[RAII 4-speed]

Attached is a picture of the tag on my dist.
I can not find this number in my research.
can anyone help?
THANKS

[John V.]

1111040 was the Distributor used with the Transistorized Ignition option for a 326 engine in the Tempest line-up and the 421 in the big cars in '64.

The first application for it was T.I. on the '63 421 engines but with the 4E4 ('64, May 4) date code, looks like yours was from a '64 application.

The '64 GTO and '64 389 big cars used the 1111047 Distributor with T.I., it had a slightly slower advance spec vs. the 1111040 near as I can tell.

[RAII 4-speed]

My car is all original and never rebuilt or restored.
it is a 1965 GTO tri power 4-speed convertible.
My car was built in 1964 and was built in California
AND Yes it does have TI.

[geeteeohguy]

I see a non original heater hose clamp.....time to sell me your modified, no-longer-original car 'on the cheap'. I'll strip it, paint it resale red, install an LS engine, and a set of 22" rims. Oh yeah, and a thumpin' stereo system. Or, I guess you could replace the hose clamp......Nah..........

[John V.]

I can't say that your Distributor couldn't be original, just that it seems odd based on what I can uncover.

Are you the original owner? If not, I might suspect that this Dist was installed as a Service Replacement or salvage yard swap somewhere along the way if the original failed.

Or it may have been an engine dress out error.

When was your GTO final assembled? I've never paid attention to the date coding of misc engine parts, but I suspect it would be unusual for an early May '64 dated Dist to be installed in a '65, no matter when built.

This would be especially true if the 1111040 had no specified usage for '65, in which case, typically, excess parts would have been sent to the Parts Warehouse for Service Replacement use at the end of the Model Year, which would have been late July, early Aug after '64 production ended, no reason to keep the 1111040 at the assembly plant if it was not to be used in '65..

The '66 MPC indicates no usage for the 1111040 for '65 but that could be a consequence of a p/n supersedure.

Do you have the AMA specs for '65? Perhaps the early '65 Dist. p/ns will be listed in that document and maybe the 1111040 will be listed. If it had any '65 usage, there would be a possibility that it was installed in your engine on purpose (even if by engineering approved deviation) or by mistake. As long as the Dist was "in the building", anything is possible.

Also check the Shop Manual, I think the Dist p/ns are listed there in the electrical specs.

It is conceivable that the 1111040 was designated for the GTO Tri-Power w/ TI in '65. As I mentioned, it has quicker advance specs than the 1111047, the '65 GTO TP/TI Dist shown for SR in the MPC.

The date coding is the most troubling to my eye but the TI option was not very common, so perhaps not so odd as compared to standard points Dists that presumably had a lot more inventory turnover.

[RAII 4-speed]

Originally Posted by John V.

I can't say that your Distributor couldn't be original, just that it seems odd based on what I can uncover.

Are you the original owner? If not, I might suspect that this Dist was installed as a Service Replacement or salvage yard swap somewhere along the way if the original failed.

Or it may have been an engine dress out error.

When was your GTO final assembled? I've never paid attention to the date coding of misc engine parts, but I suspect it would be unusual for an early May '64 dated Dist to be installed in a '65, no matter when built.

This would be especially true if the 1111040 had no specified usage for '65, in which case, typically, excess parts would have been sent to the Parts Warehouse for Service Replacement use at the end of the Model Year, which would have been late July, early Aug after '64 production ended, no reason to keep the 1111040 at the assembly plant if it was not to be used in '65..

The '66 MPC indicates no usage for the 1111040 for '65 but that could be a consequence of a p/n supersedure.

Do you have the AMA specs for '65? Perhaps the early '65 Dist. p/ns will be listed in that document and maybe the 1111040 will be listed. If it had any '65 usage, there would be a possibility that it was installed in your engine on purpose (even if by engineering approved deviation) or by mistake. As long as the Dist was "in the building", anything is possible.

Also check the Shop Manual, I think the Dist p/ns are listed there in the electrical specs.

It is conceivable that the 1111040 was designated for the GTO Tri-Power w/ TI in '65. As I mentioned, it has quicker advance specs than the 1111047, the '65 GTO TP/TI Dist shown for SR in the MPC.

The date coding is the most troubling to my eye but the TI option was not very common, so perhaps not so odd as compared to standard points Dists that presumably had a lot more inventory turnover.

