65, 66 and 67 seat frames

[Tony S.]

Can someone tell me if the 65, 66 and 67 seat frames are interchangable?
Thanks.
Tony

[Gerard F.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

Tony,

I think the 67 seat frames are different from 65, 66. 67 seats have that latch back mechanism in the back and seat, but that just might be an add-on to the frames.

Also, I think the 67 seats have a different track set up, as the carpet cutouts are quite different.

[Joe L.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

Can someone tell me if the 65, 66 and 67 seat frames are interchangable?
Thanks.
Tony

Tony-----

The 1965 and 1966 seat frames, back and cushion, are identical. Therefore, there is no doubt that they are 100% interchangeable between years.

The 1967 seat frames, back and cushion, are different than 65-66. These pieces never replaced, for SERVICE, the 65-66 parts. By the same token, the 1965-66 pieces never replaced the 1967 parts for SERVICE. These facts strongly imply that the 1965-66 and 1967 seat frames are not interchangeable. Might it be possible to use 1967 frames for 1965-66 or 1965-66 frames for 1967? That I have no answer for. It would take someone that's actually tried it to say for sure.

[Tony S.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

Thanks guys!

[John H.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

The holes in the floor are in the same locations, but the tracks and seat frames are different between '65-'66 and '67.

[Mark K.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

I am surprised that GM would go through all the effort to change the seat frames for a vehicle that they knew was 1 year only. In fact, the 67 may not have existed at all (as a "C2") given the story of the "C3" aero problems delaying that program.

Given that we are all told that the 67 got a hasty facelift so it could survive one more year, wouldn't a new seat frame indicate that perhaps GM knew that the "C3" wasn't in the cards for 67 earlier then what is current knowledge? I would think that the engineering program for redesigning the seat frames would mean a program well longer than 1 year. Any thoughts?

[John H.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

I would think that the engineering program for redesigning the seat frames would mean a program well longer than 1 year. Any thoughts?

Carryover seats wouldn't meet the new '67 MVSS requirement for seat back locks, and adding the locking hardware to the old seat frames probably wouldn't meet the seat back lock impact test requirements. If Fisher Body had done the design & development, it might have taken 2 or 3 years, but Chevrolet was faster .

[Stanley H.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

When I purchased my 66 , 14 years ago ,she had nice black 67 seats in excellant conditon ...........last year vinyl started to pull apart, so ordered new 66 foam & 66 leather seat covers from Wilcox ( best price ) & quality >> actually are corvette america leather covers & they fit perfectly ...with the exception of having the seat locks on the side ........so based upon my gamble & the results ..will say they are the same dimensionally.......but if you are mounting new covers get the correct year foam & matching covers ....... worked for me & came out very nice.

[Tom M.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

I thought there were enginering photos from about '65 that showed the '67 vents and ralley's, so they did know more than a year in advance, has anyone else seen thoose pics?

Tom M

I am surprised that GM would go through all the effort to change the seat frames for a vehicle that they knew was 1 year only. In fact, the 67 may not have existed at all (as a "C2") given the story of the "C3" aero problems delaying that program.

Given that we are all told that the 67 got a hasty facelift so it could survive one more year, wouldn't a new seat frame indicate that perhaps GM knew that the "C3" wasn't in the cards for 67 earlier then what is current knowledge? I would think that the engineering program for redesigning the seat frames would mean a program well longer than 1 year. Any thoughts?

[John D.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

Carryover seats wouldn't meet the new '67 MVSS requirement for seat back locks, and adding the locking hardware to the old seat frames probably wouldn't meet the seat back lock impact test requirements. If Fisher Body had done the design & development, it might have taken 2 or 3 years, but Chevrolet was faster .

John,
Did Fisher Body and Chevrolet ever agree on anything?. When I worked in the plants some of the guys that were around then said the relationship was downright hostile. The Fisher Body guys could not go to the Chevy side of the plant without permission, there actually was a security desk bewtween the two sides....two plant managers etc. etc. Even years later after everyone was one division the former Fisher and Chevy guys I worked with would argue about things that happened twenty years in the past.

[John H.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

John,
Did Fisher Body and Chevrolet ever agree on anything?. When I worked in the plants some of the guys that were around then said the relationship was downright hostile. The Fisher Body guys could not go to the Chevy side of the plant without permission, there actually was a security desk bewtween the two sides....two plant managers etc. etc. Even years later after everyone was one division the former Fisher and Chevy guys I worked with would argue about things that happened twenty years in the past.

To describe the relationship between Chevrolet and Fisher Body as "hostile" would be charitable; that's why all the Fisher/Chevrolet assembly plants were re-allocated to/absorbed by GMAD (GM Assembly Division) between 1968-1972, and why Fisher Body Division disappeared entirely in the 1984 Roger Smith GM re-organization. My book will cover this, with all the reasons and politics involved, in great detail.

[Joe L.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

John,
Did Fisher Body and Chevrolet ever agree on anything?. When I worked in the plants some of the guys that were around then said the relationship was downright hostile. The Fisher Body guys could not go to the Chevy side of the plant without permission, there actually was a security desk bewtween the two sides....two plant managers etc. etc. Even years later after everyone was one division the former Fisher and Chevy guys I worked with would argue about things that happened twenty years in the past.

John-----


I think that Corvette was one of the few, if not the only, GM car that did not use a Fisher body. So, that would have eliminated any such "turf" problems at the Corvette plant.

[Gerard F.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

John,

Have you ever run into, or known of Robert C. Fisher. Not sure if he was related to Fisher Body, but I think he was a GM employee in the 60's and 70's.

His name is on the patent for the push button seatbelt buckle introduced in the late 66 and 67 Corvettes, and well as GM passenger cars for deluxe seat belts. The buckle has RCF-65 on its back.

It is funny that replacement 66L-67 seat belts, per Nolands book, had the Fisher Body logo on the pushbutton insert rather than the bowtie on the production ones.

Robert C. Fisher also patented the RCF-67 seatbelt buckle which was a smaller version of the RCF-65, and which was used throughout the 70's on GM cars. It was the most common seat belt buckle of the times.

[John H.]

Re: 65, 66 and 67 seat frames

John,

Have you ever run into, or known of Robert C. Fisher. Not sure if he was related to Fisher Body, but I think he was a GM employee in the 60's and 70's.

His name is on the patent for the push button seatbelt buckle introduced in the late 66 and 67 Corvettes, and well as GM passenger cars for deluxe seat belts. The buckle has RCF-65 on its back.

It is funny that replacement 66L-67 seat belts, per Nolands book, had the Fisher Body logo on the pushbutton insert rather than the bowtie on the production ones.

Robert C. Fisher also patented the RCF-67 seatbelt buckle which was a smaller version of the RCF-65, and which was used throughout the 70's on GM cars. It was the most common seat belt buckle of the times.

Jerry -

I'd guess that Robert C. Fisher was an employee of the seat belt supplier or a third party patent holder who licensed his design to the seat belt supplier; patents granted to GM employees were granted to GM as the primary party, and to the employee as the secondary party, with GM in complete control of the patent.