[Tenney]

As to the Car and Driver GTO ...

Per Jim Wangers, he had the 389 that the car came off the line with replaced with a 421 HO in the engineering department (along with an M-21 and 3.90's) right after the car came off the line.

That 421 spun a bearing in Daytona during the Car and Driver test. The car was towed home to Royal, where it was met after hours by engineers w/another 421.

The second 421 was blown-up while the car was with Officer Sherman. Milt installed a 428 short block at Royal - retaining the 421 top half.

The 428 was in the car when it came to me about ten years ago. Scott Tiemann sourced an accurately-dated 421 block, which is in the car now. The 428 short block's now covered in the corner of the garage.

[War eagle]

"I`m here to admit, more than three decades after the fact, that yes, I did install a 421 H.O. Tri-Power engine in the red Royal Bobcat in the Car and Driver test car." Jim Wangers, Glory Days, page 107. Copyright 1998

The closest the car ever got to "Pontiac Engineering" was 3 miles from the assembly line. I asked him at Omaha if he had done the swap at Royal and he nodded and winked. However I do not know if he somehow was able to get a complete H.O. or whether an assembled H.O. was created at Royal. It is now obvious that getting a 63 block instead of a 64 would have been a disaster noting the starter mount. Someone had to know.

I really think everyone should pick up a copy of Jim's book. It is well written and clears up a number of items.

[John V.]

Is the book still available? A few years ago my wife tried to get it for me as a gift, it was on backorder and never came.

Calling it an H.O. doesn't clear up much for me.

What exhaust manifolds were used? A big part of what made the '64 421 HO different from a '64 non-HO tripower 421 was the exhaust manifolds and they did not fit the Tempest chassis.

I think both the Blue car and the Red car went to Daytona with stock '64 Tempest V8 log style manifolds.

At the time the Red car was built, the GTO heads were not yet getting the HD valve springs (that was changed in production shortly after).

Also, I have tried to determine for years with no proof either way whether the 9770716 heads were slightly milled to reduce chamber volume whenever used on a 389 (big car 32B, 33-6, & 34N and all GTO engines).

If they were, did the Red car get the GTO milled heads with std valve springs or 421 HO heads with HD springs without milling, or HD springs and milling?

The C&D article outlined the modest mods supposedly made. Included rejetting all 3 carbs. So did the Red car get rejetted GTO carbs or rejetted 421 HO carbs. I bet the former since even if Royal started with a complete 421 HO engine assembly, the carbs were added at dress out, unlikely IMO that they started with a fully dressed replacement engine. So most likely rejetted the GTO carbs.

Did the Blue car also get a 421? There was an informative "Bobcat" article in PHR showing the steps performed on a Nocturne Blue GTO (Pontiac Plant "W" scrawled on the firewall). Was this the same car as went to the Car & Driver office in NYC and then to Daytona. You can decide, but pix show it with the same license plate in both articles. It claims they milled the heads and installed a thin head gasket to boost compression. I can't tell from the pics I have of the short block if it is still a 389 at that point, maybe somebody else knows or has better eyes than me.

But even if that was done to a 389, I expect they would have done the same to the heads on a 421. So if they were gonna massage the heads and switch gaskets, kinda defeats the purpose of starting with a complete engine assembly.

The HO got a hotter cam. Whether they started with a fitted block, a complete engine assembly, or something in between, I'm guessing the Red car got the HO 543 cam rather than the milder 009 GTO cam. According to McCarthy, the '64 HO cam had same cam specs as the 068 that came out for '65 and if it didn't it was only slightly different from the 068. But I'm no cam expert, maybe the 009 made more sense with the log manifolds, I sure don't know. No way to know for sure now anyway.

I went thru all this to say I don't know what JW meant when he wrote, "I did install a 421 H.O. Tri-Power engine in the red Royal Bobcat in the Car and Driver test car."

First, I don't think JW intended to suggest he did the "install" himself. Not sure if he has ever claimed to have actually been there while it was done either. But for sure, nobody simply took a '64 code 45B 421 HO engine assembly and dropped it into the engine bay of a GTO. Referring to it as a 421 HO is a bit off the mark to me.

