1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

[Michael G.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Loren, it's not magic, its math and data. It was developed from linear regression of Noland's survey data. It's been discussed here many times. My original car, as well as many others I've seen, tend to fit this line very well. It not exact, but it's a good guide. It can't ever be completely accurate because of the lack of material scheduling within the St Louis plant. As such, a unit slightly higher or lower than predicted is probably correct, as I doubt their were too many units in the plant at one time.

Sure, there were some repaired units that don't fit this equation, so a few cars might have a lower unit number than expected. But St Louis could not put on units that weren't yet available. For that reason, I wouldn't expect that a car ever came off the St Louis line with a unit more than fifty units higher than this estimate, as those units weren't in St Louis (or even manufactured) yet.

[Michael G.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Alan, yeah, the formula was developed from 63 data, it's good only for that year.

Jerry, maybe they meant the car serial number was too late for that unit?

[Loren L.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

"...a linear regression of Noland's survey data" is the Starting Point? A survey sheet filled out by an owner 30 years after the car was built? "...a good guide"? How do you deal with the LACK of a FIFO requirement? Has anyone gone to Schibica/Blanchette or ? at Rochester to see if there are production records showing monthly totals? Shipment records?
"...some repaired units that don't fit this equation" =s lack of FIFO. If they shipped 50 units at a time, did all 50 get used before the next shipment arrived? Who knows? And if they didn't, ?
I would GUESS that the first 2500 cars would have a higher % of FI cars; be the first in the neighborhood, etc; I would also GUESS that Feb/Mar
cars might have a higher % than other months because of SCCA racers coming out of hibernation for the summer, but all that is simply a WAG.
What's the proper search heading to find this topic that has "been discussed here many times" because I've apparently missed them all.

[Troy P.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

My Vin 1946 has serial 1132. According to the formula it should be closer to 1324. So the formula doesn't match terribly well. My suspicion is that the formula is a rough ballpark resulting in plus or minus 300-500 units.

Also I note that the formula results in Vin #1 having a serial number of 976. Seems odd that the first 975 unit serial numbers were not used. Is there an explanation for that? Perhaps there was a lack of early cars in the survey data?

[Michael G.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Loren, back off please, I don't need (or have to deal with) your negativism. This was developed to help, not get into arguments with you. If you don't like my posts, don't read them, period.

Here are two graphs 1) Nolan's data; 2) Noland's data with "outliers" removed

I've removed my personal observations from the chart, so we're dealing with only data from ~1988. This resulted in a slightly revised formula , Unit# = (.153 x VIN) + 1024, but not by much.

What is clear is that there is a trend, but also a lot of cars with "questionable" units, as you expect of data 30 years removed from St Louis. If you look solely at the trend, ignoring the outliers, I submit that it tells a story. Not the definitive story, mind you, but it suggests that there may have been 400 or so units in St Louis at any given time and, given that St Louis lacked first-in-first-out capabilities, that most cars should have a unit within +/- 200 units of the best fit line given in the formula above.

[Wayne L.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

#2533 is the stamped number on the plenum tag on 63 #10732, which fits the graph.
FWIW, Wayne

[Rick A.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Michael, thank you for the graphical work and "attempting" to put some sense to how things "probably" happened back in the day

[Michael G.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Thanks Rick and Wayne.

Troy, the numbers 1-1000 weren't used on the '63 Rochester units.

[Joseph S.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Dave, The Fuel unit is judged as an assembly. It is not broken down into smaller parts. Therefore, if the unit is determined to be too early or too late for the car, the entire 60 points is used to calculate the 20% date deduction. Just as a Carb is judged as a complete unit.

[Troy P.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

The revised equation you cited above gets my unit closer. With Vin 1946 X .153 + 1024 I get 1322 versus my tag of 1132. Barely within +/- 200.

[Dave S.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Dave, The Fuel unit is judged as an assembly. It is not broken down into smaller parts. Therefore, if the unit is determined to be too early or too late for the car, the entire 60 points is used to calculate the 20% date deduction. Just as a Carb is judged as a complete unit.

