[John V.]

Originally Posted by dld

off subject but POI

GMAD did not start until 1968. this was when GM took total control of Fisher. The assembly plants no longer were two separate entities. Although BOP or multi. lines of cars at same plant was started in the 30/40's.

Don, my somewhat different take on that topic. Fisher was wholly owned by GM prior to the creation of GMAD. So GM had "controlled" Fisher for decades.

GMAD was created to integrate Body Assembly (Fisher's responsibility) and Car Assembly, taking management responsibility away from the Car Divs for the latter.

The process took several years for the many plants where GM built cars. Fisher was still independently building Cadillac bodies for example well into the '70s and delivering them to Cadillac Final Assembly.

Fisher Body was laid to rest as an entity in the '80s.

GMAD was created as the Assembly Div. and this began the process of turning the previously autonomous Car Divs. into what essentially became marketing companies supporting a brand image.

In '64, the Car Divs. were responsible for Final Assembly at the respective Final Plants.

Chevy controlled Baltimore and Kansas City, the B-O-P Assembly Div. controlled Fremont and PMD controlled the home plant at the Pontiac complex.

GMAD was created in 1965. The process of converting the assembly plants into an integrated facility under the GMAD management began at that point, I believe first plant under GMAD control began in 1967.

At least part of the reason to create GMAD (and perhaps the primary reason) was to block Fed Gov't anti-trust efforts attempting to force GM to spin Chevy off as a separate company. By wresting control of car assembly from the Car Divs., Chevy was no longer easily stripped from GM.

GMAD could be viewed somewhat as an extension of the B-O-P Assembly Div. that began life in the '40s, since the B-O-P Assembly Plants were not controlled by a specific Car Div.

But it eventually encompassed all assembly operations under single management control (GMAD) and did away for example with the separate paint lines, one within Fisher Body and one within the Final Plant (where front end sheetmetal was painted). And in that way, streamlined the assembly operation.

Whether a B-O-P Plant like Fremont or a Chevy Plant like Baltimore played a little fast and loose with the parts used in the assembly of a particular brand's cars in '64 & '65, I cannot say.

But the Car Divs. still had their own engineering depts. and I would think were still able to dictate production control over the Satellite plants to a pretty good extent.

Back to topic...

Simpson, I'm a little confused by the caption for your pic.

You say your friend has a '65 F85 with a Chevy 10 bolt. But then you add, "Pontiac style rears, like this."

I don't know much about '65 Chevy 10 bolts and aside from the '65 F85 Assembly Guide that only indicates the use of the Pontiac or Buick axle sub assemblies for the F85, I have no idea if a Chevy 10 bolt could have been factory correct in the F85. Since Fremont built the Malibu there and presuming it used the Chevy 10 bolt, I never discount the possibility of a factory screw up or an authorized engineering deviation as long as the parts involved were known to exist at that Plant (conversely, no reason for a Chevy 10 bolt to exist at the Lansing plant so wouldn't expect such a thing to happen at Lansing).

But I'm confused when you say it is "Pontiac style". The pictured rear axle housing does not look like either of the '64 or '65 Tempest 10 bolt housings.

What makes it "Pontiac style"?

[Simpson]

Originally Posted by John V.

Simpson, I'm a little confused by the caption for your pic.

You say your friend has a '65 F85 with a Chevy 10 bolt. But then you add, "Pontiac style rears, like this."

But I'm confused when you say it is "Pontiac style". The pictured rear axle housing does not look like either of the '64 or '65 Tempest 10 bolt housings.

What makes it "Pontiac style"?

My friends car and the photo have nothing to do with each other. You previously asked me to clarify "pontiac" style. The photo is of a Pontiac 8.2 10 bolt, which Olds used. It looks like every other 1965 A body Pontiac rear Ive come across in photos and in cars.

You say you dont think a Buick rear could have came in a 64/65 GTO. These eBay cars all have Buick rear ends in them.