I don't think it much matters where the swap was made but I recall Tenney had a conversation at a Concours event with a guy who worked for PMD Engineering and remembered the car. I can't recall the details. I'm sure Tenney can fill it in. Based on some exchanges I've had with Tenney in the past, I think he knows I remain overwhelmingly fascinated by the Car & Driver test cars. I think I'm lucky, I keep forgetting the answers, so I keep asking the same questions about them. Hope that doesn't offend anybody.

[War eagle]

Ebay has at least 10 Glory Days currently.

I absolutely believe Jim meant what he said. I PUT THE 421 IN!!! He wrenched on the cars ROYAL raced as well as other fellos at Royal. This probably was an after hours deal with Ace Wilson agreement.

What makes you think that spinning a bearing was the end of the first 421? John you say warrantee would only be a fitted block IF IT REQUIRED ONE. I don`t have any evidence that the first 421 was replaced. It could have only needed a reground crank, a rod, brgs and gaskets.

[aceaceca]

Re block stampings. My 62 Catalina with 08B engine stamping to indicate a 4 bolt main 389
was modified at the factory. Whatever stamping was on there was ground off and it was restamped 08B. This car was purchased new and had no prior owners. I was questioned about this at Eastex Drag strip and was told I had to run in gas class instead of D stock because it was a modified engine. Never ran there again.

[JohnnyAction]

Hello, At the recent GTOAA convention in Pittsburgh, I stopped at the Royal Pontiac booth to inquire about a 1965 Royal GTO that I purchased used at a local Buick dealer in Pgh. in 1969. I purchased the car with the understanding the engine was blown. I immediately closed the deal when I saw a Royal tag on the core support. I removed the engine and tore it down only to find 2 broken rocker arms and 4 bent pushrods. I found that it was a 421 when I purchased the parts including rod and main bearings. The engine was the one that was in the car when the original owner purchased it at Royal Pontiac. This was a one owner car that was purchased by a fellow for his son. He traded it in and ordered a 1970 Buick Gran Sport. The gentleman at the Royal Pontiac booth at the show stated that Royal Pontiac never built or sold a 421 in the GTO. He stated that they only offered the "Bobcat" kit in the 389. Can anyone shed some light on this as I am a bit confused. I never received the original bill of sale from Royal Pontiac when I purchased the car, but did have the payment receipt to Royal. Has anyone owned a 421 GTO built by Royal Pontiac? Thanks John

[Tom Vaught]

Some of you have a copy of the "CARS -The Automotive Magazine" dated March, 1964. The magazine lead time was typically 3 months or more to go to distribution on the stands. That would make the info as written in the November/December time frame. The article was written by Alex Walordy. he mentions two cars in an imprompt road test: a Tri-Power and a 4 BBL car.

There is no snow on the ground in the pictures so that says the pictures were taken probably in early November as there is moisture coming out of the exhaust system in one of the photos.

The picture shows two cars so I originally assumed that they were the Red and Blue car. One of the two cars has a 4 BBL engine mentioned in the article. The other is a SD style Linkage Tri-Power 421 engine. The Pyramid on a 421 block is clearly seen on the Block on page 29 of the article. As are the 421 valve relief pistons installed in the block. (The head is off the driver's side of the engine.) So my vote is the GTO heads were swapped. The rear carb has the old "Fat" width carb lever arm for the mechanical linkage. The picture clearly shows the 3 hole carb cable for the GTO.
Recently a post was made that said in 64, the Tri-Power cable should be a single hole deal, WRONG.

The front carb has a large INK STAMP on the front of the bowl.

A very good source for what Wangers was doing BEFORE the Florida testing. The mods were mentioned as being made by Jim Wangers, Dick Jesse, and Frank Reddiker. (So Frank R did ALL of the work with his mechanics at Royal.)

Check it out.

Tom Vaught

[importsmasher]

Originally Posted by John V.

