1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question - NCRS Discussion Boards

1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Jim C.
    Expired
    • April 1, 2006
    • 290

    #31
    Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

    I sent the appropriate e-mail, away from this forum, two days ago. I'm waiting for a response.

    Comment

    • Jim C.
      Expired
      • April 1, 2006
      • 290

      #32
      Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

      Bill,

      Thanks for the suggestion. I sent an e-mail out two days ago, away from the forum, to a person who should be able to comment on this. I'm waiting for a response.

      Jim C.

      Comment

      • Peter J.
        Very Frequent User
        • September 30, 1994
        • 586

        #33
        Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

        Jim,
        Gary has a point. I remember when the L-79 lack of a captured belt fiasco started and after all the questions on this board, nobody had a real answer where that came from either. Looks like it is resolved in the new one.
        Best your going to get is like Bill Clupper said and contact the team leader.
        As far as a survey - I think it has been stated, most actual members don't use the board for one reason or another,so and ad in the Driveline is your best bet.
        Good luck with it - You can't be the only one.

        Comment

        • Roy S.
          Past National Judging Chairman
          • July 31, 1979
          • 1022

          #34
          Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

          Originally posted by Jim Cicchini (45647)
          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? Jim C.
          This is a classic case of how Internet discussion boards (any subject: history - cars - science - art) can askew logic.

          Your late 66 car with a 657 block is no longer supported by the original wording which said, "657s" are possible. However, the original wording also said, "to date this is not verified."

          In order to support the very examples you are concerned about, the new wording removes any doubt about verification by deleting the phrase - "to date this is not verified." Instead, the wording says "The Flint Block casting number for most 327 engines is 3858174."That statement is absolutely correct - no possible argument. T

          Unfortunately, the revision team was again unable to lay there hands on a single example of a known original 657 engine. It is true that Noland Adams has listed some examples in his book by way of mail-in research references. But, that data remains unverified. It is true that we have all heard of several examples, including yours now. But, that information remains unverified.

          Consider presenting your car at a Regional level for the judges to see and verify, supply photos of your engine pad, casting date, casting number, VIN tag and trim tag to the 66 team leader.

          This would be a very appropriate step to take. With positive verification (in hand) and on the record - I'm sure that the manual could be amended at an appropriate future time.

          T

          Comment

          • Jim C.
            Expired
            • April 1, 2006
            • 290

            #35
            Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

            Bill,

            Right. So if I conduct a study trying to determine if other late 1966 cars received the 3892657 block, how will it be any better than what Mr. Adams did? I'll receive a bunch of unchecked information that may or may not be accurate. How do I confirm it? How do I validate it? I tried to make that point earlier. That's why I'd like to know what "confirmed" information was used initially, that caused the 657 block to be mentioned in prior manuals, and why that information is no longer good any more.

            Jim C.

            Comment

            • Jim C.
              Expired
              • April 1, 2006
              • 290

              #36
              Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

              Mr. Sinor,

              Thanks for your response. Is that all it would take to get some mention of the 3892657 block back into the 1966 manual? Showing up at a regional and some photos? Assuming the judges thought the block was original, would that do it? Just one example? It seems like someone with some "official knowledge" like senior NRCS judges could make this determination anywhere. I'm in Illinois. Is there any way that a judge or judges can look at my block locally and make a determination on the spot? I've been through the judging process at the chaper level two years ago. The block "passed." I'm sure you can check those records.

              Again, thanks for responding.

              Jim C.

              Comment

              • Ronald L.
                Extremely Frequent Poster
                • October 18, 2009
                • 3248

                #37
                Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

                Just today two "presented as original un molested cars" hit the flea, one the most interesting with some documentation 427 is not pertinent to this study, but shows the need for data to prove this. The other doen ot list a VIN, but is a 327...

