[geeteeohguy]

Thanks for the information, gentlemen. It looks like I'm going to swap the valve covers on my '65. I started out with '66 GTO's, and when I got the '65 way back when, assumed that the oil fill was on the same side!!

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Option 382

My reason for ordering this system was that I did not like seeing oil fumes coming from the cars that I owned in the 1950s.

Excellent input; thank you for sharing that. Confirms that (a) the PCV package could be ordered without constraint by anyone and (b) that the option was build in more than just the Fremont assembly plant (probably based loosely on the geographical location of the buyer).

Originally Posted by Option 382

Referring to the positive crankcase system for the 1965 GTO. I ordered my 65 GTO in September 1964 . It was a special order by myself and has many options. The GTO was built in Baltimore and delivered in January 1965.

Just as a sidebar, Dad's car was also ordered in August or September of '64; built the first part of the month (in Pontiac) and delivered on 9/18/64. Your experience seems to indicate that if a buyer missed that window of availability then the delay as a result of the (now famous) strike could be significant. My $0.02.

K

[60sstuff]

Originally Posted by 65blackplate

so 60sstuff you think my air cleaner and breather tube was chromed by somebody and the rest of the car was bone stock original paint un-restored car with full wheel covers and all ??

It's always the 1% that comes back to bite you, but I'm 99% sure your air cleaner is supposed to have a black painted base with the chrome lid and the metal tube to LH valve cover is also black paint from the factory as shown in small sample pic (65 Calif. GTO 4BBL) below.
The 66 and 67 4BBL. air cleaners for Calif. CPCV systems are also a large base (different shaped snorkels) painted black with their chrome lids.
There are a few other small correctable items under your hood that maybe a previous owner changed but for the most part a nice rare example that you possess!

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Option 382

Referring to the positive crankcase system for the 1965 GTO. I ordered my 65 GTO in September 1964 . It was a special order by myself and has many options. The GTO was built in Baltimore and delivered in January 1965. The cost for that option was less than $10.00. The chrome plated right side oil filler cap has the normal vent holes in the bottom side of the cap . On the left side of the engine, a black painted metal tube comes up to a metal three way divider. This divider distributes the crankcase oil fumes to each of the tri-power air cleaners. The system appearently works by drawing air in through the right side oil filler cap sucking air and oil fumes through the lower part of the engine and out of the left side valve cover into the air cleaner bases. This system does not contain the PCV valve contained on later year cars that is collected into the under side of the carburetor or intake manifold. The factory system as supplied on my 65 GTO works best when the engine is not at idle and the engine is running at some RPM. Vacuum at the air cleaner side is not much at engine idle. My reason for ordering this system was that I did not like seeing oil fumes coming from the cars that I owned in the 1950s.

Your reasoning is very interesting! What you may not have realized back then is that the cars in the '50s used a Road Draft Tube. Basically an open vent so ALL crankcase vapors were vented to atmosphere.

The original PCV system eliminated about 90% of those vapors, using engine vac to positively suck the vapors from the crankcase back to the intake manifold for reburning. The PCV valve was the one way check valve. Since oil vapors were being sucked out, make up air had to come in. The make up air came in thru the oil cap.

The majority of the time, no vapors escaped, so the oil vapors you saw from the old Draft Tuve system were gone.

On those occasions (can you WOT) where engine vac dropped below what the PCV valve needed to open, the vapors went out the oil cap vent.

Calif didn't like that, so they required the Closed System.

In normal operation for t he closed system, the make up air came from the air cleaner thru the closed system plumbing into the valve cover. That was because the oil cap wan non-vented.

Now here is what is startling to me.

First, you report that you ordered the Closed System. But for some inexplicable reason, the factory installed the vented oil cap instead of the non-vented oil cap that was the only way the system could be considered "closed".

But now you report that your car does NOT have the regular PCV valve.

My immediate reaction is shock and dismay. ALL V8s should have the PCV valve with or without the Calif Closed Crankcase Vent System!

Without it, you would be venting out of your oil fill cap essentially all the time and supplying make up air from the air cleaner & plumbing for the closed system.

Basically, your emissions would be WORSE with that set-up, not better.

Is the hole in the Valley Pan where the PCV grommet and valve normally install plugged some how?

I am seriously interested in this. Maybe there is something new to be learned from your set-up. But truthfully, I really hope that you are simply misremembering and you do in fact have the PCV system installed.

Else it would turn my understanding of the closed system on its head.

I should mention that the arrangement I described is based on what is shown in the '64 Tempest Inspector's Guide. But I cannot see how the '65 could have eliminated the PCV valve.

The PCV valve not only was an ingenious system for capturing fugitive oil vapors for emissions control, it was actually a far superior system for engine operating performance than the old draft tube. Not using it would not only be bad for emissions, it could also be detrimental to the engine.

