63 frame date STENCIL ???

[Boyan B.]

Guys, I have long thought the judging guide and various books were wrong in relation to the frame date being handwritten in grease pencil for 1963 frames. I finally have a photo of what appears to be a STENCILED frame date. The photo clearly shows the numbers 3 5 4, upside down on the passenger side frame rail, about 15 inches to the rear of the battery tray.
The serial number of the car that the photo is from is serial No. 13051, an April 16, 1963 build date. The number sequence for the day, date and year is unusual (3 5 4).

Has anyone ever seen a 63 stenciled frame date?

I dont have a scanner to scan the photo, but trust me, it says 3 5 4 where the handwritten date is supposed to be.

If anyone can verify the stenciled date, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,
Boyan

[Todd B.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

I have a very early (#347) 1964 roadster with a stenciled date in the area you mentioned. My frame has a 1963 part number also stenciled on it. I was also curious about this dating, but had never posted a question about it before.

The date on my frame is 2-9-5 - stenciled upside down as you noted.

Todd Browning (43321)

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

I have a very early (#347) 1964 roadster with a stenciled date in the area you mentioned. My frame has a 1963 part number also stenciled on it. I was also curious about this dating, but had never posted a question about it before.

The date on my frame is 2-9-5 - stenciled upside down as you noted.

Todd Browning (43321)

I have several questions about your 64 with a 63 frame but their slightly off topic so I'll wait until the original question is answered.

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

I have a very early (#347) 1964 roadster with a stenciled date in the area you mentioned. My frame has a 1963 part number also stenciled on it. Todd Browning (43321)

Todd, I'm very curious about the 64 body on a 63 frame. Does the car have rubber body cushions, typical of all 64 cars? If so, I wonder how the normal body to frame dimension is maintained?
For the new 64 model year, when body mount cushions were added, the body mount pads on the frame were lowered roughly 3/8" to compensate for the 1/2" thickness of the new cushion. If the mounts are present, wouldn't a car with a 63 frame and body cushions sit about 1/2" higher than normal?
I think the core support, which would not have any cushion, would also be 1/2" higher than normal and require an additional 1/2" of shims.

A 64 body is definitely not a direct bolt on operation if installed on a 63 frame.
Thanks.

[Todd B.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

Todd, I'm very curious about the 64 body on a 63 frame. Does the car have rubber body cushions, typical of all 64 cars? If so, I wonder how the normal body to frame dimension is maintained?
For the new 64 model year, when body mount cushions were added, the body mount pads on the frame were lowered roughly 3/8" to compensate for the 1/2" thickness of the new cushion. If the mounts are present, wouldn't a car with a 63 frame and body cushions sit about 1/2" higher than normal?
I think the core support, which would not have any cushion, would also be 1/2" higher than normal and require an additional 1/2" of shims.

A 64 body is definitely not a direct bolt on operation if installed on a 63 frame.
Thanks.

Michael:

I looked under the car tonight, and here is what I can see:

#1 body mount (at cowl): Can't tell because masking tape still covers the mount and I can't tell for sure if a cushion is under it, and did not want to pull the tape off.
#2 body mount: appears to be rigidly-mounted
#3 body mount: has rubber cushion
Rear body mount: has rubber cushion
Core support - has a couple of standard shims under each side

This frame has the number 3819263 stenciled on it which my judging guide (4th edition) noted that as a 1963 part number. The other number stenciled on it appears to be 303196-10-P. The frame does have the '64-style e-brake mounting hardware welded on it, so it is not literally a 1963 frame.

The car does have a number of '63 features: black shift knob, seat belts, e-brake handle with white lettering, etc. It's a fairly left-alone unrestored driver, so I presume most of these odd features are as the car was delivered.

I hope this helps to address your questions.

Todd

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

Michael:

I looked under the car tonight, and here is what I can see:

#1 body mount (at cowl): Can't tell because masking tape still covers the mount and I can't tell for sure if a cushion is under it, and did not want to pull the tape off.
#2 body mount: appears to be rigidly-mounted
#3 body mount: has rubber cushion
Rear body mount: has rubber cushion
Core support - has a couple of standard shims under each side

This frame has the number 3819263 stenciled on it which my judging guide (4th edition) noted that as a 1963 part number. The other number stenciled on it appears to be 303196-10-P. The frame does have the '64-style e-brake mounting hardware welded on it, so it is not literally a 1963 frame.

