[64woodwheel]

Originally Posted by John V.

Chad, pic is too small, very tough to read and no zoom feature. Can you attach as a jpeg directly here?

Originally Posted by John V.

You didn't comment to the evidence I gave.

First let me say that I enjoy talking about this stuff and I don't take anything personally. If you disagree with me that's OK. I don't want any hard feelings over this.
The evidence of your car, Bill's car and any other car that has the reflex on the inboard could be evidence that there was a problem...

Originally Posted by John V.

If this new document dated 10/21/63 also says the reflex lens would be moved from OUTBOARD (as seen in the pic I posted) to INBOARD (as assembled on my late Nov car) soon, why do you think Mr. Roberts got it wrong?

Because it doesn't make sense to move the the reflex to the inboard position. This is going to be a lengthy response so please bear with me.

I am going to lay out my thoughts in a logical manner, one that follows what I think happened. I know that this is an uphill battle when compared to the text of the letter, but here it goes:

Mr. Roberts position is unknown. But I believe he was some kind of liaison between Reliability and Service. He was responsible for conveying potential service problems with customers from multiple plants to the General Service Manager. I think I will post the entire letter in a new thread for everyone to see. The information contained in the letter is inside information that could only be obtained from sources close to Assembly. This is why I believe the subject of tail lamp bulb location stems from a production problem and not an aesthetic concern nor federal mandate. If it was a federal mandate, there would be much more documentation of the correction effort, ie News Flash, SCN, Service Management, etc. If it was an aesthetic concern, I doubt Mr. Roberts would be reporting it to Mr. Bates.

The first letter is an outline of "1964 Possible Service Problems". It is broken out into 4 sections: Pontiac part 1, part 2 and Tempest part 1 and part 2. Part 1 items are "requiring 100% inspection at pre-delivery" and part 2 items are "information items, to be checked at the discretion of the Service Department, or upon a complaint basis."
The tail lamp issue is a part 2 item.

Ultimately this warning did not make it to the dealer level. It died at the zone office. There are no other mentions of tail lamp wiring mentioned in dealer correspondence at any time during the 1964 or 1965 model year. How do I know? I do not have every single correspondence, but I do have an index of all correspondences.

If there had been a second change (moving the reflex to the center from the inboard) I think there would have been a memo of some type issued at least at the zone level since the subject was covered at least once in the past.

If there was a problem in production that warranted a design change, I don't see how changing the position of the reflex lens from the outboard to the inboard would solve anything. In fact, it would only compound the problem. Moving the reflex to the center would be the logical solution to the problem of the single filament lens being in the wrong position by making it standard left to right and not having to look at the lens before the assembly person installs the harness. (because of the possibility of the lenses being installed in the wrong side.) I don't know if Guide installed the lens or if Pontiac did, but either way there is plenty of opportunity for error. (50/50)

Changing from outboard to middle would kill two birds with one stone; simplify assembly/assure consistency and reduce customer complaints.

Also, if the single filament bulb was being changed to the inboard end, wouldn't there be a corresponding change to the tail lamp harness to reflect that change? (the sockets and wiring are different for single vs. double filament bulbs) And another change for the harness for when the single filament bulb was changed to the center position. Making three distinct tail light harnesses for all three positions of the the reflex lens? I have not checked the inspectors guide for the harness numbers for the tail lamps. I do remember seeing numbers for various dash harnesses; V8 L6 AC etc.
Or the wires could be manipulated to the correct position I suppose.

Originally Posted by John V.

I understand what you mean for the MPC.

BUT...there is picture evidence of an early car with OUTBOARD reflex lenses and actual evidence of my car & I think Bill's car with INBOARD reflex lenses.

The change of reflex lens position from OUTBOARD to INBOARD is noted in the two documents that you've found.

So evidence exists that the change which you think might have been confusing in the MPC actually DID pan out. At least I'm convinced that it did based on actual evidence.

