Frankie the Fink

And a one-off in no way implying it was a factory practice...that is a different story than the 'they ran out of SB hoods so used BB hoods' myth.

Critter1

Here's a shot from an owner that claimed his car definitely came with a big block hood. He even provided this picture, on request, as proof and posted it on that other board. He claims that the hood support reinforcement was definitely originally installed on the left side.

Nowhere Man

That aged very well compared to the hinge plate.

provette67

I once judged "an original 435hp" at a NCRS regional. The hood was the cheap hand laid type. They did not even bother with a reinforcement on the driver side. Just a couple of washers doing the job. I was the Ahole that day informing the proud owner that his car was clone.

emccomas

OK, I can't resist...

A number of us are aware of the backstory associated with the entry in Noland's book.

Without going into details, let me just say that Noland many times stated that he wished he had never put that statement about the damage to the small block hood mold in his book.

I personally heard Noland make that statement at one event.

Jeffthunbird

[QUOTE=Critter1;1596559581]If the hood support and under skirt reinforcement was originally installed on the left side, it could possibly mean the big block hood was factory installed on a small block car.
Unfortunately, no one has ever been able to show or prove this. Filling the unused hood support reinforcement holes on the right side can't be done to appear as original fiberglass.

I agree. In my opinion, it never happened

My '67 has a hood support on both sides. It has a repop BB hood on it (bought it like that) and I have the original SB hood also.

Like many parts, if not all, a fake could be made. the mounting location of the hood support could be switched and the evidence that it was once on the other side could be erased.

Critter1

[QUOTE=Jeffthunbird;1596564406]There's a 66 that comes to a local car show that the owner claims is an original big block car. I looked at it and I could easily see where the original holes for the hood support had been filled. It's easy to fill the holes but doing so without removing the original rough grain of fibers in the glass is not possible. The area was sanded smooth after being filled on both sides of the fender skirt. Pretty obvious.

wmf62

if you remember the book 'The Betsy', cars that had things surreptitiously added were called 'a foreman's friend'...

Bill

Railroadman

I've got the book but don't recall that term. Not saying you're wrong, it's been many years since I last read it.

Nowhere Man

Well after 50 odd years you would think something with merit would show up and make the rounds.

wmf62

I could be wrong, it's been a long time since I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.... but here it is in the book "Wheels"


Bill

John BX NY

Back when I worked in an assembly plant I heard a story about the general foreman's car going down the line in the body plant. All kinds of extra spot welds and other welds were added and when the car was finished the story goes the body was so stiff it rode like a tank.

MikeM

Same here at the Ford Plant except the car had a lot of squeaks and rattles as well as being too stiff. Plus, the order sheet said 352, two barrel carb engine with the cheaper auto transmission an small axle.
AM radio, clear glass and on and on.

When the car went down through the trim shop and down final, it had tinted glass, upgraded upholstry and seats, 390 Police INterceptor engine and heavy duty transmission. 9 inch nodular axle, Interceptor suspension and tires. Twice the normal under lay under the carpet and double sound deadener in the body itself.

The alterations were caught on the Final Acceptance line. The employee that bought the car war first fired, then re-instated on the condition he pay for every extra that car had on it. He was convicted by testimony from his fellow workers who had put on the unauthorized parts and who were threatened with termination if they didn't talk.

That car (one of a kind) went right on out the convoy gate, to the dealer and then to the customer.

This practice was not all that uncommon. Where this guy made his mistake, he didn't let management in on it. The same ones who could have "approved" the upgrades.

I personally built a very nice customized 1978 LTD model. One of a kind car and it didn't match the build sheet either. One of the special things on it was an LTD steering gear built up with F 150 internals to give the box a quicker ratio and much better feel on the road. Not to mention all the Interceptor suspension pieces and the related wheels/tires.

Do to truth in advertising laws and other Fed regs, you couldn't get away with this today. Back then, very common. I believe prior to the era of Big Brother, the assembly plants back then (all brands) were run in some cases like the wild, wild West.

But, in our plant, we also did a lot of custon work for Engineering on work order. It was a good money maker for us as the employees were always eager to see something besides the SOS come down the line and even the custom stuff didn't interfere with production. We always charged Engineering with money for a production loss but it never occurred except for the one "custom" job on the work order..

Based on conversations with several GM people, seems like they didn't care to run the business that way and most production mods were done on a regular production car at the Tech Center.

SupremeDeluxe

It's always interesting to hear something based on first-hand knowledge by someone who was there, not someone who wrote a book. Or, worse yet, someone who merely read a book.

wmf62

at least I can, and do, read....

Bill

Mr D.

These "special" cars were always for a Company Public Relations guy........

SupremeDeluxe

No offense intended. My sarcasm was not directed at you...more so a statement of incredulity at how there could be 7 editions of a manual describing the way a car was built 50 years ago.

Nowhere Man

Anyone who is knocking the manuals should form there own club of any car that was built over 50 years ago and write a manual on how they should look. Then we can see how many mistakes you made. Also you should try and restore anther car to original with out any manual and only use info from others and see what it’s like.

Frankie the Fink

The problem is the way the current manuals evolve and the refusal in some cases to accept changes by knowledgeable people.. Critter1 on here is an example... His corrections were ignored, in part or completely. So mistakes continue on or more are introduced. They become a prideful symbol of self-aggrandizement instead of a faithful tome to be relied on for the hobbyist. I'm also sure that if enough traction is gained by someone with influence to have their own little quirk added to the documents that a revision could creep in that has nothing to do with reality... This 67 manual could be a prime example.

Here is some history from the NCRS web site (why the post wasn't expunged by that forum's "Gods" I don't know) by somebody that knows about the 63/64 manual. And this is before the penultimate expert, current 63 team lead, had his way with it..

I wholeheartedly acknowledge they are the best we have and far better than the documentation for other classic car marquees, but they could be so much better.

Critter1

Loren Lundberg always tells it like it is. He's been booted off that board a few times too.