66 interior mirror

[Bill L.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

HI

So if the judging guidance changes to the "standard" mirror as "typical" how will this be judged???

Technically, the day / night mirror could be classed as a dealer option...if the guidance for a "luggage rack" is followed then we might have a real problem... i.e. the guidance on luggage racks is that the rack is NOT to be judged --- only the four holes in the fiberglass receive a deduction....fair enough---

Given that approach to "THAT" particular dealer added option what happens when a day / night mirror appears on a 66 Corvette? It is then clearly a dealer added option -- but no alteration of the car is required...and we don't judge dealer added options (per the precedent set on luggage racks) Sooooo----does it then get a full deduct because we don't judge dealer added options?? i.e. we don't recognize that it exists --- only the fact that there "may" have been alterations to mount it (whatever it was)--- or does it follow the "easily discernible reproduction" thought process and get a point or two ???---I don't think you can have it both ways ----- technically, this looks like they are going toward the thought process that the day / night mirror is an incorrect (yeah yeah I know non-typical) part "NTFP" ---what a mess----!!

Bottom line---if they come down on the side of the day / night mirror being dealer added option then there is a potential conflict in the approach ----you just can't have it both ways -- i.e. judge the luggage rack one way and the day / night mirror another ----

I still think there is no definitive proof that the cars came with a day / night mirror vs. the base mirror --- if there is I would really like to see it... and I don't mean a logic trail and a bunch of mental gymnastics to try and prove the point etc etc --- I mean unequivocal paper documentation ---- looks like someone really jumped the gun on this one ---

Just my two cents ----

Regards
Bill

[Philip A.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

Bill
I am in complete agreement with you. All the circumstantial evidence (photos above by Jack M.) is factory and it seems more probable that the 1965 Z01 option became standard equipment in 1966. Interestingly, no one is posting any proof or evidence that factory delivery was with a standard mirror.
Phil

[Jack M.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

As mentioned, I see photos that also give credence to the opposition... here is a 1966 assembly line photo (zoomed in) that illustrates the standard (NOT day/night) mirror installed on two new Corvettes.
1966-Assembly-Line-1.jpg

Reading the posts in the archives, I now believe the change in mirror designs for 1966 was due to the NEW Shatter-Resistant Mirror that was mentioned in the Corvette News literature (see my post/photo above). Unfortunately, I can't fully understand how/why both Guldstrand's L88 and the Car & Driver test vehicle ended up with a day/night mirror... I'm guessing neither vehicle was processed through traditional dealerships where accessories could have been added.

The mystery continues...

[Russ S.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

It should be a full deduct because the factory installed part is missing. In the case of a luggage rack, there is no factory installed item missing except the materials removed for the mount holes

HI

So if the judging guidance changes to the "standard" mirror as "typical" how will this be judged???

Technically, the day / night mirror could be classed as a dealer option...if the guidance for a "luggage rack" is followed then we might have a real problem... i.e. the guidance on luggage racks is that the rack is NOT to be judged --- only the four holes in the fiberglass receive a deduction....fair enough---

Given that approach to "THAT" particular dealer added option what happens when a day / night mirror appears on a 66 Corvette? It is then clearly a dealer added option -- but no alteration of the car is required...and we don't judge dealer added options (per the precedent set on luggage racks) Sooooo----does it then get a full deduct because we don't judge dealer added options?? i.e. we don't recognize that it exists --- only the fact that there "may" have been alterations to mount it (whatever it was)--- or does it follow the "easily discernible reproduction" thought process and get a point or two ???---I don't think you can have it both ways ----- technically, this looks like they are going toward the thought process that the day / night mirror is an incorrect (yeah yeah I know non-typical) part "NTFP" ---what a mess----!!

Bottom line---if they come down on the side of the day / night mirror being dealer added option then there is a potential conflict in the approach ----you just can't have it both ways -- i.e. judge the luggage rack one way and the day / night mirror another ----

I still think there is no definitive proof that the cars came with a day / night mirror vs. the base mirror --- if there is I would really like to see it... and I don't mean a logic trail and a bunch of mental gymnastics to try and prove the point etc etc --- I mean unequivocal paper documentation ---- looks like someone really jumped the gun on this one ---

Just my two cents ----

Regards
Bill

[Jack P.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

I have owned my 66 for 45 years, bought it from original owner. Came with standard mirror.

jack

[Georges C.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

Owned my '66 for 39 years, knew original and second owner (best friend) that I bought from in 1976. Doubt either would have done anything to the Standard mirror.

[Bill L.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

Russ:

"It should be a full deduct because the factory installed part is missing. In the case of a luggage rack, there is no factory installed item missing except the materials removed for the mount holes"

OK ---- I see your logic --- but can't agree --- when is the last time you saw a 66 Corvette with a full set of reproduction Knock off's take a full deduct on wheels? ---or a 67 390HP car with a Holley replacement carb take a full deduct? etc etc etc ---those are all missing factory parts --- are they not?

On another note --- if you use that same logic on the rest of the car being judged then literally any replacement part gets a full deduct --- because as you state "the factory part is missing" --- if that were the approach overall then we probably would not have any Duntov cars --- or Top Flights for that matter -----!!!!!

This is a can of worms --- and that is being kind !!!

Regards
Bill

[Rob M.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

Thank you all for the input. Still some questions ...

[Alan D.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

Rob, take a look at
66 day/night mirror usage?
Started by Brian Kotula (42040), May 10th, 2008 01:45 PM
and
1966 interior mirror

Started by Dominic Presty (28750), February 11th, 2012 09:09 AM

You will need to do a search. I was unable to insert the live link.

[Jack M.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

Alan,

I believe these might be the links to the two threads you've mentioned:

• Brian Kotula (42040), May 10th, 2008
• Dominic Presty (28750), February 11th

Hope that helpz,
Jack

[Rob M.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

Thanks for the posting of those threads - very interesting information from some very experienced members. I appreciate it and have learned a lot.

[John H.]

Re: 66 interior mirror

The "OPT" (for "optional") appears frequently in the Assembly Manual, and always refers to a part from a different supplier that doesn't necessarily look the same, but has similar features and fully meets all the Engineering requirements for the application.