'63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

[Michael H.]

How To Judge This Weekend

Jack,

Yes, absolutely true. The problem now is, how to correctly judge the cars this weekend. This puts the system in a bit of a bind but I don't know exactly what to do about it. If a car has the recommended 326 pump, it would be difficult to deduct points because that's what's in the JG. On the other hand, if a car has what is actually the correct pump, it would also be wrong to deduct because it actually is correct.

I wonder if it would be possible to not deduct points for any of the three numbers listed in this discussion but just advise the owner that the 326, and the manual, are incorrect. i can't think of any other logical way to temporarily correct this. Any thoughts on this? Thanks,

Michael

[Michael H.]

How To Judge This Weekend

Jack,

Yes, absolutely true. The problem now is, how to correctly judge the cars this weekend. This puts the system in a bit of a bind but I don't know exactly what to do about it. If a car has the recommended 326 pump, it would be difficult to deduct points because that's what's in the JG. On the other hand, if a car has what is actually the correct pump, it would also be wrong to deduct because it actually is correct.

I wonder if it would be possible to not deduct points for any of the three numbers listed in this discussion but just advise the owner that the 326, and the manual, are incorrect. i can't think of any other logical way to temporarily correct this. Any thoughts on this? Thanks,

Michael

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

michael-----

The "numerical sequence relationship" for part numbers does provide a fairly accurate "clue" as to when the part was issued. However, there are notable exceptions. Some of the more prominent of these are the late 1953 through 1955 6 cylinder block castings and the 53-55 6 cylinder head castings. There are others, too; these are, by no means, unique in that respect. In other cases, the out-of-sequence is not as dramatic as is the case with the above-referenced. It's those cases in which one can be fooled using the "numerical sequence relationship".

As far as the Judging Guides go, this problem with the small block, external bypass waterpumps seems to "infect" at least one other besides the 1963 edition. The 1965 JG says that all 1965s with L-79, L-76, and L-84 (i.e. those engines with aluminum intake and external bypass) used the 3859326 waterpump casting. I don't know what the 64 JG says, though.

Unless there's something VERY, VERY strange about this 3859326 casting situation, I don't see how very many, if any, 1965s could have used it.

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

michael-----

The "numerical sequence relationship" for part numbers does provide a fairly accurate "clue" as to when the part was issued. However, there are notable exceptions. Some of the more prominent of these are the late 1953 through 1955 6 cylinder block castings and the 53-55 6 cylinder head castings. There are others, too; these are, by no means, unique in that respect. In other cases, the out-of-sequence is not as dramatic as is the case with the above-referenced. It's those cases in which one can be fooled using the "numerical sequence relationship".

As far as the Judging Guides go, this problem with the small block, external bypass waterpumps seems to "infect" at least one other besides the 1963 edition. The 1965 JG says that all 1965s with L-79, L-76, and L-84 (i.e. those engines with aluminum intake and external bypass) used the 3859326 waterpump casting. I don't know what the 64 JG says, though.

Unless there's something VERY, VERY strange about this 3859326 casting situation, I don't see how very many, if any, 1965s could have used it.

[Jack H.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

There is no '64 JG, Joe. There's one JG book that covers both '63 and '64 model years and the National Team Leader is Carlton Colclough, appointed to the position by Roy Sinor. The book has said the '326 is 'correct' for most late '63 cars and all '64 cars for quite some time.... And the NTL (and his JG team) have extensive experience with Bowtie car examinations.

Does this make them 100% correct and/or infalliable? No.

But, the way to change the system is to work through the system (input letters and defense of alternative position(s) to the NTL as well as to the National Judging Chairman) and create a ground swell. I don't say what's 'right'. I merely quote what the current judging text reads (don't kill the messenger) and differences of opinion OFTEN result in ruling change(s) based upon reconsideration.

HOWEVER, the current thinking at NCRS is what's been stated. The '609 pump made a transition to the '326 pump in the '63 model year era with early (exact time VIN = undefined).

Out this way there are, maybe, four '63 cars in stages of full restoration, driver, partial restoration. They group tightly in the Feb to May of '63 build time frame. One has a '609 water pump while the other three have '326 pumps on 'em. Owners all 'think' the pumps on their engines are correct/original, but who's to really say....

That's the guts of the issue. What is REALLY right and what is hearsay? Right now the judging rules are vague regarding cross over and all four of these owners are 'correct'.... Trying to tie things down closer may well be an exercise in driving a nail into your shoes and watching you try to walk around!