                Comment

                • Terry M.
                  Beyond Control Poster
                  • September 30, 1980
                  • 15573

                  #38
                  Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

                  Originally posted by Jim Cicchini (45647)
                  Mr. Sinor,

                  Thanks for your response. Is that all it would take to get some mention of the 3892657 block back into the 1966 manual? Showing up at a regional and some photos? Assuming the judges thought the block was original, would that do it? Just one example? It seems like someone with some "official knowledge" like senior NRCS judges could make this determination anywhere. I'm in Illinois. Is there any way that a judge or judges can look at my block locally and make a determination on the spot? I've been through the judging process at the chaper level two years ago. The block "passed." I'm sure you can check those records.

                  Again, thanks for responding.

                  Jim C.
                  That is not the way I read what Roy said. Read his post again, and especially please read the last sentence he wrote.
                  Terry

                  Comment

                  • Jim C.
                    Expired
                    • April 1, 2006
                    • 290

                    #39
                    Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

                    Sorry Mr. McManmon,

                    I guess I wasn't clear. Mr. Sinor said taking my car to a regional and submitting photos to the 1966 team leader would be an appropriate step to take. Okay. I asked if that would be all it would take, and if one example (my car) would be sufficient, to show that the 657 block did appear (from the factory) in 1966 Corvettes. Then I asked if a senior judge or judges in Illinois ( I used the term "locally") could make the determination if my block were original or not? I asked that question only because it would be easier than traveling to a regional, and also because as Mr. Sinor pointed out, 99.5% of the small blocks in 1966 were 174s. That means the other .5%, or about 50 small blocks, were something else. The old manuals speculated that they might be 657s. Since only 50 or so "non-174" small blocks may have been put into 1966s, the chances of finding some or any of those other 50 blocks after 44 years might be a little tough. I would hate to travel to a regional somewhere, near or far, only to find out later that one example isn't enough evidence.

                    So, I'm trying to make sure that one confirmed car (mine) will be sufficient to consider mentioning the 657 block in the manual in the future, and I'm trying do that in the most efficient and economical way possible. Once again, I'm really sorry if my response to Mr. Sinor was confusing to anyone.

                    Jim C.

                    Comment

                    • Terry M.
                      Beyond Control Poster
                      • September 30, 1980
                      • 15573

                      #40
                      Re: 1966 Tech Manual & Judging Guide question

                      Originally posted by Jim Cicchini (45647)
                      Sorry Mr. McManmon,

                      I guess I wasn't clear. Mr. Sinor said taking my car to a regional and submitting photos to the 1966 team leader would be an appropriate step to take. Okay. I asked if that would be all it would take, and if one example (my car) would be sufficient, to show that the 657 block did appear (from the factory) in 1966 Corvettes. Then I asked if a senior judge or judges in Illinois ( I used the term "locally") could make the determination if my block were original or not? I asked that question only because it would be easier than traveling to a regional, and also because as Mr. Sinor pointed out, 99.5% of the small blocks in 1966 were 174s. That means the other .5%, or about 50 small blocks, were something else. The old manuals speculated that they might be 657s. Since only 50 or so "non-174" small blocks may have been put into 1966s, the chances of finding some or any of those other 50 blocks after 44 years might be a little tough. I would hate to travel to a regional somewhere, near or far, only to find out later that one example isn't enough evidence.

                      So, I'm trying to make sure that one confirmed car (mine) will be sufficient to consider mentioning the 657 block in the manual in the future, and I'm trying do that in the most efficient and economical way possible. Once again, I'm really sorry if my response to Mr. Sinor was confusing to anyone.

                      Jim C.
                      Those are all reasonable questions Jim. I am sorry I didn't see through to those questions. I guess my perspective, not having a horse in that race, didn't allow me to understand all of your concerns.
                      Terry

                      Comment

                      Working...

                      Debug Information

                      Searching...Please wait.
                      An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                      Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                      An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                      Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                      An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                      There are no results that meet this criteria.
                      Search Result for "|||"