Would anyone know the approximate VIN that the change over from p/n 3782609 to p/n 3859326 occured. All the judging guide states is that most engines carries the 326 and the early carried the 609. Thanks
-
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
Irby,
I don't believe any 63's ever used the 3859326. In fact, it's not likely that this number showed up any time before the beginning of the 65 model year. I think Bob Jorjorian would be a good source of information on this. Hope he see's this.
Michael -
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
Irby,
I can tell you serial #89xx 63 Coupe had a 609 pump (that was original to the car). I received that pump as a core in the seventies(and still own) while the car was being freshened up for sale.My opinion is that a 609 was used much later.Hope this helps,RobertComment
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
Irby,
I can tell you serial #89xx 63 Coupe had a 609 pump (that was original to the car). I received that pump as a core in the seventies(and still own) while the car was being freshened up for sale.My opinion is that a 609 was used much later.Hope this helps,RobertComment
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
If that's true, the club has been judging '63 and '64 solid lifter cars wrong for a LONG time!
Both of the castings refered to ('326 and '609) are tough items to find because in their finished Corvette form, the upper boss was drilled and tapped for a 1/2-inch NPT external bypass adaptor. The same generic castings were used in other applications (usually truck) but secondary operations on the raw housing casting widened the bypass hole on the upper boss to 3/4-inch NPT....
The reason the text of the Judging Guide is 'vague' regarding the changeover point in 1963, is because an exact date is NOT known. The water pump was installed on the engine during engine assy (Flint) vs. at the final vehicle assy point (St. Louis). The two different casting numbers are functional substitutes for one another and there is believed to be an overlap based on inventory on-hand.
In my limited experience, the '609 pump was a hold-over from '61-62 production and supplies were probably pretty well depleted within the first few months of '63 production. But, that's not to say it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a Dec-Jan built car with the earlier waterpump on it from the factory....Comment
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
If that's true, the club has been judging '63 and '64 solid lifter cars wrong for a LONG time!
Both of the castings refered to ('326 and '609) are tough items to find because in their finished Corvette form, the upper boss was drilled and tapped for a 1/2-inch NPT external bypass adaptor. The same generic castings were used in other applications (usually truck) but secondary operations on the raw housing casting widened the bypass hole on the upper boss to 3/4-inch NPT....
The reason the text of the Judging Guide is 'vague' regarding the changeover point in 1963, is because an exact date is NOT known. The water pump was installed on the engine during engine assy (Flint) vs. at the final vehicle assy point (St. Louis). The two different casting numbers are functional substitutes for one another and there is believed to be an overlap based on inventory on-hand.
In my limited experience, the '609 pump was a hold-over from '61-62 production and supplies were probably pretty well depleted within the first few months of '63 production. But, that's not to say it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a Dec-Jan built car with the earlier waterpump on it from the factory....Comment
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
Jack,
I agree, the 609 was definitely used through 62 and into the 63 model year but I don't agree that the 3859326 was ever installed on anything earlier than late 64, or more likely, early 65. I can look up all the numbers by casting number and provide info on the final print and release for production and service. I also have a rather extensive collection of documents going back into the early 70's of casting numbers for all 63-67 cars and I've never seen the 326 on any 63 or 64 cars. If the JG claims the 326 is correct for any 63, it's wrong. I wish I knew where all this info in the JG was coming from. Hope it's not on the actual judging sheets.
MichaelComment
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
Jack,
I agree, the 609 was definitely used through 62 and into the 63 model year but I don't agree that the 3859326 was ever installed on anything earlier than late 64, or more likely, early 65. I can look up all the numbers by casting number and provide info on the final print and release for production and service. I also have a rather extensive collection of documents going back into the early 70's of casting numbers for all 63-67 cars and I've never seen the 326 on any 63 or 64 cars. If the JG claims the 326 is correct for any 63, it's wrong. I wish I knew where all this info in the JG was coming from. Hope it's not on the actual judging sheets.
MichaelComment
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
Irby-----
I don't think that the 3859326 casting could have been used before later 1965, if it was used, at all, for the 1965 model year. As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely no doubt about this. I've seen the contention from several sources that the 3859326 was used as early as the 1963 model year, but I really don't think that would be possible.
That means that a 1963 Corvette with aluminum intake manifold would have to have used either the 3782609 or the 3839175. The 3839175 could only have been used on later 1963 cars, but I can't tell you when it came into actual PRODUCTION use.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
Irby-----
I don't think that the 3859326 casting could have been used before later 1965, if it was used, at all, for the 1965 model year. As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely no doubt about this. I've seen the contention from several sources that the 3859326 was used as early as the 1963 model year, but I really don't think that would be possible.
That means that a 1963 Corvette with aluminum intake manifold would have to have used either the 3782609 or the 3839175. The 3839175 could only have been used on later 1963 cars, but I can't tell you when it came into actual PRODUCTION use.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
Michael,
I've seen quite a few original 63 cars with original water pumps but never a #326 on an original 1963. My opinion would be pump #3839175 makes more sense as the sucessor to a 609 because the part number is more in line with the 1963 part number sequence.Is the #175 pump recognized as 63 original?
With so few original 63 cars still having the original pump I doubt this will ever be resolved.Paper work usually does not provide answers like real cars do.
See you in O-Town,RobertComment
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
Michael,
I've seen quite a few original 63 cars with original water pumps but never a #326 on an original 1963. My opinion would be pump #3839175 makes more sense as the sucessor to a 609 because the part number is more in line with the 1963 part number sequence.Is the #175 pump recognized as 63 original?
With so few original 63 cars still having the original pump I doubt this will ever be resolved.Paper work usually does not provide answers like real cars do.
See you in O-Town,RobertComment
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
Robert,
I agree. I believe the 3839175 would have been the replacement for the 609 to complete the 63 model year and into 64. I feel the 3859326 probably didn't make it into actual production until some time in October or November of 64 for the 65 model year. Where does this incorrect information come from?
MichaelComment
-
Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over
Robert,
I agree. I believe the 3839175 would have been the replacement for the 609 to complete the 63 model year and into 64. I feel the 3859326 probably didn't make it into actual production until some time in October or November of 64 for the 65 model year. Where does this incorrect information come from?
MichaelComment
-
Augusta probably *NM*
Comment
Comment