64 Z-06

[Duke W.]

Re: 64 Z-06

Reading the introduction to this thread would have saved you the ink and the embrassment.

JR

Embarrased? Ha! So how many 1964 "Z-06 options" were installed at St. Louis, Joe?

How about documenation that the option was available? "I've seen it" doesn't cut the mustard.

I consider the NCRS Spec. Guide to be an authoritative source, and it does not list Z-06 for 1964 - maybe because none were produced, but until someone produces some unequivocal documentation that it was actually an available option sometime in the 1964 model year, I consider to be just another myth!

Show me the money, Joe?

Duke

[Duke W.]

Re: 64 Z-06

As mentioned previously, I think the early option was called Z06, just like late 63. Then it was dropped and J56 replaced it. The other items had to be ordered separately.

I'm still looking for the paperwork on this. I know it's here because I dug it out a few years ago to answer the same question for someone.

Ah, come on, Michael! J-56 did not replace Z-06! The components of the second release Z-06 were merely unbundled to separate options - F40, and J-56. N-03 and P-48 had already been unbundled as of the second Z-06 release in early 1963.

And unlike the 1963 Z-06 option, which required L-84, M-20, and G81, I don't think there were any restrictions on any of the unbundled former Z-06 components other than no N-03 in a convertible.

Duke

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 Z-06

Ah, come on, Michael! J-56 did not replace Z-06! The components of the second release Z-06 were merely unbundled to separate options - F40, and J-56. N-03 and P-48 had already been unbundled as of the second Z-06 release in early 1963.

And unlike the 1963 Z-06 option, which required L-84, M-20, and G81, I don't think there were any restrictions on any of the unbundled former Z-06 components other than no N-03 in a convertible.

Duke

Agreed. I should have stated that differently. But, I sure am thankful that you straightened me out on this. I'm kinda new at this and I know you are a Z06 expert.

I'm surprised I even responded to this....

[Duke W.]

Re: 64 Z-06

"Words mean things."
- Rush Limbaugh

Duke

[Tom H.]

Re: 64 Z-06

Guys !

I know nothing about these cars, but I do have my program from the 1989 Bloomington special collection. This car was there.

[Duke W.]

Re: 64 Z-06

It appears to have all the unbundled options that were part of the first release 1963 Z-06 Special Performance Equipment Package along with the mandatory additional options required to add Z-06, but that doesn't mean it is a "'64 Z-06"- 1964 "Z-06 equivalent" would be a reasonable description.

It's also a post-mid-production car, and the claim here is that Z-06 was only available very early in the 1964 model year, and I'm still waiting to see a 1964 production order, shipper, or window sticker that lists Z-06.

It's certainly true that a (first or second iteration) 1964 "Z-06 equivalent" is very rare - rarer than a 1963 Z-06 because most Corvette racers who had '63 Z-06 models continued to race them through the 1964 model year, rather than preping a '64 model since there were no major mechanical changes, and SCCA usually allowed past model years to be "updated" to the latest model year specs, so, for example, 1963 models could be updated to the larger valve sizes available on '64 SHP/FI engines.

Duke

[John D.]

Re: 64 Z-06

QT: IS it possible that a late May 64 car could be called a 64 Z06? From reading all these posts here I think I know the answer but want you guru's to tell me. Thanks, JD

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 Z-06

If you wanted to order a base 250 HP Coupe wih PG and air conditioning, you could have added J-56 or any of the other former Z-06 components that were available as separate options.

Duke

Are you sure about that??

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 Z-06

It's also a post-mid-production car, and the claim here is that Z-06 was only available very early in the 1964 model year, and I'm still waiting to see a 1964 production order, shipper, or window sticker that lists Z-06.

Duke

I don't think anyone here claimed there were completed Z06 cars for early 64. I think the claim was that the Z06 option was LISTED as being available in early paperwork and possibly dealer order forms.
Just because you haven't seen any of that paperwork doesn't mean it didn't exist.

[Duke W.]

Re: 64 Z-06

Okay, let's see some documentation that Z-06 was an available option and could be ordered at the time that Chevrolet first began accepting 1964 production orders.

I'm not aware of any restictions on the various 1964 unbundled Z-06 equipment other than no big tank in the convertible, but I already said that.

I recall some discussion here in the past about a base engine/PG coupe with the N-03 tank, and I am not aware of any technical reasons that would have precluded F-40 or J-56 in combination with any other options other than than J-56 could not be combined with J-50 and/or J-65.

