'63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

[Sydney G.]

Hello,

One of the reasons I took an interest in recording 1963's starting about 16 years back was to try and find a car built near or next to my coupe in the production sequence for the year.
I recently discovered a '63 coupe built just 6 cars before mine, and just 2 coupes apart when comparing the trim tag body number for the 2 cars. This part of the production sequence fits perfectly well when comparing the 2 cars info on my list.

However, when comparing the engine casting date of the 2 cars I discovered that they were different, although not by that much, and was wondering if this was a norm or an anomaly?

The split window built 6 cars before mine, on the same day in '63 and just 2 coupes before mine is a 250hp 4spd with a casting date of E23.
My coupe is a 300hp 4spd with a casting date of E63.
Both cars would have been built on May 15 '63.

Does this sound possible to you or am I spending way to much time recording my production list??

Thanks!!

Syd

[Tom H.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

Syd !

I'm by far no expert on this subject, but I think your dates are pretty darned close. One Thursday and one Monday. Four days apart. I'd say this would be dead on right the way I figure it. Pretty close to production though.. Hopefully somebody smarter than me will confirm my thoughts. What are the assembly dates of these blocks ? My 63 block was cast in the first week of December 62 for a 4th week January 63 built car. I would think the holidays put a little space in my dates.

[Harry S.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

Syd, I can't recall the HP of your car, but I think the engines may have been built in groups, 250, 300, 340, 360. This may add to the 4 days.

[Tom H.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

After I read Syds original post again, I tend to think he may have been referring to the casting dates being so close to production date ? I agree they seem close, but possible. I thought originally he was asking if the 4 days apart were normal, that also seems right.

[Tom H.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

Syd, I can't recall the HP of your car, but I think the engines may have been built in groups, 250, 300, 340, 360. This may add to the 4 days.

Harry, I don't think that would be correct for casting. Since all 63's used casting # 870 blocks. Now, assembly might be a different story. John Z will know.

[Sydney G.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

Hi Tom,

I was referring to the difference (4 days) between the engine casting dates for the blocks.
This for two coupes built the same day in '63 and just 6 cars apart on the production line.
Harry, perhaps your right about the engine batches?

The engine assembly date for the first car is 9 days, 0506, before build and my assembly date sadly, is somewhat obscured before the RD.

Syd

[Tom H.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

I see absolutely nothing out of line with the four days difference.

[Michael H.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

I see absolutely nothing out of line with the four days difference.

I agree. Sounds perfectly normal to me. Several factors are involved. Were 300 HP engines run randomly or in groups at Flint. Were they shipped FIFO? Were they stocked at St Louis FIFO?
Also, there was quite a spread between the number of 250 HP engines used compared to the number of 300 HP engines so the quantity would have some effect on the inventory at St louis.

[Sydney G.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

Tom and Michael,

So the discrepancy of 4 days between the engine casting dates of these 2 cars seems ok.

Would it come down to the assembly date on the stamp pads to authenticate? Should the assembly date be the same (0506) for two cars built the same day and 6 apart in 1963?

My '63 seems off by a couple of days in comparison (0508 or 09?) but is very hard to read. Most probably decked or tampered with pre 1990.

What do you think I should do to document this for possible proof of my engines originality?

Syd

[Wayne W.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

Maybe were intended to FIFO at St. Louis, but I don't think it really happened, or they got plenty mixed up on the rail cars. For instance, in the case of my 67 390HP, it has a C77 casting. Surveys show that C77 blocks ranged up to 2000 serial numbers in spread, with many other casting dates of a month apart scattered in between. I would say that small four day spread is perfectly normal.

[Michael H.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

Tom and Michael,

So the discrepancy of 4 days between the engine casting dates of these 2 cars seems ok.

Would it come down to the assembly date on the stamp pads to authenticate? Should the assembly date be the same (0506) for two cars built the same day and 6 apart in 1963?

I think the difference in engine assembly dates is normal also. That date would go along with the casting date of each block and have nothing to do with the build date of the car in St Louis.
The block casting date and engine pad stamp date would likely be within a day or two of the casting date.
I see no problem with the difference in span between the two cars/engines. Sounds normal/typical to me.

[Sydney G.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

Wow.
Sounds very interesting. Thinking about it makes sense!
Perhaps my mission of recording 63's paid off after all.

The car I found built 6 before mine has low mileage and all numbers point to it having the original engine.
As I said, my cars engine pad is a tad messed with but I've suspected all along that it could be original. A past owner circa 1970 described the car exactly as it is today.

Can I do anything to document this toward proof of my engines originality?

Syd

[Timothy B.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

Sydney,

My 63 engine with 300HP is cast J192 (October) and assembled 1022, for comparsion I also have a spare 300HP engine cast J162 but I have only had one cup of coffee this morning so I will report the assembly date later, both Flint engines and I doubt it's the same as the 1022 engine above.

My coupe is built C2, second week November 62 so that sounds about the same as your car when considering time frame between engine build/car assembly.

I would take some navel jelly to your engine pad and clean it good then leave it protected with some oil etc. Make sure you remove any oil prior to navel jelly application.

[Tom H.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

Syd:

I don't think you'll be able to actually authenticate anything with numbers alone. If it were that easy, every bogus car out there could be authenticated with the numbers alone.

I do think you have done the right thing by locating a car with the same build day as a guideline to show your numbers could be correct and acceptable based on other facts you have found.

Have you ever posted a photo of your pad for anyone to offer an opinion ? Good post Syd, you did find some interesting info !

Tom

[Tom P.]

Re: '63 Production Sequence vs. Engine Casting

Syd:

Interesting discussion. I don't think production or inventory control were necessarily very linear in those days. Maybe, but maybe not.

Years ago I tracked down a car that was two cars ahead of mine on the assembly line. Both 63 340 HP cars that were assembled the last week of November 62.

Don't have info on the engine casting dates but the assembly date for my motor was November 6th and his was September 27th!! So they were definitely not cast close together.

Regards, Tom