The MPC lists left and right lenses and a dual purpose lens (center reflex). The left and right lens could not be called left or right because it would depend on when the car was built, one part number could be either left or right. Unless the the part numbers stayed the same and the L/R designation changed... more confusion.

Originally Posted by John V.

We can speculate that the early LAMP ASSEMBLIES were either assembled wrong or that they simply decided to reverse the reflex positions for the reasons suggested earlier (llaw required it or somebody thought it would look better). Unlikely they would have tried to address an assembly mistake (if that is what it was) on early production cars in the MPC.

Agree, not addressed in the MPC.

Originally Posted by John V.

No actual evidence has contradicted Mr. Roberts.
The evidence actually supports him.

Depends on how you look at it. Your tail lamp assys. could support the fact there was a production problem or could support what Mr. Roberts reports.

Originally Posted by John V.

Joe B, might be useful to know how your NOS lenses are marked.

I have a set of type one lenses. I will lake a good close look at them at report what I observe.

Originally Posted by John V.

Did some searching, found this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964-Pontiac...p2047675.l2557

The p/ns match to the MPC listing for the 1st type lenses, 5955621 for LH and 5955622 for RH. But the seller states both lenses are identical and marked "STDB 64".

At first, I suspected he had boxes for the 1st style but 2nd style lenses, taking him at his word that the lenses are "identical".

But I decided to pull out BOTH my Lamp Assemblies just to check.

Turns out, mine are marked the SAME as he says these are marked.

There is NO Right and Left marking on the lenses. Perhaps there is a marking on the backside of the lens, but nothing external that I saw when installed in the lamp assembly.

So they are NOT really identical, reflex sections are at opposite ends.

But the choice to reverse them side to side would be a no brainer.

And yes, there would be the potential for confusing them in production of the lamp assemblies. For service, it would have been a problem for anybody replacing just one lens, as it depended on whether the originals used the OUTBOARD or INBOARD installation.

True

Originally Posted by John V.

My guess, PMD ignored that problem. For the rare case where the "wrong" one was supplied, either it could be swapped or more likely, nobody noticed if you had one OUTBOARD reflector and one INBOARD reflector after a repair.

I am not so sure it was a rare occurrence. I think that is the reason for Mr. Roberts (or whoever reported to Mr. Roberts) felt is was worth reporting to Mr. Bates.

Originally Posted by John V.

I am 95% sure my lamp assemblies are original and so are the lenses in them. No indication they've ever been taken apart.

Either evidence of the problem or the first solution Mr Roberts reports.

Originally Posted by John V.

Regardless of whether Mr. Roberts was correct or mistaken, seems to me the 2nd type lens did not enter production until after my car. I realize this may have been a transitional change and actual initial installations of the 2nd style lens might have varied by Plant.

But I don't think we have found enough evidence to say even approximately when the 2nd style lenses started to appear.

Agree, sometime "soon" after the second letter is my take. What ever "soon" means in this context is ambiguous

Originally Posted by John V.

And unless contradictory evidence is found, I'm convinced the 1st style lenses were still correct at least a month after the 10/21/63 document.

Agree

Originally Posted by John V.

Gotta believe the 2nd style lenses would have entered production a lot earlier than late Nov. if they were already being prepared for release when the 9/26/63 letter was written.

I don't know how long it would have taken to machine new molds and start making the type two lenses. Today it would be a matter of days. Back then it could have been weeks or months. No CAD, limited CNC.

Originally Posted by John V.

I just can't agree that Mr. Roberts was most likely misunderstanding the issue.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. That's OK.

Originally Posted by John V.

If anything, I would think Mr. Bates was slow in disseminating the info he got from Mr. Roberts. His idea of "soon be moved" might have been flawed. That change may already have been accomplished around 9/26/63 when Mr. Roberts stated "at the present time", doubt that it took 4 weeks or more to accomplish reversal of the lens positions.

