T.I. Distributor Date Code

[Peter S.]

I finally had the opportunity to pull my distributor, and was surprised by the date code on my tag: 8 M 16. Car is serial number 29536. I was able to verify the distributor number, not not the date before. A nine month gap seems excessive. The coil is also a 207 coil, which is listed as an unverified coil for an early 1968 350 HP w/ T.I.

Has this been seen before? I have a strong feeling my T.I. system might have been frankensteined. The 1100884 alternator is correctly dated.

[Joe R.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

Peter,

TI is not exactly like tinted windows, PS, PB etc. In other words, the option is not checked on every dealers order sheet! It does not surprise me at all that there is a 9 month gap in the time the distributor was made until installed in the Corvette. Delco probably made them in batches and the distributor was on the shelf or was in the bottom of the bin and newer stock was put on top. Distributors are not like bread in a grocery store so GM assembly lines don't really care about rotating stock. It was not first in, first out!

JR

[Terry M.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

Pete,
Relax. Up until sometime in 1969 model year (MY) TI was installed at St Louis. See K66 option in your AIM. Thus the date on TI distributors might be looser than one might expect for the points type distributors installed at the engine plant. Later in 1969 MY (as evidenced by the engine suffix code) the TI distributors began to be installed at the engine plant.

If the TIM&JG (be sure you have the latest one) says a 207 coil, is listed as an unverified coil for an early 1968 350 HP w/ T.I. That meant the Judging Manual team has heard of it, but not seen enough to be sure. It would be in your best interest to contact the 1968-69 National Team Leader Chuck Berge regarding what you have found. If, on the other hand, you found this information in "Joe's bible of Corvette Poop" forgetaboutit.

[Joe R.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

Pete,
Relax. Up until sometime in 1969 model year (MY) TI was installed at St Louis. See K66 option in your AIM. Thus the date on TI distributors might be looser than one might expect for the points type distributors installed at the engine plant. Later in 1969 MY (as evidenced by the engine suffix code) the TI distributors began to be installed at the engine plant.

If the TIM&JG (be sure you have the latest one) says a 207 coil, is listed as an unverified coil for an early 1968 350 HP w/ T.I. That meant the Judging Manual team has heard of it, but not seen enough to be sure. It would be in your best interest to contact the 1968-69 National Team Leader Chuck Berge regarding what you have found. If, on the other hand, you found this information in "Joe's bible of Corvette Poop" forgetaboutit.

Terry,

I resemble that remark!!!!

JR

[Terry M.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

Terry,

I resemble that remark!!!!

JR

No offence intended Joe. Every reference source ever written contains errors or omissions. It is the nature of the beast.

[Peter S.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

Terry the latest TIM&JG mentions that dates for L88 TI distributors may be lax because of the small production runs, but does not mention anything for the 350/350HP cars. If the installation of the distributor changed from being installed at St. Louis to Flint sometime in '69, I would expect a '68 distributor to be used well before mid-September, 1969.

A couple other tidbits: from a search of the TDB, I found an old Joe Lucia post stating the 207 coil was a service coil, but the Delco-Remy font does not match other service 207 coils I have found on the intarnets.

I have also read posts from Mark Donnally stating the red of the aluminum tag should be on the INSIDE, facing the distributor. Mine is clearly turned out.

[Terry M.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

If Mark is not driving the bus at the moment, perhaps he will chime in.

AFAIK there is no way to know how many 350/350 cars got TI. Could St Louis be using the last of their stock on your car? No way to know. Could there have been even fewer 350/350 with K66 than L88? Again, we don't know. Of course the problem becomes once you remove all that patina there is no basis for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

My 1970 LT1 has the red out. I am not convinced the red out or the silver out means much of anything, but then the chances of my judging your car are pretty remote so what I think really doesn't count. The chances of Mark judging your car are far greater.

[Peter S.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

You're right, there is no way to know. But based off production numbers, I think it can be said that the quantity can be low. There were 5,702 cars with T.I. in '69. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the L88, L89 and L71 all required T.I. If all these production numbers are correct (http://www.rogerscorvette.com/specs/69.htm) that leaves 2,474-optioned T.I. cars between the 10,531 L36s, 12,846 L46s and 2,072 L68s. The big blocks used the same T.I. distributor, and the L46 is the only car to use the 1111491 distributor.

You and Joe may be right that with such a small quantity, it is feasible for a December '68 distributor to end up in a mid-September '69 car.

I have emailed Chuck, hopefully he can clarify, or make this subject a little less murky.

[Peter S.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

Chuck Berge has responded to my message and has stuck to the TIM&JG - my date code is too early and must be within 6 months. He also stated the 207 is a replacement coil.

