Originally a TI car?

[Steven S.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

My first week of January '66 does not have the hole under the latch for the clip, Gary's experience reaffirms my belief that this clip was not installed untill a certain point of the production year. This type of anomoly can be difficult to pinpoint or prove since most cars that go through a restoration would typically just add the clip rather than argue it wasn't ever there.

Steve

P.S. Thats interesting about the early cars having the lead spliced in... anyone else care to add to that?

[Steven S.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

The release date is May '65, the revisions are unrelated to the item in my comment. Revisions are 2-1-66 and and a later revision calling out an optional coil

William, with your clarification on the date I read the revision record as;
"2-1-66, redrawn & redesigned", would you agree?. Does anyone know what all was "redrawn & redesigned" on this print?

Thanks,
Steve

[William C.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

At least according to the aim, there was no extra hole for the clip, it was installed on the existing stud used to retain the lower inner area of the hood catch.

The early K-66 installation AIM details the modifications to be made to install the K-66 wiring. There was no unique engine harness nor IP harness for K-66, just modifications to the existing wiring to adapt it to the added TI wiring harness.

[Steven S.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

At least according to the aim, there was no extra hole for the clip, it was installed on the existing stud used to retain the lower inner area of the hood catch.

William,
Not sure if we are looking at the same thing, but there it is definitely calling out an additional hole...

[William C.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

My error, the Aim I have makes it look like the hole is common with the hole for the hood catch, yours is much more clear.

[Gary S.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

OK, for the clip under the hood catch, is there a date on that AIM or is it from the beginning?

[Michael H.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

My first week of January '66 does not have the hole under the latch for the clip,
Steve

P.S. Thats interesting about the early cars having the lead spliced in... anyone else care to add to that?

My Nov 65 built 66 does not have the clip or hole under the latch.

The pink feed wire from the ign switch is not spliced.

The AIM sheet that Steven posted is NOT the original sheet. The original sheet would have had revision symbols begining with #1. This sheet begins with symbol #9.
When the revision box on an original sheet is filled, a new sheet is used and all of the previous revisions are lost to history. I know of no way to find the previous changes/revisions on the original sheet.
I suspect the clip, item #28, was one of the changes that occured on a previous sheet. The part and hole were added on that previous drawing.

[Steven S.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

OK, for the clip under the hood catch, is there a date on that AIM or is it from the beginning?

Gary, there is the 2-1-66 date on the revision record, so I suppose we can assume the hole started at least then. My first week of Jan.car (105xx SN), which if I recall seems to be the latest example given so far, does not have the hole.

[Rich P.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

If memory serves me on 67's and maybe 66's here was a raised dimple where the hole would be drilld for the clip under the hood catch.

I have not looked for one in quite some time. But remember seeing it n 67's

Rich.

[Gary J.]

Re: Originally a TI car?


As I continue the restoration on my 1966 big block (427/390)


The car is A.O. Smith built on 9/23/65. Thanks.


I'm thinking there were no BB cars built @ the A.O.Smith plant along with no sidepipes.

So what we have here is a small block car built @ the A.O.Smith plant that could have TI with a 327/350

[John H.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

I'm thinking there were no BB cars built @ the A.O.Smith plant along with no sidepipes.

Gary -

Lots of big-block bodies were built at A.O. Smith in 1966, but not in 1967; no sidepipe bodies, however.

[Wayne M.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

As I continue the restoration on my 1966 big block (427/390)


The car is A.O. Smith built on 9/23/65. Thanks.


I'm thinking there were no BB cars built @ the A.O.Smith plant along with no sidepipes.

So what we have here is a small block car built @ the A.O.Smith plant that could have TI with a 327/350

Gary -- they built big block A-bodies at Ionia Mich in 1965 and 1966; it wasn't until 1967 model year that all BB's (except a few at the start of production) were restricted to St.Louis only. You're correct about the side exhaust.

Have you climbed under your car to check the diff code and yoke style ?

[Gary J.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

So, all of 1965 and 1966 model year BB were built at A.O.Smith and St. Louis, just no sidepipes were installed on the A.O.Smith cars. So, why the swithch to run all of the 1967 model year BB at St. Louis?

[Wayne M.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

So, all of 1965 and 1966 model year BB were built at A.O.Smith and St. Louis, just no sidepipes were installed on the A.O.Smith cars. So, why the swithch to run all of the 1967 model year BB at St. Louis?

Not quite -- not ALL of '65-6 BB's; let's assume just an even sharing between the two body sources, irregardless of BB or SB (no restrictions). But in 1967, there was an issue with applying the painted contrasting hood stripe on the big blocks at Ionia MI (as legend would have it ) with the result that the vast majority of later '67 427's bodies were produced at St.Louis.

[Michael G.]

Re: Originally a TI car?

Be careful in your comments Gary when stating facts......, I almost fell out of my chair....lol. Believe me I've researched the car before purchase and within reason determined it is and has been a BB car all it's life. The owner of 30 years who purchased it from the owner of 5 years who purchased the car in 1972 indicated the car is what it is! Interestingly enough you didn't see TI on a 427/390 often and of course no side pipes from A.O. Smith