1964 365hp correct #

[Lynn H.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

[quote=Martin Tait (45941);462970]

I think the issue here was the use of a 3859326 water pump for some 63's.
While the 63-64 JG does state that the 609 was used for 63, it goes on to state that late 63's and all 64's used the 3859326.

The 3859326 was never factory installed on any 63's and if any were factory installed on 64's, it would have been late in the model year.

As Joe L mentioned, 3839175 water pump likely appeared for late 63 or early 64 cars and continued through much of the 64 run.

This has been discussed (beat to death) here a few years ago and everyone (almost) agrees that the JG should be revised to show this change.

This info has been forwarded to the TL and a few others in the org so I would expect to see this corrected in a new release of the JG.[/quot

Michael, The dilemma seems to be in the Judging Manual. According to the 63-64 Manual I viewed last night, the accepted water pump for 63-64 high horse engines (inclusive of a L-84) would be a 609. Per, Joe's information it seems unlikely 326's would have been used until mid 65. Bottom line is I have a May 4, 1964 L-84 and don't want to use something that is wrong.

Martin,
I started a few threads a couple of months ago concerning the usage of some of the different water pumps, and received much of the same information in this thread. I have a 175 pump that IS dated E4 3. So there were actually some pumps dated well before some of the published information would indicate. Whether the pump I posses was actually factory installed on a Corvette or a truck is open for debate. This is an area that I personally am very surprised that has not been cleared up with some type of list of accepted pumps (acknowledged by the NCRS) for the different applications, that it seems clear WERE used in Corvette production over the years. One of the answers I get to this question is that it, IS NOT something that is judged (WP casting number). With that being the case it seems strange to me that it is not called out anywhere that points CANNOT be docked for this reason. I have been told by some people that an experienced judge may or may not deduct points for casting numbers, dates, etc, on water pumps.
Lynn

[Jack H.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

I have a 175 pump that IS dated E4 3.

Is that '175 pump of yours a Saginaw or Tonawanda casting? Tonawanda dated their water pumps LONG before Saginaw started the process...

So there were actually some pumps dated well before some of the published information would indicate. Whether the pump I posses was actually factory installed on a Corvette or a truck is open for debate.

And that is a key part of the issue here... The NTL maintains the Judging Guide for his division of Corvette. Most want PROOF that this/that is true and rely highly on past experience with 'untouched' original cars. So, just because this/that exists or drawings say thus and such, typically doesn't cut it for 'proof'...

This is an area that I personally am very surprised that has not been cleared up with some type of list of accepted pumps (acknowledged by the NCRS) for the different applications, that it seems clear WERE used in Corvette production over the years.

It HAS been cleared up. The various Judging Guide books clearly define what cast numbers are believed to have been used where/when. What this conversation is about is an 'anomoly'...the '175 that appears as if it's the bridge between the '609 and '326. And, yes, officially it's not recognized...

One of the answers I get to this question is that it, IS NOT something that is judged (WP casting number). With that being the case it seems strange to me that it is not called out anywhere that points CANNOT be docked for this reason. I have been told by some people that an experienced judge may or may not deduct points for casting numbers, dates, etc, on water pumps.

The Judging Guide is just that...a GUIDE. It's intended to supplement the personal knowledge of those who judge. They have the right to set aside any/all information as well as to judge on things not published.

The only place we have a MANUAL these days is with the NCRS Corvette Judging Reference Manual published and maintained by the National Judging Chairman. Those rules are hard/fast...

[Michael H.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

And that is a key part of the issue here... The NTL maintains the Judging Guide for his division of Corvette. Most want PROOF that this/that is true and rely highly on past experience with 'untouched' original cars. ...

I'd like to see PROOF that a 3859326 ever left the St Louis Corvette assembly plant on the engine of a new 63 Corvette.

I think this Proof thing should work both ways.

I have PROOF that the 3859326 water pump wasn't even on paper during the 1963 model run.

[Lynn H.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

I have a 175 pump that IS dated E4 3.

Is that '175 pump of yours a Saginaw or Tonawanda casting? Tonawanda dated their water pumps LONG before Saginaw started the process...

So there were actually some pumps dated well before some of the published information would indicate. Whether the pump I posses was actually factory installed on a Corvette or a truck is open for debate.

And that is a key part of the issue here... The NTL maintains the Judging Guide for his division of Corvette. Most want PROOF that this/that is true and rely highly on past experience with 'untouched' original cars. So, just because this/that exists or drawings say thus and such, typically doesn't cut it for 'proof'...

This is an area that I personally am very surprised that has not been cleared up with some type of list of accepted pumps (acknowledged by the NCRS) for the different applications, that it seems clear WERE used in Corvette production over the years.