Scott, very interesting. I could be wrong that the instruction were to stamp the VIN, but seems to me transferring the stamps for the Manifest Code and EUN seems kinda pointless. PMD may still have been able to tie the EUN to the VIN, but the VIN would be more useful. And they may have instructed to stamp the VIN to maintain the theft deterrence angle. I'm guessing that dealer mechanic didn't understand the instructions and simply restamped the wrong nos., but who really knows.

Just to be sure, I assume your Block does ALSO have the SR stamping, right?

John, yes it has the SR stamping. I agree that it seems pointless to put the EUN and not the VIN. Here are a couple of pictures (sorry one's upside down)...

Importsmasher

[War eagle]

9773155 is the block casting number of the 1964 389. One would have thought that at the end of 64 production and the 65`s taking over, that would be the end of that number. I just discovered that a 64 Bonneville we are taking apart has a replacement block and proves not to assume the obvious. The 9773155 was cast on L 3 5 making it almost a 66 engine. However, giving this a bit of thought solves the question. As B-man posted, the 64 and older pontys oil thru the rocker stud. Replacement of the block requires those 64 and older oil passages. So production continued on until? At one time the 7 year requirement by manufactures to provide replacement parts was a law.

Also the block face that usually has the production sequence number and other items is void of ANYTHING. So was the car out of warentee and the owner simply bought a block? This would make the car almost two model years old. OR maybe the replacement block was installed even later, possibly until stored stock of the 9773155 was dropped altogether some 7 years later. And remember only the 64 engine was drilled for a block mounted starter, which probably could be used as a replacement block in earlier bodies as well, where the starter is bellhousing mounted.

[John V.]

W.E., see Post #16, I mentioned the same thing for a K15 cast 9773155.

Posted a pic of the SR stamping on that block.

Are you saying there is no SR stamping on the block you just pulled?

That would be very weird.

The block should be stamped with the SR regardless if it was for warranty repair or over the counter sale. It is a SERVICE replacement.

If yours does include the SR stamping, would be interesting to compare the no. to the one in my pic since the 2 blocks were cast such a short time apart, might tell us if the no. is a "count" as I suspect or something else.

SR 85608 with the last 8 being a bit separated from the other 4 digits, not sure if that is meaningful since the characters seem to have been struck individually, not in a neat alignment.

[War eagle]

John. There is absolutely NO markings of any kind. I agree, I would have thought all were marked SR but there is nothing. And a quick inspection shows no indication of the face being milled. Original broach marks. I think I am more interested in how long the 155 was produced. The SR would only be important AFTER the block was installed. Something other than the cast number to tell me WHAT THIS BLOCK may fit would be more helpful. (example 326 block vs. 389) or (2bolt vs 4bolt without counting or 421 vs 389 without measuring).

I guess if someone could turn up a later than the L 3 5 date, possibly with a 1966 date, it would help confirm an extention of casting the 155. Does anyone know the warrentee parameters of a 1964 Pontiac? Like miles or years?

[8LUG]

24 months or 24,000 miles

[John V.]

No idea when they cast the last 9773155, but p/n 9774672 which was the '64 389 service cylinder block assembly (all '64 389s, no 4 bolt blocks in '64) was discontinued as of the Dec '81 Parts History Catalog.

The 9774673 '64 421 and the 9774671 '64 326 were both discontinued as of the Dec. '75 Parts History Catalog.

The Dealer Price for 9774673 at the time it was discontinued is shown at $332.50, 9774671 is shown at $262.50.

The '64/'65 6 cyl 9774670 was also discontinued at that time, Dealer Price $217.00.

The '65 p/ns were discontinued on the same schedules as the '64 p/ns, same price too.

The '66 GTO had a specific p/n 9784021 vs. the 9784020, I have no idea how they differed. But in June '75, 9784021 was superseded by 9784020. 9784020 also discontinued as of Dec. '81. So looks like that was the end of the line for any 389.

Not sure how the SR no. would tell you anything about the block.

The cast no. is very specific for displacement. The 326 and 389 shared the same outer pattern IIRC, but the cylinders were cast specifically and unless they screwed up the p/n tag on the dist pad, is specific for displacement. The '64 326 would show 9773153.

