[John V.]

Tony, "not supposed to" is according to the Inspector's Guide.

The 3 spd GTOs were not real common.

Not sure if I've seen another PHS of one from Fremont. Possibly, Fremont "always" stamped the 2nd X.

But according to Pontiac's instructions, at least as of late Dec. '63, they weren't supposed to.

Would have to see a few others to determine if this was a common thing for Fremont.

Baron, yes, RG was the 3 spd manifest code for the KC & Balt builds in '64.

RB & WY were used for the 4 spd, both code W according to my research. Not clear why the change in manifest code for the 4 spd. I was not able to collect enough records to determine why the 2 codes were used. There is no clear cut delineation for when the change occurred either.

On the KC & Balt Indent-O-Plates, the secondary trans code for the 4 spd was sometimes coded, sometimes it wasn't.

When it wasn't on the I-O-P, I cannot tell you whether the secondary trans code was stamped on the Block. I assume it was.

Likewise, some Fremont PHS docs will NOT show the secondary code for the 4 spd, some will. Again, I do not know what was stamped on the Block when the code is NOT on the PHS.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Fremont always did wacky stuff that was indifferent from the other plants.
68-up they even stamped VIN in different spot than the others.

Sounding like we might chalk 64 up as another example.

The answer to WHY ... is a chain of events
The guy who stamped secondary codes - popped another X on it at Fremont.
Whether by superior instruction or his own accord .... he did it.
That actual info from block was then later transcribed and put into record keeping.
Record keeping relayed it onto the paperwork.
The paperwork determined what would imprint on the P-o-P

and viola
You got 2 X's on everything.

None of the other plants seemed to subscribe to this same protocol .
If anything simple to say about it - they did just about the complete opposite.

More 64 Fremont documents would be interesting to see.
I don't have any ... and can't even see this one yet.

The second X for a 3spd car was not a very bad idea at all.
But at the most its likely an exception we will only find on some Fremont cars.

[jtea64]

Attached is the pdf from AJD1964 converted to jpg.

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Baron Von Zeppelin

The second X for a 3spd car was not a very bad idea at all.
But at the most its likely an exception we will only find on some Fremont cars.

Tony's build shows that it was not apparently connected to the Console, his doesn't have that option.

But I can't agree that it "was not a very bad idea".

It really served no purpose IMO.

The GTO 3 spd included the Floor Shift as part of the standard GTO package. So if the secondary trans code "X" did represent the floor shifter for a 326 build as I suspect was its true purpose even though the Inspector's Guide says "Console", then the base engine code for the GTO (78X or 76X) already denoted that. Why add a 2nd "X"?

I doubt we will ever know for sure.

I suspect it was a code stampers misunderstanding of the instructions (as opposed to an occasional random error).

Keep in mind, the secondary trans code meant nothing to the Final Plant. These codes were used for service identification.

So the guys in the field might see a 78XX and wonder what the heck that was supposed to match to since it was not one of the identified combinations.

It happened, so that makes it "correct". But it is inexplicable and IMO was a "bad idea" that only served to confuse.

You might be right, might only have ever happened at Fremont but even that we can't be certain of, a code stamper at one of the other Plants could have made the same error.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Originally Posted by jtea64

Attached is the pdf from AJD1964 converted to jpg.

Thank you very much jtea64 !

Found another 64 Fremont sheet but its a 79J Auto car and no help here.


John, the 2nd X was to keep guys from popping W's and 8's and 9's on their block codes and pretending to have Faktry 4spd cars at local car shows years later .

It was a pre-emptive stamp-blocker. lol

[AJD1964]

Originally Posted by jtea64

Attached is the pdf from AJD1964 converted to jpg.

jt - Thanks for converting to a picture!

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

If anyone wants to have a go at it - i saw a thumbnail that looked like a 64 Fremont sheet. But my current internet is so slow i can't get it to open the link before it times out.

Google>
64 gto build sheet

the #1 link is to Images for 64 gto build sheet
thumbnail #3 looks like 64 Fremont - but my turtle is too slow to get there.

Could maybe find a handful if you have time to browse through all the thumbnail images with a high speed connection.

I know these are not build sheets, but thats the search line i have best luck with when searching for BHC's and Invoices.

64 gto PHS - is another good search line.
Then select - Images

Good Luck

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Baron Von Zeppelin

It was a pre-emptive stamp-blocker. lol

Well that might have worked.

Of course, Fremont cars show the Engine Unit No. on the PHS doc, so a restamp would need to be a complete grind off and restamp, in that case, no help.

I also checked a handful of Fremont PHS docs.

I don't have a ton of them, but here is what I see.

Fremont did not indicate the 4 spd secondary trans code on any of the docs I checked thru a late Jan '64 build.

From about early March onward (I don't have any Feb records), it seems they always show the 4 spd secondary trans code along with the engine code in the "ENG. OR MOTOR UNIT NO." box on the form.

So it looks like there may have been a date between late Jan and early March when Fremont first started indicating the secondary trans code for the 4 spd on the PHS doc.

I came across another 3 spd GTO from Fremont, a mid May build.

It is also coded 78XX.

So with a sample size of 2, looks like Fremont was consistent. However, since they didn't show the W (or 9) on the earlier 4 spd builds, I am guessing they wouldn't have shown the 2nd X on the early 3 spd builds either.

And I have no evidence to know whether Fremont was stamping the secondary trans codes (including the 2nd X) on the Blocks of those early builds. I assume so and only failed to type it on the Manifest Form. But that is just guessing. Need guys with early Fremont 3 & 4 spd builds and original Blocks to confirm one way or the other.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Great work again John .
Glad you could source some more prime examples !

A companion thread titled with request for more 64 Fremont sheets "might" help bring in some more examples for the pool , and create some more awareness .

Always amazing where some of these simpler threads can wind up in the end.
Who would expect a question about a block code to be such an interesting thread. ?