It HAS been cleared up. The various Judging Guide books clearly define what cast numbers are believed to have been used where/when. What this conversation is about is an 'anomoly'...the '175 that appears as if it's the bridge between the '609 and '326. And, yes, officially it's not recognized...

One of the answers I get to this question is that it, IS NOT something that is judged (WP casting number). With that being the case it seems strange to me that it is not called out anywhere that points CANNOT be docked for this reason. I have been told by some people that an experienced judge may or may not deduct points for casting numbers, dates, etc, on water pumps.

The Judging Guide is just that...a GUIDE. It's intended to supplement the personal knowledge of those who judge. They have the right to set aside any/all information as well as to judge on things not published.

The only place we have a MANUAL these days is with the NCRS Corvette Judging Reference Manual published and maintained by the National Judging Chairman. Those rules are hard/fast...

Jack,
Without going out to look, I do believe it WAS a tonawanda casting. I am sure we could find the threads of a month or two ago where you, and Joe L, and others, were helping me to figure out what exactly I had with my pile of pumps. I was NOT posting to be argumentative in any way (I actually do not believe mine to be a Corvette part). I agree with with you about everything concerning the judging guides and manuals that are currently available through the NCRS as being the information is used on how cars are judged. And I stand by and agree with the rules as stated by the NCRS. As far as cleared up, through the discussions I have had on the TDB and with numerous other individuals in the last couple of months, that is a matter of opinion. I think the proof of that is in your own statement:
"The various judging guide books CLEARLY define what cast numbers are BELIEVED to have been used where/when."

Your not stating that it is the best information available AT THIS TIME. You are stating that it is something that is BELIEVED, not something that is KNOWN FACT.
I am just one person who happens to think that the guidelines COULD be enforced more uniformly, if the NCRS was to come out and publish a list of the ACCEPTED pump casting numbers. Then that would be that. It just does not seem that difficult to me. The spec guides list many others parts, you tell me: Why are water pumps NOT included in that information?
I believe the answer to that is abundantly clear:
Because they are NOT certain. How many 175 pumps would have to be found original for it to be considered acceptable, instead of "anomaly". Again, "my opinion" is the anomaly is something out of the ordinary. Which to me would not mean putting a 175 pump on, every time they ran out of 326's.
I have no problem with "the way it is", but that does NOT make it anything other than "what it is". Since I have been looking in the last couple of months, I've seen quite a few pumps that COULD be in question, but the owners insist they are correct. How much of that can be ignored without giving it some attention. Hopefully you do not take this to be personally offensive, as that is NOT my intent. I claim to know nothing, except for guys like you tell me.
Lynn

[Bob J.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

I'd like to see PROOF that a 3859326 ever left the St Louis Corvette assembly plant on the engine of a new 63 Corvette.

I think this Proof thing should work both ways.

I have PROOF that the 3859326 water pump wasn't even on paper during the 1963 model run.

I'd like to see the PROOF a team leader used in determining a 326 pump was factory installed on a 63 also...........IT DIDN"T HAPPEN. Bob

[Martin T.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

Ah... yes, I think that's exactly the same thing I said. Almost. NO 326 pumps for any 63 and highly unlikely for 64.

I think the 326 may have been used for early 65's though.

There is a LONG discussion on this in the old archives. I think Jorjorian and I started it, if I remember correctly. Or at least were the bad guys that fired the first shots.
I think there was a question about a 63 water pump and someone replied, said the JG called for a 3859326 for all 63-64's. (old 3rd or 4th edition) I think the war raged on for days.

Michael, I have a May 4, 1964 engine assembly stamp on my pad. The engine is clearly a later 64 375 horsepower engine. There is absolutely design differences between a 609 and 326 waterpump. Given this information what (in your opinion) should I install.

[Jack H.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

No, I do not take you to 'argumentative'...

I was simply stating the reality of our judging system. There are many places where 'loop holes' exist, different things are treated differently based on specfic division and NTL. But, that's the way things are.

As far as the others who want to see 'PROOF' from the NTL, you should take that up with the specific NTL. But, in some cases, I suspect you'll be pushing on a rope!

So, don't shoot the messanger on this one. You'll note that JG information DOES change over time as our standards are dynamic.

On this '609/'175/'326 pump issue, you all know what the current thinking is regardless of right/wrong. So, it's your car, go select the part you believe to be correct/original and then be prepared to take deduction(s) depending on which judges you happen to pull.

The alternative is to blindly follow the text of the current JG book and then YEARS later, if/when the text is changed, you're stuck with a water pump that turns out to be WRONG...

The act of restoration is like duck hunting. You have to lead the airborne flock with your gun to bring the birdies down... It's NOT a completely solved science and there IS an artform content to the sport/hobby.

