65 chassis chalk marks

[Bob P.]

I am almost complete with detailing my 65's chassis. The only thing I need to complete are the rear bumper mark and the front x mark. Quanta shows both on the left side. Are they actually marked on both sides?

[Bob P.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

I have an additional question. Quanta states that the #2 body mount only gets shim marks on a 63. The JG states that on a 65 all mounts get shim marks. What is correct?

[Jim D.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

I am almost complete with detailing my 65's chassis. The only thing I need to complete are the rear bumper mark and the front x mark. Quanta shows both on the left side. Are they actually marked on both sides?

I just pulled the body off my VERY original 65. I've found a lot of the info. from Quanta does not match up with my car. All my shim marks, frame stencil, crayon date etc. are perfect. There is no trace of any rear bumper mark or front X like Quanta says there should be. Also, the driveshaft, rear end and steering box markings are nothing like Quanta says they should be either. When I replace my marks, I'm going with what is original to my car, not what someone else thinks is correct.

[Bob P.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

Jim

Do you remember if the #2 body mount has any shim marks?

Also I agree with matching marks that are already there. The right side of my chassis was clear and easy to remark, however the left side showed no markings.

Bob

[Michael H.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

When I replace my marks, I'm going with what is original to my car, not what someone else thinks is correct.

Jim,

That's exactly what I would do too.

[Michael H.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

I have an additional question. Quanta states that the #2 body mount only gets shim marks on a 63. The JG states that on a 65 all mounts get shim marks. What is correct?

I have to wonder if the Quanta folks think there is no #2 body mount on any 64-67?
This would be correct if they're refering to 64-67 coupes.

[Jim D.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

Jim

Do you remember if the #2 body mount has any shim marks?

Also I agree with matching marks that are already there. The right side of my chassis was clear and easy to remark, however the left side showed no markings.

Bob

There is confusion on which is actually the #2 mount. I have a coupe and to me, the #2 mount is the first one going backwards from the radiator. Regardless, all my mounting points have marks to designate the number of shims at each location.

[Carl N.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

I documented, marked, tagged cleaned reinstalled shims just as they came off the body/frame on my '65 and '67's.

I did not worry about what JG says - I was pleased that everything lined up great and the bodies fit on the frames as they should. More important to me than points - but each to his own.

I was lucky as these were no-hit, rust free cars.

Carl

[John H.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

There is confusion on which is actually the #2 mount. I have a coupe and to me, the #2 mount is the first one going backwards from the radiator.

Jim -

Chevrolet considered the #1 body mount as the one at the base of the firewall, #2 as the convertible-only mount under the sill plate, #3 as the mount adjacent to the trailing arm pivot, and #4 as the mount behind the rear wheel; identified as such in UPC 1, sheets G1-G2-G3. The front one is the "radiator support mount", UPC 11/13, sheet A5, View "C".

[Michael H.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

Jim -

Chevrolet considered the #1 body mount as the one at the base of the firewall, #2 as the convertible-only mount under the sill plate, #3 as the mount adjacent to the trailing arm pivot, and #4 as the mount behind the rear wheel; identified as such in UPC 1, sheets G1-G2-G3. The front one is the "radiator support mount", UPC 11/13, sheet A5, View "C".

I was told that this body mount numbering system came from the passenger car/Fisher body side because the bodies from Fisher did not include the front end.

Some GM documents refer to the mounts at the core support as #1 but most refer to the cowl mount as #1.

[James W.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

I just pulled the body off my VERY original 65. I've found a lot of the info. from Quanta does not match up with my car. All my shim marks, frame stencil, crayon date etc. are perfect. There is no trace of any rear bumper mark or front X like Quanta says there should be. Also, the driveshaft, rear end and steering box markings are nothing like Quanta says they should be either. When I replace my marks, I'm going with what is original to my car, not what someone else thinks is correct.

Jim,

Would you mind sharing your frame documentation pictures?


Thanks,

James West

[John H.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

I was told that this body mount numbering system came from the passenger car/Fisher body side because the bodies from Fisher did not include the front end.

Michael -

I'm sure that's where the format came from - steel car bodies for full-frame cars started at the firewall; everything forward of the firewall was "Chevrolet front sheet metal".

[Michael H.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

Michael -

I'm sure that's where the format came from - steel car bodies for full-frame cars started at the firewall; everything forward of the firewall was "Chevrolet front sheet metal".

Thanks John.

Out of curiousity, I dug out an AIM to confirm what I remember. I found two pages of interest.

The first is the "body dimension checking sheet", UPC 1 (bolt and weld) sheet C5. The fore/aft dimensions "forward of the firewall/dash" (0) are shown as negative numbers (-10, -20 etc) and the dimensions rear of dash are positive dimensions without the "-" symbol.

Also, on UPC 1 assy sheet G1, the body mount at the firewall is refered to as "#1 body bracket".
This sheet is labeled 19437 (coupe) and the #2 body mount is not shown because it's not used on 64-67 coupe bodies.
Sheet G3, for 19467 (conv) does show the #2 body mount, as used on all 63's and all 64-67 conv's.

Now, does anyone know why the #2 body mount was eliminated for 64-67 coupes? I posted the answer here a few years ago.

[Timothy B.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

Mike,

Could it be that the roof structure on the coupe held the birdcage from flexing unlike the convertible models.

[Michael H.]

Re: 65 chassis chalk marks

Mike,

Could it be that the roof structure on the coupe held the birdcage from flexing unlike the convertible models.

Timothy,

The roof structure on a coupe made it possible to remove the #2 mount but it wasn't the reason why it was removed.