1965 Questions

[Jerry G.]

In looking at a 65 today, I noticed the rivets for the ID tag were not rosette head rivets. I thought all midyears had the rosette style. True? These were small and smooth. Another question. The build date and suffix were partially under the head. Was it stamped before the head was installed? The ID stamping was out away from the head. What do you guys think?

[William C.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Two different questions, as to the VIN tag, the early 65 cars used a small round head pop style rivit, the change to the rosette is I believe captured in Nolands book, so without the VIN of your car I can't help furthur in that area. Secondly, the vin stamp was applied at St louis, with the head on. I believe the archives have a description of the flint process with respect to the id being stamped before or after the head was installed.

[Tom H.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Seems to me the 65 I once owned had the rosette style and so have many I have looked at. Perhaps standard rivets were used up until a certain point in 65 production, I don't know. The numbers on the engine being partially under the head would concern me.

[Wayne M.]

Re: 1965 Questions

In looking at a 65 today, I noticed the rivets for the ID tag were not rosette head rivets. I thought all midyears had the rosette style. True? These were small and smooth. ?

As to your first question, the plain VIN tag rivets were used at least to 1965 car # 98xx, and perhaps intermitently earlier. I believe it's in the TIM&JG but I can't find it.

[Jerry G.]

Re: 1965 Questions

It's an early car. #379. I guess that explains the smooth head. There's no way that the build date and suffix could have been stamped like it is with the head on. I've never seen one like it before, but I'm not sure when the head was intalled during production.

[John H.]

Re: 1965 Questions

There's no way that the build date and suffix could have been stamped like it is with the head on. I've never seen one like it before, but I'm not sure when the head was intalled during production.

Jerry -

Small-block pads were stamped after the heads went on, and big-block pads were stamped before the heads went on; don't know which one you're looking at.

[Jerry G.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Thanks John. It's a big block, so answers my question. Interesting they were stamped before the heads were installed on a big block, and just the opposite on a small block. I'm always amazed at the knowledge on this Forum. Thanks to everyone.


Jerry

[Tom H.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Jerry -

Small-block pads were stamped after the heads went on, and big-block pads were stamped before the heads went on; don't know which one you're looking at.

John:

Would it be unusual to see a suffix or date stamp appear in portion, under the head. I guess i can see how it could easily turn out that way, but I've never seen one.

Never even thought about the big block stamp procedure. Had small block on the brain tonight.

[Page C.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Hi Jerry,
John H. is right on the money about the big and small block stampings, but the 1965 396/425 was not available in early production 1965 model year. The 396 motor was in the 13,000 vin numbers range. Might need to look at this one pretty close.
Regards,
Page Campbell

[Jerry G.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Thanks Page: I'm not an expert by any means, but the stamping on the block and broach marks looks authentic. I've never heard that about the 396 not being available until the 13,000 range. Where did you get that information? He read an ad I have locally looking for a Corvette, so I'm the only one that knows about it. He's had the car for about 15 years, but he doesn't know much about Corvettes and he's definately not mechanically inclined.

Jerry

[Philip C.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Thanks Page: I'm not an expert by any means, but the stamping on the block and broach marks looks authentic. I've never heard that about the 396 not being available until the 13,000 range. Where did you get that information? He read an ad I have locally looking for a Corvette, so I'm the only one that knows about it. He's had the car for about 15 years, but he doesn't know much about Corvettes and he's definately not mechanically inclined.

Jerry

The guy sounds like you, ONLY kidding, you been told correctly 396 cars were built late. 12,682 is the earliest known to date. Phil 8063

[Jerry G.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Thanks Phil. Be nice. Everybody's not an expert like you. I didn't have much time to look at the car yesterday, and it's possible that that it might have been #10,XXX instead of #XXX. There was definately a zero in front of the 3. I didn't notice the build date on the trim tag either. I should have taken a picture of it. He's out of town now, so I can't see it again until next week. I will take a picture next week.

[Jerry G.]

Re: 1965 Questions

I just talked to the owner and got the serial number. It should be #10,XXX. That would have made it being built the third week of February. The ID tag has the small smooth rivets. I read it in Nolan Adams book also about the big blocks starting about 13,000, but I'm sure it has the original engine. If it is, it could be the earliest big block made. I will post pictures next week as soon as I get them.

[William C.]

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.

[Jack H.]

Re: 1965 Questions

Try Noland Adam's Vol 2 book on page 54...