Yes, there is an obvious visual difference between a '609 and '175/326 pump housing (forget about date coding or casting source). But, the distinction between a '175 and '326 pump is gossamer at best!

One last comment, while I've seen that rare/elusive '326 pump with 1/2" NPT fitting on the upper boss (Corvette/Camaro applications) versus the larger 3/4" NPT bores associated with truck applications, I've yet to see a '175 housing with the small bore...

What's that mean/say? Probably not much.

The '175 casting is indeed a rare item and I've only seen/had maybe 20 of them over the years. So, this could be a simple case of small sample statistical skew. Or, if could indeed be a form of 'proof' that these, for whatever reasons, simply weren't used in Corvette applications...

[Lynn H.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

Jack,
Glad to hear all is well, hopefully we can get the opportunity to meet in person one day. Possibly at the '11 National in Novi, as I will be there for sure. If not before.
On the 175/326 pumps with the 1/2" NPT threaded hole, I have held in my hand one of the 175's and 2 of the 326's about a month ago. A friend has them in his pile of old pumps. After the previous investigating I was doing on determining what I had, I could not resist the urge to ravage through his pile. I did not take note of the castings as far as Flint/Tonawanda, or check to see if they were dated, as I was in somewhat of a rush that day. I will be seeing him later today or tomorrow, so I will take my camera and try to get some photos, and will post them if they appear to be of interest.
Lynn

[Martin T.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #


Martin,
In my last response to you I said that I believe that there is a newer updated judging manual(I think that it came out in early 2009) that reflects my position on the "609" and "326" usage. Your 1965 Corvette definitely would use an undated 3859326 water pump. To further answer you question, go to the NCRS discussion board and ask the usage of the "609" and "326 undated water pump.
Bill Mock #93

So this was an interesting response. In fairness to Bill, I don't believe he realizes I am talking about an engine with a build date of May 4, 1964.

[Michael H.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

Michael, I have a May 4, 1964 engine assembly stamp on my pad. The engine is clearly a later 64 375 horsepower engine. There is absolutely design differences between a 609 and 326 waterpump. Given this information what (in your opinion) should I install.

Martin,

Paperwork from Grey Iron Works, the folks that made the castings for these pumps, does not include the 3859326 water pump through most of 1964. The 3782609 is shown for 63 and a 3839175 is shown for 64.

The first mention of a 3859326 is on a sheet for 1965.

[Timothy B.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

Michael,

Would a undated 326 be correct for a November built (early) 65 car or is the 175 still used?

[Michael H.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

Michael,

Would a undated 326 be correct for a November built (early) 65 car or is the 175 still used?

Most likely. I think the 326 was probably in use by that time. The only paperwork I have has a Dec 64 date though. Not sure if that was the initial run for the 326 or just the first sheet from the source that lists it as one of the items that they make.

[Timothy B.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

Thanks Michael,

I have two almost new 175 pumps that I bought in service back in 1981 but they have 3/4" bypass and no S cast under the 3839175 part # like I have seen in pics. I had one on my 63 before I realized my 300 hp engine used 608.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

Thanks Michael,

I have two almost new 175 pumps that I bought in service back in 1981 but they have 3/4" bypass and no S cast under the 3839175 part # like I have seen in pics. I had one on my 63 before I realized my 300 hp engine used 608.

Tim------

Are you referring to a NEW GM waterpump? I am amazed that SERVICE pumps using the 3839175 casting number would have been being manufactured and sold in SERVICE as late as anywhere near 1981 but I certainly don't rule it out. I've always believed that the 3839175 casting was phased out as the 3859326 was phased-in during the mid 60's. In fact, I would expect that existing 3839175 patterns were modified to the 3959326 spec and the casting number changed. But, maybe not.

Since February, 1972 and continuing for many years well into the 90's, the SERVICE waterpumps for virtually all short-leg small blocks were GM #3998206 and 3998207 (only a slight difference in hub location between the two part numbers). All of these that I have seen come out of the box have had the 3859326 casting number. As a matter of fact, the first SERVICE 3998206 waterpump I purchased for my 1969 about 1973, or so, used the 3859326 casting and several NOS examples of the pump I have do, too.

Of course, this does not mean that all 3998206 and 3998207 pumps used the 3959326 casting. Were the pumps with the 3839175 casting that you purchased around 1981 of GM PART #3998206 or 3998207? Also, was there a raised "T" seen on anywhere on the casting?

[Timothy B.]

Re: 1964 365hp correct #

Joe,

The pumps were purchased new on 6/04/81 under GM #3998206 for a price of 34.62. I will post a picture of the water pumps, they have no running time but were installed until I realized the 608 is the correct water pump for low hp engines. As you know the 608 had to be purchased as a reconditioned pump in the aftermarket.

There is some surface rust but these 175's are virtually new, no T anywhere in the castings.