I agree. Reversing the lenses would be quick and easy. I think 3 or 4 weeks later they are still waiting for the new lenses (center reflex) to start coming in.

Originally Posted by John V.

I agree that the primary service intent at that point was to confirm that the single filament bulbs were in the appropriate location regardless of whether the reflex section was INBOARD or OUTBOARD.

Agree

Originally Posted by John V.

It is easy to imagine that if the lenses were crossed up as an early production error, PMD may very well have decided to simply solve the problem by changing bulb socket positions at the dealer level, for which I doubt they reimbursed the dealer.

No evidence found in flat rate revisions for relocating bulbs. But then again, dealers were never informed either. Flat rate revision dated 4-20-64 allows .1 hr to replace lens or housing.

Originally Posted by John V.

If they had decided to have the dealer swap the lenses around instead, they surely would have had to pay for the dealer labor.

Agree

Originally Posted by John V.

Rather than speculate back and forth, what we really need is actual evidence.

Yes, assembly manual, where are you?

Originally Posted by John V.

Just need to tell us whether the lens is INBOARD, OUTBOARD, or CENTER, Plant where assembled, and the build date of the car per the Data Plate would be easiest way to try and pin down the approx date of introduction of the 2nd style lens.

Agree.

[3 Deuce 64]

Originally Posted by Joe B

Don,
what month was your car built?
Joe

April 23 64 2nd shift stamped on my build sheet and the cowl under the passenger side front fender.

built in Pontiac

[Joe B]

Don & To All,
My car was built Feb. 21, 64 in Pontiac. With all the discussion, it seems my car should have the reflex section in the middle. What I am confused about is the boxed NOS RT. taillight assembly I have has the reflex section on the inboard side. The MPC does not list any sort of specific information of any changes in the lens. Only 1st or 2nd type and no dates.
Joe

[John V.]

Chad, same here, ie., no need for hard feelings. Just fun to try to figure out.

You make a very logical case. In fact, I also tried to imagine just about exactly what you are thinking.

But 2 things hinder me.

1. Pictures of early magazine test cars clearly show the outboard reflex. My car and others that seem to be somewhat later than these earliest test cars have the inboard reflex. This is consistent with what Mr. Roberts wrote.

2. Even back then, I do not believe it would have taken weeks and very doubtful, months to make the revision from reflex at the end to reflex in the center. We can disagree on this point, but if the change was already in the works when Mr. Roberts wrote it up on 9/26/63, I am very certain Guide could have been pumping out the center reflex lens in a matter of a week or 2. It wasn't an all new part, it was a modification of the existing. Agree it was a bigger challenge than would be today, but not THAT big a challenge.

Originally Posted by 64woodwheel

Mr. Roberts position is unknown. But I believe he was some kind of liaison between Reliability and Service. He was responsible for conveying potential service problems with customers from multiple plants to the General Service Manager. I think I will post the entire letter in a new thread for everyone to see. The information contained in the letter is inside information that could only be obtained from sources close to Assembly. This is why I believe the subject of tail lamp bulb location stems from a production problem and not an aesthetic concern nor federal mandate. If it was a federal mandate, there would be much more documentation of the correction effort, ie News Flash, SCN, Service Management, etc. If it was an aesthetic concern, I doubt Mr. Roberts would be reporting it to Mr. Bates.

Haven't looked at the entire letter yet.

I don't really disagree with the logic of this particular paragraph. But for me, I guess I'm giving more weight to the evidence that substantiates that the reflex WAS moved from outboard to inboard.

You say it doesn't make sense to move the reflex to the inboard position. The evidence shows that it was, so let me propose what I think is a logical reason for doing it while necessitating Mr. Roberts incorporating it in his letter and see what you think.

This will also be lengthy.

Somewhere in here you mentioned the Inspector's Guide in relation to the tail lamp wire harness. I'm pretty sure the tail lamp wire harness gets no mention in the I.G.

The reason being, the body wiring was Fisher's responsibility, the I.G. relates to Final Assembly.

