65hihp

How do correct numbers get onto a block stamp pad of an engine that did not start life in that car?

SBR

Good one but I think that we all know the answer to that one

MikeM

What I want to know is what clown came up with the idea this was a defect in the mold and how did he substantiate it. It may have been on purpose?

Furthermore, does it really matter? Many had a new front end spliced on ahead of this pimple.

PS. Both my midyears still have the pimple intact. One of them has been repainted. Minor sandpaper scuffing doesn't removed the pimple. And it's a pimple in the fiberglass and a dimple in the mold.

roberts427

very simple, maybe that area of the mold got filled either from daily use or maybe someone did not like it and they tried to correct it or the Mold Gods had something to do with it.

tuxnharley

So are you saying that they all had the bump originally and any car without it must have been modified?

I think a better analogy would be how did verified factory mis stamps on trim tags or mis strikes on stamp pads happen?

65hihp

uh oh, now your starting to get defensive. I thought you said you couldn't GAS?



Don't pay any attention to the crap I type out.

Nowhere Man

I remember some saying maybe JohnZ that a out side vendor supplied all the panels to each place. I might have the suppliers name wrong

mikelj

You all are forgetting how important AO Smith was to ALL fiberglass: From John's post:

St. Louis-Corvette didn't manufacture ANY fiberglass body panels - they welded the birdcage together in the basement, primed it, sent it upstairs to the Body Shop, and bonded the body together around it, using fiberglass body panels molded, trimmed, and prepped for bonding by outside suppliers. Almost ALL the body panels were molded by A.O. Smith in Ionia, Michigan, with some smaller panels molded by others. There was only one set of molds for body panels, and the panels were used both at A.O. Smith on their body assembly line and at St. Louis on their body assembly line.

A.O. Smith-built bodies were assembled, painted, and partially trimmed (glass, exterior moldings and hardware, and interior garnish moldings and internal door hardware - just enough to make the body water-tight), and were shipped to St. Louis on tri-level rail cars; all interior soft trim, seats, carpets, pedals, heater/AC, and complete instrument panel assemblies were installed at St. Louis.

A.O. Smith built 50% of the Corvette bodies - the St. Louis Body and Paint Shops only ran on one shift, but assembly ran on two shifts. All orders for N14 Sidepipe cars (which required a unique birdcage) were allocated to St. Louis - no bodies for sidepipe cars were ever built at A.O. Smith.

It's possible for A.O. Smith bodies to have the same body number on the trim tag as a St. Louis body (ignoring the "A" or "S" prefix); both plants had separate (but similar) body numbering schemes, and coupes and convertibles had separate number sequences as well at both plants. For example, body number A-3407 on a convertible would be the 3407th convertible body built at A.O. Smith, and there would also be a convertible body number S-3407 for the 3407th convertible body built at St. Louis (same situation for coupes at both plants, which had number sequences starting from "0" just for coupes).

tuxnharley

LOL x 2! Dont GAS about effect on value/ originality, as my car will never be original for a combo of reasons - engine, transmission, PS primarily - as if that wasnt enough!

Do care about knowing the history/details of my particular car!

luerja

check this out... some cars did not get them
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...heritance.html

tuxnharley

My understanding is that the Smith operation did not start until 1964, and that prior to that the Ionia plant had been the Mitchell-Bentley body company building Buick and Oldsmobile station wagons. The 1963 C2 bodies all came from St Louis.

I think we need to differentiate between body assembly and production of raw body panels.

So - where were the raw body panels produced? It seems like that for 1963 it would have to have been in St Louis? Nolands book shows on pages 36 to 38 pictutes of raw body panel production which are obviously not 1963, but doesnt say where it was located.

rsinor

Proof you should never say never, when it comes to normal production automobiles. Or what an individual might be willing to prove if the pay is sufficient.:

mikelj

Yes, '64 is correct, also from John's post: "A.O. Smith started supplying bodies in mid-January, 1964. The same fiberglass panels were supplied to both plants. About the only visible difference on the original bodies is the paint treatment on the riveted-on underbody brackets and reinforcments and the radiator support; they were dip-primed black on St. Louis bodies, and were green zinc chromate on A.O. Smith bodies. A.O. Smith didn't have a black dip-prime system, and painted those parts in their birdcage paint system; required some extra effort in the underhood blackout operation at A.O. Smith to cover the green zinc chromate paint on the radiator support."

And: "To clarify - there were two A.O. Smith plants that supplied the Corvette plant. One, in Ionia, Michigan, molded body panels and built 50% of the Corvette bodies from January '64 through the end of '67 production; this plant was originally owned by the Mitchell-Bentley Co., and was sold to A.O. Smith in late 1963, and became known as the "Dow-Smith" division of the A.O. Smith corporation. It later went through several other owners (Rockwell, General Tire, and others) as the fiberglass industry consolidated, and continued as the major supplier of Corvette body panels through 1982.

The other one was the A.O. Smith - Granite City, Illinois plant, which made Corvette frames from 1963-1967. 1954-1962 and 1968-1982 Corvette frames were made by a different A.O. Smith plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin."

1snake

This is from an article written by John H. - "The Mitchell-Bentley proposal was accepted, and they began production of 1964 Corvette bodies in the Ionia plant in late January 1964, using fiberglass body panels molded by other outside suppliers. At about the same time, the Ionia operation was sold by Mitchell-Bentley to the A.O. Smith Corporation, and it became known as the Dow-Smith Division of A.O. Smith. Construction was also started on a major fiberglass molding facility on the same site, in order to bring Corvette panel production in-house."

Obviously, there wasn't a single supplier or EVERY car would have the pimple.

tuxnharley

Hmmm - so, if the Ionia plant didnt start until January of 1964, where were the body panels for 63s and early 64s made? If all body panels after that were made there, were the molds/presses moved there? Were there two sets of molds to avoid a delay while moving?

Edit - seems to have been answered in post #34, while I was typing the above.

woodsdesign

My car is highly modified: different frame, eng., Trans etc.
But the dimple is definitely there. To me that helps with my "no hit body" theory.
Before reading this I would have sanded it flat if I was painting the car. So, I can see the reason a lot of cars don't have the dimple.

Nowhere Man

A.O. Smith plant made all the body panels they also built bodies as well from Jan 64 on. there might have been two different molds to produce the same panel. I am not sure how long it would to take to lay up a panel and let it dry but I would think would mold would not keep up with production. its not like one could be stamped out very quickly like a steel body car.

mikelj

I don't think that post clarifies where the body panels were made, and by whom exactly (outside suppliers), in 1963 and early 1964. I have found some of my '64s have the dimple, others don't, and guess what, the ones that don't are early '64s.

RatDog

It's a proven fact that the only 67's that got the dimple/pimple are the small block cars that got the big block hoods.

Steve

tuxnharley

Engaging in pure speculation now, but perhaps there was more than one supplier for the front top surround and thus different molds - one with the bump and one without? A way to distingush between suppliers, perhaps?

Strange that this would appear in both 64s and 67s!