Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

[Jacob A.]

there is a 67 427-435 for sale locally

here is the ad...

http://seattle.craigslist.org/sno/ctd/2305986098.html

I spoke with the dealer, they claim the Corvette has a body # that begins with A.

I have done my research before, as I understand it, in 67 all side pipe and big block Corvettes came from St. Louis not A.O. Smith.

Can someone help me prove to this guy that the Corvette is not an original 435 side-pipe Corvette?

thanks,
Jacob

[George C.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

Jacob,
According to Corvette Enthusiast Magazine ( volume 9 / issue 6 ) June 2006. A "few" big block 1967 Corvettes were built at Ionia Manufacturing Company (A.O. Smith). Same article does say that NO RPO-14 side exhausts specifying sidepipes were ever allocated to A.O.Smith. All Bodies for sidepipe-equipped Corvettes were build at St. Louis. So big block Corvette yes, sidepipes no. Sidepipes could have been installed at a later date by some pervious owner or dealer. Maybe someone else knows the exact number of big block 67's built at A.O. Smith. I'd like to find out.

[Kenneth B.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

Jacob,
According to Corvette Enthusiast Magazine ( volume 9 / issue 6 ) June 2006. A "few" big block 1967 Corvettes were built at Ionia Manufacturing Company (A.O. Smith). Same article does say that NO RPO-14 side exhausts specifying sidepipes were ever allocated to A.O.Smith. All Bodies for sidepipe-equipped Corvettes were build at St. Louis. So big block Corvette yes, sidepipes no. Sidepipes could have been installed at a later date by some pervious owner or dealer. Maybe someone else knows the exact number of big block 67's built at A.O. Smith. I'd like to find out.

So if it was in print it has to be so. It is a late SN. What part of no big blocks & no small blocks with BB hoods were made with A bodies. The guy should run like the wind.
KEN

[Tom H.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

It's probably a real car with a bogus trim tag !!

[Tracy C.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

there is a 67 427-435 for sale locally

here is the ad...

http://seattle.craigslist.org/sno/ctd/2305986098.html

Can someone help me prove to this guy that the Corvette is not an original 435 side-pipe Corvette?

thanks,
Jacob

Jacob, I doubt if you will turn his opinion. He is trying to sell the car to whomever will buy. Unless you are tring to buy this one yourself and need a way to work into an affordable price, I would not waste your time.

We can't police the world.

tc

[Richard M.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

I would say that if you are interested in buying it then you should scrutinize what is advertised by proving to yourself what it is. I agree with others that whatever you say to the dealer, he will ignore what you're telling him and wait for someone else to buy it as it sits.

If I were looking to buy it I or inspect for someone I would check these things to verify if it was originally a big block car, and if L71, and if factory sidepipe.....

1- 90 degree bend in fuel line up close to the fuel pump(providing the line was never changed). There should be a bubble at the end of the pipe you can sometimes feel under the hose if present. There is a photo of the line in one pic and it looks a little hand bent to me?

2- 80 lb oil pressure gauge. A pic shows what appears to me to be a 60lb gauge. edit s/b 0-40-80, not 0-30-60 as shown?

3- Behind the instrument cluster is a white label with large font red letters..."LB" is for L71. There's a recent thread here about the labels.

4- TI mandatory for L71. Check for correct dimension of 3 mount bolts in left front skirt. Also for additional TI harness clip under the left female hood latch on the firewall held on by a small (5/16"? wrench) hex head screw.

5- Rear axle case code & date stamp. BB = AT,AU,AZ,FA,FB,FC.

6- Front sway bar (diam s/b 15/16".......0.9375")

7- Rear sway bar present

8- Steel caps and bolts(vs u-bolts) holding half-shaft u-joint to outer hubs.(I see that in pic)

9- Outer rear hubs on L71 have a cast circle("o") or cast "X" on the outer rim of the circular casting. (rally wheel caps can come off easy to check that, but original hubs may already have been replaced)

10- Front springs s/b 7 coils, apx 0.660" diameter

11- Engine s/b 3904351 block. Seq# 13,282 puts it at around March 10, '67 build. Trim tag has "H01" which is first week of March build so that's there. Assembly suffix s/b JA or JE for L71, JA= K19 A.I.R, JE= not(I can't see the suffix in the pic of the pad....edit. it looks like JE after i mag'd the pic but the block appears decked in that area....
, and the stamping I see appears to be too far forward from typical)? bellhousing s/b 3899621.

12- Bigblock radiator support should have 2 brackets(for the center panel support rods), mounted at the lower facia under the grille, with two 1/4" bolts through the lower fascia into them, apx 3" from the rear edge, and a dimple for the smallblock support brackets closer to the rear edge.

