[Tom Wood 64]

Joe B, In my book i found your number 5955474 group 2.697 car type 2957 64 RH I think you have the right lens in the wrong box. Tom.

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Tom Wood 64

Joe B, In my book i found your number 5955474 group 2.697 car type 2957 64 RH I think you have the right lens in the wrong box. Tom.

Wow, I got all excited when I saw p/n 5955474. Thought maybe it was the p/n for the "phantom" outboard reflex lens seen on very early cars.

But alas, not to be.

Tom, you are correct, Joe's tail lens must be in the wrong box.

5955474 is the '64 Grand Prix RH Door Lens. A reflector that was on the door so an on-coming driver might see your open door in the dark. Listed in Gr. 2.697 mostly with Back-up lamp parts. The Bezels for the '64 GP Door Lens are listed in that Group.

Tom, I assume your 5955621 if mounted in the LH housing would have the inboard reflex?

It remains uncertain whether PMD intended to have the center reflex from the beginning and Guide Div. designed them wrong. Or if Guide designed them correctly with the reflex intended to be inboard but Guide assembled them incorrectly at the start of production, placing early examples with reflex outboard.

Or if there is some other explanation for how some early cars were produced with outboard reflex.

Chad (and others) correctly points out that if PMD had Guide switch from outboard to inboard, there would have been confusion at the Service level. I think PMD saw that as an insignificant problem and chose not to address it in the MPC.

I've pointed out that the wiring diagram suggests the single filament bulb in the center even prior to production start.

So it is unclear why PMD came to think the single filament (tail lamp only) bulb needed to be placed behind the reflex.

Don, thanks for the pic.

But the question isn't what the lens look like with the center reflex and brake on. The stop lights are both glowing behind the same plain glass lens so should/do look uniform.

The question is for the end reflex. Does the stop light glow differently behind the reflex than it does behind the plain lens?

If the stop light is distorted by the reflex, then the 2 stop lights will look odd when lit unless the single filament is behind the reflex. That would make it logical to put the single filament behind the reflex. But if the reflex doesn't distort the stop light, I don't understand what made it so important to move the reflex around along with the single filament bulb.

Tom, documentation about the center reflex change tied to a date would be awesome. So would evidence from original cars. Looking forward to hearing more.

Bill, keep the light check on your to do list but maybe we'll know more before Spring. Here's hoping.

[Joe B]

Tom,
thanks will look that up. I must have been sleeping, I could not find that part #
Joe

[Tom Wood 64]

John V, my 5955621 lh lens when installed on drivers side, reflex would be outboard. Inboard on passenger side. Will investigate switching sockets in housing to find out differences.

[64woodwheel]

I remembered I have pics of this car. The harness looks original, still has a paper tag on it. The bulbs are installed so that the single element is on the outboard end. The VIN is 824P212192. Unfortunately no clear shot of the lenses. Tripower 4 speed vert. $3933.00! Now owned by someone in Texas i have heard.


Clickable thumbnail images:

[bill ryder]

What's the stud for on the trunk lid latch brace?? bill

[64woodwheel]

Superlift shocks. Factory installed code 622. Dealer installed part number 3166087.

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Tom Wood 64

John V, my 5955621 lh lens when installed on drivers side, reflex would be outboard. Inboard on passenger side. Will investigate switching sockets in housing to find out differences.

Tom, very unexpected! Chad any thoughts about this? If no mistakes were made in packaging, looks like the MPC listing would have you service the lens for an OUTBOARD configuration. Would seem to indicate that was the original intent. And further mean that, assuming they did switch to INBOARD in production for some period of time, it would be these later builds and not the earliest builds that would have been confused at the Service level.

At present, I'm the ONLY one reporting lenses factory installed with the INBOARD configuration plus the Red Car & Driver car built at Pontiac early Nov that Tom reported a pic from an '89 Magazine story with INBOARD and awaiting confirmation from his friend's early Nov convert, also reported with INBOARD.

Originally Posted by 64woodwheel

I remembered I have pics of this car. The harness looks original, still has a paper tag on it. The bulbs are installed so that the single element is on the outboard end. The VIN is 824P212192. Unfortunately no clear shot of the lenses. Tripower 4 speed vert. $3933.00! Now owned by someone in Texas i have heard.

Too bad it is not on the '64 Tripower convert registry (as far as I'm aware) or I would contact the owner.

But the VIN means it was built last week in April or first week in May at the Pontiac Plant.

I sure hope the sockets have been installed screwy because of an owner mistake. I'd hate to think such a late car has an OUTBOARD reflex. Otherwise it would really skew what little data we have so far!