The tail lamp assemblies almost undoubtedly were supplied by Guide Div. as complete, ready to install assemblies. If you look at the housings, they also carry what I believe are Guide p/ns.

Now it occurs to me that Guide may have also supplied the tail lamp assemblies with the wire harness, sockets, & bulbs already installed. I'm not sure where the wire harness connector to the body wiring is, but this could have been true.

But I doubt it. I figure Fisher installed the tail lamp assemblies as received from Guide and then installed the wire harness complete with the sockets and bulbs.

Now consider. The Fisher assemblers would have been instructed to install the single filament socket and bulb INBOARD assuming that was the ORIGINAL production intent.

But Guide screws up and assembles the tail lamp assemblies reversed with the reflex OUTBOARD.

Fisher probably never notices, until Final Assembly no electrical check is likely performed. Fisher has no reason to look close enough at the tail lamp assemblies to notice where the reflex is positioned and in any event is unlikely to know that the reason they are putting the single filament bulb INBOARD is because that is where the reflex is supposed to be. It really isn't there responsibility.

How or why it becomes apparent that the single filament bulb is now in the wrong place is unknown to me. Maybe it looks obvious when the brake lamps are tested? Would the lights look funny?

However they realize it, the immediate solution is to switch the sockets around. I believe there is enough slack in the harness to have done this without the need for a reworked harness. Maybe somebody with an original intact car can check this, but I think it is true.

I don't know if PMD would have revised the instruction to Fisher to install the single filament in the OUTBOARD position or was content to correct them at final is unknown. Probably depended on how many Lemans' were being built.

Meanwhile, Guide has to be contacted to inform them of the tail lamp assembly problem so that future parts are correct when delivered. It is easy enough for them to reverse the lenses on their end, immediately newly assembled tail lamp assemblies are corrected.

Perhaps many sockets have been getting switched when caught at final inspection. But likely, PMD realizes that many have not been caught. So Mr. Roberts includes the issue in his letter and word should go out to the dealers. You say it never did. Maybe it was never considered a big enough deal to "fix" them in the field. Maybe the fix was disseminated by word of mouth. I sure don't know.

But in my view, obviously it was a big enough deal to go back to Guide to make the change so that subsequent tail lamp assemblies were correctly assembled by Guide with the reflex inboard.

And I believe THAT is what Mr. Roberts and PMD expected to happen as of 9/26/63.

Now at this point, maybe Guide recommends a "better" solution to PMD. The OBVIOUS logic is to avoid any assembly screw up (by Guide) going forward. Why not put the reflex in the center section? PMD ultimately approves that change. Guide produces the revised lens and starts to deliver them in newly minted tail lamp assemblies.

We'll probably never know what the disposition of early tail lamp assemblies might have been. But that is pretty inconsequential in my view.

The evidence that we have yet to collect will tell us WHEN this switch entered final production so that, at least approximately, we will be able to say when the center reflex began to be installed.

Depending on whether Fisher was ever asked to start installing the single filament in the OUTBOARD position until the corrected assemblies with reflex INBOARD were received, one can imagine the wire harness installers thinking these guys were nuts, first they want INBOARD, then they want OUTBOARD, then back to INBOARD, and some point later in, CENTER!

Might have happened that way, although, might have just decided to have Fisher continue to install them INBOARD so the installers didn't have to "think" about it. So the only change FIsher may have experienced was when they switched to the new CENTER reflex.

This is the logic that makes sense to me.

The one bit of evidence that still bugs me is the Shop Manual wire diagram showing what I think is the single filament in the center. Could it be that PMD wanted the reflex in the center all along and Guide royally screwed up by making a RH & LH lens with the reflex on the end? Could be. But then I would ENTIRELY agree with you, it would have made NO sense to switch the reflex from the incorrect outboard to the equally incorrect inboard position while awaiting Guide correcting the lens design. I think there is way too much evidence however that shows they DID intentionally switch from outboard to inboard for me to believe this scenario is logical. And if Guide had really screwed up and the lens position was random end to end, I'd expect the solution would have been more complicated since some cars would have one inboard and one outboard reflex. No evidence in my view that this ever occurred. Still, I can't explain away the wiring diagram which nobody else has addressed or compared their wiring to the wiring in my car.