The car does have a number of '63 features: black shift knob, seat belts, e-brake handle with white lettering, etc. It's a fairly left-alone unrestored driver, so I presume most of these odd features are as the car was delivered.

I hope this helps to address your questions.

Todd

Thanks Todd. That's very interesting. If all of the body mount locations have a cushion, except the core support location, that would raise the body by the same dimension as the cushion (1/2") in all locations except the core support. I suppose it's possible that the front fiberglass is flexible enough to compensate for this 1/2" drop but it would likely cause some minor panel alignment issues.
The new for 64 frame had relocated (lowered) body mount pads for all locations except the core support to compensate for the thickness of the new rubber mount which would maintain the same body to frame dimension. However, the core support pad height was not changed.
I would be interested in the dimension of the gap between the frame and the body in the area of the rear body mount.

I would also be very interested in the design of the front coil and rear leaf springs. If the springs are original to the car, I strongly suspect that these will be the 63 design, not the new for 64 variable load rate design that probably didn't appear on new 64's until late October 63.
If your car is jacked up and the load is off the rear spring, it will be very easy to tell the difference between a 63 and 64 rear spring. For 63, all of the leaves will be curved and in contact with one another at the ends. If it's a later 64 design spring, the top three leaves will be flat/straight, not curved, and there will be a large gap between the ends of the 3rd and 4th leaf.
Also, would it be possible to count the number of coils on the front springs? (may be difficult)

Hope you don't mind all the questions. We've been looking for info from an early production 64 that is still mostly original. Thanks again.

[M W.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

Hey Todd,

Glad to see you are a member of this great group of people. You certainly have everyone interested in your car. My car is going for a full front and rear alignment tomorrow morning and should be road worthy after that. Looking forward to some Sunday drives with you.

Take care,

Craig

[Todd B.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

Thanks Todd. That's very interesting. If all of the body mount locations have a cushion, except the core support location, that would raise the body by the same dimension as the cushion (1/2") in all locations except the core support. I suppose it's possible that the front fiberglass is flexible enough to compensate for this 1/2" drop but it would likely cause some minor panel alignment issues.
The new for 64 frame had relocated (lowered) body mount pads for all locations except the core support to compensate for the thickness of the new rubber mount which would maintain the same body to frame dimension. However, the core support pad height was not changed.
I would be interested in the dimension of the gap between the frame and the body in the area of the rear body mount.

I would also be very interested in the design of the front coil and rear leaf springs. If the springs are original to the car, I strongly suspect that these will be the 63 design, not the new for 64 variable load rate design that probably didn't appear on new 64's until late October 63.
If your car is jacked up and the load is off the rear spring, it will be very easy to tell the difference between a 63 and 64 rear spring. For 63, all of the leaves will be curved and in contact with one another at the ends. If it's a later 64 design spring, the top three leaves will be flat/straight, not curved, and there will be a large gap between the ends of the 3rd and 4th leaf.
Also, would it be possible to count the number of coils on the front springs? (may be difficult)

Hope you don't mind all the questions. We've been looking for info from an early production 64 that is still mostly original. Thanks again.

Michael:

I have added a couple of photos of the core support mounting to clarify how it looks. There is still masking tape holding the shims in place, so I believe everything is in it's original configuration.

The dimensions from the frame to the body mounts are as follows:

#3 body mount: 3/4" on driver side with 3 shims; 5/8" on pass side with 2 shims
Rear body mount: 11/16 on driver side with 2 shims; 11/16 on pass side with 3 shims

The rear spring is the '64 style with top three leaves that remain flat.

It's really difficult to tell on the front coils - I shot a couple of photos to show what's there. It seems like there are 9 coils, but some seem to be partial coils toward the ends.

One other odd feature of this car is the hood - it is a '63 inner with a '64 outer skin.