Many who are novice to the restoration/preservation process DEMAND crisp/clear answers to each/every question. They often refuse to accept the honest to God truth that that there are grey areas where we know we don't know and those at the helm write the judging guidelines to match the degree of certainty!

Certainly, some Divisions of Corvette (e.g. early Shark) take a departure from other areas by PROHIBITING judges from attempting to verify casting number/casting date on water pumps. But, that's NOT the case here. The early mid-year JG books make no similar prohibition, so the final decision authority is left to those who actually judge a given car on a given day....

If they REALLY want to perform 'acrobatics' with a flashlight and inspector's mirror, then the current text of the '63-64 JG allows them the 'license'. It's a literal nightmare to attempt to verify casting number + casting date on a waterpump housing with the pump installed on an engine + the pulley & belts in place, so I think the prohibition made by Shark era JG books is wise....

BUT, the practice of casting date coding came along during the mid-year era and being able to detect the gross presense/absense of a date code on a water pump housing is somewhat less daunting. Perhaps that's one of the reasons for the differences in rules regarding Corvette judging based on modely year...I know I don't know!

Seems to me like there OUGHT to be more standardization in judging practices across Corvette divisions/model years, but, hey, that's not my judgment call to make!

Obviously, there are others who've contributed to this thread who have views and they SHOULD make their views known. BUT, the way this is done presently is through channels. And those channels are: (1) to/through the existing NTL, and (2) to/through the National Judging Chair if statisfaction is NOT received from the NTL....

[Jack H.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

There is no '64 JG, Joe. There's one JG book that covers both '63 and '64 model years and the National Team Leader is Carlton Colclough, appointed to the position by Roy Sinor. The book has said the '326 is 'correct' for most late '63 cars and all '64 cars for quite some time.... And the NTL (and his JG team) have extensive experience with Bowtie car examinations.

Does this make them 100% correct and/or infalliable? No.

But, the way to change the system is to work through the system (input letters and defense of alternative position(s) to the NTL as well as to the National Judging Chairman) and create a ground swell. I don't say what's 'right'. I merely quote what the current judging text reads (don't kill the messenger) and differences of opinion OFTEN result in ruling change(s) based upon reconsideration.

HOWEVER, the current thinking at NCRS is what's been stated. The '609 pump made a transition to the '326 pump in the '63 model year era with early (exact time VIN = undefined).

Out this way there are, maybe, four '63 cars in stages of full restoration, driver, partial restoration. They group tightly in the Feb to May of '63 build time frame. One has a '609 water pump while the other three have '326 pumps on 'em. Owners all 'think' the pumps on their engines are correct/original, but who's to really say....

That's the guts of the issue. What is REALLY right and what is hearsay? Right now the judging rules are vague regarding cross over and all four of these owners are 'correct'.... Trying to tie things down closer may well be an exercise in driving a nail into your shoes and watching you try to walk around!

Many who are novice to the restoration/preservation process DEMAND crisp/clear answers to each/every question. They often refuse to accept the honest to God truth that that there are grey areas where we know we don't know and those at the helm write the judging guidelines to match the degree of certainty!

Certainly, some Divisions of Corvette (e.g. early Shark) take a departure from other areas by PROHIBITING judges from attempting to verify casting number/casting date on water pumps. But, that's NOT the case here. The early mid-year JG books make no similar prohibition, so the final decision authority is left to those who actually judge a given car on a given day....

If they REALLY want to perform 'acrobatics' with a flashlight and inspector's mirror, then the current text of the '63-64 JG allows them the 'license'. It's a literal nightmare to attempt to verify casting number + casting date on a waterpump housing with the pump installed on an engine + the pulley & belts in place, so I think the prohibition made by Shark era JG books is wise....

BUT, the practice of casting date coding came along during the mid-year era and being able to detect the gross presense/absense of a date code on a water pump housing is somewhat less daunting. Perhaps that's one of the reasons for the differences in rules regarding Corvette judging based on modely year...I know I don't know!

Seems to me like there OUGHT to be more standardization in judging practices across Corvette divisions/model years, but, hey, that's not my judgment call to make!

Obviously, there are others who've contributed to this thread who have views and they SHOULD make their views known. BUT, the way this is done presently is through channels. And those channels are: (1) to/through the existing NTL, and (2) to/through the National Judging Chair if statisfaction is NOT received from the NTL....

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Jack-----

Tell me, how could a part that has a date of original blueprint of 5/13/65 possibly have been used on a 1963 or 64 Corvette, especially when that date is completely consistent with the part number's "numerical sequence"? There are many "exceptions" to rules. However, there is NO exception to the rule that a part could not have been originally used on a car if that part didn't exist when the car was built.