So the casting no. tells you 9773155 fit every '64 389 engine application.

I could not find anything on the '63 and earlier p/ns, no idea whether they were able to substitute the '64 block castings for earlier applications, although I'd guess at least the 4 cyl was available well into the '70s before they would have discontinued it. Whether they continued to offer it as a block assembly like the '64 and up or as a partial engine as is shown in the '66 MPC, I have no idea.

After warranty was up, I doubt they sold many of these because the value of the cars fell so fast. But if you did want one, I bet they would just cast whichever block was specific for the application and service p/n, no need to substitute a '64 block if you were servicing a '62. Just my guess though.

[Dick Boneske]

This thread reminds me of the Mercury Marine episode in 1963 when they were thinking about offering the Pontiac 421 engine in their marine drives. They did extensive testing for power and reliability. No one knew for sure how many engines were purchased from Pontiac, but most agree it was about six 421's. I don't know if any ever made it into boats that were tested on the water. For some reason, I suspect lack of reliability, they abandoned the project. No Pontiac marine engines were sold for marine use by Mercury.

Here's the sad part--After abandoning the idea, the engines and parts were sent to a local scrapyard and destroyed--sledge hammer style. Several guys at Mercury tried to save some of the parts, but, from what I was told, none were saved. This is also how Mercury handled the throw-away parts from big block Chevrolet engines at one time--new pistons, cranks, bearings, valves etc. as they were fitted with marine parts--more clearance. It's hard to imagine why they couldn't buy bare blocks and heads.

The above is from former Mercury Marine employees I've met through the years since I live in the Fond du Lac area where Mercury headquarters are located. These guys built one "government job" big block 427 that's in a dark blue '64 GTO--local car. It was kind of king of the road in Oshkosh in the late '70's. Just last month, at a local car show, the current owner lit it up for us on a side street---A LOT of smoke.

Maybe someone on this board knows more about the Mercury "experiment."

[War eagle]

Our SR engine block was CE. Some debate as to CE meaning but definitely a service or parts counter available block or assy. Along with CE, the date of assembly or machining processes, was included. A sequencing number of the unit as well. Because of the shear volume and popularity of the Chevrolet brand, I never associated the block as solely a service replacement unit. We sold hundreds of blocks, heads, bump sticks and manifolds during the 60`s over the counter. I recall the first angle plug heads arriving and the swarm it caused at the counter. We sold the finned aluminum Corvette valve covers @ 12.00 a pr. I recall always asking those buyers what year was their heads as 2 bolt patterns existed.
I later went to work at the Chrysler dealer and recall the warranty engine swap we did there. A crated 440 would arrive and the broken state patrol car would get a new replacement engine. WELL NOT QUITE. The crated engine was a remanufactured engine and the original recrated and returned to Chrysler. The reman short block was easy to spot with the pan off. Sometimes 4 rods were all #6 stamped.
John it would appear that the 155 was around as the SR for the 7 year mandate given the parts history. Also I would bet the 155 was the SR for earlier body replacement. I may have some info on that called "engine conversion package" grp 0.033 These appear in the Chevrolet catalogs as well and for example would indicate a 283 chev for the replacement of the 265 using the engine conversion package.

[John V.]

You might be right about the use of the '64 block but I lean toward PMD continuing to produce most all of the earlier block castings for SR use. Here's some reasons why.

The '63 326 was unique, so that block almost certainly had to remain available as part of the Service Replacement partial motor for '63 applications.

Same for the Tempest 4. And note, there is a SR partial motor for the '61/62 T4, but a unique SR partial motor for the '63 T4 in the '66 MPC.

The Conversion Package available in the '66 MPC was for use when installing a '58 SR partial engine, '57 SR partial engine, or '55/'56 SR partial engine in any '55-'58 Pontiac.

The most obvious thing that seemed to have changed year to year may have been the engine support insulator arrangement. It looks like service block for the '55-'58 partial engines used a newer style insulator. I suspect they cast the outer block as a newer style but continued to offer the specific year to year displacements. And the Conversion Package which included the Oil Pan, etc. seems to have been related to that change.

