I am confronted with an interesting situation. Several years ago I was looking through Noland Adams book

"The Complete Corvette Restoration and Technical Guide - Vol. 2 1963 Through 1967'

and as I came across page # 379, one of the VINs listed is surprisingly my car. I bought this car without knowing all of the history but as I looked at this listing I was even more confused. I called Noland himself at the time and though he was very pleasant, he said his records were so old that he unfortunately would not be able to help me much. I thanked him for his time and sort of forgot about it until today when I happened to be reading the book again. I thought I would post the questions I have here and see if our group of experts might help me sort this out.

The questions I have are:

1. Why is there a question mark in the VIN for determining if it is a coupe or convertible (my car is in fact a convertible)?

2. The engine in my car is marked and stamped correctly with the right VIN, etc. but it is a 425hp IP model and not the IL model listed here, what gives?

3. Also the engine date is different from what is listed and the build date of the car precedes the engine date by about a month, again???

4. I have heard that sometimes engines blew up during the dyno process and were replaced with other engines at the time of assembly, true or false?

Anyways, it is somewhat unusual and I am just trying to sort all of this out. Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks and happy Thanksgiving to all!

 

1. perhaps Noland's records of your VIN at the time were not clear and he couldn't make out the numbers correctly enough to make a definite determination of the number determining coupe or convertible so he put in the book a question mark to show he didn't know on that VIN. It's only that one digit that determines that on the VIN

2. hmmm, a '66 IL is a 390HP motor, the '66 IP is the 425HP motor. Could be someone restamped it to make it appear to be the more valuable motor or they swapped motors and restamped it to be a IP. With the greatly increased value of the higher HP motor anything that look suspicious, as this does, is cause for concern.

3. there is no way the CAR build date can precede the engine build date. This seems to give more validity to the scenario in answer #2. Sounds like a restamp situation and the person who did it wasn't even very good and knowing what to do to make it even halfway believable.
Of course, a motor date a month or so after the car build date could be dealer warranty replacement motor but they usually had a CE stamp.

4. If there were issues with the motor while it was still at the factory it could have been repaired or had a replacement motor installed than but it still wouldn't show a motor date a month later than the car build date.

 

Mostly, with Barry above.
During the NCRS Nationals at St. Louis in 1981, we went on the plant tour (last year for Vettes to be built in SL).
At the end of the line (very short distance from the back door), the cars were driven onto a dyno (I guess that's what it was), taken up to full throttle and then they stood on the brakes while also at full throttle.
During this testing, we were told that there were ocassional engine failures (tranny failures, differential failures, U-joint failures, brake failures, etc, etc). Just a short distance (as I recall after 28yrs) from the end of the line, over to the right, before going out the back door, there was a service area (kind of like at an old Chevy dealership) about 3 bays wide (for those who remember better than me, chime in here). The tour person told us that if an engine failed, the car was pushed into one of the bays and an engine r&r was performed. It may be done that same day, it may be done the next day or later in the week. In any event, a REPLACEMENT engine was installed which would have a date code VERY close to the assembly of the car, or maybe just a VERY short time after the assembly of the car. BUT NOT A MONTH LATER!!!!! And in fact, on that day, there was one car in the service area for some kind of repair (don't know if it was for an engine replacement or what). Based on the information that the tour guide gave us, I got the impression that an engine failure was NOT very common. Thus, the TOTAL number of Vettes (or any other GM vehicle with an engine failure at the assembly plant) built with a FACTORY installed replacement engine is quite rare!!! But apparently it did happen.

Now, a question that has never been answered for me.
If a Vette (or any other GM vehicle) had an engine replaced AT THE ASSEMBLY PLANT, was that engine the original, numbers matching engine?????????????????? Even if it had a date on it that was AFTER the assembly date of the car????????????

 

This doesn't sound good, I was hoping that I might have something rare instead of a restamp. Just to make sure I am right about the engine build date vs. the car build date what do I look for to determine this?

THanks

 

Tom

I don't remember where I read it, whether it was Noland's book, or posts on here, or where, but i seem to recall that if a motor was replaced at the factory, as in the case you described, that the motor was correctly restamped for the car.
Of course, as you say, it possible that the date of a replacement motor could be a day or so later than the car build date in that situation but also as you say no way it would be a month later.