Buick rear



http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pontiac-GTO-...US_Cars_Trucks

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pontiac-GTO-...US_Cars_Trucks

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pontiac-GTO-...US_Cars_Trucks

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pontiac-GTO-...US_Cars_Trucks

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pontiac-GTO-...US_Cars_Trucks

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pontiac-GTO-...US_Cars_Trucks

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pontiac-GTO-...US_Cars_Trucks

These have Pontiac rear ends, like the Olds 442 from the previous pic.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pontiac-GTO-...US_Cars_Trucks

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pontiac-GTO-...US_Cars_Trucks



Using eBay as a terrible example one could say most of the GTOs built came with Buick rears.

[remy30006]

How can I upload photos to show the stampings?

[John V.]

If the pix are stored in your computer, scroll down in your PY reply to the "Manage Attachments" button.

Click that and a window will open. Then where it says "upload file from your computer" click "Browse". Then browse thru your computer files to find where the pic you want is stored.

Double click the picture file.

That takes you back to the Manage Attachments window, then click Upload.

After a few secs, the pic will be uploaded to your Reply (there are file size limits so won't upload if the file is too large). When you are ready, just Reply normally and the pic will be in your reply.

There is also a way to get the pic directly into your reply but I don't use that feature, not certain how it's done.

Simpson, something is not right with what you are saying or I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

I think what you are calling a Buick rear is actually the '64 Pontiac rear with the 9773369 Housing.

This is the same thing that OPH indicated earlier in this thread. And what the guy at JD Race also told me. He went so far to claim that Pontiac never had their own casting, it was always a Buick and Olds casting and Pontiac shared those.

There apparently is a mistaken belief that Buick produced the rear housing because it does not have the "converging ribs" of the later Pontiac cast housing.

This is not correct.

9773369 is a Pontiac p/n. Buick and Olds each had their own p/n formats. They were not shared, if Buick engineering designed the part, it carried a Buick issued p/n and if Pontiac engineering designed a part, it carried a Pontiac p/n. If the housing has a Pontiac p/n on it, why would that make it a Buick housing? And if Olds was casting their own housing, why does their '65 F85 Assembly Guide show that they were purchasing the axle subassembly (with the already assembled differential cast housing and axle tubes) from Pontiac or Buick?

Olds did not make their own rear housing according to the '65 F85 Assembly Guide. They bought them from Pontiac or alternately from Buick.

I know Pontiac made their own cast housings in '64 & '65 with Pontiac p/ns, they are common.

I assume Buick also made their own cast housings based on what I see in the Olds A.G. but nobody seems to know the p/n of the casting so I can't be sure.

Never seen a Buick one in a '64 Pontiac A Body so it really doesn't matter much to me whether Buick cast their own p/n housing or not.

Somebody has put info on the net that says the Pontiac rear had "converging ribs", and the ones that lack the "converging ribs" are Buick.

That is nonsense.

Neither the '64 9773369 or '65 9779822 Pontiac produced cast housings exhibit the "converging ribs".

But there is no way that Buick produced them, they are NOT Buick rear axle assemblies.

There is a difference between the '64 Pontiac cast housing and the '65 Pontiac cast housing. But they were both Pontiac parts.

Two of the ebay links purporting to exhibit Buick rears are '65s. I am only familiar with the '65 9779822 housing for the '65s.

Since Buick supplied some rears for specific Olds F85 applications in '65, perhaps some '65 Pontiac Tempests did get Buick rears. But without seeing p/ns I'll remain skeptical.

The guy at JD Race did not know the casting p/ns when I asked him about it. He only judged them by appearance and dimensions.

If you are distinguishing between what you think are Buick rears and Pontiac rears on appearance, you are missing the p/n identification.

Attached is a pic showing the p/n 9773369 on a '64 Pontiac housing from an older thread here.

Earlier in this thread, you can find pix of the '64 9773722 housing. This housing seems to have been uber rare. Have never come across another one. By appearance, it seems to have been been somewhat of an evolutionary step from the common 9773369 housing and the common 9779822. But since it is so rare, I really don't know what to make of it.