The first 389 was in '59. But even in the '66 MPC, specific partial motor SR p/ns are listed for each year. '61 & '62 were shared but they shared the same block casting in production too so that is no surprise. If the same block casting was used for each model year, it is hard to imagine why they would have needed unique p/ns for each of them.

If the '64 block configuration was directly suitable for any of the earlier model year applications, you wouldn't expect to need separate p/ns.

[War eagle]

BLOCK ASSY

41-46 517127
49-52 517128
53-54 517303
61-62 1389424
64 T-6 9774670
64 T-8 9774671
64 T-8 389 9774672
64 P-8 421 9774673
64 T-8 GTO 9774672

B-MAN and me would like to order the 9774673, maybe 6 qty. please.

John the partial engine assy listed in the 64 parts cat is more complete with listings from 1955 thru 63.

[John V.]

LOL, no doubt you would! Don't forget, they also were selling the '65 & '66 421s too, same price, takes yer pick.

Note that the '55-'63 were only serviced by Partial Engines with the exception of the '61/'62 Tempest V8 Buick engine and the '64 up were only serviced as Block Assemblies.

Not sure about a more complete list.

My Oct. 1, 1965 Rev. of the '66 MPC also lists Partial Engine Assemblies for all applications, '55-'63. No '63 SD listing though, I think it was in a special parts catalog.

Not sure how the Partial Engines are shown in the '64 MPC, but in my '66 MPC for the '55-'56, you could get 534618 (recessed top pistons) or 534619 (flat top pistons).

Oops, I was wrong about the use of a revised Insulator for the '55-'58 Partial Engines. The revised Insulator was called out for the '59 Partial Engines and the '60 Partial Engines.

The '55/'56 Partial Engines required the use of the 532080 Conversion Package (new oil pan, pump, etc) and when used for a '55 application also called for the use of the '56 Head Gaskets, 521608.

The '57 & '58 Partial Engines all also called for the same Conversion Package.

Since the '56 was bigger bore than the '55 (same stroke), looks like they must have stopped servicing the '55 287 displacement. I assume the '55 needed to use the '56 head gaskets simply because of the bigger bore. Not sure why the oil pan, pump, etc. had to be switched out for '55-'58 applications. Perhaps just because of an improved design or maybe the outer block pattern being used to cast the earlier service blocks had been revised, the original pan, etc. may not have bolted up to it? If so, these may have been something of a hybrid casting, specific cylinder dimensions for the given year but using the outer portion of a later model block.

How do the '66 p/n listings compare with the '64 MPC?

[War eagle]

1964 MPC grp 0.033 engine assy, partial


55-56 534618 RECESS
55-56 534619 FLAT
57 531986 RE
57 531987 FLAT
58 531976 RE
58 531977 FLAT
59 533825 RE
59 533826 FLAT
59 534165 FLAT 4/BOLT
60 536812 RE
60 536813 FLAT
60 536815 FLAT 4/BOLT T425A
61-62 540245 RE
61-62 540246 FLAT
61-62 540247 FLAT STD TRANS, 3/2BC, SPEC POLICE 2/BOLT
61-62 540248 FLAT 4/BOLT
61-62 534996 RE T/4
61-62 534997 FLAT T/4
63 9770970 421 EXC. S.D
63 9770967 T/4 195
63 9770968 T/8 326


It is interesting to read about Mickey Thompson taking the "1/2 a V-8 " concept one step further and sawed a V-8 in 1/4ths and created a 2cyl dragster. Hot Rod Magazine`s Pontiac Performance Handbook of 1963 reviews Mickey`s accomplishments from the salts to everything in between. Great read for anyone. Mickey also was getting some of those special Pontiac parts that never was in ANY parts book.

[John V.]

'66 MPC is same except also includes

63 9770969 P/8 389

Was that omitted in the '64 MPC or did you accidentally skip it?

Would be cool to relive those days and be part of what MT was doing and other innovators like him too. Anybody doing anything as unique today?