Others may chime in on your question but *I* would consider a FACTORY replacement motor as a correct original motor for the car. After all, no matter if it was replaced or not, it's the motor the car left the factory with . It was installed by the factory, not the dealer at a later date. The first time the car rolled out of the production building that is the motor it left with even if it was really the second one they put in the car.
Anyway, that's how *I* would look at it. Others may have different opinions.

 

Is it at all possible that the order for the car was messed up and it was meant to be an IP car instead of an IL and they (the factory) changed it before shipping the car or am I just grasping?

Also, is it possible that since the VIN is incomplete in his book, that there is an error in Noland's information? Starting to get concerned about this. Thanks again.

 

Why was the car included in Noland's book? Perhaps the subject being discussed in that chapter of the book will give some hint to others here about the history of your car.

 

I have no idea. I think I remember that when I spoke with Noland several years ago, he told me that he sent out owner surveys and that the ones that were sent back were the ones that he included. I think he did this, since there were very few records he was able to obtain from GM so he created a database of his own through communicating with the owners directly.

So again I was surprised when I happen to see my car listed and then of course all of the questions that this VIN and the engine code has caused.

 

Yes, it would be - however, it would be HIGHLY unlikely that the replacement engine's assembly date would be after the car's final assembly date. If an engine replacement took place in Heavy Repair, they had another identical-suffix engine from inventory run down the engine dress line the same day, where it was VIN-stamped to match the car, and that engine was taken down to Heavy Repair to replace the failed one. The failed engine then had all the St. Louis-installed parts stripped off it, and was returned to the engine plant for credit. No internal engine repairs were done at the assembly plants.

Such a repair would be done the same day or the following day after the first engine failed (cars didn't "sit around" for days in Heavy Repair); the car would have to sit for at least a week or two (or longer) to get an engine assembled after the car came off the line, and that didn't happen.

Photo below is the St. Louis Final Process/Repair area shortly after the 1964 building addition was completed.

 

JohnZ....
Those engines that were returned for "credit" what was done with them...?
Destroyed or repaired?

jack

 

great info.

I also find it rather telling that, when Nolan saw and cataloged this car, it had a different engine in it (a 390 hp BB) rather than the "tad late" engine that's in there now (indicating a 435 hp BB engine). Methinks that is a sure sign that the OP has himself a re-stamp in there, esp. considering the late casting date.

 

remember too that Noland was working off of an owners survey.He never inspected these cars for accuracy.But it is a whole lot better than no info at all
Tom

 

Depended on the nature of the problem. Most were scrapped (after teardown inspection to determine the cause of the failure), as it didn't make financial sense to tie people up all day on one engine when the plant was making them at 300 per hour 18 hours a day.

 

I worked at Tonawanda from May to August 1969. It was my job to tear down the engines that ran 200 hours on the dyno durability test. I assume I would have torn down an engine that was returned from an assembly plant. I never saw one.

We did go out to view the third L78 that a '69 Chevelle owner had blown up. The car was only months old. The owner was told "this is your last engine." The warranty on the '69s was 5 years or 50,000 miles. I wonder how many engines he could have gone through before his warranty expired? (We didn't tear the engine down, just scrapped it.)

 

Wow, that is amazing that you were actually there back in the day. That is so cool that you worked on these legends. Does this mean that could be what happened to my car or some variation thereof. Could it have been a warranty issue or something like that or is that just wishful thinking?

Thank you

 

Photo of the St. Louis Final Process/Repair: It appears,to me, that all of the cars stances are higher than usual. It's like there is still more weight to be added to them. Am I interpreting the foto correctly? Regardless of my reality, it's a cool industrial photograph. Thanx for sharing- lib

 

Great observation! Looks like that to me too.

 

You will notice that they are 64s. Yall ever put new springs etc. all the way around in a 63-64. They all sit high like that. I think it is normal for a new car.

 

Unfortunatley I think you are dealing with a restamp. Regardless of the scenario, if the Tonowanda stamp (first set of numbers on stamp pad) is showing a date before the casting date of the block, then that pad has without a doubt been tampered with.

 

Thanks for the repsonse. I think there is some confusion, the block stamp is not showing a date prior to the casting date. What is wrong is that my engine build date is about a month after the car body build date. Any thoughts?