Also earlier in the thread is a pic of the '65 9779822 housing.

As I have said, this stuff is important to ME because I am interested in "factory correct" by the numbers. I know not everybody is interested in that.

But if you say that a '64 rear is a Buick rear without telling me something about the p/ns that make it a Buick rear, it is useless to me. And if the cast housing has a Pontiac p/n on it, I'm going to stand by my claim that a Pontiac p/n makes it a Pontiac part, not a Buick part.

Sorry if I sound belligerent about this, but I want to get this stuff right, especially about the '64 of which I am passionate about.

[Simpson]

Using the Olds F85 manual, the F85 received two rear ends. The unmarked Buick and the 9779822 Pontiac. The photos that I posted and refer to as Pontiac are the 9779822 rears in Oldsmobiles and GTOs. The arrows show the rear visual difference between the Buick and Pontiac rears used in Oldsmobiles.



Why would Olds refer to one rear as a Buick, when it was really a Pontiac?

Olds did not have an 8.2 10 bolt, only Type P and Type B. Unless the type B rear was a Pontiac in 64, then was renamed a Buick when the 9779822 appeared. Was the 822 available in 64?

If that was the case, it doesnt explain why the 64 Buick rear end I have has no markings or codes on it. No Pontiac PNs on it.

[Simpson]

I found the code on my Buick rear, 156191(2?) is recess cast into a pad by the pinion flange. This is a small bushing 64 rear end.

[John V.]

I was posting all the long following info while you posted the p/n you found. After studying your pic and knowing what I know of Buick p/ns from that time, I would bet the p/n reads 1361912 (assuming the last digit is a 2), Buick p/ns at the time were 136xxxx and then on to 137xxxx. The p/n is good news, but still worthwhile to me if you could read thru the following as I would still like to compare notes about your '64 Buick and my '64 Pontiac housings. So please read on....

Simpson, okay, I'm a little slow on the uptake.

I was focused on the top of the housing on the pinion end when comparing the 9773369 to the 9773722 and to the 9779822.

I did NOT notice the extra gusseting on the lower part of the housing just forward of the cover that you show by arrows on the 9779822 housing.

I could not tell for sure from the pix dld provided for the 9773722 housing (a rear he has since sold), but it looks like the 9773722 also may not have included this extra lower gusseting.

The 9773369 housing definitely omits this gusseting.

Your upper arrows point to gusseting on top just forward of the cover.

In this area, the 9773722 and the 9779822 BOTH arrange the on-housing bushing ear "towers" the same and BOTH have the gusseting you point to on the upper half. The '64 9773722 has the small ears, the 9779822 has the large ears. But the "towers" stand straight up from the gusset rib on the side of the housing on BOTH.

The '64 9773369 has very different ear "towers" in that they do not come straight up, instead they are "twisted" in a way so that the "gusseting" on the top half of the housing is incorporated within the "tower" itself such that the base of the ear "tower" is connected to the axle tube socket rather than the gusset rib on the side of the housing as is the case with the other two Pontiac castings.

You are correct, Olds did NOT refer to a Buick rear as a Pontiac. As I've been saying all along, Olds purchased rears from Buick and they purchased rears from Pontiac for use in the '65 F85, in some cases interchangeably while for some models/ratios Olds ONLY used the Buick and for other models/ratios Olds ONLY used the Pontiac per the A.G.

If the Buick housing really has no external p/n identifier, I can't explain that. But it is irrelevant to me.

For all I know Buick cast a housing that appears identical to the Pontiac p/n 9773369 housing and gave it their own p/n.

You say you find no marking on your Buick example.

For years, I thought my own '64 housing had no p/n on it. I was expecting to see a p/n cast on the housing similar to how it appears on the '65 9779822. No such cast p/n on the 9773369, so I figured the p/n didn't exist on this housing. Only in the last couple years did I learn that the '64 Pontiac housing does show the 9773369 p/n in an obscure location, cast in a very different manner from the 9779822. Once I learned where to look, sure enough I found it on mine (I now have 2 of them, both with the 9773369 marked on them).

