Factory Production Anomalies

[Peter M.]

My 1966 L36 (427/390 AC car) built Nov 9, 1965 in St Louishas a factory installed small block coolant tank bracket (no tank) installed on the passenger side front inner fender ... a fellow NCRS member I communicate with also has a 1966 L36 (also 427/390 factory AC car) built Nov 5, 1965 in St Louis .... just 4 days earlier and he too has a small block coolant tank bracket (no tank) installed as well !!.



It is so interesting to find these factory aberrations that occurred on the factory assembly line - these aberrations can cause quite a stir when these cars are judged using the judging manual from "typical" production observations. I would imagine it fair to assume that there are many examples of factory build anomalies over the years of C2 production which cause the owner to be subject to "proving" it came that way. Also - would be interesting to observe how different judges might handle the same observed anomaly from a points perspective.



Peter

[Gene M.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

Expect a deduction same as my 67 that has two holes drilled in the trail arm for BB application on a SB. It is not typical. A couple points is nothing. The deduct shouldn’t make or break the car after all there are 4500 points.

Without any convincing documentation it is the car on it’s own presentation.

[Tim G.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

I've had cars with anomalies and I always embrace them as unique features. I have a low mile '67 that is VIN #350, but the transmission is stamped #349. It's never been out of the car.

[Terry M.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

My 1966 L36 (427/390 AC car) built Nov 9, 1965 in St Louishas a factory installed small block coolant tank bracket (no tank) installed on the passenger side front inner fender ... a fellow NCRS member I communicate with also has a 1966 L36 (also 427/390 factory AC car) built Nov 5, 1965 in St Louis .... just 4 days earlier and he too has a small block coolant tank bracket (no tank) installed as well !!.

It is so interesting to find these factory aberrations that occurred on the factory assembly line - these aberrations can cause quite a stir when these cars are judged using the judging manual from "typical" production observations. I would imagine it fair to assume that there are many examples of factory build anomalies over the years of C2 production which cause the owner to be subject to "proving" it came that way. Also - would be interesting to observe how different judges might handle the same observed anomaly from a points perspective. Peter

The cars we like so much were built by humans. Humans don't always follow the "rules." That is no excuse for wild deviations, and that is why anything that is NTFP has to be explained by the car owner.

Some folks (or people) don't like a car with a story. I am with Tim G. Those kinds of details make a car unique and more fun than the "cookie cutter" car. All that said, Gene is right that one should expect a deduction unless the judge is of the mindset like Tim and I. Those are the things that make this fun. Tim is right -- embrace them.

[Peter M.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

I've had cars with anomalies and I always embrace them as unique features. I have a low mile '67 that is VIN #350, but the transmission is stamped #349. It's never been out of the car.

I agree - I too embrace the uniqueness of the bracket in my case and the the fact that a similar L36 built only 4 days earlier than mine had the same anomaly is intriguing.

[Joe L.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

I agree - I too embrace the uniqueness of the bracket in my case and the the fact that a similar L36 built only 4 days earlier than mine had the same anomaly is intriguing.

Peter------

If it actually is a factory anomaly, the presence of the bracket is a highly unfortunate one. It instantly creates enormous suspicion that the car has a "big block conversion". After all, there's more than a few of these out there, likely including cars that were built 4 days apart. With such an anomaly, I'd want to have irrefutable proof of the car's provenance.

[Peter M.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

Joe - Your comment is exactly why I observed "these aberrations can cause quite a stir when these cars are judged using the judging manual from "typical" production observations." Fortunately I have more than enough documentation to not have a concern for the originality of its production options.

[Edward B.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

This is perhaps my favorite topic within the NCRS community. I am firmly in the camp that celebrates deviations from the standards adopted (sometimes arbitrarily) by NCRS. Certainly these "standards" make judging easier, but they are extremely detrimental to history when an owner feels forced to remove a questioned original part for replacement by one that is acceptable to NCRS. Like many others, I appreciate factory errors, "make-dos," and other anomalies that may have slipped past a final inspection. If you're fortunate enough to have one of these, leave it in place and fight for its provenance. Remember, NCRS standards are constantly changing and the original part you discard today may well be declared acceptable tomorrow.

