a member of the '66 TIM&JG team, so if you contact him he should know which '66 team members were mostly responsible for the change on the cylinder case text. I would then try to contact one those individuals and see what logic they used to make the change.

Gary -

I wasn't involved in any discussion on that item; other team members may have some background on it.

[William C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

For those of us who have worked in the auto industry in the early 60's, the use of "non model year specific" parts either showing up early in the last days of the old model year, or a couple of "last years" parts showing up in an early build was a no brainer. Either scrap a few leftover parts, or do a special run of old parts to balalce end of model year inventories was generally frowned upon if the parts wete functionally interchangable. A little paperwork with the correct signatures, and the assembly lines kept running smoothly, or excess parts were used up. At some plants engineering had a liasion engineer stationed at the facility just to work thru issues such as this. Especially true prior to strict emissions certifications requirements and associated certification documentation.

[Gary B.]

John; likelihood of 3892657 cylinder case in late '66 Corvettes

John,

Even though you weren't involved in the TIM&JG revision on this specific issue, I'm curious to know of your GM insider view of the possibility of GM using 3892657 blocks for late '66 build Corvettes, say, ranging from couldn't happen to very likely?

Gary

[Michael J.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Michael,

It seems to be appropriately covered on page 90. The manual says, "The letter "S" is found in the VIN derivatives as applied on engine pads for the first several hundred cars."

Jim C.

Great, glad to see that variant documented officially. I passed on an early '66 a while back because of the uncertainty surrounding it's authenticity.