John V. Thank you for your response, I did contact the original owner of the car ( I bought the car from him just a few months ago) He ordered the car in July of 1964 and it was delivered to him on Dec 11, 1964. he stated the dist has never been changed or replaced at any time. He also explained why it took so long for his car to be built and delivered, Mostly due to a 45 day strike by GM in 1964.
I do not have any other way to research the part. But I do know it is the one that the car was born with.
It would be nice to find more lit on the TI GTO from 1965.

[Option 382]

The 1965 Pontiac Tempest chassis shop manual only shows one TI distributor for the GTO: 1111047. The 326 had its own TI model number. Eric White's book from the GTO Association of America does show that the 65 GTO used a different TI distributor used late in the model year: 1111080.

[RAII 4-speed]

Originally Posted by Option 382

The 1965 Pontiac Tempest chassis shop manual only shows one TI distributor for the GTO: 1111047. The 326 had its own TI model number. Eric White's book from the GTO Association of America does show that the 65 GTO used a different TI distributor used late in the model year: 1111080.

Ok so, a little confused here...... What does the 1964 shop manual show for a tri power TI?
My 1111040 dist is the one my car was born with and it was built in 1964.

[rare4k]

IN the Camaro world, the high performance distributors were made in batch sets. so its not uncommon to see a distributor two, three, four or five months out, the big picture if it was around it was used 400 to 500 cars a day

[RAII 4-speed]

Keith, the original owner stated in his notes that the car was covered with foil on the roof (convertible) and a wax type on the paint..... was this typical of all cars back then or ?

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by RAII 4-speed

Keith, the original owner stated in his notes that the car was covered with foil on the roof (convertible) and a wax type on the paint..... was this typical of all cars back then or ?

Convertible tops - yes; they got some type of protective covering -





Wax - no. Sounds like something his local dealer may have done.

K

[Kenth]

I may add that for 1965 Tempest mag. pulse distributor for 326 eng. was 1111081 and 389 eng. uses 1111047.
My info on the 1964 Tempest is for the 326 eng. only.

John V, this info is from the Delco Remy Parts Catalog 8 - 1 - 68 Index No. 8 Supplements to Car Application Index Delco-Remy Equippment for 1963-64-65-66.

[John V.]

I wondered about that "wax coating" too. I knew about the convertible top covering, Eric White's Made in Pontiac series mentioned that IIRC.

The wax coating, never heard anything like that. Kinda makes no sense to me that they would put anything purposely on the fresh paint. A petroleum based product would probably have as likely damaged the paint as protected it.

I wonder if the car was just especially dirty, maybe it rained on the transporter, and the owner thought the road grime that coated the car was a protective film?

Keith, the UAW (headed by Walter Reuther) announced the end of the strike on Oct. 25, a Sunday, after the national vote came in.

102 of 130 bargaining units had reached local level agreements on that date.

Of the remaining 28 locals that voted to continue the strike, 15 of 21 assembly plants (which included Fremont as per the article I attached to my earlier post) remained out because of local issues.

The locals were kinda hung out to dry at that point. The UAW was under political pressure, all the way up to LBJ, because the strike occurred just prior to the Nov. '64 Presidential election and was an embarrassment to LBJ (history shows it didn't hurt him very much). Plus Reuther didn't want the strike in the first place.

Once the national agreement had been ratified, the UAW statement said it would "intensify its efforts to clear up the problems in the remaining 28 locals". Basically, the locals were put on notice by their own leadership to get the strike over with.

And as the Fremont guys recognized from the article I posted, they were in a no-win situation. The national agreement had sold them out.

They remained on strike awhile longer but with union strike benefits paying single guys $20/week and family men no more than $30/week, at a time when I think the average line worker was making about $75/week for 40 hrs, more with overtime, I doubt they stayed out much longer when the handwriting was on the wall.

Keith, the '64 strike may have been the first to have been settled in a piecemeal fashion. Reuther kept some 90 GM locals from striking at all, keeping 80,000 on the job so that parts production wouldn't be interrupted. And he gave the marching orders to his staff to get the most militant locals to settle once the national agreement was ratified on 10/25. Still can't find anything specific to Fremont, which may have been one of the most militant, but everything I can find says all of the locals settled by election day, which was 11/3. The very fact that the locals chose to strike was a slap in the face of Reuther since he had accepted a GM offer in Sept. before the strike but the locals refused to ratify it. Line speed among other things stuck in their craw.

It really was an interesting strike and a precursor to labor unrest and general societal upheaval that followed.

