1965 Questions

[Loren L.]

Re: 1965 Questions

There WERE early BBC, created by Engineering for testing. 003 is a 1965 convertible, hand laid 65 fender vents, etc. and carrying fender badges for a 427, expansion tank mounted on the forward part of the intake, etc. and it's real.

[John H.]

Re: 1965 Questions

WOW! I'd look REAL close at a 396 in that serial number range. One thing to look for on a very early 396 is that the vin stamp will be in the area of the pad by the casting core plug and was very difficult for the assy plant to stamp.

That's correct - the engine plant machine stamp on the big-blocks didn't move to the outboard side of the pad (necessitating stamping before the heads went on) until after the assembly plants bitched that they couldn't stamp the VIN derivative legibly due to interference between their gang holder and the core plug in the head.

When the Tonawanda process changed to stamp before the heads went on, they added a tab to the gang holders that located on the front edge of the pad to keep the machine stamp fully-visible forward of the head surface.

[William C.]

Re: 1965 Questions

No question, Engineering did a lot of things, but we are talking about a middle of the year production line car here. All I'm saying is I would be taking a HARD look especially with the discussion about engine previously, and the early VIN. Who knows, but some questions in the thread that need a close look at the car to answer, something that none of us can do over the ethernet.

[Jerry G.]

Re: 1965 Questions

I finally got to look at the car again. I'm positive that it is an original BB. It has the rear sway bar, battery access door in the fender well, TI, etc. The ID tag and block numbers match, #10,XXX. Build date on the block: T0202IF and the ID. Stamping appears to be original since the build date is partially under the head. Build date on trim tag: G 10. It's an AO Smith tag. Now the problems. No broach marks on the pad, but it does have very light straight lines that criss cross each other the entire length of the pad. The head had to be off to make these. They are not from being decked. Not circular marks. The other thing is that is has orginal side pipes but it's an AO Smith body, but there are no metal supports for the rocker moldings. Not cut off, they are not there. No evidence at all. The body has not been off the frame. The rear inner fender well has a factory arch cut, but the rear fiberglass tab behind the muffler tip is still there. I thought they were cut off. I haven't bought it yet. See pictures below.

[John H.]

Re: 1965 Questions

The first plant-delivered '65 L-78 was #14XXX, on April 16th.

[Jack H.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Something's wrong with that, John. Barry Blocher has one of the earliest known 396 cars with documentation proving it was built and shipped to GM Engineering at the Milford proving grounds (S/N 10K viscinity). But, that's an exceptional car and NOT typical factory production.

So, we turn to Noland Adam's book and flip to his survey data on engine block Tonawanda stamps vs. block casting information and either some owners lied to Noland, or your #14K and initial April build comment is off...

The second entry in his survey table comes from a car with VIN 13808 and a stamp pad wack of T0309IF. Plus, we had an early critter hanging around out this way with the early straight neck radiator and a similar 13K number...

[William C.]

Re: 1965 Questions

If possible, I would pull the door panels and look for evidence of an "SO" number that would indicate the possibility of the car having been played with by Engineering. IMHO, Without documentation, not an NCRS flight car and difficult to sell with all the issues you have mentioned. Might have been an engineering car that went out via fleet sale, but without paperwork impossible to prove, and not in "production" configuration. If you like it and price is reasonable, do what you want, but all this discussion will still be around when the time comes to sell. BTW, I didn't see the block casting date in this thread, or did I miss it?

[Jack H.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Be VERY careful about 'forensic' authenticity determination! There were more than one of these cars built for and used by racers.

That means factory original parts came off and were stored/sold to change the car's configuration to meet SCAA requirements. Such cars typically saw a plurality of engines and option configuration changes during their active race history and many were 'dumped' when their useful life on the track was over.

What I'm saying is the race crowd was frequently a source for virtually NOS factory original parts AND the cars 'dumped' after their racing career were bought by 'shallow pockets' owners who'd 'fix em' up to be what they wanted/what they could afford.

Sooooo, in these cases, it's easy to get 'false positives' during forensic examination as well as mixed signals (some things point to yes, other aspects point to no). Before, I commited to buying a 396 with this unusual 'pedigree' (10K VIN number, T0202 stamp, and AOS trim tag wearing what 'appears' to be factory original side exhaust), I'd got get a bona fide Corvette 396 expert to look at the car and render an opinion.

Essentially, from what you've described so far, if this car shows up on the judging field as you've outlined it, it's going to draw a LOT of doubt regarding its authenticity from the knowledgeable judges and for good reason(s)!

[Jack H.]

Re: 1965 Questions

I've only seen one bona fide SO car (the '63 coupe sent to the London Motor show), but it was IMPOSSIBLE to miss its SO status....

You didn't have to 'dig' (remove door panels, Etc.) to discover an audit trail of its SO status. MANY of the parts that were shop custom (radiator, body, certain interior components) were clearly labeled with stamped metal plates bearing the car's SO number and affixed via rivets, welds, Etc...

[John H.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Something's wrong with that, John.

Jack -

I'm referring to "plant-delivered" - as in customer picking his car up at the plant; I have the annotated Car Shipper copy for that car.

[Dale S.]

Re: 1965 Questions

From this discussion, Maybe the seller is more knowledgable than he acts. Dale

[Jerry G.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Believe me, he's not. I didn't have a jack with me to get it up high enough to see the block date code. Any feedback on the criss cross marking on the pad, and the lack of rocker molding brackets and the inner fender arch for the pipes on a AOS body? I doubt if he will let me pull the door panels or anything else. He's a nice guy, but he may not be that nice.

[Philip C.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Believe me, he's not. I didn't have a jack with me to get it up high enough to see the block date code. Any feedback on the criss cross marking on the pad, and the lack of rocker molding brackets and the inner fender arch for the pipes on a AOS body? I doubt if he will let me pull the door panels or anything else. He's a nice guy, but he may not be that nice.

Jerry, First thing I would say to do, find out for sure if it is a STL body or a AOS body. The trim and vin can be moved from car to car, but AOS and STL body differences can not and they have not been known till late, Big block cars were built at AOS in 65, 66 but side pipes were not. The rear quarters could have been changed thus the tips beening there. The battery panel was hand cut on the assy line, so anyone could cut it later, Good advice was given before about having someone to look it over, there are clips that were riveted on the cowl that will show if it had a battery on the drivers side and there are some other 396 only items. You can ask the owner for pior owners, Phil 8063