I can't explain why a Buick rear lacks a p/n marking. I assume you have checked for it in the location where the Pontiac 9773369 is marked.

I cannot be sure if the 9779822 was used for any factory '64 Pontiac rear. There has been some suggestion that it may have been used for a very late year build but since the on-housing bushings were different size, I am not confident Pontiac would have installed the '65 rear in a '64, especially not without noting the usage somewhere (no mention in the Master Parts Catalog). Not impossible, just not certain.

If the 9773722 was a '64 running change, I would expect to see them commonly. But that is not the case. Consistently, the rear that shows up on '64 Tempests has the 9773369 housing, including some pretty late builds.

The Type B, Type P, and Type O designations are useful but I'm not sure they were used back in the day or if they were designations developed by hobbyists. Apparently, many have come to consider the Pontiac '64 rear with the 9773369 housing to be a Type B. As a way to distinguish this housing from a later design Pontiac housing, Type B might serve a purpose. But when it is used to suggest Pontiac was buying the '64 rear from Buick when the housing carries a Pontiac p/n, I think the designation creates confusion and ignores the Pontiac p/n usage. It may be that the Pontiac vs. Buick housing distinction is more clear for the '65 housings than it may have been for '64. But that still doesn't change the fact that Pontiac used a housing for the '64 Tempest rear that was marked with a Pontiac p/n.

Don't know if my verbal description matches to the '64 Buick rear or if your Buick has any features that distinguish it from the 9773369 in some other way.

I can attempt to get some detailed pix of one of my 9773369 rears in a week or 2 and perhaps we can compare details that way.

[Simpson]

Originally Posted by John V.

The '64 9773369 has very different ear "towers" in that they do not come straight up, instead they are "twisted" in a way so that the "gusseting" on the top half of the housing is incorporated within the "tower" itself such that the base of the ear "tower" is connected to the axle tube socket rather than the gusset rib on the side of the housing as is the case with the other two Pontiac castings.

Bushing ears on the Buick are as exactly as you describe. Either GM had two axle plants making the same axle, one for Buick/Oldsmobile and one for Pontiac, or they had one making the same axle then casting it for Buick/Olds and Pontiac.

Either way the Buick and the 64 Pontiac rear end are the same.

[John V.]

Well I'm pissed, tried to post a reply and it was erased.

Gist of it, Pontiac assembled all of their rear axles at Plant #5 at the Pontiac complex. It was adjacent to Plant #8 where final assembly took place.

Plant #6 was the Pontiac complex foundry where PMD cast their various cast iron parts.

At the Buick complex in Flint, Factory #20 was the Buick foundry where they cast their various cast iron parts.

Depends how you define "same" but I suspect the housings were cast independently at the respective Foundries and assembled independently at their respective axle plants.

There may also be some internal parts differences that would distinguish a '64 Pontiac housing from a '64 Buick housing.

I looked thru the '66 Pontiac MPC and found a number of small parts for the rear axle that show Buick p/n parts for service. Don't know if these are superseding p/ns, would have to check a '64 MPC.

But these parts might suggest that the new for '64 A body rear was cooperatively designed by Pontiac and Buick.

And despite the physical change in the Pontiac housing from '64 to '65, these service parts serviced all -64-'66.

The revised Pontiac housing may have addressed their own issues, while Buick may have continued with their '64 housing carried over to '65. But the housing change wasn't all that significant.

The housing p/n assignments were specific to PMD for both '64 & '65. Even if by appearance, the '64 Pontiac housing looked the same as the '64 Buick housing, PMD had their own p/n for it and Buick had their own p/n for theirs.

One thing that I haven't checked, Buick may have offered some factory gear ratios not offered by Pontiac and vice-versa.

Bottom line, by my viewpoint, you can say the '64 Pontiac rear housing was weak, and you can say that by appearance, it was same as the '64 Buick housing, but you can't say the '64 Pontiac Tempest used a Buick rear axle assembly.

[John V.]

remy, I misread your question about the missing brake tab. Didn't read carefully.

