C2 Expansion Tank Question

[Mark P.]

My car was assembled on 2/4/65. It is a 300HP manual trans car.

The year on the expansion tank is very light but I can see 64M. A Dec 64 tank seems to make sense for my car.

Is it unusual to have the year stamp be so light ?

Does the cap look original ? It matches the JM description.

Thanks

[Joe R.]

Re: C2 Expansion Tank Question

Mark,

Nothing unusual out the tank or the cap. The date is well within the judges limits. The clamp for the hose has the wrong screw but who's judging, right!

JR

[Mike M.]

Re: C2 Expansion Tank Question

Hi Mark
The tank stamping depth did vary and your date works.
FWIW - you have what appears to be a service replacement cap.
I don't have the '65 book at hand and it is to late for a memory check, but, the '66 & '67 SB's use an RC 26 - 15# and the rivet appears to be drilled out rather than stamped.
Original hose clips had square ends and the clamp screw had a Fillister head.
HaND

[Jim C.]

Re: C2 Expansion Tank Question

Hey Mark,

From what I can see in your photos, the stamp looks good to me. I've got a '66 small block, and it's very original. It was Top Flight in 1986 and again in 2007. I am a self admitted "numbers nut" about my car. I've looked at EVERY number / stamping on the car several times for various reasons, and have discovered stampings that are heavy, light, bounced leaving two images, and double strikes that are very deep. A light stamp is definitely NOT the sign of being non-original, or anything improper. I've seen such things on other mid years too. I think it's okay.

Jim C.

[Peter L.]

Re: C2 Expansion Tank Question

Mark - I agree with Joe. You might want to send an underside picture of the radiator cap to help confirm it's an original 307 but I it sure looks OK to me.

Find a "correct" head screw for the hose clamp and everyone (well almost everybody) will be happy.

Have fun.

Pete