1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

[Ed D.]

I'm looking at purchasing an unrestored 1964 Tanker . 327/300 4 speed built in St Louis (10/24/63) . Is their any way to tell if the Tanker is authentic? Thanks !

[Ed S.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

In '64 I believe that the large fuel tanks were only available with the Z06 option which included a number of other "performance" options. Don't know for certain but it would have been illogical to build or buy a Z06 optioned 64 Corvette and not get the optional L84 High Performance engine (FI). The number of tankers built in 64 is very very low, one source states that only 38 tankers left the factory - proceed carefully.

[Carl N.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

I may be wrong, but do not believe Z06 was required. I have seen one '64 that had 327/300 with powerglide and A/C. K D James had it long before these were being cloned.

[Ed S.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

You are likely right. Upon doing further "research" I did come across a '65 "tanker" with a reported matching # 300 / 327 that was auctioned recently. For the life of me I can't figure out the logic of such an option combination except perhaps the buyer planned on making very long road trips and had huge kidneys.

[Jimmy G.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

This car is not listed in the survey

Look at the AIM for all the fiberglass modifications. i.e. back bulkhead not modified, wheel openings should be modified Hand laid glass inside over the wheels. Should be lots of info in the archives to give you a clue as to origanility

[Ed D.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

THANKS ..... everyone !

[Michael J.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

As a bit of a tanker collector, and one who has looked at numerous tankers, you should have someone who knows tankers to examine the car. They have many distinctive, unique things. There were 38 '64 tankers made, 24 documented in the registry, and no Z06 option was available in 1964, but you could select the options individually to make one equipped like a '63 Z06, and some were equipped that way, sans the split window of course. And according to my tanker registry, only one 300 HP car has been documented. PM me if you want more info.

[Ed D.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

Thanks Mike !

[Duke W.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

You are likely right. Upon doing further "research" I did come across a '65 "tanker" with a reported matching # 300 / 327 that was auctioned recently. For the life of me I can't figure out the logic of such an option combination except perhaps the buyer planned on making very long road trips and had huge kidneys.

I agree. After the big tank was split off as a separate option concurrent with the second release '63 Z-06 it was available on Coupes without restriction, and this remained the case through '67. I considered ordering it for my 340 HP SWC in February '63, but when I looked at Alan Green's early Z-06 and realized that it took up most of the luggage compartment, I dropped the idea.

[Michael J.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

I agree. After the big tank was split off as a separate option concurrent with the second release '63 Z-06 it was available on Coupes without restriction, and this remained the case through '67. I considered ordering it for my 340 HP SWC in February '63, but when I looked at Alan Green's early Z-06 and realized that it took up most of the luggage compartment, I dropped the idea.

Duke, it is interesting that some tanker owners, as years went by, actually carpeted the tank, to provide a non-slippery and soft surface for luggage. That process actually helped preserve the jacking instructions labels so some info on original equipment could be discerned.

[John D.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

I can remember like yesterday that a doctor in Latrobe, PA drove a blue tanker to make office calls. It was not a fuel car. John

[Michael J.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

I can remember like yesterday that a doctor in Latrobe, PA drove a blue tanker to make office calls. It was not a fuel car. John

In researching tanker owners and what they were thinking when they ordered the big tank, there are many different reasons. One of mine was ordered by a doctor for his daughter's high school graduation. He said he was so proud of her, and her Mom had just died, that he wanted to check every box on the Corvette order form so that she had the most special Corvette ever. He had no idea what most of the options were.

[Duke W.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

Duke, it is interesting that some tanker owners, as years went by, actually carpeted the tank, to provide a non-slippery and soft surface for luggage. That process actually helped preserve the jacking instructions labels so some info on original equipment could be discerned.

That was another thing I didn't like about N-03, and I can understand why some owners carpeted the cover to give a more finished appearance, but the real deal-breaker was that the big tank took up at least half, if not more, or the useable cargo space. I knew that as a young adult I would likely lead a peripatetic life until I figured out a way to get to the promised land, so cargo capacity rather than a 500-mile unrefueled range was more important. From the time I graduated from the U. of Washington in '68 until I finally got to California in '74, I could load all my worldly possessions into the SWC and hit the road. (Ah, those were the days, just like Route 66!) That extra weight also helped me get across the Bitteroots in a blizzard via Lookout Pass in January '71 (Pirelli CN-72 radials, but no chains). I was the last guy through before the pass was closed to traffic indefinitely! See you in Laughlin.

[Tim G.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

I enjoyed your article on tankers in the Restorer, Michael.

[Michael J.]

Re: 1964 Tanker ......authentic ?

That was another thing I didn't like about N-03, and I can understand why some owners carpeted the cover to give a more finished appearance, but the real deal-breaker was that the big tank took up at least half, if not more, or the useable cargo space. I knew that as a young adult I would likely lead a peripatetic life until I figured out a way to get to the promised land, so cargo capacity rather than a 500-mile unrefueled range was more important. From the time I graduated from the U. of Washington in '68 until I finally got to California in '74, I could load all my worldly possessions into the SWC and hit the road. (Ah, those were the days, just like Route 66!) That extra weight also helped me get across the Bitteroots in a blizzard via Lookout Pass in January '71 (Pirelli CN-72 radials, but no chains). I was the last guy through before the pass was closed to traffic indefinitely! See you in Laughlin.

Ha! I remember using my '64 Dodge Polara 500 (426 street wedge) as transport for all I owned too, before I got married, but it had a huge trunk! I can imagine a '63 SWC would be much smaller. I had looked at the mileage from my house to Laughlin, about 550 miles, mostly on Route 66 (I-40 now), and thinking I could drive the '64 tanker with the 3.08 rear end ratio and probably make it on one tank. But, my wife is too fond of satellite radio and A/C, but it will be in Laughlin for judging. See you there.