1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

[John H.]

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.

Bill -

Yup - we used to call those "pull-aheads" and "lag-alongs".

[John H.]

Re: 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

Gary -

I think it's quite likely; those two blocks are functionally identical.

[Loren L.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

It might be that there simply no L79 "174" castings in the engine room but there was a '67 L79 awaiting usage.
Wayne Midkiff, in tracking down the very last of the 65s, found #21563 in a derelict condition with the front end knocked off it and the original (300 HP) engine with good stamps in it.....but it was a 174 stamped with a '65 engine code.....

[Jim C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Okay, so maybe we all agree that it was possible for my VERY late 1966 Corvette to receive a factory installed 3892657 cylinder case instead of the more common 3858174. But I'd still like to know why the old language mentioning the 3892657 was deleted from the new version of the manual? Even more, I'd like to know how to get it back into the manual?

Also, not that it matters, but my 3892657 is a base 300 HP. Good point Loren. My 66 has a 1967 block with 66 stamps. It sounds like Wayne Midkiff found exactly what I'm taking about, only the variation occurred one year earlier - a late 65 got a factory installed 66 block. Hey, maybe if GM hadn't used that 174 block on that late 65, they've had one more 174 left to put into my car!!!

Jim C.

[Gary B.]

657 casting in Noland Adams' book

Jim,

Noland Adams lists eitght late build date '66s with the 657 casting, which represents a not insignificant proportion of the cars built in the last few weeks of production. That seems to me to be pretty convincing of the possibility, if not the likelihood.

Gary

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Jim,

If you have access to that Nolan info, plot those VIN's on a 66 calendar.
Poll other late 66 owners at c2registry and here or as they come up for sale. Data will show definite trend.

[Jim C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Gary,

I've seen those cars listed in Mr. Adams's book. Like I said in an earlier post, my car is actually one of those listed. I have personally tracked the ownership history of my car back to 1976. I can't tell you what happened during my car's first 10 years, however, between 1976 and now, I can say that I've spoken to every owner, and none say that they ever changed the engine, or any major components in the car. In the early 1980s, the owner did a "body on" restoration to the car. During the restoration, that owner documented "the numbers" and send them to Mr. Adams, who was collecting information for his book. After the restoration, the owner received Top Flight and Bloomington Gold in 1986 - with the original 3892657 block. I bought the car in 2006. After spending a year just cleaning things up and making some minor repairs, the car was awarded Top Flight again in 2007 - with the same 3892657 block.

When the mechanical judges got to my car, they stopped and looked at the block for a few minutes. They consulted each other, they called over another judge, and ultimately gave the 3892657 block "the thumbs up." I was, however, ready with the 4th edition manual, and Mr. Adams's book just in case there was a problem. One of the more experienced judges basically said he was familiar with the variation, and furthermore, saw that it was noted in the 1966 manual. He went on to say that Mr. Adams's book carried less weight because not all the data in Mr. Adams's book had been personally verified by Mr. Adams, nor by qualified judges from that era. Basically people sent their "unconfirmed" data to Mr. Adams, and he complied it into a book.

Mr. Adams's book only accounts for a small percentage of the Corvettes built in 1966, and it's probably true that he did not personally inspect every car listed in his book. But there's got to be some truth to the idea that 3892657 blocks started showing up in late 1966 Corvettes. Why would several people falsely report that information to Mr. Adams? I spoke to the owner who restored my car back in the 1980s. His answer was pretty simple. As he was disassembling the motor, he copied down all the numbers and sent them to Mr. Adams for inclusion in his book. There was no evil intent or reason to lie. The car had the 657 block and that was how he reported it to Mr. Adams.

The fact is, these sorts of variations happened prior to 1966, during 1966, and after 1966. I think Mr. Hinckley and Mr. Clupper confirmed that. The 3892657 block was mentioned in prior manuals for a reason. I'd just like to know how that information made its way into earlier versions of the manual? Why was it taken out of the new manual? How does the information go back into the manual?

Jim C.

[Jim C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Not a bad idea Ron, but I have some questions. How many examples are necessary to convince the "decision makers" and then what sort of verification is necessary to prove that the examples were legitimately installed by the factory. I basically run into Mr. Adams's problem. How do I verify any examples that are presented to me? Are photos alone enough evidence?

Jim C.

[Gary B.]

Conduct a survey via the Driveline

Jim,

I believe the only way the "possibility" text will ever return to the TIM&JG is if someone does some research and produces enough evidence to convince reasonable people about the issue. In addition to asking '66 SB owners on the C2 registry, I suggest you request a free 1/8 page space in the Driveline to conduct a survey. Ask '66 owners with cars built after a certain date or with a VIN equal to or greater than some number to contact you and tell you if their car has the cylinder case # 3858174 or does it have # 3892657. Also ask them if they have the ownership history, are they the first owner, is it a St. Louis or AO Smith car and whatever else would seem important. Within 6 to 9 months I think you'll have enough data and then it's a question of presenting that to the '66 TIM&JG revision team for consideration for the 6th edition, which of course won't come out for 3 to 5 years. Until then, go armed with your data to any judging event. I'm sure there are other owners of late '66s in the same situation as you who would love for those data to be collected. If you really want the TIM&JG changed, it's going to take some time and effort, but I believe it can be done.

Gary

[Jim C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Gary,

After Ron's suggestion, and now yours, I'm strongly considering doing just that. But I'd still like to know why/how the "possiblilty" language made it into prior versions of the manual to begin with. I also want to know why it was taken out of the current manual? I keep asking those same questions over and over. A decision was made to take the language out. Okay. I don't agree with it, and if a study is in order, then maybe I'll take a shot at it. But first, I'd like to know the answers to those two questions. I'd like to know what information caused the language to be included in the prior manuals, and what missing information caused it to be taken out. Does that make sense?

More than 400 people have looked at this thread. I'm guessing that some of the guys who worked on the new 1966 manual have been reading these posts. How about some answers, and then some direction about what's needed to get the appropriate language back into the manual? Since the burden of proof regarding this matter has suddenly been shifted to me, it would be nice to get a response from those who made the decision to delete the language from the new manual.

Jim C.

[Edward J.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Jim, why not send them a E-mail or PM.

[William C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

I can tell you for a fact that Nolands info was from surveys he did casting an open net for info from owners at that time. No "verification" of the info was done, it was presented in "as received" form.

[Gary B.]

Changes to 1966 TIM&JG

Gary,

...I keep asking those same questions over and over....

... it would be nice to get a response from those who made the decision to delete the language from the new manual.

Jim C.

Jim,

I predict you will not get a response on an open forum like this from the people who made the change. So, you can keep asking questions here, but I believe you are only going to get more frustrated by the lack of a response from key people. In my opinion, a survey with say 100 or more responses that shows a substantial number of both cylinder case numbers on late build date cars is the only way you are going to make headway.

Gary

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

This is one VERY key item, there are perhaps other items that will be questioned in time, and or there are noted minor typos.

Who has lead to gather all this up for inclusion in revision 6?

[William C.]

Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

I would suggest that you contact the judging team leader. His contact information is on the NCRS main web page.