1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

[Troy P.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Not so. If the tag was missing there would be no deduct for date. The date would be determined by the configuration and appearance of the unit which is apparently correct for the 63 year. However if it was obvious that the FI unit was an earlier or later model then there would have been a date deduct.

As you know most parts do not have a date code of any sort. And when they don't the date correctness is judged by other features.

[Patrick C.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

I know this is a bit off topic but is there a similar graph for 1964 that shows vin# verses fi serial number for 375r and 380 units?

[Michael G.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Patrick, I'm sure the data exists, as many judges keep records of the cars they've inspected, but Noland's book doesn't have enough samples to create a meaningful graph.

[Patrick C.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Patrick, I'm sure the data exists, as many judges keep records of the cars they've inspected, but Noland's book doesn't have enough samples to create a meaningful graph.

Thanks Mike,

i thought i had seen it awhile back but it must have been the 63 chart above. I have a 64 L84 January car with a 380 unit and i wanted to see how it fit in.

[Loren L.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

When you KNOW that units were NOT used on a FIFO requirement, how you deduct for a unit that may seem too early? Especially when the "basis" for your chart is reports to NA on a "survey" that was done 25 - 35 years AFTER the car was assembled?
As for the "formula", if VIN 21000 was an FI car, the formula says it would be unit #3759. Anybody else see a problem with that?

Not so. If the tag was missing there would be no deduct for date. The date would be determined by the configuration and appearance of the unit which is apparently correct for the 63 year. However if it was obvious that the FI unit was an earlier or later model then there would have been a date deduct.

As you know most parts do not have a date code of any sort. And when they don't the date correctness is judged by other features.

[Michael J.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Thanks Mike,

i thought i had seen it awhile back but it must have been the 63 chart above. I have a 64 L84 January car with a 380 unit and i wanted to see how it fit in.

That's a whole different least squares fit line, which has large standard deviations off the line. My original Feb. 28, 1964 built car has #1949.

[Jerry C.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Noticed there is a separate line for Plenum ID tag. 3 points for original and 2 points for condition. I should have caught that. I could not get an answer from either the judge or team leader as to what the serial number should be + or minus the % they use.

[Michael J.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

I could not get an answer from either the judge or team leader as to what the serial number should be + or minus the % they use.

Maybe it is secret, you know, to cut down on reproductions????

[Dave S.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

Noticed there is a separate line for Plenum ID tag. 3 points for original and 2 points for condition. I should have caught that. I could not get an answer from either the judge or team leader as to what the serial number should be + or minus the % they use.

Jerry,
The post above indicates there are running changes in 1963 7375 Units and it is suggested that is how the judges can tell the date was not typical. That is news to me so I'm hoping someone can educate us on what those changes are. I know the 7375R units had some minor changes but it is my understanding that those units were used in 1964. I'm with you on the tag and appropriate deduct for the wrong date if that is the case. I hope we can get some educated clarification on why you received a 12 point deduct.

[Michael G.]

Re: 1963 Fuel Injection serial numbers

When you KNOW that units were NOT used on a FIFO requirement, how you deduct for a unit that may seem too early? Especially when the "basis" for your chart is reports to NA on a "survey" that was done 25 - 35 years AFTER the car was assembled?
As for the "formula", if VIN 21000 was an FI car, the formula says it would be unit #3759. Anybody else see a problem with that?

First of all, no one "knows" for a fact how the units were handled at St. Louis. You are stating that there wasn't any FIFO, based on what salient facts? I sorta doubt that 2,610 fuel units arrived at St Louis in September, 62 and the plant just randomly selected them throughout the model year. There was some semblance of first-in-first-out.

Second, no one has stated that my chart was used as the basis for any deductions. It was the basis for my theory, that's all. I very much doubt that the judges needed my opinion. They have their own data, gleaned from viewing many more cars. I saw National judges refer to their own data when they judged my 63 car, long before I ever even knew Noland had done a survey.

Third, the formula calculated from Noland's data alone is Unit#= (.153 * VIN#) + 1024. Using that formula, the unit number for car 21000, if it even had fuel injection, would be #4237 not #3759.

Finally, have nice night