65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

[Lief L.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Thanks for the info Mike
Thats a good thought
I don't have my 65 AIM here, I'll look tonite though

Lief

[Jim D.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

I think the 3864676 was changed in early 65 model year to include the changes required for the new 396 engine.

If someone has a 64 and 65 AIM handy, we can verify these numbers and times of change. The revision record at the bottom of the 65 AIM sheet would show that the 3864676 was replaced by the 3871317.

The 65 A.I.M. shows the frame as #3871317. At the bottom of the page it shows "7-24-64 - Was 3864676 frame & dwg. revised" and then "9-1-64 - Was 3863753 frame"

My car, pics. above, was built 181 cars before Michael's car.

[Lief L.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

All
I called Quanta to investigate further....apparently they have photo evidence that the stencil they made is correct including the date. Sounded like the fellow was flipping thru photos as we talked. he also said the dot was not correct and they would be glad to make another one with a dash if I would like. He read off vin #'s approx 150 before and 200 after mine with frame stencils the same as they made for me. Assuming this is true, it sounds like there may have been some frames laying around somewhere that got shuffled into the mix during this time. It must be yet another corvette mystery.
thanks for all your help and input
Lief

[Michael H.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

All
I called Quanta to investigate further....apparently they have photo evidence that the stencil they made is correct including the date. Sounded like the fellow was flipping thru photos as we talked. he also said the dot was not correct and they would be glad to make another one with a dash if I would like. He read off vin #'s approx 150 before and 200 after mine with frame stencils the same as they made for me. Assuming this is true, it sounds like there may have been some frames laying around somewhere that got shuffled into the mix during this time. It must be yet another corvette mystery.
thanks for all your help and input
Lief

I don't know if that sounds right. If the final 3871317 frame part/number was in the 65 AIM by Sept 1st 1964, I would think that it would not be more than a month or two (probably closer to a month) before it was in production. Not six months.

I also question the date being part of the stencil at that point in time. Has anyone seen an original stencil date before early production for the 66 model year.

Then there's the info that Jim Durham posted that shows that the 3864676 frame was replaced on 1 Sept 64 by part number 3863753.

I would like to see a few more examples of original late 64 through early/mid 65 frame stencil and dates.

What is the actual 64 frame part number in the 64 assembly manual? Is it the 3863753 or the 3864676? I would have guessed that the numerically lower number would have shown in the 64 AIM.

[Dan H.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Hi Michael, my 64 AIM shows 3864676 as of 4-22-64. It has the kick up area gussets. Previous frame PN was 3843361. My March 19th 64 has the earlier frame, no gussets. Don't see the 3863753 number.
Dan

[Michael H.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Hi Michael, my 64 AIM shows 3864676 as of 4-22-64. It has the kick up area gussets. Previous frame PN was 3843361. My March 19th 64 has the earlier frame, no gussets. Don't see the 3863753 number.
Dan

Thanks Dan. So the 2nd design 64 frame was originally supposed to be the same for start of production for the new 65 model. (at least on paper) Then it was replaced by the 3863753 on 24 July 64. On Sept 1 of 64, the 3863753 was replaced by the 3871317.

[Lief L.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

I would think the 3753 was replaced by the 4676, then the 1317
does anyone have a photo of a January / February stencil with a 4676 part #?

[Jim D.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

I would think the 3753 was replaced by the 4676, then the 1317

Not according to the revision dates/notes in the A.I.M.

[Mike E.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Keep in mind that St. Louis was on strike from late September to early November 1964, there might have been some old stock laying around but I doubt it would have extended into February. Although I think John H. said they had no FIFO system in place for inventory so anything is possible.

Mike

[Michael H.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

Keep in mind that St. Louis was on strike from late September to early November 1964, there might have been some old stock laying around but I doubt it would have extended into February. Although I think John H. said they had no FIFO system in place for inventory so anything is possible.

Mike

Good point. I forgot about the strike.

I think the St Louis plant probably had a five or six day supply of frames stored outside and less than one day supply inside the building. Probably only 30 or 40 inside as I remember. I don't know what may have been stocked at the source.

[Mark S.]

Re: 65 Frame stencil ...is it correct?

I have '65 8072 01/27/65 production date. What part number should be on this frame? Stencil date or hand written?