When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I realize that there are several contours to the hood design on the '63.
I have already made a few small minor repairs, but in doing so, it's seems like I feel an intentional "dip", or "slope" just about 2" below the top of the hood. This would be just below where the hood meets up to the cowl of the body cab.
Is this "shallow" dip a design of the hood, or is it supposed to be perfectly flat up near the top of the hood?
I seemed to recall that my first (born with) 63 hood had a slight (oh so slight) dip there and the rear corners were tilted up the slightest bit....my new hood (also original but off a different 63) -- no, nothing -- its flat as an aircraft carrier deck...
I seemed to recall that my first (born with) 63 hood had a slight (oh so slight) dip there and the rear corners were tilted up the slightest bit....my new hood (also original but off a different 63) -- no, nothing -- its flat as an aircraft carrier deck...
Maybe Gongloff or Yanulis can add more...
Flat as a pancake in my recollection..
The only differences I can recall are the presence/absence of the hood alignment blocks and the corresponding nutplates used to mount them, 0, 2, or 4.. total.
A bit of deviation or curl on the edge could be due to bonding agent thermal heat imprint from factory bonding of the underside reinforcement at the edges. Or maybe something else all together. Ideally they should meet flush (although the grills seem to have their own set of issues) but there was a lot going on in gluing the bodies together on the body assembly line so it was probably seldom one came out perfect.
Pat,
I've recently (past 4 years) body worked and painted a 63, 66, 67 and now have a 63. They all rise up just in front of the cowl (except the middle section which is flat going into the cowl area, but is concave side to side). Here is a pic of my 63 showing the rise up. I think what you have is normal.
Here is my original "born with" hood Pat - you can see a bit of distortion in the reflection indicating the condition I cited above...the new (also original hood) doesn't have this but it has been "massaged"....
You really can't see the effect unless conditions are just right...
I think what you are observing is normal (as Ken has said) the question is: Do you want to keep it that way or not ?
Last edited by Frankie the Fink; 12-17-2018 at 09:18 AM.
I have 2 extra 63 hoods both have the dip its not just a 63 problem nearly all the 63-72 cars I have restored in the last 30+ years have had that problem the 73 up hoods are even worse.
Mark
I have 2 extra 63 hoods both have the dip its not just a 63 problem nearly all the 63-72 cars I have restored in the last 30+ years have had that problem the 73 up hoods are even worse.
Mark
Hey Mark,
Do you think the dip is intentional, or a design flaw? Do you usually leave them on the hood, or try to fill and block it out?
Do you think the dip is intentional, or a design flaw? Do you usually leave them on the hood, or try to fill and block it out?
Thanks,
Pat
I Have always filled the hood and fenders to make them level IMO they warp over time from heat exposure southern cars seem to vary much more than northern cars.
Mark
I Have always filled the hood and fenders to make them level IMO they warp over time from heat exposure southern cars seem to vary much more than northern cars.
Mark
Thanks Mark.
In my earnest attempt at ensuring this body is straight, I have applied primer (several times), blocked (several times), and even added filler everywhere else (where needed), so I guess I should go ahead and fill these places as well. I just opened my 3rd gallon of primer today!
I want to ensure it wasn't an intentional design by GM.
You are coming up against a fine line here with the hood patina. I don't want to suggest what you do but if you look at pictures of these cars when new the body has waves in many areas and that is the beauty of the mass produced car.
The hood latch pulls the hood down and the rubber weatherstrip over the lip probably has an opposite pressure. That may account for some of what you feel with your hands. My feeling is it's fine the way it is, ( there, I said it) :-)
My hood is not latched in the above picture and the dip was there before my "incident"....
It appears many 63 (and later) hoods have this idiosyncrasy and YOU (Pat) have to decide what you'll live with...
In my case, during the full repaint and bodywork I wanted the common factory "blips" reduced in magnitude but didn't want the car over-restored. That means the hood dip was dealt with, along with the excessive gap many of these cars have at the top of the PS door where it meets the fender and a really bad fit on the driver's side door at the roofline. The front of that door was a full 1/4" above the roofline when closed.
Its purely a personal decision in what you have as your vision for the car....
A few examples (and these are the original doors with the 334 job number on them in crayon)...BEFORE the massaging..
Last edited by Frankie the Fink; 12-18-2018 at 09:38 AM.
I'm in the process of restoring my Jag E type. Corvette fit is great by comparison the lumps and bumps in this unhit main body shell are unbelievable. Many hours of filling and blocking, hope to have it in the booth for final paint next week.
Mark
If there really is a ski jump in the back end of a midyear hood, it could be by design but I don't have a car to test this.
If the plan was to have the wedge blocks to ensure there was no hood chucking in the opening. the hood would have to be pulled down tight against these blocks. Pull it too tight and you will get a bow at the back end by the male hood pins. But you could design in a little cheat in the surface to make up for this latch distortion which would be pulled flat by latch pressure. If those blocks weren't utilized in this way, I see no reason to even have them on the car.
It wasn't uncommon to design in a surface cheat in body panels to compensate for some deflection under latch pressures.
Somebody that has a car that has these blocks can confirm if my theory could be correct. Like I said, I don't have a car with the blocks in place or I'd do it myself.
I think my '63 might have a little ski jump in that area. I also think my '65 doesn't. Haven't looked lately. Both are virgin hoods.
If there really is a ski jump in the back end of a midyear hood, it could be by design but I don't have a car to test this.
If the plan was to have the wedge blocks to ensure there was no hood chucking in the opening. the hood would have to be pulled down tight against these blocks. Pull it too tight and you will get a bow at the back end by the male hood pins. But you could design in a little cheat in the surface to make up for this latch distortion which would be pulled flat by latch pressure. If those blocks weren't utilized in this way, I see no reason to even have them on the car.
It wasn't uncommon to design in a surface cheat in body panels to compensate for some deflection under latch pressures.
Somebody that has a car that has these blocks can confirm if my theory could be correct. Like I said, I don't have a car with the blocks in place or I'd do it myself.
I think my '63 might have a little ski jump in that area. I also think my '65 doesn't. Haven't looked lately. Both are virgin hoods.
Thanks for the comments Mike,
The hood does not have the blocks, and I don't intent to install any there.
Just repaired a 63 hood you can see what it takes to get rid of the ski jump. Hood had a 9" hole and a 67 stinger scoop riveted on it lots of fun to repair.
Mark
Last edited by mark6669; 01-07-2019 at 02:08 PM.
Reason: added photos
Just repaired a 63 hood you can see what it takes to get rid of the ski jump. Hood had a 9" hole and a 67 stinger scoop riveted on it lots of fun to repair.
Mark
12-16-2018, 11:31 PM
Question on '63 Hood.