[Mike Z.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

As TI is one our main specialties in the shop, I will jump in and add a few cents. I agree with Peter that the low option volumes can very much dictate a longer than normally expected time between a distributor date and the engine build. The L46 did not require K-66 as did all the performance motors he mentions; therefore, it was an option for L36, L46, L68, which makes for a very low percentage of these motors leaving St. Louis with this option. As Terry mentions, since K-66 was a St. Louis installed option; larger than normal time separations are more realistic (Noland mentions an example of 10 months in 64 FI/TI examples). I disagree that it would not be possible for a December 68 #491 distributor to be installed in a September 69 car-sorry Chuck. However, I agree with Chuck that the #207 coil is a serv repl (used across the board for both SB & BB after about 68 to reduce the number of P/Ns, but was OEM SB in 65-67). I do not have the blueprints for exact dates, but starting in 68, #272 was OEM for the small block, while the BB used #263, which started in 67-these P/N's continued through the remainder of the run of K-66 availability (71). On the red side of the ID: I very very seldom have observed the red out prior to 67 (seen a couple of hundred original IDs at this point). They progressed to more and more having the red out in later years, to where I have observed only a very very low percentage with silver out bands in 70 & 71.
PS: Peter, your metal strap crimped onto the pigtail coming out of the housing is on the wrong side of the grommet-it is meant to be a stop and prevent from pulling the lead out of the housing. Your ID is OEM-has the correct size font and your housing is pre-mid 70, which is correct for your year model (no hole on the backside of the tach coupler). What is your vac stamped? should be #236. I see a faint remnants of orange "B" code, which is correct for #491.
Now, having put my couple of cents in, because Chuck is the judging authority for these cars-wear your armor when judging, and come fully prepared to do battle-I recommend changing out the coil, but I think you have a case for the distributor.
Good luck
Michael Z

[Mark D.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

Peter,

Regarding how the dyed side should be oriented, I have bounced back and forth for a long time. At this point, I would not make a deduction, regardless. I have a respected judging partner that thinks there is a specific side which is dependant on application. There was a time I believed that myself but, I have since decided there are not enough legitimate data points to make a deduction, based on what I (don't) know.

Regardless of what any judge may say, my advice will always be; if you feel strongly that a component is original, you should research said component in hopes of uncovering compelling evidence to defend your opinion and more importantly, do what's best for your car. I'm not much into telling others what they should do but, in this case I would leave the ID band the way it is until you are comfortable changing it.

Mark

[Peter S.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

What is your vac stamped? should be #236. I see a faint remnants of orange "B" code, which is correct for #491.
Now, having put my couple of cents in, because Chuck is the judging authority for these cars-wear your armor when judging, and come fully prepared to do battle-I recommend changing out the coil, but I think you have a case for the distributor.
Good luck
Michael Z

Michael, great information - thank you. The VAC is a 201. Joe Lucia confirmed in a previous conversation that this is what he expected for an L46 w/ K66. Why were you expecting a 236?

Peter,

Regarding how the dyed side should be oriented, I have bounced back and forth for a long time. At this point, I would not make a deduction, regardless. I have a respected judging partner that thinks there is a specific side which is dependant on application. There was a time I believed that myself but, I have since decided there are not enough legitimate data points to make a deduction, based on what I (don't) know.

Regardless of what any judge may say, my advice will always be; if you feel strongly that a component is original, you should research said component in hopes of uncovering compelling evidence to defend your opinion and more importantly, do what's best for your car. I'm not much into telling others what they should do but, in this case I would leave the ID band the way it is until you are comfortable changing it.

Mark

Thanks Mark. I am comfortable using this tach w/ the date code. If I were to get it flight judged, I would not change it out. The coil is clearly wrong and worth replacing.

[Mike Z.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

Joe is correct on the #201 vac-I was thinking non performance SB, checked the Delco book and #201 for your #491 is correct. On Mark's comment on the "dyed side orientation", I believe he is referring to the "B" Code (paint swash near the top next to the vac canister). The "B" code was a means to quickly ID distributor P/N or applications. Yours was orange, while a 435HP application was white, etc. When speaking of cast iron units (aluminum units were different), in the several hundred that I personally have seen, I have only seen original paint marks on the flat surface near the top of the housing, counter-clockwise (to the right as you are looking directly at the vac) from the vac. We duplicate these marks in our distributor rebuilds-have several pics in our e-Bay listings if you are interested. I have several copies of Delco blueprints, which indicate the "B" code paint mark in the area I have indicated. Your decision to use the distributor, but change the coil, I feel is right on.
Mike

[Peter S.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

Thanks again Mike. I found some of your listings on ebay (unless there is another MichaelZ from New Mexico dabbling in TI distributors). Pardon my ignorance, but which company are you with?

[Mike Z.]

Re: T.I. Distributor Date Code

Peter, you have the correct e-Bay handle-our company is ReNu-A-Vette, Mike.