'63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

[Robert Jorjorian]

Augusta probably *NM*

[Rick A.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

So, if as Michael, Robert, and Joe are correct - how and why has the 1963 Judging Guide been allowed to be wrong for who knows how many years!? This is what is JUDGED when our 1963's are judged at NCRS shows! So what are we supposed to do!?

FYI - They look for the "326" pump and the JG says this is what should be on the 1963 and 1964 without any date stamp, which didn't occur in 1965. The JG says the "609" was used on early 1963, with no VIN changeover indicated.

[Rick A.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

So, if as Michael, Robert, and Joe are correct - how and why has the 1963 Judging Guide been allowed to be wrong for who knows how many years!? This is what is JUDGED when our 1963's are judged at NCRS shows! So what are we supposed to do!?

FYI - They look for the "326" pump and the JG says this is what should be on the 1963 and 1964 without any date stamp, which didn't occur in 1965. The JG says the "609" was used on early 1963, with no VIN changeover indicated.

[Robert Jorjorian]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick
In my opinion its wrong for any person to be a national judging team leader for more than a few years. When someone stays in that position for a long period of time like the current system allows it seems to give one individual the ability to change manuals and judging to suit their idea of what is right.
My 2 cents,Robert NCRS#1619

[Robert Jorjorian]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick
In my opinion its wrong for any person to be a national judging team leader for more than a few years. When someone stays in that position for a long period of time like the current system allows it seems to give one individual the ability to change manuals and judging to suit their idea of what is right.
My 2 cents,Robert NCRS#1619

[Rick A.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Bob,

thanks for the quick response - now, I think I know why when I was restoring the Z06, why the "326" was so damned hard to mount! You wouldn't believe all of the work Tony and I went through! - the Z06 had a 1967 water pump on it when I bought it - so, do you know if anyone would have the one you and Joe reference - can't remember the number!

[Rick A.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Bob,

thanks for the quick response - now, I think I know why when I was restoring the Z06, why the "326" was so damned hard to mount! You wouldn't believe all of the work Tony and I went through! - the Z06 had a 1967 water pump on it when I bought it - so, do you know if anyone would have the one you and Joe reference - can't remember the number!

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick-----

I can't speak to that. However, I'm virtually certain that I'm correct that the GM casting #3859326 did not and could not have appeared until late 1965, at the earliest. ONE of the reasons that I say this is that the ORIGINAL GM drawing (NOT a later revision) for the castings is dated 5/13/65. So, it's hard to see how an actual part could have been made and "on the street" more than 2 years before it was designed and drawn. There are other corroborating reasons for my opinion but I'm not going to get into them here; this one, all by itself, is quite compelling.

I would say with a great degree of certainty than ANY 1963, 1964, and, most likely, any 1965 with a 3859326 casting waterpump is incorrect. It is POSSIBLE that some very late 1965's received the 3859326 pump. However, viewed in the context of the above date, I think that it's highly unlikely, if not beyond the realm of possibility, altogether.

I think that the 3782609 was likely used for most, if not all, 1963 Corvettes with aluminum intake manifold. Very late, may have received the 3839175.

For 1964, I think that either the 3782609 or the 3839175 was used with, very likely, the 3782609 predominating.

For 1965, I think it was the same as 1964 except that VERY late MAY have received the 3959326 pump.

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick-----

I can't speak to that. However, I'm virtually certain that I'm correct that the GM casting #3859326 did not and could not have appeared until late 1965, at the earliest. ONE of the reasons that I say this is that the ORIGINAL GM drawing (NOT a later revision) for the castings is dated 5/13/65. So, it's hard to see how an actual part could have been made and "on the street" more than 2 years before it was designed and drawn. There are other corroborating reasons for my opinion but I'm not going to get into them here; this one, all by itself, is quite compelling.

I would say with a great degree of certainty than ANY 1963, 1964, and, most likely, any 1965 with a 3859326 casting waterpump is incorrect. It is POSSIBLE that some very late 1965's received the 3859326 pump. However, viewed in the context of the above date, I think that it's highly unlikely, if not beyond the realm of possibility, altogether.

I think that the 3782609 was likely used for most, if not all, 1963 Corvettes with aluminum intake manifold. Very late, may have received the 3839175.

For 1964, I think that either the 3782609 or the 3839175 was used with, very likely, the 3782609 predominating.

For 1965, I think it was the same as 1964 except that VERY late MAY have received the 3959326 pump.

[Robert Jorjorian]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick
They should be priced very attractive because they are not desireable in restorations. Try the big name pump rebuilders .....they'll probably be glad to unload one of those dust collectors off their shelf.
Good Luck,Bob

[Robert Jorjorian]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick
They should be priced very attractive because they are not desireable in restorations. Try the big name pump rebuilders .....they'll probably be glad to unload one of those dust collectors off their shelf.
Good Luck,Bob

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick-----

Although I believe that the 3859326 is incorrect for any 1963 Corvette, Z-06 or otherwise, I don't see why it would be harder to install on the engine than either the 3782609 or the 3839175. Functionally (and, even, physically) these pumps are virtually identical. The casting number is the primary difference between them in terms of observable appearance. The size of the upper boss on the 3859326 pump might be a little larger than the earlier but I don't see how this would cause any fitment problem for a 1963, at all.

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Rick-----

Although I believe that the 3859326 is incorrect for any 1963 Corvette, Z-06 or otherwise, I don't see why it would be harder to install on the engine than either the 3782609 or the 3839175. Functionally (and, even, physically) these pumps are virtually identical. The casting number is the primary difference between them in terms of observable appearance. The size of the upper boss on the 3859326 pump might be a little larger than the earlier but I don't see how this would cause any fitment problem for a 1963, at all.

[Michael H.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Thanks Joe. You beat me to the original print but I knew it had to be released some time around early 65. I can usually tell within a few months when a part was released just from it's numerical value.

Now, if we can just get the JG changed. That's a lot more difficult than finding the correct answer.

Michael

[Michael H.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Thanks Joe. You beat me to the original print but I knew it had to be released some time around early 65. I can usually tell within a few months when a part was released just from it's numerical value.

Now, if we can just get the JG changed. That's a lot more difficult than finding the correct answer.

Michael