Ao smith 67 vs st louis 67 telltale signs

[Tony DiGiorgio]

Hello all, Someone was telling me that one sure way to tell a st louis body from a ao smith is that all stlouis bodies had a dimple in the fromt door jamb as a pilot hole. However, I called a very prominent restorer about this and he tells me that not all St louis bodies had this pilot hole. Can anyone one add to the story.... Thanks, Tony

[Roy S.]

Re: Ao smith 67 vs st louis 67 telltale signs

Tony,

I have never seen an original A.O Smith body with the dimple, the exception might be a heavily repaired body with the forward jam area replaced or a body modified to lok like a St. Louis body. Some St. Louis bodies may not have had the dimple, I guess that's possible. But I have never seen a documented A.O. Smith body with it. Best way is the Trim tag, unless it has been changed. The assembly rivets also differ in many areas between the two bodies.


Roy Sinor - National Judging Chairman

[Roy S.]

Re: Ao smith 67 vs st louis 67 telltale signs

Tony,

I have never seen an original A.O Smith body with the dimple, the exception might be a heavily repaired body with the forward jam area replaced or a body modified to lok like a St. Louis body. Some St. Louis bodies may not have had the dimple, I guess that's possible. But I have never seen a documented A.O. Smith body with it. Best way is the Trim tag, unless it has been changed. The assembly rivets also differ in many areas between the two bodies.


Roy Sinor - National Judging Chairman

[Tony DiGiorgio]

Re: Ao smith 67 vs st louis 67 telltale signs

Roy, My real issue is this. A fellow was telling me that tere is no way that someone would have an st louis body without evidence of this pilot hole dimple. In fact, he was telling me that at some regional judging event that his car was deemed incorrect because he did not have the dimple. So I am hoping that someone can give me the definitive answer to this question: Did all St Louis bodied 67's come with pilot hole dimples in the doorjamb? Thanks in advance.... Tony

[Tony DiGiorgio]

Re: Ao smith 67 vs st louis 67 telltale signs

Roy, My real issue is this. A fellow was telling me that tere is no way that someone would have an st louis body without evidence of this pilot hole dimple. In fact, he was telling me that at some regional judging event that his car was deemed incorrect because he did not have the dimple. So I am hoping that someone can give me the definitive answer to this question: Did all St Louis bodied 67's come with pilot hole dimples in the doorjamb? Thanks in advance.... Tony

[Wayne M.]

Re: '67 A vs. S-Bodies; telltale pilot dimples

Tony -- for the benefit of all, and to get responses to prove the hypothesis, here's a more precise locator, for those interested in checking their cars and reporting to this board.

Said dimple is slightly higher than midway between the door jamb lower bolt of the upper hinge, and the upper bolt of the lower hinge. Distance between bolt centers is 5.125", dimple center is 2.375" below upper bolt center, and offset to the inside of the car by 1/8" to 3/16" from a line between bolt centers. Whew ! Now, the probable purpose of this dimple was to locate the cutting tool for the elongated slot for the power window conduit attached to the door; so, don't expect to see this dimple on A31 cars.

Also, this feature could easily be (unwittingly) filled during body restoration -- heck, I've owned mid-years for over 30 years, and I'd never heard of these dimples before the previous discussions in this forum; checked both my '65 S-bodies and sure enough, there they are !

I always thought the issue is whether A-bodies had them, not if S-bodies did NOT have them. Remember, A.O.Smith began slowly to produce SOME of their own body panels, and this particular part may or may not have been an Ionia manufacture in the time frame of the '67 model year. If that was the case, either all A & S bodies should have them or none, in the same time frame.

Owners please report what you find, so we can put this issue to bed .

[Wayne M.]

Re: '67 A vs. S-Bodies; telltale pilot dimples

Tony -- for the benefit of all, and to get responses to prove the hypothesis, here's a more precise locator, for those interested in checking their cars and reporting to this board.

Said dimple is slightly higher than midway between the door jamb lower bolt of the upper hinge, and the upper bolt of the lower hinge. Distance between bolt centers is 5.125", dimple center is 2.375" below upper bolt center, and offset to the inside of the car by 1/8" to 3/16" from a line between bolt centers. Whew ! Now, the probable purpose of this dimple was to locate the cutting tool for the elongated slot for the power window conduit attached to the door; so, don't expect to see this dimple on A31 cars.

Also, this feature could easily be (unwittingly) filled during body restoration -- heck, I've owned mid-years for over 30 years, and I'd never heard of these dimples before the previous discussions in this forum; checked both my '65 S-bodies and sure enough, there they are !