Duke

[Rex T.]

Re: 64 Z-06

WOW!!!! I certainly did not intend to stir up such a fuss! I was merely interested in corresponding / speaking with other owners of these little known, but rare cars.

Sorry if anyone's feather's got ruffled. I wasn't there in 64, so I can HONESTLY say "I don't know".

Rex

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 Z-06

Okay, let's see some documentation that Z-06 was an available option and could be ordered at the time that Chevrolet first began accepting 1964 production orders.

I'm not aware of any restictions on the various 1964 unbundled Z-06 equipment other than no big tank in the convertible, but I already said that.

I recall some discussion here in the past about a base engine/PG coupe with the N-03 tank, and I am not aware of any technical reasons that would have precluded F-40 or J-56 in combination with any other options other than than J-56 could not be combined with J-50 and/or J-65.

Duke

Well, without documentation one way or the other, you're claim that Z06 was NOT shown as being available at intro of the 64 model year is just as outrageous as my claim that it WAS.

I don't think F40 or J56 was available in 64 with a base engine though. Where did you find that info?

[Duke W.]

Re: 64 Z-06

Well, without documentation one way or the other, you're claim that Z06 was NOT shown as being available at intro of the 64 model year is just as outrageous as my claim that it WAS.

I don't think F40 or J56 was available in 64 with a base engine though. Where did you find that info?

I have never seen any documentation that Z-06 was available in 1964 from reputable sources. All sources that I am aware of show the '63 Z-06 components as separate options for 1964. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that "Z-06" was not available unless someone can prove otherwise with reasonable documentation.

Didn't you claim to have something?

At some point when Chevrolet started working on the '64 model options, Z-06 may have been included. Then a decision was made to unbundle all the Z-06 components to separate options. The basic question is: Was this done before Chevrolet began accepting orders for '64 models or shortly after? I believe the former to be true because I have never seen evidence to support the latter case.

I am not aware that there were any restictions on F-40 and J-56 other than what I mentioned previously, and if you could order N-03 with a base engine and PG, why not F-40 or J-56? I can't prove that's the case, but I know of no evidence to indicate otherwise.

Duke

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 Z-06

I have never seen any documentation that Z-06 was available in 1964 from reputable sources. All sources that I am aware of show the '63 Z-06 components as separate options for 1964. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that "Z-06" was not available unless someone can prove otherwise with reasonable documentation.

Didn't you claim to have something?

At some point when Chevrolet started working on the '64 model options, Z-06 may have been included. Then a decision was made to unbundle all the Z-06 components to separate options. The basic question is: Was this done before Chevrolet began accepting orders for '64 models or shortly after? I believe the former to be true because I have never seen evidence to support the latter case.

I am not aware that there were any restictions on F-40 and J-56 other than what I mentioned previously, and if you could order N-03 with a base engine and PG, why not F-40 or J-56? I can't prove that's the case, but I know of no evidence to indicate otherwise.

Duke

If/when I find what I'm looking for that shows that Z06 was "shown as an option" for early 64, I'll post it.
If you're content with no "Z06 for 64" because you have never seen anything in print on it, that's fine.

That's ok. No one seems to want to believe that 63 front and rear springs were used in all early 64 with std susp. either.

By the way, my 64 GM new products manual makes absolutely no mention of J56 as an available option for the new 64.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I just happened to think (I do that on occasion) would the 64 AIM mention the Z06 option as being canceled? Or, would the J56 or F40 section mention that "was Z06" ?
Wish I could remember where this info is. I know for sure that I've read this in the past.
So....anyone have the 64 AIM handy?

[John H.]

Re: 64 Z-06

So....anyone have the 64 AIM handy?

In the '64 A.I.M., Z06 was released on 6-3-63 with two sheets (1.00 and 2.00), with the part callouts for the front hub/knuckle assy, trailing arm assy's, front stabilizer bar & bushings, rear lower shock mount shafts, and the front shocks and springs are referenced to the F40 callouts in UPC 3. Sheet 2.00 calls out the dual master cylinder, booster, pipes, and attaching parts.

The Option Index sheet (1.00) notes "RPO Z06 removed" on 2-18-64.

Then, on 4-8-64, the J-56 sheets (1.00 and 2.00) were released, with exactly the same illustrations and part number callouts that were on the removed Z06 sheets.

In '64, both J56 and F40 were only available in combination with G81 (Posi), M20 (4-speed), and L84 (Fuel Injection) according to the Engineering ECL listings.