[Richard F.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

Let the cars write the TIM/JG, don't let the TIM/JG change your car for points and don't rewrite history. Over time as more people are involved in rewriting the TIM/JG there will be news discoveries and the anomalies will be justified.

Rich

[Bill M.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

if I was building a phony car I would not leave that bracket installed. so I believe in factory misteaks. You build these things all day long for 5 years and once and I while you mess up. Just my 2 cents.

[Gene M.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

if I was building a phony car I would not leave that bracket installed. so I believe in factory misteaks. You build these things all day long for 5 years and once and I while you mess up. Just my 2 cents.

Yes, but you need to understand the manuals cover the “TYPICAL PRODUCTION”. It would be not typical if every found deviation was incorporated and soon there would not be a typical production. When one discovers a deviation understand it is non typical, no big deal points wise. But if you sincerely believe it to be as build, let it be. Always let the car disclose it’s own story and just forget about the couple points possibly lost. It will never block the award achieved. A percentage point requires 45 points be deducted. It is more important to share the anomalies.

[Gary S.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

My 1972 LT-1 has what I call an anomaly in that the original VIN tag up under the windshield has two numbers transposed. I was taken aback by that when I inspected it and I emailed this board MANY years ago (18-19 ?) questioning the authenticity of the VIN tag. Several responded and one even commented that his VIN tag was missing a character. My car has been judged at two regionals without and any question of the transposed characters.

[Marco H.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

My 1966 L36 (427/390 AC car) built Nov 9, 1965 in St Louishas a factory installed small block coolant tank bracket (no tank) installed on the passenger side front inner fender ... a fellow NCRS member I communicate with also has a 1966 L36 (also 427/390 factory AC car) built Nov 5, 1965 in St Louis .... just 4 days earlier and he too has a small block coolant tank bracket (no tank) installed as well !!.

It is so interesting to find these factory aberrations that occurred on the factory assembly line - these aberrations can cause quite a stir when these cars are judged using the judging manual from "typical" production observations. I would imagine it fair to assume that there are many examples of factory build anomalies over the years of C2 production which cause the owner to be subject to "proving" it came that way. Also - would be interesting to observe how different judges might handle the same observed anomaly from a points perspective.



Peter

Peter, Would your car, and your friends car by chance have an AOS built body?

There is some old research from the 1990's which noted that early built 427 cars (bodies) built at AOS were assembled with the 396 Cooling system/expansion tank. For some reason AOS didn't implement the cooling system design change and for a while continued to build the 427 bodies like the 1965 396.
After these bodies came down the line at STL to be queued up for body drop, line workers started noting the discrepancy. It is said that some cars went out the door with the coolant tank in place, some, the tank and bracket was ripped from the inner fender, leaving the 'black out - shadow' from the bracket, and other the tank was unbolted. I don't know for how long this went on, without checking the notes.

As other have said, these nuances and variations make these cars unique. Any 'corrections' to follow a book would distort historical accuracy.
I get the point of typical generic reactions in this case. However an educated judge will let the car speak for itself and appreciate its presentation.

I would be interested in any details about your car, you'd be willing to share.

Marco

[Peter M.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

Marco - both are St Louis bodied cars - built just 3 days apart - would be happy to discuss further - PM me and we can talk if you like

[James G.]

Re: Factory Production Anomalies

My 1972 LT-1 has what I call an anomaly in that the original VIN tag up under the windshield has two numbers transposed. I was taken aback by that when I inspected it and I emailed this board MANY years ago (18-19 ?) questioning the authenticity of the VIN tag. Several responded and one even commented that his VIN tag was missing a character. My car has been judged at two regionals without and any question of the transposed characters.

I know of a 67 blue 427 , 400 AC car with a different motor from another 67. Vin numbers were 52 units apart. In TWO judging events no one caught the difference.......and the car scored well. We are only ''human''........trying to have ''FUN'' !