For now, the only definite data point for the CENTER reflex is Don's Pontiac build from late April.

I think the change was made BEFORE that but I refuse to make that a definitive call until I learn of many more examples of original Lemans' with the center reflex.

If I was GUESSING, I'd believe Joe B's late Feb Pontiac build had the center reflex. But if it was my car, I would want more evidence rather than rely on a guess.

[3 Deuce 64]

John ,

Pontiac built 64 hard top I've had here at least 30 years PHS documents have a build date of Feb. 28th the car is a basket but I believe it to be original .this car is wired for and seems to have the reflective part in the center. picture below is poor but you can see the center is reflective. I've tried to keep some cars intact for reference.

[Tom Wood 64]

I,ve read, read and reread this memo many times and i just can,t get that they had the lens with center reflex planned. Just that they were planning on moving reflex from outboard to inboard. To do that, they would switch lenses side to side.

[Joe B]

Tom,
It may have been the initial plan but I think thats why they changed it to the 2nd design. By doing that it eliminated all confusion and was more cost effective. GM was a penny counter.
Joe

[Tom Wood 64]

Joe, i agree. I just didn,t get anything about the second style in the memo.

[Joe B]

Tom,
I do not think when that memo was written they had a definitive solution, they knew only there was a potential problem that would cost GM $. So thats why a $ saving solution was arrived at. Hence the 2nd design.
Joe

[Tom Wood 64]

Joe B, 7 posts ago you stated you had a lens that was inboard. I also have an original boxed lens, i forget what side it says, but if i put it on one side of the car, it,s inboard, the other side it,s outboard.

[John V.]

Tom, I don't think anybody is saying there is anything in the memo about the center reflex. What Chad has laid out is a logical argument suggesting Mr. Roberts misunderstood the issue and mistakenly suggested the lens would be moved from outboard to inboard, while Chad believes the actual change Mr. Roberts was supposed to describe was outboard to center.

Chad believes it would have taken awhile for the change to the center reflex to be executed.

I've suggested a different scenario for how the center reflex came to be.

I believe the change to the center reflex would have happened quickly once the decision was made to go that route.

Either way, the only important thing to determine is WHEN the center reflex started to show up on cars.

To a lesser extent, for me personally, I think it is interesting to see that some Lemans' were built with the outboard reflex, some with the inboard reflex, and some with the center reflex. It does not look to me like the use of the inboard reflex was random, I think it was purposeful and consistent with the memo. But if the center reflex entered final production in Nov or Dec, I'd be inclined to agree with Chad that Mr. Roberts at the very least didn't divulge the full extent of the planned change in his memo.

It would be useful to pin down approximate break point dates for all 3.

Using the memo and magazine test report pictures, my opinion is the outboard reflex was probably a production snafu caused by misassembly at Guide and probably limited to Lemans' built in September or possibly into early October.

After that, Lemans' were built with the inboard reflex, at least thru November and I suspect later.

Finally, the center reflex entered production.

I can't tell from Don's pic, but accepting what he says, the earliest report we have of a center reflex Lemans is late February.

But between my late Nov Fremont build and Don's late Feb Pontiac build, we have 3 months of production with no evidence. I would hope more evidence turns up.

I contacted the Seller of the early pair of lenses that I linked from the ebay auction.

He says the pair he sold were already packaged up. He recalls them as being identical, no p/ns on them, just a mold no., and the reflectors being on the left end on both. That kinda makes no sense unless one of them was the wrong part since they were in boxes identified for a RG and a LH lens. But he was going by memory, so I take his reply with a grain of salt (otherwise the Buyer will be disappointed to receive 2 RH lenses!).