Not sure how the order for RAII's '65 would have been handled.

I believe orders could be placed before production started, but not really sure a Dealer could place an official order for a '65 in July.

The Time Built code on the Data Plate makes it clear to me, the order was not initiated in Fisher Body production until after the strike, it was not caught mid-process. And for sure was not already on the final line when the strike started on 9/25.

If it had been, the Time Built code would have indicated a Time Built code prior to or during the strike. Instead it shows 12A. I know we've never quite understood what calendar dates correspond to this date code, but from what I can tell at Fremont in '64/'65, this date code corresponds to the expected delivery of the Body Assembly to the final line. So this Body Assembly was likely produced during the last days of Nov or possibly the first days of Dec so that it would hit the final line either the week of Nov 30 or Dec 7 (depending on which of those 2 weeks was considered week A of Dec for the final line). In other words, Fisher timed the Body Assembly production so that the body arrived at the final line during the identified week. And it was identified as a "12A" build from the moment Fisher started to produce it. So it would not have begun production earlier.

Still don't know if I am correct about this, but it is the most consistent way of interpreting the Fremont cars that I have been able to come up with.

Makes me wonder what was done with the order in July. Did the Dealer fail to enter it, did the Zone Office drop the ball? Doesn't appear to have been anything special about the order (like a special paint order) that would have delayed the order broadcast.

Perhaps order volume was extremely heavy and it simply didn't get into production (broadcast) before the strike. But there was a full month from the start of production to the day they walked out. Just seems like if the order had been properly entered when the Dealer first accepted it, it would have been built before the strike.

I'm not sure when the Dealers were allowed to start selling the new Pontiacs that year. I mentioned earlier that "opening day" was usually 1 month after production started.

So all of the cars that had been produced and shipped from 8/24 until the stoppage on 9/25 would have been on the Dealer lots, and they were allowed to start selling them on or about 9/24.

None of that really pertains to the Dist used for this build.

Perhaps it was used because of the general chaos as the Fremont Plant tried to recover from the strike. Perhaps parts were in short supply and deviations were abundant.

Kenth, thanks for confirming your source.

Since the SCN showed a couple TI usage changes, it would be very helpful to know what TI Dist was being used BEFORE the switch to the 1111080 on the 4 bbl 389 & 421.

I'd still like to know what the '65 Tempest Shop Manual or AMA specs shows for the specified Dists.

Keith, do you still have your points original to check?

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by John V.

Keith, do you still have your points original to check?

I believe it has an Accel dual point installed right now.

I'd have to check the shelves in the basement (at Mom's house) to see if there is a stock distributor laying there. Last Wednesday, when I was up there getting the numbers off the convertible, would have been the ideal time to do so...



K

[Cardo]

Just starting to work on my 65 with TI and came across this thread. My car is a 4 bbl 4 speed car with California emissions also has a 1111040. Built first week of January of 65. It is a 42000 mile car, and after just pulling the heads off judging from the lack of much of a ridge at the top of the cylinders, I believe it. I think it's entirely plausable that the "wrong" distributors were installed at the factory. Being such a low take rate of an option, they may have run out of one, or just decided to use up old inventory. My date code on my distributor is 3 M 23, so according to the above thread that would be December 23 of '63. Judging from what I'm seeing on this car, I believe it is the distributor that came with it. This car even still has the factory coil installed.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Great job on finding this thread and adding more content , Cardo .

Fremont had more inconsistencies than all the other plants combined .
Now if someone can ever come up with a listing for the 040.

As much as they pre-date the 65 model year - seems they should show up on some 64 model year Fremont cars too .

[Cardo]

Thanks Baron. This one really got my curiosity too. If you look at the charts in post #16 It shows as being used on both the 421 AND 326 with TI. Car companies were notorious for not rotating their stock back in the day, and boxes and pallets being shoved in the back and stock being used off the front over and over, just out of convenience. Being my car was built the first week of January, there is a good possibility there was some clean up going on over Christmas break, or the possibility that this was just 5 weeks after the return to work from the strike of 1964, and there may have been a shortage of the other units due to some "slack" in the supply chain. As rare as the TI is in the GTO's, How many were ordered in a Lemans? Even less I'm sure, and Fremont would have no doubt had some of the 040 on hand as they did also build the Lemans. No doubt in my mind, a line supervisor made the call to "use 'em up" either to get rid of them, or if a shortage, to keep the line moving. I see it happen all the time.