Any chance anybody here knows the car/owner?

[60sstuff]

You can see just a little of a reflection in this pic.
Note the mid-year Corvette coupe undercover.

[64woodwheel]

Originally Posted by 60sstuff

You can see just a little of a reflection in this pic.
Note the mid-year Corvette coupe undercover.

Nice catch!

Looks like the reflex is in the center, but not the single element bulb. Hmmm.

[64woodwheel]

Originally Posted by John V.

Tom, very unexpected! Chad any thoughts about this? If no mistakes were made in packaging, looks like the MPC listing would have you service the lens for an OUTBOARD configuration. Would seem to indicate that was the original intent. And further mean that, assuming they did switch to INBOARD in production for some period of time, it would be these later builds and not the earliest builds that would have been confused at the Service level.

Here is another twist: Found this in the Parts History Index of the 65 MPC. Same info relevant to 5955621 and 622 is also in the 64 MPC. Apparently these numbers became active in Nov. 63. This would support what Mr. Roberts was saying was accurate. I bet the only change to the part was what box it was put in for service or what bezel it was installed in for production. The time of the change (11-63) matches the correspondence and probably reflects the change Mr. Roberts was referring to.

[John V.]

Chad, definitely a twist.

So there was a p/n change?

I'm not clear when you say same info is in the '64 MPC.

Aside from the Parts History, do p/ns 5955629 and 5955630 show up anywhere else? Did they exist in the early '64 MPC?

If they indeed were same lens, just in reversed boxes, wonder why they didn't just keep them all in the MPC. Could have simply tagged the one set of nos. as "USE WITH OUTBOARD REFLEX" and the other "USE WITH INBOARD REFLEX".

Consider that if we go by the NOS new in box 5955621 LH lens that Tom has, the Parts History would be REVERSE from what Mr. Roberts was saying.

What a tangled mess!

I'm still hoping the evidence will at least tell us the approx. date the 3 different arrangements were in use.

[Tom Wood 64]

John V, The Nov vert is confirmed. My other buddy that thinks he has paperwork on the change has not gotten back to me.101 is tailights with reflex inboard. 103 is tailights with brakes. 106 is with single filament moved to outboard. 107 is single filament outboard with brakelights.

[64woodwheel]

Originally Posted by John V.

Chad, definitely a twist.

So there was a p/n change?

I'm not clear when you say same info is in the '64 MPC.

Aside from the Parts History, do p/ns 5955629 and 5955630 show up anywhere else? Did they exist in the early '64 MPC?

Right, there was a p/n change. The 64 and 65 MPC's both have a Parts History Index that shows when part numbers were discontinued or replaced. As you can see they go back about three years. The 64's index has the same information about the lenses, just different stuff printed around it, different page number, etc.

The only way you would find the old numbers in a 64 MPC is if you had the page that was discarded when the November '63 revision was inserted, or an unrevised catalog.
My 65 MPC happens to be an unrevised catalog.

Originally Posted by John V.

If they indeed were same lens, just in reversed boxes, wonder why they didn't just keep them all in the MPC. Could have simply tagged the one set of nos. as "USE WITH OUTBOARD REFLEX" and the other "USE WITH INBOARD REFLEX".

Consider that if we go by the NOS new in box 5955621 LH lens that Tom has, the Parts History would be REVERSE from what Mr. Roberts was saying.

What a tangled mess!

I'm still hoping the evidence will at least tell us the approx. date the 3 different arrangements were in use.

Unless you are the guy that bought NOS parts from the dealer back in the day, there is really no telling what lens is correct for what box. If you took them out to look at them just once, chances are 50/50 of getting them back into the correct box if you're not paying attention. Throw in a swap meet or two over the years and a couple ebay transactions....

[John V.]

Originally Posted by 64woodwheel

The only way you would find the old numbers in a 64 MPC is if you had the page that was discarded when the November '63 revision was inserted, or an unrevised catalog.

I guess even the unrevised listing wouldn't tell us much, unless somebody has an unopened box that we could peer into to discover what lens matches to a particular p/n.

Originally Posted by 64woodwheel

Unless you are the guy that bought NOS parts from the dealer back in the day, there is really no telling what lens is correct for what box. If you took them out to look at them just once, chances are 50/50 of getting them back into the correct box if you're not paying attention. Throw in a swap meet or two over the years and a couple ebay transactions....

