[johnta1]

I think we will find that other 65 tri power cars built early have the same dist as mine.

That would be good.

[RAII 4-speed]

Originally Posted by johnta1

That would be good.

Yes it would be good research.
anyone else out there with an early 65 tri power TI dist ?

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by RAII 4-speed

Yes it would be good research.
anyone else out there with an early 65 tri power TI dist ?

Not me - mine was equipped with the basic point distributor.

I think there was a bit of a reluctance to accept the (newfangled) TI system on the factory race cars in favor of the tried-and-true point type.

I get that sense, anyway...

K

[johnta1]

Here's a few things on the TI distributors:

1964 Pontiac Specs:




1964 Tempest Specs:




I would not think they would put that TI in your 65 if the 64 GTO spec specified a different one for the GTO only?

Here are some 1965 SCN tidbits:

1964SCN6 issue:



1965SCN3 issue:



So, possibly the '040' is a mis-stamp?
Should be '080'?

But doesn't explain the date code being so old for your GTO?
Or yours being a tripower?

[John V.]

Keith, can you check the Dist p/n and date code on yours? As a very early Pontiac Plant build, might be interesting to see if it matches to the expected points Dist per any of the references.

Kenth, can you identify your source for the Dist usages for '64 & '65?

My stuff agrees with yours for the '64 big cars per:

SCN No. 2 1964 (published approximately March '64), page 30 which is a revised big car Electrical Spec chart to replace what is in the Shop Manual, shows all 421 engines (no distinction for HO or not) were to get 1111040 with TI. And all 389s were to get 1111047 with TI.

I do not have the '64 big car Shop Manual, so I do not know if the Dist specs changed with this SCN or not.

For the '64 Tempest, the Shop Manual does not cover the GTO.

It only lists the 326 optional engine for the Tempest and says they were to get 1111040 with TI.

The same SCN, page 31 provides the revised Electrical Spec Chart for the '64 Tempest. Shows 1111040 for 326 with TI and adds the 1111047 for GTO with TI.

The '64 Tempest AMA electrical specs, page revised 11/30/63, shows the same usage as the SCN, 1111040 for 326 and 1111047 for GTO. A curiosity in the AMA specs, as I read it, suggests that the 1111040 is std. for the 4 bbl 326HO and the 1111047 is std. for the GTO. I don't know if this was just a misunderstanding in the submission of the AMA specs or if perhaps it had been considered to provide the TI as std. equipment for the 326HO and GTO.

I do not have good references for the '65.

It is not clear to me if the Dist p/ns 1111078, 1111079, 1111080, and 1111081 existed at the start of '65 Model Year production. Of these (4) p/ns, 1111080 and 1111081 are the TI Dists.

I do not know when these (4) may have entered production, but it would be useful to determine what the earliest assembly date for this series of Dists. was.

The '66 MPC lists the same SR Dist for all '64 TI applications except that the 421 application is omitted from the listing. However, it does list the '63 421HO with TI as getting the 1111040. No idea why it only lists the HO but it does seem consistent with the '64 421 usage being the 1111040.

According to the '66 MPC, the Service Replacement TI Dist for the '65 326 Tempest was 1111081.

The '66 MPC also shows the '65 & '66 big car 2 or 4 bbl getting 1111080 with TI. Does not distinguish between 389 and 421.

Shows the '65 big car Tri-Power and '65 GTO Tri-Power getting 1111047 with TI. Again does not distinguish between 389 and 421.

Shows the '65 & '66 GTO 4 bbl getting 1111080 with TI.

The apparent difference between the '64 1111040 and the '65 1111081 is the vacuum advance model.

The '64 used the 1116172 as you noted.

The '65 used the 1116243. The Delco mechanical advance specs were often different than what Pontiac published in the Shop Manuals, not sure if this was also true of the vac advance specs.

But comparing the Delco specs for the 1116243, it starts at 8-10 in. Hg. and the max. advance is 10 deg. at 15-17 in. Hg.

I have the same specs as you for the 1116172 except the Max Distributor Advance is 10 deg, 20 deg that you posted must be at the crankshaft. Assuming I am correct, there is just the slightest spec difference between these 2 vac units.

The mechanical advance specs you posted did not look consistent with what Delco shows for the 1111047 until I realized you must be posting crank advance. Delco and the Pontiac literature lists distributor advance.

The 1111080 is slightly different from the 1111047. My reference does not include specs for the 1111040 or the 1111081 but I bet they are slightly different from each other also.

Delco shows:

1111047 Start 400 rpm 0-2 deg, Intermediate 1000 rpm 7-9 deg, Max 2200 rpm 10-12 deg
1111080 Start 480 rpm 0-2 deg, Intermediate 1000 rpm 6-8 deg, Max 2300 rpm 10-12 deg

The SCN shows:

1111047 Start 400 0-2 deg, Inter 1000 rpm 7-9 deg, Inter 2200rpm 10-12, Max 3000 rpm 9.2-12 deg

1111040 Start 400 0-2 deg, Inter 1000 rpm 9-11 deg, Inter 2400 rpm 11-13 deg, Max 3000 rpm 10.2-13 deg

Note, these specs are listed in the SCN for the big cars, Tempest shows same but omits the 2200 & 2400 rpm Intermediate spec for the 1111047 & 1111040 respectively.

It would be interesting to obtain the Delco specs for the 1111081.

None of this proves that a '65 GTO w/ Tripower should not have 1111040 as the original Dist.

I think all of the possibilities discussed are plausible.

Even if the date code is significantly different from the norm, there is still the chance that an "old" 1111040 was used up for this single build.

