Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

[Garry E.]

Can anyone tell me what is the correct part number that is stenciled on the drive shaft of a '64 327/300 w/ PowerGlide....?Thanks.... Garry Eastwood #38705

[Alan D.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Only orange and green paint markings; usually one of each about 1/2"- 5/8" wide and about that as a separation around shaft at trans end with a second green straight line at diff end. Typically these shafts are mostly blacked out so strips are gone, but that black out stuff is a judging call some do not want to see it on 64's The one shown is a restored 63 that had rings and line at same end however that is not typical, normally these are at different ends

[Garry E.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Alan.... thanks for the response..... I found the number 3830618 in some old notes..... not sure if that is the correct one....

[Joe L.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Alan.... thanks for the response..... I found the number 3830618 in some old notes..... not sure if that is the correct one....

Garry-----

63-67 with Powerglide uses the same driveshaft/yoke assembly as 63-67 with manual transmission.

[Michael H.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Alan.... thanks for the response..... I found the number 3830618 in some old notes..... not sure if that is the correct one....

Garry

Check your 64 AIM. I'm not sure on this but I think the drive shaft assembly including yoke for 64 with PG, may have been the same as all 63 with Powerglide and early 63 with coarse spline Borg Warner transmission.

The drive shaft without front yoke may be basically the same for 63-67 though, even though the part number changed over the five year period.

[Garry E.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Thanks everyone, for your responses..... however.....I'm still trying to find out what the correct number was that was stenciled on that drive shaft..... because my old notes are a bit "fuzzy", I don't know if "3830618" is the number I should be using or not..... also..... while the new JG states that original drive shafts had a stenciled number on them, I've heard conflicting information that '63-'64' drive shafts weren't stenciled...... any further thoughts on this.....?? Garry Eastwood #38705

[Michael H.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Thanks everyone, for your responses..... however.....I'm still trying to find out what the correct number was that was stenciled on that drive shaft..... because my old notes are a bit "fuzzy", I don't know if "3830618" is the number I should be using or not..... also..... while the new JG states that original drive shafts had a stenciled number on them, I've heard conflicting information that '63-'64' drive shafts weren't stenciled...... any further thoughts on this.....?? Garry Eastwood #38705

Garry

I don't know what the JG has on this but I suspect it mentions that the drive shaft is not painted because the new 6th edition now states that the entire rear suspension/drive is also unpainted.

It was originally painted though, so you will have to make a decision. If it was my car, I would paint it, just like it was when it left the St Louis assembly plant.

[Garry E.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Does anyone know the correct number that should be stenciled on this drive shaft....?? Garry Eastwood #38705

[Glen S.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Section M35, Sheet 1 of the 64 AIM shows "The following parts installed same as regular production" . . . 3846340 Shaft Assembly - Prop.

Interestingly, Section 4, Sheet A2.00 shows 3843002 Prop. Shaft Assembly. I would go with the 3846340 number as you can cite the M35 section of the '64 AIM as a reference. Generally speaking, I don't know anyone that is checking for this number as there is a high probability that it would be turned so as to not be visible during judging.

[Michael H.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Section M35, Sheet 1 of the 64 AIM shows "The following parts installed same as regular production" . . . 3846340 Shaft Assembly - Prop.

Interestingly, Section 4, Sheet A2.00 shows 3843002 Prop. Shaft Assembly. I would go with the 3846340 number as you can cite the M35 section of the '64 AIM as a reference. Generally speaking, I don't know anyone that is checking for this number as there is a high probability that it would be turned so as to not be visible during judging.

Yup, as I mentioned previously, there was a different part number for the drive shaft assembly for 64 with Powerglide.

[Ray K.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Garry,

The driveshaft part # is 3830618 for all transmissions. 1963 -64 Powerglide used a coarse spline yoke #3818916.

If your driveshaft is stenciled with a part #, it is my opinion that it would have the part #3830618 on it, not the assembly number as referenced in the AIM.

Ray

[Michael H.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Garry,The driveshaft part # is 3830618 for all transmissions. 1963 -64 Powerglide used a coarse spline yoke #3818916.If your driveshaft is stenciled with a part #, it is my opinion that it would have the part #3830618 on it, not the assembly number as referenced in the AIM.Ray

RayYou are probably correct on the part number for the drive shaft. (I haven't looked it up) However, that would be the part number for just the basic tube as sold over the parts counter. No "U" joints and no front yoke.

The drive shaft assembly, as shipped to the St Louis Corvette assembly plant would have been a complete assembly, including the "U" joints and front yoke. The addition of those parts would have given the assembly it's own assembly line part number. (the one shown in the PG section of the 64 AIM)

It's unlikely that complete drive shaft assemblies that were shipped to the St Louis plant had the part number of the bare naked tube pasted on them instead of the part number for the complete assembly. That would be the 3846340, unique to 64 with PG.

[Ray K.]

Re: Drive shaft stencil for a '64 327/300 w/ PG

Michael,

Yes, that is the correct part number for the bare drive shaft - the tube and end yokes. And, yes, that is the way I sold them over the parts counter, bare shaft - no u-joints - no slip yoke. And as I recall, the part number was stenciled on the tube for service replacement. I think all service driveshafts had a part number painted or stenciled. Very few units were supplied as a complete assembly, but there were a few , and some replacements for 66-67 Chevelle's were offered both ways.

I agree that units supplied as an assembly to the production line would have had an " assembly " number which denoted its specific application for use in production and that should probably reflect the part # as referenced in the AIM.