I always thought the issue is whether A-bodies had them, not if S-bodies did NOT have them. Remember, A.O.Smith began slowly to produce SOME of their own body panels, and this particular part may or may not have been an Ionia manufacture in the time frame of the '67 model year. If that was the case, either all A & S bodies should have them or none, in the same time frame.

Owners please report what you find, so we can put this issue to bed .

[Patrick H.]

Re: Ao smith 67 vs st louis 67 telltale signs

Tony,

Methinks that if he was knocked off for this, an item that our Judging Chairman and former 67 chairman didn't even know about, then the JUDGE was the one at fault here for making such a blanket statement, whether true or not. This is especially true if the car was deemed "incorrect", or at least the body possible a fake (?).

Can't always believe what the judge says is "true" as you well know, but this would be an interesting factoid to learn the "truth" about, if there is one...

Patrick

[Patrick H.]

Re: Ao smith 67 vs st louis 67 telltale signs

Tony,

Methinks that if he was knocked off for this, an item that our Judging Chairman and former 67 chairman didn't even know about, then the JUDGE was the one at fault here for making such a blanket statement, whether true or not. This is especially true if the car was deemed "incorrect", or at least the body possible a fake (?).

Can't always believe what the judge says is "true" as you well know, but this would be an interesting factoid to learn the "truth" about, if there is one...

Patrick

[Gene M.]

Re: Ao smith 67 vs st louis 67 telltale signs

Tony,

Just to add to the posts all ready given. On coupe models the doors are quite different dimensionally. Example a St Louis door does not fit any where near correctly on an A O Smith body. Same is true reversed. Obvious over hang top and bottom. I can not speak about rag tops.

[Gene M.]

Re: Ao smith 67 vs st louis 67 telltale signs

Tony,

Just to add to the posts all ready given. On coupe models the doors are quite different dimensionally. Example a St Louis door does not fit any where near correctly on an A O Smith body. Same is true reversed. Obvious over hang top and bottom. I can not speak about rag tops.

[Patrick H.]

Tony & Roy: Sorry, a clarification

Tony,

I should have asked this:

Was his door jamb deemed incorrect, his entire body, or some combination thereof? Yes, it would be entirely correct to say that his door jamb was "not typical of factory production" for a St. Louis body if NO dimple existed, but when I answered the question after a long day at work yesterday, I inferred that his entire BODY was deemed wrong (i.e. St Louis vs AO Smith) by the judges. This probably isn't what you meant, nor what happened.

When Roy answered with a what seemed like a more definitive statement regarding AO Smith bodies than on St Louis bodies, I incorrectly assumed that there was not a consensus on his part regarding St Louis dimples, the original topic of your question. Sorry, Roy. I see now that you acknowledged St Louis dimples, but of course left room for the "not typical production" that MIGHT not have the dimples.

Thanks for the lesson.

Patrick

[Patrick H.]

Tony & Roy: Sorry, a clarification

Tony,

I should have asked this:

Was his door jamb deemed incorrect, his entire body, or some combination thereof? Yes, it would be entirely correct to say that his door jamb was "not typical of factory production" for a St. Louis body if NO dimple existed, but when I answered the question after a long day at work yesterday, I inferred that his entire BODY was deemed wrong (i.e. St Louis vs AO Smith) by the judges. This probably isn't what you meant, nor what happened.

When Roy answered with a what seemed like a more definitive statement regarding AO Smith bodies than on St Louis bodies, I incorrectly assumed that there was not a consensus on his part regarding St Louis dimples, the original topic of your question. Sorry, Roy. I see now that you acknowledged St Louis dimples, but of course left room for the "not typical production" that MIGHT not have the dimples.

Thanks for the lesson.

Patrick

[Lou Lapham]

Re: Ao smith 67 vs st louis 67 telltale signs

Okay gang i posed the question to a knowledgeable Corvette pal of mine at a show today and he mentioned a dimple or flaw in the bottom of hood surround water channel just in front of the driver side right under the wiper area.He said it had to do with a flaw in the mold used by A.O. Smith.Legend or fact?Regards,Lou

[Lou Lapham]

Re: Ao smith 67 vs st louis 67 telltale signs

Okay gang i posed the question to a knowledgeable Corvette pal of mine at a show today and he mentioned a dimple or flaw in the bottom of hood surround water channel just in front of the driver side right under the wiper area.He said it had to do with a flaw in the mold used by A.O. Smith.Legend or fact?Regards,Lou