Notwithstanding the fact that your engine has survived all these years. But still worth knowing about.

Anyway, please reconfirm the lack of PCV valve at least to the point of letting us know what was used to plug the valley pan.

[Option 382]

I looked at my car. You are correct John V. I found a PCV valve in the valley pan towards the passenger rear side. It had a hose that went between the center and rear carburetors and connected to the intake manifold. So the way you describe the system must work that way. I looked also at my invoice and the option that I bought is titled "positive C/C vent" and it cost $5.38. One thing that I do know for sure is the vented oil filler cap on my car came from the factory. Strange (now) but true.

[60sstuff]

Option 382, it would be great if you would take several photos of your car and engine bay to share with all of us. THANKS, Chris.

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Option 382

I looked at my car. You are correct John V. I found a PCV valve in the valley pan towards the passenger rear side. It had a hose that went between the center and rear carburetors and connected to the intake manifold. So the way you describe the system must work that way. I looked also at my invoice and the option that I bought is titled "positive C/C vent" and it cost $5.38. One thing that I do know for sure is the vented oil filler cap on my car came from the factory. Strange (now) but true.

Okay, all is right with the world! I don't doubt the oil filler cap mix up. Perhaps the Calif system was just odd enough at Balt that whoever had the responsibility for the oil cap just forgot.

I believe the CCCV system was added at engine dress out in the Final Plant.

Pretty sure all the changes were executed at that point.

Not positive, but I think the instructions for the oil cap would have been to remove the std. cap, return it to inventory, and install the closed cap.

In the case of your car that step got missed. Might have been because they didn't have stock of the correct cap at Balt. Or maybe just plain forgot to make the swap.

The Inspector's Guide illustrates the proper closed cap for the GTO, but I'd bet the Balt inspectors saw the closed cap so rarely, it would be easy to miss that mistake.

Interesting. And ditto Chris about the engine bay pix. Aleays neat to see something unusual like that.

[Keith Seymore]

Posted on behalf of Roger "Option 382"...

His comments -

This car is not 100 percent original but right at it. In these pics the following are not original:
1. Radiator cap, I put a lower poundage cap on. I still have the original.
2. Modern battery
3. The top radiator hose was folded upon itself from the factory so it was replaced and I put a modern gates clamp on it. Still have the original tower clamp.
4. The fuel line from filter to the T fitting on the front carb has been replaced. All other fuel lines are original.
5. Dealer installed option big car wiper fluid glass bottle.

Everything else on the car is original as it came from the factory.

[Keith Seymore]

So -

A couple observations now that I've had a minute to look at these...

a) Power steering but manual brakes - I'm always intrigued by that combination. What was your rationale for ordering it that way?

The red '64 Car & Driver GTO was ordered this way as well.

b) Interesting to note where the "caution-fan" label is placed without the finger shield. Seems like maybe on top of the full shroud would have been a better (more appropriate) location.

K

[Option 382]

My reasons for the steering/brake combo had nothing to do with cost. If you ordered the power steering you got a quicker steering ratio and I wanted that option. On the brakes I ordered metallic brake linings (still have the originals on the car) and Pontiac recommends power brakes with that combo but all cars I owned prior had no power brakes and I was just use to manual brakes. So that was my rationale.

[60sstuff]

Roger, Very nice tri-power with air condition engine bay! Does this GTO have the complete transistorized ignition or just the TI voltage regulator?
It would be beneficial to all to see more detail pics as you seem to have a nice original example to use for reference! THX!

[John V.]

Keith, I never thought the PS with manual brakes was a very odd combo.

The '64 GTO convert I had in HS was PS with manual brakes as is the current one I own. The '63 Fury my mother handed down to me as my first car was also PS with manual brakes.

My dad owned a few Impalas (his and/or company cars provided to him) in the '60s. I remember a '67 and two '68s.

All of them were PS with manual brakes. AFAIK, all of his cars thru the '60s were PS with manual brakes.

He bought a '72 Impala convert brand new in July '72. To the best of my recollection, that was the first car he owned that had PB (front disc). I remember that it was pretty common for my sisters and I to hit the brakes in that car a little too hard the first application since we were accustomed to the manual brake cars we drove.

I see the PS/PB combination on '64 manifests often enough. I've never tried to tabulate the options, but if I was betting, I'd say the PS & manual brake combo was much more common than the PS/PB combo.

I would say that even in full size models, the first change was the prevalence of PS, fiollowed closely by the popularity of auto trannies. I'd say those options became common from about the early '60s and probably had a LOT to do with women taking up driving with greater frequency (my own mom didn't get her license until about '61, she had 3 kids and was about 30). I believe A/C then became much more common in big cars toward the later '60s. I think PB did not become very common until the advent of front discs and IIRC that didn't become a standard feature until about '70/'71.