I agree with this. The one Joe B has in a box with a p/n for a '64 GP Door Lens is plenty of proof of that. The pair recently sold on ebay is another, the Seller claiming that identical lenses were in both boxes. If true, something doesn't jibe with that NOS pair. However, I think if we found 8 or 10 NOS examples of a particular p/n, I'd think the likelihood that you could confirm the intended lens for that p/n would go up. Don't know if that many boxed examples exist.

Originally Posted by Tom Wood 64

John V, The Nov vert is confirmed. My other buddy that thinks he has paperwork on the change has not gotten back to me.101 is tailights with reflex inboard. 103 is tailights with brakes. 106 is with single filament moved to outboard. 107 is single filament outboard with brakelights.

Tom, where was the car built?

The pix make me think the single filament bulb being used is "too bright".

I believe the common replacement bulb being used is the 1156.

The bulb recommended in the Bulb Chart in the '64 Tempest Shop Manual is the 93.

If you check the specs for the 93 vs. the 1156, the 1156 has about double the "Mean Sperical Candle Power), 32 vs. 15 for the 93.

The 1157 is rated MSCP at 32 for the "major" and 3 for the "minor" but I really don't understand what this means.

Perhaps it is an optical illusion of the photos, but in pix 101 and 106, with brake lights OFF, the single filament bulb looks much brighter than the two double filament bulbs.

Then with the brake lights ON, the double filament bulbs look barely brighter than the single filament when located behind the reflex in pic 103.

With brake lights ON and the double filament behind the reflex in pic 107, if anything, the inboard double filament behind the reflex doesn't look as bright as the center or outboard bulbs (double and single respectively).

That evidence suggests TWO things to me.

1. With brake lights ON, the reflex slightly dims a double filament bulb so that seems to confirm the idea that the single filament bulb should always be placed behind the reflex as Mr. Roberts' letter stated.

2. The 1156 is TOO bright. I would try the 93 bulb behind the reflex as per the original '64 spec. The double filament 1157 bulbs should be distinctly brighter than the single filament bulb with the brake lights ON.


Looking for alternate opinions here. Perhaps in "real life" the distinction is very clear. But judging from pix 101 and 103 and ASSUMING the single filament bulb tested is the common 1156, I would want to try the 93.

Just for yucks, I checked the single filament bulbs in my harness. They are 1073 which compared to the 1156, has a lower watt rating (23 vs 27) and slightly lower amps (1.8 vs 2.1) but same MSCP rating of 32.

What do the rest of you guys think?

[Joe B]

I am adding more confusion to this. I found the part #910762 written on the box to my NOS right taillight assembly. It is under Group #2.697 it is listed for a 64 right side with a center reflex. The only thing is my taillight has the reflex inboard.
Joe

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Joe B

I am adding more confusion to this. I found the part #910762 written on the box to my NOS right taillight assembly. It is under Group #2.679 it is listed for a 64 right side with a center reflex. The only thing is my taillight has the reflex inboard.
Joe

Joe, I corrected the Group No., you transposed the last 2 digits.

Since the p/n is handwritten on the box, I bet somebody used that no. because the p/n for the complete RH tail lamp assembly with the inboard reflex is unknown or at least, not listed in the MPC. The guy who wrote 910762 on the box just figured it must be correct since it is a RH assembly or he might not have even paid attention to the reflex position.

Even if the p/n for the first type can be found in an early '64 MPC, I'm not sure we would be able to know for certain it was the p/n for the inboard reflex and not the outboard reflex.

[Joe B]

John,
thanks for fixing the group #. Your conclusion makes perfect sense to me. Since the part # is hand written who knows. I am waiting to find out if the left side box and light tell us anything different.
Joe

[Tom Wood 64]

Both my car and the Nov vert are freemont cars. I,m sure it,s a 1156 in socket. I didn,t originally open the lens box, i bought the lens for a spare. It,s funny that there would be two different part numbers for the second type lens, 910761LH-910762RH

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Tom Wood 64

Both my car and the Nov vert are freemont cars. I,m sure it,s a 1156 in socket. I didn,t originally open the lens box, i bought the lens for a spare. It,s funny that there would be two different part numbers for the second type lens, 910761LH-910762RH

Tom, only one p/n for the center reflex lens. The lens p/ns are in Gr. 2.682. PMD serviced the center reflex lens and also the RH & LH lenses.

The RH & LH are for the COMPLETE Tail Lamp Assemblies which include the housing and the lens, hence separate p/ns for RH & LH.

PMD did NOT service the Tail Lamp Assembly with the 1st style lens for very long although the p/ns for them probably did exist for a short time in the '64 MPC.

Tom, thanks for confirming the Plant. Did you ever get a picture of the Red car from the magazine showing it with the inboard lens?