Joe,
According to the Judging sheets the 60 points is made up of the FI Unit, drive cable, base plate, bolts and seals so it is broken down into smaller parts and thus the deductions would be much less for each item. Seeing as the tag is judged separately (3 points originality) one can argue that an improper serial number should be deducted there for say 1 point. Let's say Jerry had no tag at all. He would lose 5 points ( 3 originality and 2 condition). The last part of this discussion is when this thread went sideways about how to determine a correct serial number. As we know that is very subjective as others have discussed here so one can argue that the deduction for an incorrect serial number is not valid either.

[Joseph S.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Dave, I looked at the line item and you are right. There is a call out for the drive cable, base plate, bolts, gaskets and seals. You could break that down to 50 for the unit and split up the remaining 10 points for the other items. This would reduce the deduct to 10 instead of 12. Any way you slice it, the unit is still not dated correctly for the car. 63's are pretty consistent with the relation between injection unit and car serial number. Good catch on the line item call out. I didn't refer back to the judging sheets earlier. The deduction does apply to the unit and not the tag. If the tag sequence leads to a date determination then the unit date is off.

[Dave S.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Dave, I looked at the line item and you are right. There is a call out for the drive cable, base plate, bolts, gaskets and seals. You could break that down to 50 for the unit and split up the remaining 10 points for the other items. This would reduce the deduct to 10 instead of 12. Any way you slice it, the unit is still not dated correctly for the car. 63's are pretty consistent with the relation between injection unit and car serial number. Good catch on the line item call out. I didn't refer back to the judging sheets earlier. The deduction does apply to the unit and not the tag. If the tag sequence leads to a date determination then the unit date is off.

My take is significantly different than yours. Given there is a separate line item for the tag any deduct should come from that and based on a lot of subjectivity I think that any deduct I s controversial. Regardless I'm sure the Plenum on Jerry's car is exactly right so I'm not sure it is proper to deduct anything for it. Also don't see how the Plenum is 50 points and all the rest is 10 points.
Look at it this way. The fuel injection is 100% correct and the car gets a 10 point deduct.!!!!!!!! Remove the tag and get a 5 point deduct. It's that stuff that drives people away.

[Joseph S.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

My take is significantly different than yours. Given there is a separate line item for the tag any deduct should come from that and based on a lot of subjectivity I think that any deduct I s controversial. Regardless I'm sure the Plenum on Jerry's car is exactly right so I'm not sure it is proper to deduct anything for it. Also don't see how the Plenum is 50 points and all the rest is 10 points.
Look at it this way. The fuel injection is 100% correct and the car gets a 10 point deduct.!!!!!!!! Remove the tag and get a 5 point deduct. It's that stuff that drives people away.

I think you're missing out on a few points. There are several running changes throughout the 63 model year. If the unit is not serial numbered or dated correctly with regard to the vin then it doesn't belong. Too late, Too early, what ever is the case, if so there is a valid 20% deduct for that. That is for the unit, not the plenum. We don't break it down any further than what is called out in the line item. Now what is the most important item in that line of pieces. That would be the Unit, not the cable, bolts gaskets or seals. Therefor the bulk of the points go there. The tag is just that, the tag. If that has issues then it is judged accordingly. If the tag is missing then the deduct for date on the unit should still apply since we don't have any proof of the date the unit was produced. No one is trying to drive anyone away by judging a car using CDCIF. If the deduct is justified then it's taken. If in doubt, then benefit to the owner.

[Dave S.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

I think you're missing out on a few points. There are several running changes throughout the 63 model year. If the unit is not serial numbered or dated correctly with regard to the vin then it doesn't belong. Too late, Too early, what ever is the case, if so there is a valid 20% deduct for that. That is for the unit, not the plenum. We don't break it down any further than what is called out in the line item. Now what is the most important item in that line of pieces. That would be the Unit, not the cable, bolts gaskets or seals. Therefor the bulk of the points go there. The tag is just that, the tag. If that has issues then it is judged accordingly. If the tag is missing then the deduct for date on the unit should still apply since we don't have any proof of the date the unit was produced. No one is trying to drive anyone away by judging a car using CDCIF. If the deduct is justified then it's taken. If in doubt, then benefit to the owner.

Joe ,
You have peaked my interest in the 63 running changes. Next time we catch up I'd like a crash course on how to tell what changed during the 63 MY.