C2: car research (part II)

[Rob M.]

This evening I returned to the car to take more pictures of the engine compartment to figure out what the original setup of the car might have been.

This first shot hopefully shows the humps which were referred in the previous thread which would prove the rad support core is an orginal one, not a service replacement. Is this indeed the hump I am looking for?

greetings,
Rob

[Rob M.]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

Via the following links some holes are shown in the left fender:

http://www.c2registry.org/weblog_ima...M44b3f448b5f39

http://www.c2registry.org/weblog_ima...M44b3f3e0bfb80

Also some weird holes were found in the right fender:

http://www.c2registry.org/weblog_ima...M44b3f68b2aca8

I'm also puzzled due to the TRIM code being 898E, the E does indicate a airco which can't be combined with the FI setup.

Also the tach red area at 5300 doesn't sound like a FI car.

But the fitted screws in the airbox hole in the rad. support core indicates a fitted airbox in the past... Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, weird.

More on the car can be found via the link below...

all your thoughts are highly appreciated!!!

greetings,
Rob.




Rob's C2 weblog...

[William C.]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

Ok, the holes in the drivers side fender, when viewed in a better angle as provided with the current set of pictures do not appear as FI aircleaner mounting holes, to small, only two instead of three, spacing ??? The "humps", if they are present, in the rad support are at the lower section of the front of the rad support, the picture seems to be of the top area?? Anyway, based on the fender, it is not likely a FI car, as the FI rad support was the only service smallblock rad support for '63-65 for many years, the FI style rad support is rather common, although there are slight differences between an original and the over-the counter model. Anyway, take a look at the lower area in the front (towards the grille) for the "humps".

[Rob M.]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your feedback. The picture taken and published above is from the lower part of the rad. support near where the horn would be (the left horn is missing). I guess it is taken at the right place, although it was a pain to access it (and get it lid for the shot).

greetings,
Rob.

[William C.]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

OK, I recognize the orientation now, definately "non hump"

[Alan Drake]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

Bill,
Your Trim # is 898E Looking that up in Grenning & Sinor book it appears to say the car came with C60 (air) and NOT with U65 (AM wonderbar) with tan leather. What bothers me is that the car appears to have built in July 63, however the 898E was only valid until 2/22/63. After that date the E no longer was used.

Now I'm nowhere near even a good reader of the book - so IF somebody else says different then they are a better source!

[Rob M.]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

Alan,

I'm also puzzled here. It is stamped with a K1 build stamp which would indicate the first week of July as well (if I understand this coding correctly). In 'the books' E is indeed only used earlier...

Bill, I agree, after receiving a photo of the humps on a correct rad. support that mine is indeed lacking these. A well, no fuelie then ;-(... Maybe an airco ;-) ?

greetings and thanks again for your feedback,
Rob.

[William C.]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

Look in the interior for signs of an air car, among other things the pass side fresh air vent is different, the vacuum switch on the top of the air distribution box, look at the C-60 assembly manual section for clues.

[Michael H.]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

Bill,

I remember some discussion years ago about the ECL codes for 63 that pointed out the fact that many were not linked correctly to time of build. The codes changed at least once, possibly two times, during the run and the option code stamped on the trim tag didn't even come close to what the car actually had for options. If I remember correctly, Noland Adams even mentioned this fact in his book, or possibly in some other writing. The reason I remember this is the fact that my 63 also has an E code but it definitely never had C60.

By the way, isn't 898 the correct trim code for saddle leather?

[Sydney G.]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

Rob and Michael,
898 is indeed the code for saddle leather interior.
My mid-May coupe also has the 898E code and it for sure never had A/C. The leather interior and lack of A/C in my car was verified by a former owner of the car back in the late 60's.
I believe that the E indicates that the car could have, or was "supposed" to have, the C60 option but in '63 many inconsistencies occured.
By coincidence, my car also had the FI rad support in it dating back to at least 1977 or '78. I just recently swapped it for the correct non FI support.

Syd

[Rob M.]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

Syd (and others),

My car also lacks the expected AM/FM radio (U69) and is currently fitted with the AM only version. The E ECL code indicates usage of the U69 option (by the books). Are there inconsistancies in this area aswell found in other cars?

greetings,
Rob.

[Harry Sadlock]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

Rob, let's assume the car is a June/July production. This is probably correct as the body is in the 9000 area and there was essentially a 50/50 split on coupes and convertibles. Therefore, the VIN should be somewhere between 18000 and 19000.

Saying that, the AM/FM radio was introduced into regular production about VIN 11700. On the Corvette Order Sheet, the radio could have been specified as AM/FM or "Either" as I recall. But at the end of 63 production all I believe was available was AM/FM or radio delete. SO, you should have an AM/FM radio.

Harry

[Sydney G.]

Re: C2: car research (part II)

Rob,
My 898E coupe does have the am/fm.
I did however believe, before reading Harry's post, that the U65 radio could be had until the end of production in '63 or as long as the supply existed.
Syd