65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

[Lief L.]

Folks
I ordered a frame stencil from one of our favorite suppliers. I was confused when it arrived. The question is...is it correct for an early February 65 car? I did not expect the dot instead of a dash and I'm not sure what the date of 12-31-64 is there for. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Lief

[Stephen L.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

12-31-64 is the date the stencil was applied at the frame factory (date code). Nearly everything carries a date code on the various parts used to assemble a Corvette. This assisted in helping use stock on a first in first out basis. Obviously, the stencil had to be punched on a daily basis to keep the manu date correct, so sometimes the date was not included in the stencil, but was written on by a worker. This way a new stencil wasn't needed every day. Quanta "allowed" a month for shipping etc. from the frame manu to the actual day the frame was used on the assy line, which, in your case was early Feb 65....

[Jim D.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

These are from my 65 coupe built April 65. Definitely has a dash and the date is written by hand. I found the info. that Quanta supplied with their kit was wrong in more cases than it was right.

[Michael H.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

These are from my 65 coupe built April 65. Definitely has a dash and the date is written by hand. I found the info. that Quanta supplied with their kit was wrong in more cases than it was right.

I agree. The hand written date continued into part of the 66 model year.

[Lief L.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

So if I understand correctly, the dot should be a dash and the date 12-31-64 should not be applied( I don't think it would fit anyway)
Thanks for responding
Lief

[Rob M.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Lief,

Have you checked out Gary Beaupre's article in the most current Restorer? Although his focus is on the '66 frame stencils, I would guess that it would be of interest to you and your project.

According to Gary's research it appears that both the dash and the dot delimiters were used on many original stencils. I would think yours would okay to use. Also, the research would indicate that the date would most likely be hand written for your car.

Might be worth checking out.

[Lief L.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Thanks Rob...I saw the article but have not read it yet
I'll check it out
Thanks
Lief

[Michael G.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Thanks Rob...I saw the article but have not read it yet
I'll check it out
Thanks
Lief

Lief,

I'm not saying Quanta's templete is incorrect however havn't seen this information taking 3 lines. Does not apprear typical production....dot included. The considered "norm" is two lines with stenciled date.....or a hand written date at this particular timeline. My early '66 was manufactured in late Sept. '65 and incorporated a hand written frame date. Pardon my dog 'Hammer', he's a picture Hog.

[Lief L.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Thanks Mike
Not that I'm an expert by any means but all that I've read and seen tells me the stencil is not quite right for a 65.
And as far as Hammer goes, we all need our furry little helpers
I have a few also
Lief

[Rob M.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Lief,

Agree, not typical of what is usually seen. However, the dot may have been normal. Also, Mike is correct in that the stencil was only two lines. The date, if were stenciled, would have been just to the right of the GM part number.

One last detail that I noticed was that your stencil from Quanta had the GM part no. as 3864676 which according to Trippoli's book would be for a '64 .... I don't know if that is a calendar year or model year change. He has it as 3861317 for '65.

Good luck

[Michael H.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

One last detail that I noticed was that your stencil from Quanta had the GM part no. as 3864676 which according to Trippoli's book would be for a '64 .... I don't know if that is a calendar year or model year change. He has it as 3861317 for '65.

Good luck

Did the 65 frame part number change in early 65 from 3864676 to 3871317?

If the 3864676 was used for later 64 and early 65, then it must have changed due to several changes in the frame for the soon to come 396 engine.

[Lief L.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Rob
I have been using book by Tripoli as a source of information, which is one of the reason I've questioned the stencil's information.
thanks for the input.
Lief

[Mike E.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Here is a picture of the stencil I got from LIC for my late January built '65. From what I'm reading here it sounds like it's correct?


Mike

[Lief L.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Thanks Mike
I'm still confused though ......LIC says the part # is 3871317 (supposedly typical for a 65) and for a frame a few weeks later (my car) Quanta says it has a part# of 3864676 (supposedly typical for a 64 frame). Does anyone know if the frame part number is for the model year or the calendar year?
thanks
Lief

[Michael H.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Thanks Mike
I'm still confused though ......LIC says the part # is 3871317 (supposedly typical for a 65) and for a frame a few weeks later (my car) Quanta says it has a part# of 3864676 (supposedly typical for a 64 frame). Does anyone know if the frame part number is for the model year or the calendar year?
thanks
Lief

Lief,

I don't have the 64 or 65 AIM's here but I'm pretty sure the 3864676 frame was a mid production part for the 64 model year. It probably carried over to the early/start of production 65 model year. (not calendar year)
Parts and part numbers do often change during a model year if a change is made on the part design.

I think the 3864676 was changed in very early 65 model year to include the changes required for the new 65 and 396 engine.

If someone has a 64 and 65 AIM handy, we can verify these numbers and times of change. The revision record at the bottom of the 65 AIM sheet would show that the 3864676 was replaced by the 3871317.
Remember though that the date of revision on the sheet is generally not the actual date that the change occurred in production.

I know for sure that the original frame part number/stencil on my old 396 car was 3871317. The same car that Dave Burroughs restored and did the book "Corvette Restoration, State of the Art". That car is #14,971, I think. One of the 1st 396 cars.