Chad, it will be interesting if you spot any telltale differences between the RH & LH early lenses you have. Please report if you find anything useful that distinguishes them from each other.

[Tom Wood 64]

John V, my buddy Jon at Tri-Power Automotive has a third week of Nov vert. The lenses are first design with reflex inboard. Hope to have more info soon.

[3 Deuce 64]

John,
Here's a better picture I cleaned the lense off now you can see the reflector in the center.
Don

[bill ryder]

Well, I can be of NO HELP. I dug my car out yesterday, long enought to take a look at the taillight lenses. My reflectors are, in deed, on the outside, but I positioned the lights with the single bulb in the middle. WRONG. I just looked at the Chassis manual and the print shows the single filament bulb in the middle, sooo, I'm sure that is why my bulbs are in that position.
My lenses are not marked L and R, just the STD and SAE 64 and ZB2. I tossed the boxes 25 years ago (darn it) and I can't remember a L and R designation, which means I probably could have put them in, just as easily, the opposite so the reflector would have been to the inside.
I know for sure, I will swap the bulb recepticles around in the Spring to get them correct.
My Chassis manual is dated August 63. Like John stated, funny the circuit diaghram is already showing the single element in the center position!!! bill

[John V.]

Don, thanks, yes, NOW I can see the reflex!

Bill, maybe you CAN help answer one question.

With the brake lights on, and the single filament in the center, does the outboard and inboard lights look the same?

I'm especially interested in what they look like at night. Just wondering if they look "mismatched" because of the reflex. I realize you might not be able to check til Spring, but you might check before you switch the bulb sockets around.

This actually kinda relates to the whole topic.

Personally, I think the lamps looked wrong when the brake lights lit up side by side.

I swear I remember seeing '64 Lemans' like that 40 years ago and thought it looked goofy as compared to having them split apart. Just didn't look like it made sense to me back then.

And if the reflex doesn't impact the light, I would be inclined to keep my brake bulbs split rather than side by side even though my reflex is inboard.

I'm just trying to figure out if there is any logic to putting the single filament behind the reflex.

If not, maybe Mr. Roberts was wrong in a different way than Chad suggested.

Maybe the single filament was supposed to be in the center as indicated by the wire diagram regardless of where the reflex was.

In any event, and until I can test it out someday on my own car, I'm curious to know if the reflex has any effect on what the light looks like with the brake (or signal) bulbs lit up at night when any difference should be most obvious.

Tom, looking forward to hearing more about that 3rd week Nov. convert. I wonder if it is the Fremont car that I have a PHS on. If so, was built a very short time before mine.

[3 Deuce 64]

lights on with center reflector

[Joe B]

Tom,
I have complete right side taillight with the housing and chrome bezel. Unfortunately the flap on the box that has the part # is missing. The reflex section is inboard. I also nave a NOS lens only part #5955474 yellow & black box with a center reflex. I can not find that # in the MPC of 1970. So I assume its a service replacement part of a later date.
Joe

[bill ryder]

John V. I have put the light check on the top of my todo list next spring. Probably be late March or early April depending on the weather. Usually takes me several months to get it ready for shows, always have mods. and changes I learn on the forum during the winter.
Hope I live another 30 years. I have a lot of NOS parts to find!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! bill

[Joe B]

Bill.
what are you looking for? I have a few NOS parts I may sell soon. Send me a pm with your wants
Joe

[Tom Wood 64]

In my book it says Group 2.682 5955622 RH 5955621 LH also 5956250 Quantity 2
I have sitting in front of me a Delco Guide box with lens 5955621 which should be LH. But depending how i mounted them on the car determines if the reflex would be inner or outer. I finally got in touch with another buddy and he thinks the change happened in Jan and he is sure he has paperwork to that change. I also e-mailed other 64 owners of my club and i am waiting for a response from them. Hopefully we can nail this down soon.