Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

[Brooks G.]

My '56 returned home from extensive body work. I am now trying to get ready to remove the body from the chassis. At the present I am trying to remove the side glass from the doors. In the process I noticed the dates on each side glass and the windshield. The driver's side is IV(June '56). The passenger side is JV(May '56). The windshield is dated HV( July '56). Is it normal to have this kind of time span on these components? My research shows that the car came off the line on August 14, 1956. I have owned the car just over 42 years and the doors have never been taken apart during that time nor do they appear to have ever been tampered with. Thanks in advance!

Brooks Glover (2141)

[Steven B.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

Brooks, I have seen 56/57's with 1, 2 or 3 month spans. I believe Gary has some dates for 56's, but it is getting late and I may not remember correctly now.
Steve

[Brooks G.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

Stephen, thanks for the reply. I just thought that a 3 month span in dates on the window and windshield glass seemed a bit much. From what you are telling me, it is probably the norm. The judging manual I have does not address the span of time from one date to another.

[Gary C.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

Brooks, anything up to six months is permissible. Generally speaking about a month is norm. There was no installation methodology on the assembly line. The assembly worker used whatever was in front and easy reach. So, if a new shipment just came in with a later date than what was in the back, it got used first. Good example of cleaning out the bins at the year end model is that some of the last 100 produced 1957 original Corvettes have '56 style parts on them. Gary....

[Jack H.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

Hey, Gary, how goes the war? Glass is one of those exceptions to the general 6-month rule. The NCRS Judging Reference Manual, Section 4 Standard Deductions, Rule 4 provides for a 12-month time-frame on windshields, door glass, roof panels, plexiglass, and vinyl windows...

[Gary C.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

Jack, as always thanks - was trying to say that glass dating on average runs to about 6 months for 56 and 57, but didn't do a very good job of explaining that. My fingers and brain didn't track together to well. JM's finished, just waiting on the "final" revenue. Best, Gary....

[Brooks G.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

Gary, thanks for the reply. At some point in the restoration I plan to replace the window and windshield glass with new that has the same date as what I am replacing. After reading your post as well as others, it seems that the assembly line workers put on the car whatever was in the parts bin. Thanks for the info. BTW, I am the owner of serial # 3976 and it does not have aluminum shims between the frame and the front cross member.

[Gary C.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

Brooks, thanks for the shim info. Unless your glass is really bad, discolored, cracked, etc. would think about keeping it and taking the small condition hit. Obviously, if it's bad it needs to be replaced. JMTCW, Gary....

[Brooks G.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

Gary, thanks again for your response. As to my side and windshield glass, they are scratched and yellow with bubbles around the side glass trim. I think it would be best to replace them but I am wondering why you recommend not. Are the replica's that bad? I have asked about replica's on other posts and was told it would be best to find an original parts if possible. One example is clutch and brake pedals. My car was originally automatic and has later model pedals installed. Originals that I have found are around $1500 for both where replica's are around $83 per pedal. Are the replicas really that bad?

[Jack H.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

I believe the shims were 'as required' parts. That says that if this/that car just happened to line up without the need for shimming, no shims would have been installed...

[John H.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

I believe the shims were 'as required' parts. That says that if this/that car just happened to line up without the need for shimming, no shims would have been installed...

Jack -

The tapered aluminum shims between the front suspension crossmember and the frame were "100%" items - went on every car beginning in very late '56 (through '62) in order to increase positive caster capability.

[Edward M.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

Gary;

1956 #2117 (that I currerntly own) does not have the aluminum shims. 1956 #3298 (that I used to own) did have the shims.

[Gary C.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

Ed, the shims came about as John said to improve the caster per Zora. At higher speeds the front end lifted and the tires came inward creating less tread on the ground, hence the need for some negative caster. Change was made approximately VIN 4000. When the aluminum shims were added the 3rd arm bracket (drag link) was changed to the 3727511 cast #. Interesting to note that the shims on the SR-1 cars, both road and track versions were steel. Shims before approximately VIN 4000 were most likely dealer retrofit since there was a TSB issues on the shims. Gary....

[Edward M.]

Re: Dates on '56 Side Glass and Windshield

Ed, the shims came about as John said to improve the caster per Zora. At higher speeds the front end lifted and the tires came inward creating less tread on the ground, hence the need for some negative caster. Change was made approximately VIN 4000. When the aluminum shims were added the 3rd arm bracket (drag link) was changed to the 3727511 cast #. Interesting to note that the shims on the SR-1 cars, both road and track versions were steel. Shims before approximately VIN 4000 were most likely dealer retrofit since there was a TSB issues on the shims. Gary....

Now that is interesting. Did dealers really retrofit those shims. I definitely recall them on #3298, but the car had been disassembled prior to me getting it.