Nothing I have however indicates any '65 usage of the 1111040. As I suggested earlier, if there was no planned '65 usage, and assembly plant inventory normally would have been sent to a Parts Warehouse, not "used up".

But there is really no way to establish if it is or isn't.

RAII, the '65 strike started about a month after '65 production began. Apparently your GTO failed to get built before the strike began? The strike was settled within 38 days, walkout started Sept. 25, 1964 and generally all plants were back running by Nov. 9, 1964. The contract was ratified by the UAW on Oct. 25 and many workers were expected back on the job by the next day according to news reports at the time, but most of the final assembly plants remained out another week or so to resolve local issues. Fremont was one of the Plants that did not return right away. I don't know when Fremont returned to production.

While trying to learn when Fremont started back, I found the attached story in a radical newspaper. Published on the day I think they DID start back up Nov. 9), it explains what was happening at Fremont and why they did NOT return to work after the national agreement was passed on Oct. 25. I thought the story was pretty cool, so posting it here.

When was your car actually built?

RAII, you've done all you can to establish the validity by discussing with the original owner and checking the repair paperwork. Was the car ever in for a misfire complaint or anything like that? Was any other part of the TI system repaired/replaced? I agree with what johnta1 suggested about a Dist swap repair that wasn't detailed on a work order being possible. Just no way to be sure.

One of those things that all you can do is rationalize and perhaps hope for evidence to turn up to suggest it was a common thing. As rare as TI is, probably not likely to be found.

I wouldn't worry about it, I wish my GTO was optioned with TI, and I'd just be happy if it was a functional unit, whether it was still original or not.

[John V.]

John, thanks, bud, that was simpler than what I tried to do!

The '65 Dist revisions are very interesting.

I don't think the 1111040 was mismarked.

But I wonder if maybe there were other revisions.

Doesn't anybody have the '65 Shop Manuals or possibly the '65 AMA specs that might show what the usage was BEFORE these announced revisions in '65?

[RAII 4-speed]

RAII, the '65 strike started about a month after '65 production began. Apparently your GTO failed to get built before the strike began? The strike was settled within 38 days, walkout started Sept. 25, 1964 and generally all plants were back running by Nov. 9, 1964. The contract was ratified by the UAW on Oct. 25 and many workers were expected back on the job by the next day according to news reports at the time, but most of the final assembly plants remained out another week or so to resolve local issues. Fremont was one of the Plants that did not return right away. I don't know when Fremont returned to production.

While trying to learn when Fremont started back, I found the attached story in a radical newspaper. Published on the day I think they DID start back up Nov. 9), it explains what was happening at Fremont and why they did NOT return to work after the national agreement was passed on Oct. 25. I thought the story was pretty cool, so posting it here.

When was your car actually built?

RAII, you've done all you can to establish the validity by discussing with the original owner and checking the repair paperwork. Was the car ever in for a misfire complaint or anything like that? Was any other part of the TI system repaired/replaced? I agree with what johnta1 suggested about a Dist swap repair that wasn't detailed on a work order being possible. Just no way to be sure.

One of those things that all you can do is rationalize and perhaps hope for evidence to turn up to suggest it was a common thing. As rare as TI is, probably not likely to be found.

I wouldn't worry about it, I wish my GTO was optioned with TI, and I'd just be happy if it was a functional unit, whether it was still original or not. [/QUOTE]


As for what I know from the original owner and what he wrote on his notes back in 1964 the strike in Freemont Cal was 45 days..... attached is a copy of his notes


I am not sure of exactly when the car was built, I do know it was delivered on 12/11/1964. here is a picture of the fire wall tag



One of those things that all you can do is rationalize and perhaps hope for evidence to turn up to suggest it was a common thing. As rare as TI is, probably not likely to be found.
I understand.... there is no repair orders for the TI . But there has to be an explanation as to why the 40 TI was installed at the factory.

Yes the TI is nice and it works great and according to the original owner it always did work fine with no issues.
maybe continued research will find the answer.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by RAII 4-speed

I am not sure of exactly when the car was built, I do know it was delivered on 12/11/1964. here is a picture of the fire wall tag

The body was built first week of December 1964 calendar year, and the rest of the car completed just prior to your 12/11/64 delivery date.

My sense is that the order was placed in July but the physical build was not started until after the strike was settled and production resumed.

As opposed to getting the order in and the car out before the strike (which is what happened with my car).

The only other scenario is that the car was started and then stuck mid process. Typically we cover the cars/parts with visqueen during long work stoppages, like a strike or volume adjustment downtime. We try to minimize the number of vehicles in this case because damage can and does occur. That doesn't seem to be what happened here.

K

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by John V.

RAII, the '65 strike started about a month after '65 production began. Apparently your GTO failed to get built before the strike began? The strike was settled within 38 days, walkout started Sept. 25, 1964 and generally all plants were back running by Nov. 9, 1964. The contract was ratified by the UAW on Oct. 25 and many workers were expected back on the job by the next day according to news reports at the time, but most of the final assembly plants remained out another week or so to resolve local issues. Fremont was one of the Plants that did not return right away. I don't know when Fremont returned to production.

While trying to learn when Fremont started back, I found the attached story in a radical newspaper. Published on the day I think they DID start back up Nov. 9), it explains what was happening at Fremont and why they did NOT return to work after the national agreement was passed on Oct. 25. I thought the story was pretty cool, so posting it here.

I think it is common for there to be variation in when the different plants come back on line.

The National Agreement would control the overall bargaining activity, but the individual plants would still need to iron out their specific nickel-and-dime local grievances, which could delay the start of regular production several days (and which would probably not be well documented on a national level).

K