Both the '64 & '65 Pontiac rear axle assemblies will only have ONE brake line tab on the passenger side. It is inboard near the vent. So it is correct to NOT have one on the far outboard passenger side.

And, yes, the driver side will have TWO brake tabs. So not "symmetrical" in that sense.

If you have those 3 tabs, you aren't missing one.

I still can't understand why your axle tube does not have the ratio stamp.

Maybe the axle tube is just too rusty and the stamp is obscured by rust.

You didn't say what letter code you found but I'm assuming a K since that is the letter to match a 3.23 axle ratio.

Where is that stamped on the axle tube?

I don't know how consistent Pontiac was in where they stamped the ratio, but check carefully just adjacent to the brake line tab on the passenger side and below the vent.

The stamped characters are small, maybe 3/16" high, don't expect them to be easy to spot.

The ratio was supposed to be stamped on the passenger side axle tube from the start of production and by the time the GTO was built that you pulled this axle from, the stamped ratio was the only official identifier that was supposed to be used to identify the rear axle.

It should not be missing, but humans were involved, so there is no guarantee that the factory did not make a mistake. Most likely, at assembly, they did not rely on the stamped ratio to identify the rear, they probably relied on the paint daub on top of the housing. So if the ratio stamp was missing, perhaps nobody noticed.

[johnta1]

John, do you know when the different 'rear end plants' were started/used?

Seems in 1971 (at least one of the 1st years they used the 'manufacturing' plant code on rear end) there are a few plants.

Wonder if before that they were basically 'proprietary' with Pontiac using Pontiac plant, Buick using Buick plant, etc.

I know in the later years, a lot of them went to the GM of Canada ones (probably cheaper) and the 'G' plant (chevy).

But not sure if they were around back in 1964.

1971 Axle Info (at bottom):

[John V.]

John, I do not know anything about when the various axle plants came into use.

But the '71 info is somewhat consistent about what I have believed about the '64 axle ratio code stamping.

The code stamped such as "P 256" indicates a 2.56 ratio. The "P" I have assumed means the axle was produced by the axle plant (Plant #5) at the Pontiac complex.

But in '64, I suspect there was no consistent coding format, so Buick may not have even stamped a code on the axle tube and if they did, might not have identified it with a "B" for the rear axles they assembled.

In '65, Pontiac changed to a 2 character Manifest coding instead of the numeric ratio coding, the manufacturer's identity was not part of the code, however the Manifest codes were unique.

Since Pontiac DID produce axle subassemblies in '65 for Olds at Lansing and complete rear axle assemblies for the F85 built at the satellite plant(s), notably Fremont, it is possible to distinguish between say a Tempest 3.23 axle and the F85 3.23 axle by the Manifest code.

The Tempest Manifest code was different from the Olds Manifest code. The Tempest was stamped on the axle tube with the code as well as had the label on the brake drum.

I do not know if the Olds Manifest code was stamped on the axle tube by Pontiac or if only the paper label was used on the drum. But either way they were distinguishable even though they both used the 9779822 housing.

I assume the same was true when Buick produced the Olds subassemblies and complete rear axles.

But you would only be able to identify where the rear was manufactured by knowing about the specific features and p/ns, not by identifying codes.

And in the case of the '65 F85 built at Lansing, Olds completed the rear axle assembly but started with the axle subassemblies from Pontiac or Buick. So in that case, it was "shared" manufacturing. Only way to know where the Olds axle was manufactured was to know where the car was built and to be familiar with what the Olds A.G. indicated for where the rear axle was completed. The axle was the same whether Lansing assembled it or Pontiac assembled it for them and shipped it to Fremont.

So perhaps it was not so important to identify the manufacturing plant where the complete axle was assembled as it became in '71. Service parts and repair tool usage would be the same for the F85 rear axle whether Lansing assembled it or Pontiac or Buick.

I suspect the shared axle usage for '71 was consistent with the transition to the GMAD concept and a move away from a car div. like PMD being a "complete" car manufacturing company that could essentially design and build Pontiacs independently.