Besides all of this, why would GM have needed a THIRD casting for the external bypass waterpump during 63-64? We know, for sure, that they had the 3782609 and the 3839175 during this period. The external bypass waterpump was used only for SHP Corvette (and, a few other SHP applications) as well as some MD and HD truck applications. For internal bypass small block applications which probably accounted for about 95+% of the small block engines during 63-64, a single waterpump casting, GM #3782608, sufficed. But, they needed THREE different castings for the external bypass pumps?

If there are a lot of folks who think that they've found original '326' pumps on 63, 64, and, even 65 SHP small block Corvettes, then I say that they've been fooled into thinking so. Dating on the '326' pump reportedly began ABOUT 11/65. So, if that's correct and if I'm correct about the first use of the '326' pump, there should be a VERY small number of undated '326' pumps out there. I wonder how many of these 63-65 cars with "original" 3859326 pumps have pumps which are UNQUESTIONABLY unmolested with respect to "ground off" dates?

As far as the "process" for notification of others through "channels", that's fine. However, I have no personal interest in the issue at hand here so I'll have to leave that to others who do. I'm simply acting as "amicus curiae"

[Joe L.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Jack-----

Tell me, how could a part that has a date of original blueprint of 5/13/65 possibly have been used on a 1963 or 64 Corvette, especially when that date is completely consistent with the part number's "numerical sequence"? There are many "exceptions" to rules. However, there is NO exception to the rule that a part could not have been originally used on a car if that part didn't exist when the car was built.

Besides all of this, why would GM have needed a THIRD casting for the external bypass waterpump during 63-64? We know, for sure, that they had the 3782609 and the 3839175 during this period. The external bypass waterpump was used only for SHP Corvette (and, a few other SHP applications) as well as some MD and HD truck applications. For internal bypass small block applications which probably accounted for about 95+% of the small block engines during 63-64, a single waterpump casting, GM #3782608, sufficed. But, they needed THREE different castings for the external bypass pumps?

If there are a lot of folks who think that they've found original '326' pumps on 63, 64, and, even 65 SHP small block Corvettes, then I say that they've been fooled into thinking so. Dating on the '326' pump reportedly began ABOUT 11/65. So, if that's correct and if I'm correct about the first use of the '326' pump, there should be a VERY small number of undated '326' pumps out there. I wonder how many of these 63-65 cars with "original" 3859326 pumps have pumps which are UNQUESTIONABLY unmolested with respect to "ground off" dates?

As far as the "process" for notification of others through "channels", that's fine. However, I have no personal interest in the issue at hand here so I'll have to leave that to others who do. I'm simply acting as "amicus curiae"

[Michael H.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Jack,

I know the system and I understand the system. But the system is exactly what the problem is on this. You and I have discussed this before and my feelings have not changed. Something needs to be done and it needs to be done quickly before more original cars are changed to meet the incorrect requirements of the JG. This organization is supposed to be preserving original cars but with incorrect information in the manual that everyone uses to prepare their cars for show, originality doesn't stand a chance, especially in the 63-64 division. I know several people that have tried to contact Carlton and discuss these items but this has never been successful. It becomes easier to just restore your car to align with the JG instead of trying to correct the things that are wrong. This is not what NCRS is supposed to be all about.

This weekend, there will be many 63-64 cars for judging, some with their ORIGINAL 3782609 or 3839175 water pumps. Are we going to tell the owners with the 175 pumps that it's incorrect and they must conform to the JG by installing a 3859326, a totally incorrect unit? (I don't care what the JG or Carlton has to say about this. It's incorrect) The owner is going to take the car home and replace the original pump because of an error in the JG. The same manual that's written by the most respected Corvette organization in the world. I think a lot of people forget the power that they have when making a decision on these issues.

I admire your loyalty to the organization by standing up for it's inner circle of people but I also feel this is one of the major problems. I'm loyal to NCRS also but in a different way. I'm more concerned with what's right for the members AND the cars. I refuse to sacrafice original cars because I don't want to ruffle any feathers. If that's what it takes, then so be it. If Carlton isn't willing to interact with the members, replace him! No one person knows it all. I'm a good example of that. I've been around these cars almost continuously for over 40 years and I sure don't know it all. How can one person even consider himself so knowledgeable that he doesn't need any input from members.