Just my observation from my own experience.

[Option 382]

The car is a complete transistorized ignition system. All original components work as new. Here is a trivia question. How can you tell a 65 has a transistorized ignition other than looking at the ignition coil and regulator. There is one more magic box and where is it at?

[60sstuff]

LH inner fender slash shield which houses the control unit to help keep it cool. I owned one 30 years ago.

PS - Where is the junction box/terminal (pic below) on firewall on your car?

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by John V.

Keith, I never thought the PS with manual brakes was a very odd combo.

Usually the thinking is that power steering is an engine driven accessory, and therefore there are parasitic losses associated with having it.

Power brakes, on the other hand, are vacuum - which is free - and so there's no HP loss (just the additional weight).

I would probably choose "neither" - but if I was going to mix and match I'd choose power brakes and manual steering....

(....which, BTW, is the way the Car and Driver "blue car" was equipped).

FWIW

K

[John V.]

Keith, but you were brought up on drag strip performance, most car buyers were not. The majority of even cars like the GTO were bought for the cool factor, not for their performance potential. Adding PS made the car easier to drive around town. PB was considered more important for "weaker" women, even the sales lit illustrated it with a woman's spike high heel on the pedal. Pontiac did recommend them for use with the metallic brake lining option but even that advice was often ignored. Since most cars, and for sure most GTOs, were bought by and for men, PB was not high on the radar.

I have seen a manifest or 2 for a '64 GTO with PB and manual steering, but that is pretty rare.

The Blue car did have the optional Quick Ratio option, part of the '64 Tempest "Handling Kit" special equipment option. For the Tempest, this option included the thicker front stabilizer bar but that was standard with the GTO option. Except for the GTO, you could not get that bar with PS.

In '65, they reconfigured this option so that you could get the thicker front stabilizer bar with PS in any Tempest. I think that is a further nod to the fact PS was becoming the norm for most buyers.

I believe the only reason we think the Blue car had Power Brakes is that it had the stainless pedal trim which was added with the PB option? But it certainly was in keeping with Pontiac's recommendation for the metallic brake linings.

The Quick Ratio Manual Steering Box offered quicker steering than the std. Tempest manual steering box. But the C&D review commented that they preferred the PS box because the QR manual box was still too slow. They don't admit it, but at low speed, the QR man box still took a lot of effort.

I understand your thinking about these options. But depending on the type of driving the car was intended for, PS (with or without PB) actually made a lot of sense even from a performance (non-drag strip oriented) viewpoint as the C&D article supports.

I wonder if that article had any influence on Option 382's ordering decision?

I know it influenced a lot of buyers because there is a very noticeable increase for '64 GTOs built in March and April that were equipped with the 3.90 axle from the manifests I have reviewed, especially as compared to those built before March.

[Keith Seymore]

Good points, once again.

Originally Posted by John V.

I believe the only reason we think the Blue car had Power Brakes is that it had the stainless pedal trim which was added with the PB option?

My recollection is that you and I had done a fairly detailed evaluation of the photos (including underhood photos) from the C&D article, attempting to assign the various features to either the Red car or the Blue car; I captured those observations in my notes.

I'll have to go back through the article and see if my notes still makes sense.

K

[Option 382]

Another reason I chose not to purchase power brakes was the way the brake pedal rested in relation to the clutch pedal. On my car with NO power brakes the clutch pedal and brake pedal rest in unison. The power brake option left the brake pedal resting closer to the firewall and was staggered from the clutch and I did not like the way it looked.

60sstuff, I will have to look at my car to answer your question.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Option 382

Another reason I chose not to purchase power brakes was the way the brake pedal rested in relation to the clutch pedal. On my car with NO power brakes the clutch pedal and brake pedal rest in unison. The power brake option left the brake pedal resting closer to the firewall and was staggered from the clutch and I did not like the way it looked.

Good observation; thank you.

K

[geeteeohguy]

My '65 has manual brakes and came with manual steering. Someone other than I installed factory PS way back when, in the '60's or '70's. Glad they did. I've owned GTO's with the manual steering, and it was slow and deadly at the same time if the car got away from you under full power. Still, if my own car had not been converted, I would have left it alone. My '67 GTO has power drum brakes. When driving both cars back to back, there is very little pedal effort difference, and both cars stop the same. I actually prefer the manual brakes of the '65 for the cleaner engine bay. Manual steering and power drums always struck me as weird. Out of balance. Really light brake pedal effort and really heavy steering effort. Strange. I agree with Option 382: the pedal placement on the manual brake, manual trans cars is nice, and easy to heel/toe when pretending it's a sports car.