I believe some or all of the axle plants on the '71 list existed in '64.

But I think the car divs. were less apt to share production from their axle plants in '64 as compared to '71. So I think you are correct about the car div. production being more or less proprietary in '64.

Even Lansing which depended on Pontiac and Buick to produce the major axle subassemblies for the '65 F85 rear axle assembly I believe most likely produced their own rear axles for their big cars without help from Pontiac or Olds since I believe Olds also had a foundry in Lansing.

Chevy produced such a huge volume of cars, they may have used multiple plant for rear axle production in '64, I really don't know. The Canadian operations might have been opened as a result of trade restrictions even before '64. But probably produced Chevy stuff.

The shared usage of different rear axle types in '71 seems to have foreshadowed the later '70s transition to the shared usage of engines produced by multiple divs.

[Simpson]

Originally Posted by John V.

Well I'm pissed, tried to post a reply and it was erased.

Gist of it, Pontiac assembled all of their rear axles at Plant #5 at the Pontiac complex. It was adjacent to Plant #8 where final assembly took place.

Plant #6 was the Pontiac complex foundry where PMD cast their various cast iron parts.

At the Buick complex in Flint, Factory #20 was the Buick foundry where they cast their various cast iron parts.

Depends how you define "same" but I suspect the housings were cast independently at the respective Foundries and assembled independently at their respective axle plants.

There may also be some internal parts differences that would distinguish a '64 Pontiac housing from a '64 Buick housing.

I looked thru the '66 Pontiac MPC and found a number of small parts for the rear axle that show Buick p/n parts for service. Don't know if these are superseding p/ns, would have to check a '64 MPC.

But these parts might suggest that the new for '64 A body rear was cooperatively designed by Pontiac and Buick.

And despite the physical change in the Pontiac housing from '64 to '65, these service parts serviced all -64-'66.

The revised Pontiac housing may have addressed their own issues, while Buick may have continued with their '64 housing carried over to '65. But the housing change wasn't all that significant.

The housing p/n assignments were specific to PMD for both '64 & '65. Even if by appearance, the '64 Pontiac housing looked the same as the '64 Buick housing, PMD had their own p/n for it and Buick had their own p/n for theirs.

One thing that I haven't checked, Buick may have offered some factory gear ratios not offered by Pontiac and vice-versa.

Bottom line, by my viewpoint, you can say the '64 Pontiac rear housing was weak, and you can say that by appearance, it was same as the '64 Buick housing, but you can't say the '64 Pontiac Tempest used a Buick rear axle assembly.

I guess it all comes down to who used the design first. Part numbers be as they may, but the design is the exact same. Buick may have designed it and Pontiac used it. Pontiac may have designed it and Buick used it. The PN is something that was nothing to change.

And Im going to assume that at Fremont in 64/65 GM used Buick axles in Pontiacs, and Pontiac axles in Buicks.

[dld]

Originally Posted by Simpson

I guess it all comes down to who used the design first. Part numbers be as they may, but the design is the exact same. Buick may have designed it and Pontiac used it. Pontiac may have designed it and Buick used it. The PN is something that was nothing to change.

And Im going to assume that at Fremont in 64/65 GM used Buick axles in Pontiacs, and Pontiac axles in Buicks.

and is what info. i got from my contact at baltimore plant. there was one axle shared for buick and pont .chevy was different.

as stated prior. there were no olds builds after 64 1/2

[remy30006]

finally figured out how to post pictures. here is a picture of the single letter stamp which is the only stamping on the axle tube. Is this right? no P323 numbers

[remy30006]

here is a picture of the pert number

[remy30006]

do these markings look correct? What does the A mean.


Thank you everybody for the help.

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Simpson

I guess it all comes down to who used the design first. Part numbers be as they may, but the design is the exact same. Buick may have designed it and Pontiac used it. Pontiac may have designed it and Buick used it. The PN is something that was nothing to change.

And Im going to assume that at Fremont in 64/65 GM used Buick axles in Pontiacs, and Pontiac axles in Buicks.