13- Intake manifold s/b 3894374 for L71

14- Sidepipe car should have no rubber seal on the lower shields against the frame. Should show no evidence of full rocker panel brackets under the birdcage rockers. Should be no evidence of threads in the center crossmember holes for the radio ground straps normally used for under-car exhaust.(If radio originally equipped). There should be 5 rectangular slots in the steel of the outer rocker sills, apx 2" long by apx 1/2" or so, spaced somewhat equally along the length of the sill.

DISCLAIMER: I only have 6 months experience with only one L71 car so I may have some of this wrong but this is mostly what I have learned.

Rich
edit p.s. After my further analysis of this car in pictures I would not consider it to be a true L71.
=====

[Michael H.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

My 67 L79 S/N 12706 has a trim tag date of H03 which is Friday March 3rd. NCRS data for the build date of my car is Monday March 6th.

Why would S/N 13282 have a trim tag of H01 as the serial number is 576 units after my car yet it has an earlier trim tag ? Is it because its a AO Smith car and mine is a STL body ?

Mike

[John H.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

My 67 L79 S/N 12706 has a trim tag date of H03 which is Friday March 3rd. NCRS data for the build date of my car is Monday March 6th.

Why would S/N 13282 have a trim tag of H01 as the serial number is 576 units after my car yet it has an earlier trim tag ? Is it because its a AO Smith car and mine is a STL body ?

Mike

Yes - it took a week to get to St. Louis.

My list of incorrect items is SOOO long - they couldn't even get the hood stripe right or the wipers installed correctly. It's a made-up car.

[Richard M.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

Yes - it took a week to get to St. Louis.

My list of incorrect items is SOOO long - they couldn't even get the hood stripe right or the wipers installed correctly. It's a made-up car.

I noticed the hood stripe is way off too(upper hood stripe too far in, front area too far out) but I totally missed the wipers. They would hit at the tips once they turn on, and likely hit again when parked and bend the heck out of each other. I just reinstalled the wipers on the 67 I did the other day myself. What's weird is the spec in the AIM for the PS is 2.00" from the w/s lower trim, and the DS is 3.92" from the trim. When I set it to that is was really strange looking, up high on the glass way too high. I took 1" off each spec and it looks better and doesn't hit anywhere.

I would also think because their price is way below what they say is "market", that they know what it is...........or should I say.........isn't. If as they say these cars sell for $150k-$225k regularly, why don't they ask "regular" price?

....and where is the photo of the vin tag?

Rich

[John H.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

I just reinstalled the wipers on the 67 I did the other day myself. What's weird is the spec in the AIM for the PS is 2.00" from the w/s lower trim, and the DS is 3.92" from the trim. When I set it to that is was really strange looking, up high on the glass way too high. I took 1" off each spec and it looks better and doesn't hit anywhere.

Rich -

The 3.92" dimension is from the end of the passenger side blade to the top of the rubber, and the 2.02" dimension is from the tip of the driver's side blade to the top of the rubber. The wipe pattern diagram is viewed as if you're standing in front of the car (see "driver side" and "passenger side" notations at the lower corners of the windshield).

[Mark K.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

John,

Did you happen to see the later model spring in the rear suspension?

I suspect that a well made up 67 435 could garner $100K, but not this one.

[Steven C.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

Jacob, perhaps I missed something, but how are you involved in this transaction?

[John H.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

John,

Did you happen to see the later model spring in the rear suspension?

Mark -

Yes - there's lots of hokey stuff on that car.

[Norris W.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

My good friend Mark, who's just re-joined NCRS and is looking hard for a legit 67 435 Conv. has gotten VERY knowledgeable on details with the help of NCRS literature and John Hinckley (who's E mail I think he's been burning up lately) It's amazing to me how many cars have been advertised in the last month with bogus everything from trim tags, to build sheets, and protecto plates, crazy lapses in casting number vs assembly dates, etc. There's one on E bay now from a dealer in Fla., a red conv. with black leather that the ads says receipts for 100K restoration. There are direct contradictions on the build sheet and trim tag making it impossible. It's really entertaining to look at some of the ads and pick all the bogus details. It'd make a great trivia game to harvest and sell on a website.

[Richard M.]

Re: Trying to prove to a dealer that a 67 BB is not original... help please

Rich -

The 3.92" dimension is from the end of the passenger side blade to the top of the rubber, and the 2.02" dimension is from the tip of the driver's side blade to the top of the rubber. The wipe pattern diagram is viewed as if you're standing in front of the car (see "driver side" and "passenger side" notations at the lower corners of the windshield).

John you're correct.....I got the DS/PS reversed in my post. I actually did it the way it is in the AIM, except not the dimensions they spec'd. It really did seem much too high. 1st picture shown where they're lower by an inch. Just seems more pleasing to the eye to me. I placed them even lower on our '63(2nd pic).