This thing about writing letters and trying to correct the manual over time is probably the easiest thing to do but how many original cars are sacrificed in the meantime. What's going to happen this weekend? Wouldn't it be easier to just have a short meeting with the 63-64 judges and explain the current problem with the water pump numbers in the JG? I hope a lot of 63-64 owners read all of this and think twice about removing that original 175 pump if a deduction is taken during judging.

I can't absolutely prove that the 326 pump was never used on 63 but with all of the data that I've collected in the last 40 years and all of the totally unrestored cars that I've inspected or owned, I think I can safely say that it just never happened. To back that up, Joe Lucia's post showing the date of the original drawing surely tells us something, wouldn't you agree? Looking at four cars in your area that are now 40 years old and have been through several water pumps over the years just isn't solid documentation as far as I'm concerned.

I hope this discussion continues and owners get involved because I don't want this to die a slow death like the fuel injection air cleaner "S" tube paint color discussion. I'm tired of watching original cars go through non correct changes because someone told the owner something was incorrect. Lets get this sorted out before we trash another original.

Regards,

Michael

[Michael H.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

Jack,

I know the system and I understand the system. But the system is exactly what the problem is on this. You and I have discussed this before and my feelings have not changed. Something needs to be done and it needs to be done quickly before more original cars are changed to meet the incorrect requirements of the JG. This organization is supposed to be preserving original cars but with incorrect information in the manual that everyone uses to prepare their cars for show, originality doesn't stand a chance, especially in the 63-64 division. I know several people that have tried to contact Carlton and discuss these items but this has never been successful. It becomes easier to just restore your car to align with the JG instead of trying to correct the things that are wrong. This is not what NCRS is supposed to be all about.

This weekend, there will be many 63-64 cars for judging, some with their ORIGINAL 3782609 or 3839175 water pumps. Are we going to tell the owners with the 175 pumps that it's incorrect and they must conform to the JG by installing a 3859326, a totally incorrect unit? (I don't care what the JG or Carlton has to say about this. It's incorrect) The owner is going to take the car home and replace the original pump because of an error in the JG. The same manual that's written by the most respected Corvette organization in the world. I think a lot of people forget the power that they have when making a decision on these issues.

I admire your loyalty to the organization by standing up for it's inner circle of people but I also feel this is one of the major problems. I'm loyal to NCRS also but in a different way. I'm more concerned with what's right for the members AND the cars. I refuse to sacrafice original cars because I don't want to ruffle any feathers. If that's what it takes, then so be it. If Carlton isn't willing to interact with the members, replace him! No one person knows it all. I'm a good example of that. I've been around these cars almost continuously for over 40 years and I sure don't know it all. How can one person even consider himself so knowledgeable that he doesn't need any input from members.

This thing about writing letters and trying to correct the manual over time is probably the easiest thing to do but how many original cars are sacrificed in the meantime. What's going to happen this weekend? Wouldn't it be easier to just have a short meeting with the 63-64 judges and explain the current problem with the water pump numbers in the JG? I hope a lot of 63-64 owners read all of this and think twice about removing that original 175 pump if a deduction is taken during judging.

I can't absolutely prove that the 326 pump was never used on 63 but with all of the data that I've collected in the last 40 years and all of the totally unrestored cars that I've inspected or owned, I think I can safely say that it just never happened. To back that up, Joe Lucia's post showing the date of the original drawing surely tells us something, wouldn't you agree? Looking at four cars in your area that are now 40 years old and have been through several water pumps over the years just isn't solid documentation as far as I'm concerned.

I hope this discussion continues and owners get involved because I don't want this to die a slow death like the fuel injection air cleaner "S" tube paint color discussion. I'm tired of watching original cars go through non correct changes because someone told the owner something was incorrect. Lets get this sorted out before we trash another original.

Regards,

Michael

[Irby G.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

All,
Thanks for your help. I currently have an incorrect model right now and I was about to purchase the 326 from eBay. Out of curiousity, I did a search on 3839175 and I hit on this link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...spagename=WDVW

In the bid they also show a picture I presume is off the box showing applicable usage and it states "This water pump was used randomly on late 1963 and 1964 Corvette high performance engines. The reason for this is unknown and still being researched. No Dates"
'No Dates' I would guess means no casting dates, but this one has July 1, 1964. At any rate, I guess now I'll begin searching for the '609'. Thanks for all your help.

[Irby G.]

Re: '63E Water Pump Part Number Change Over

All,
Thanks for your help. I currently have an incorrect model right now and I was about to purchase the 326 from eBay. Out of curiousity, I did a search on 3839175 and I hit on this link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...spagename=WDVW

In the bid they also show a picture I presume is off the box showing applicable usage and it states "This water pump was used randomly on late 1963 and 1964 Corvette high performance engines. The reason for this is unknown and still being researched. No Dates"
'No Dates' I would guess means no casting dates, but this one has July 1, 1964. At any rate, I guess now I'll begin searching for the '609'. Thanks for all your help.