I have never known of a Buick axle with a Buick p/n casting used on a '64 or '65 Tempest model.

Specifically for the '64 Tempests, every one that anybody has ever reported to my knowledge has always had the 9773369 casting. Only exception was the 9773722 casting Don pulled from a '64 Tempest as he reported earlier in this thread. The date code on that casting looks to have been I83, (Sept. 8, '63).

Don't know what to make of that one because nobody else has ever reported one. Would be useful to know where and when any Tempest with that rear was built.

I don't know whether the Pontiac axle with the Pontiac p/n has ever showed up on any '64 or '65 Buick Special. The Buick guys would have to chime in about that.

We already know Olds did not cast their own A body Housing in '64 or '65, so every '64 or '65 Olds F-85 got an axle with either the Pontiac p/n housing (and assembled at Pontiac) or the Buick p/n housing (and assembled at Flint).

In '64, Simpson says the Pontiac and Buick housings looked identical (this wouldn't be true of the 9773722 housing since it looks very different from the 9773369).

In '65, the Pontiac and Buick housings looked very different. Olds used them interchangeably, Pontiac did not.

I am not convinced that any '65 Tempest used the Buick produced axle, regardless of where it was built.

Don, this contradicts what your Balt. Plant guy says. But assuming Balt. built the Buick Special in '65, either they all got the Pontiac assembled axle (I doubt it) or they used a very different Buick axle (most likely).

I accept the idea that Buick may have been responsible for the design of the '64 housing and Pontiac simply assigned their own p/n to it. But to be "numbers correct", a '64 Tempest should have a Pontiac produced rear with a Pontiac p/n on it, not the Buick p/n.

remy, unfortunately your pix are not hi res enough for me to make much sense of any stamping.

I can't even make out the full p/n and I do not see the "A" that you refer to.

The stamp codes were never very easy to read, the characters are fairly small and often as not, the stampings were not deeply struck.

You wouldn't be the first that couldn't find evidence of the stamping on a '64 rear after 25+ years of degradation.

I have (2) '64 9773369 rears. One is stamped P308, the axle tube is pretty clean and the steel is pretty smooth. The stamp is clearly legible.

The other was a 2.56 with Safe-T-Track. The axle tube on it is not nearly as clean, the steel is rough. The stamp code on it may or may not have been as well struck when the axle was brand new.

But now, it would probably take some serious forensics work to detect the stamp clearly, the kind of effort that might go into "recovering" a stamped serial no. on a gun that had been defaced.

Short of that, I used a stiff brass bristle brush and water to clean the area where it was stamped.

The expected stamp would be P256L

What I was able to expose, I can read the L pretty well. The 6 is evident, especially since I know it is a 6. The 5, well, some of it looks like it should be a 5. If evidence of the P or the 2 are still there, somebody with better eyes than me (or perhaps more imagination) would have to look at it.

Point is, the P323 was surely stamped on your axle tube. You might want to use a brass brush like I did to see if you can expose it. You don't want to remove any metal, that would just obliterate whatever might remain of the stamping.

As to any other stamping such as the "A", I have no idea. I was not aware of the possibility of a stamped date code on the cover. I'm certainly not aware of any other stamp code on the axle tube.

But if the housing shows 9773369, it is a pretty safe bet the housing and tubes are correct for a '64 Tempest (including GTO). If it contains the 3.23 gear set that you want, all the better.

[Simpson]

GTO rear axle code.



Olds axle code on Pontiac rear. Done at Fremont. Lansing stamp is different font.

[John V.]

Pretty unlikely that Fremont would have stamped the axle. Fremont didn't assemble axles, they just installed them.

So the code was likely stamped at the Axle Plant at the Pontiac complex before being shipped to Fremont as a complete rear axle assembly.

Is the Olds axle a '64 or '65? If '64, do you know the '64 Olds axle codes? What axle ratio is it? I see an "S" and a "J", how come they are spaced apart like that? Is that typical for the Olds axles?