Thanks for your interest in the car, and I hope this information may help others.

Regards,
Todd

[Mike L.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

Todd, that type of hood was used for a while my 64 #2405 has the same type of two piece hood 63 underside 64 upper.

[M W.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

Question for Todd and all else. Why is the lower a-arm bumper mounted with the bolt head underneath in pic#4? According to the 63 and 64 assembly manual it shows it mounted with the bolt head on the top side. Was this a common occurance or just a off day during assembly? My last few day of production 64 had the bumpers mounted with the bolt head on the top side.
Odd.

Cheers,
Craig

[Todd B.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

Mike: Thanks for the clarification on the hood. I had read in Noland Adams' book that some of the early '64 hoods were done this way, but was not sure how many. I appreciate your reply because I had assumed that fewer cars were done this way.

Craig: Good to hear that your car is about back on the road - just in time to enjoy this weather. We went for a ride yesterday, and it could not have been a more perfect afternoon. I do look forward to getting together soon. Please keep in touch.

Regarding your question about the bumpers on the control arms, I cannot say why they are done this way or whether they are correct or not. I checked the other side and it is the same. As far as I know, the front end has never been rebuilt, so I assume this is the way it was assembled originally.

Regards,
Todd

[M W.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

Regarding your question about the bumpers on the control arms, I cannot say why they are done this way or whether they are correct or not. I checked the other side and it is the same. As far as I know, the front end has never been rebuilt, so I assume this is the way it was assembled originally.

Todd,

I would say you are correct in looking at pic #4 all the rust and dirt appears consistent with 43 years of age. It doesn't appear to have been changed out at anytime. Just another one of those differences we all look for.

Good hearing from you.

Cheers,
Craig

[Cecil L.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

Interesting to hear that there are other frames with the date stenciled on instead of handwritten. When I took the body off the frame of my November 12, 1965 built 66 425hp car I was surprised to find the date included in the stencil and the part number suffix not agreeing with some published references.

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

Interesting to hear that there are other frames with the date stenciled on instead of handwritten. When I took the body off the frame of my November 12, 1965 built 66 425hp car I was surprised to find the date included in the stencil and the part number suffix not agreeing with some published references.

If a date appears that looks like it was applied with the same stencil as the frame part number, I would think that it would be a date applied at the frame source, A O Smith, at least several days and likely a week before the frame was shipped the St Louis plant.

Typically, a date is hand written on the frame just after it's moved into the St Louis assembly plant.

Is the stencil date on the frame close to the build date of your car?

I also have a Nov 65 built 66 but I've never looked for the frame dates and stencil.

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 frame date STENCIL ???

Michael:

I have added a couple of photos of the core support mounting to clarify how it looks. There is still masking tape holding the shims in place, so I believe everything is in it's original configuration.

The dimensions from the frame to the body mounts are as follows:

#3 body mount: 3/4" on driver side with 3 shims; 5/8" on pass side with 2 shims
Rear body mount: 11/16 on driver side with 2 shims; 11/16 on pass side with 3 shims

The rear spring is the '64 style with top three leaves that remain flat.

It's really difficult to tell on the front coils - I shot a couple of photos to show what's there. It seems like there are 9 coils, but some seem to be partial coils toward the ends.

One other odd feature of this car is the hood - it is a '63 inner with a '64 outer skin.

Thanks for your interest in the car, and I hope this information may help others.

Regards,
Todd

Thanks Todd. Excellent pictures. Difficult to tell for sure but the coils of the front springs appear to be evenly spaced just like a 63 spring. The later 64 springs are progressively wound and the gap between coild changes per coil. According to GM paperwork, this is correct. The front and rear springs in early 64's were actually 63 parts.
I wonder if your rear spring has ever been changed? It's quite common for this to occur early in the life of 63's as that spring design certainly had problems and many were replaced. That may explain the later style progressive spring that the car has now.
I have a 64 on file that's later than your car and it still has a 63 style rear spring.

More later on the 63 frame issue. Very interesting. I wonder if it has a 63 or 64 style parking brake cable system?