[Joe L.]

Addendum

One other thing: the 3782609 is a very difficult casting to locate. For the most part, it was only used on 61-65 SHP Corvettes and some MD and HD truck applications of that same period. This casting is probably the second most difficult of all Corvette waterpump castings EVER made to obtain.

The 3839175 is even more difficult to locate and is probably the most rare of all Corvette waterpump castings. It was used ONLY on SHP Corvettes during the 63-65 period.

So, considering the above, the 3859326 is INFINITELY easier to obtain. The 3859326 was not only used on 66-67 SHP applications, it was also used on many MD and HD trucks through 1970. What's more, it was the primary casting used for ALL GM 55-68 small block SERVICE waterpumps for years. It was produced into the 90s. It's true that many of the '326' castings were drilled and tapped for 3/4" NPT bypass fitting and the vast majority of '326' castings are dated. However, neither of these would present much of a problem for a modestly adept restorer-----bushing the bypass fitting and carefully grinding off the dates in an indiscernable manner are really not all that hard considering that the waterpump is PAINTED. I guarantee you that if I wished to do so, I could do this quite easily and I would defy anyone to tell the difference. Of course, don't get me wrong; personally, I don't think that there's anything improper about doing this sort of thing. It's just part of the effort to create an original configuration. Restoration in my mind is just that: using whatever means available to restore the original configuration of something. If the original configuration is a '326' pump with no dates and a 1/2" NPT bypass fitting, however you get to that end is restoration.

In this case, though, I don't think that the '326' pump is the original pump used for 63-65 models. Creating through restoration methods a 3782609 or 3839175 waterpump casting is a LOT more difficult to do than creating an undated, 1/2" NPT bypass fitting 3859326 pump casting. So, if folks accept the 3859326 casting for late 1963 through 1965 SHP small block applications, then that makes the 63-65 SHP small block restorer's efforts much easier (and, cheaper).

[Joe L.]

Addendum

One other thing: the 3782609 is a very difficult casting to locate. For the most part, it was only used on 61-65 SHP Corvettes and some MD and HD truck applications of that same period. This casting is probably the second most difficult of all Corvette waterpump castings EVER made to obtain.

The 3839175 is even more difficult to locate and is probably the most rare of all Corvette waterpump castings. It was used ONLY on SHP Corvettes during the 63-65 period.

So, considering the above, the 3859326 is INFINITELY easier to obtain. The 3859326 was not only used on 66-67 SHP applications, it was also used on many MD and HD trucks through 1970. What's more, it was the primary casting used for ALL GM 55-68 small block SERVICE waterpumps for years. It was produced into the 90s. It's true that many of the '326' castings were drilled and tapped for 3/4" NPT bypass fitting and the vast majority of '326' castings are dated. However, neither of these would present much of a problem for a modestly adept restorer-----bushing the bypass fitting and carefully grinding off the dates in an indiscernable manner are really not all that hard considering that the waterpump is PAINTED. I guarantee you that if I wished to do so, I could do this quite easily and I would defy anyone to tell the difference. Of course, don't get me wrong; personally, I don't think that there's anything improper about doing this sort of thing. It's just part of the effort to create an original configuration. Restoration in my mind is just that: using whatever means available to restore the original configuration of something. If the original configuration is a '326' pump with no dates and a 1/2" NPT bypass fitting, however you get to that end is restoration.

In this case, though, I don't think that the '326' pump is the original pump used for 63-65 models. Creating through restoration methods a 3782609 or 3839175 waterpump casting is a LOT more difficult to do than creating an undated, 1/2" NPT bypass fitting 3859326 pump casting. So, if folks accept the 3859326 casting for late 1963 through 1965 SHP small block applications, then that makes the 63-65 SHP small block restorer's efforts much easier (and, cheaper).

[Loren L.]

To further muddy the waters, the catalog

for Superior Pump (of Los Angeles & Phoenix) shows casting 3859326 as "65-67 327 High Performance eng. two 1/2" & one 3/4" pipe thread outlets #9/16", 2 1/8" hub bolt center" and 3839175 as "69-70 350 eng. wo/air one
3/4" & one 1/2" pipe thread outlets, #9/16"; 2-1/8" hub bolt center".
Let's also state that part of the material in the catalog is COPYRIGHTED in 1952. They've been around a while.