[3 Deuce 64]

I started this post for us to list all the 64 GTO idiosyncrasies in one location .I think the 64 model year is probably the hardest year to work on and get totally correct. What is correct ?we have seen unmolested survivors that seem to be different. I think we all forget the fact that these were assembly line built cars to be daily drivers.

Some I can think of off the top of my head :

Two different style grills. (Stamped cut out area around the head lights)
And the way the head light bezels were painted on some NOS pieces
Clutch rod boot
Two fan belts vs one
Two different trunk lids inner structure design
On later built 64s doors with the inner door lock keepers have shown up ( 65 style ) vs the earlier style with the lock keeper through the outer door shell edge
Tail light lenses reflective section outside inside or center
GTO script location on rear quarters from side to side

I know there are more add to the list .

[John V.]

I'd guess every year can come up with a long list of similar running changes.

Here are some of the '64 "oddities" I seem to recall. Some of these are not "clear cut" as to timing so may not be true for all builds.

Two different Horn Relays.
Early & Late wind lacing styles
Three different types of Remote O/S Rearview Mirrors.
Possibly a long & short Exhaust Splitter (not sure this has been proven)
Steel (early), aluminum late engine fan blades
3.55 std gear early tripower, 3.23 late tripower
2-5/8" std Rad early tripower, 2" std rad late tripower
Seat belts optional early year, seat belts std. after Dec.
Addition of closed circuit crankcase ventilation at mid year (after Dec) for builds destined for Cal Dealers only, "blank" LH valve cover early year all builds, hole with grommet in LH valve cover after Dec all builds
Late year revision to chassis frame, added stiffening, new p/n introduced. Usage not certain
Late year introduction of close ratio M21 4 spd, p/n 9777000, required Tripower, 3.90, metallic brakes, Safe-T-Track, etc.
Mid year release of simulated wire wheel discs as factory option (had been Dealer Accessory Package only at start of year)
Body Data Plate blanks changed at some Plants during the year
Change to single belt from twin belt for PS (without A/C) also resulted in a change of Alternator p/n used for this application

[Keith Seymore]

I appreciate a thread embracing the differences. Subcribing.

John - relative to long/short splitters - I was in the basement the other day looking at the splitters on the shelf and this is what I found:



I can only assume these were the original parts off my car....imagine my disappointment.

Are you suggesting we're not sure the long versions and short versions exist? Or just not sure when they were used?

K

[geeteeohguy]

John, are you sure about the seatbelts? My late April 1965 GTO didn't come with any...I installed front belts 30 years ago, but it still has no rear belts or any provisions for them.

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

I appreciate a thread embracing the differences. Subcribing.

Are you suggesting we're not sure the long versions and short versions exist? Or just not sure when they were used?

K

Keith, I guess I wasn't sure about either question. I recall reading the story of the possible existence of a short splitter from early in '64. IIRC, something I read in Phil Baumann's old newsletter in late 70's/early '80s. Seeing your pix, I recall you posting this before, just forgot.

Was your GTO optioned with splitters? If so, and believing these are the original pair, strange that a short splitter that supposedly only existed early in '64 would find its way to your car. Especially when, as the story goes, they lengthened them because of complaints of burnt paint, you'd think they would have disposed on the "bad" ones.

But we know not to say NEVER, so could be.

Rare enough option on the '64s that finding evidence of a change would be tough. Wonder if Chad Mohr could work his Parts History list magic and find a superseded p/n for the short ones?

But it is on the list as a '64 idiosyncasy.

geeteeohguy, DEFINITELY sure about the seat belts.

Rear belts were NOT a factory option in '64 or '65, although you could get them as a Dealer Accessory Package.

GM announced that ALL of their passenger cars would get a pair of Front belts starting Jan 1, 1964. They did this in repsonse to mounting insurance indutry pressure and the passage of a couple State laws.

They consequently raised the Base Price of all models to cover this addition to the standard content.

A PMD letter dated on or about 1/7/64 explained the change.

However, since no Fed law yet REQUIRED them, PMD offered a Seat Belt Deletion option in both '64 and '65. This could be ordered for cars to be sold where no State law yet required them. New York State and maybe Wis already had laws to require them in '65 models.

Check your Billing History Card.

Sales Code 414 was the delete option. It gave a credit of $11, the same amount the Base Price was raised on the A body in Jan. 1964.

The standard content belts were the belts WITHOUT retractors. The Custom Belt w/ retractors remained an option, but the price for it was reduced (the actual reduction was $10.76 as options were priced to the penny, the Base Price rounded to a whole dollar). I believe the Custom Belts option price was unchanged for '65 although the retractors were greatly improved over the '64 winder type.

Prior to Jan '64, Front Belts were strictly an option, the Standard Belts were Sales Code 411 and priced at $10.76.

If your '65 didn't have front belts, it probably was ordered with the seat belt deletion option or else a previous owner must have removed them. Check it out.

[Keith Seymore]

John - yes, my car was optioned with splitters.

Not totally sure these are the original ones but they were on the shelf with the other (removed) original equipment (heads, ex manifolds, intake, jack, spare tire cover, etc).

K

[Dick Boneske]

I ordered a '64 GTO April 22, 1964 from Phil Tolkan Pontiac in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As you can see, seat belts were an extra at $11.00. They were front seats only, black, with plain chrome buckles, and no retractors.

[64woodwheel]

Originally Posted by John V.

Rare enough option on the '64s that finding evidence of a change would be tough. Wonder if Chad Mohr could work his Parts History list magic and find a superseded p/n for the short ones?

I cannot find any revision history for the splitter accessory package or the splitter service part numbers. I believe this is because the short splitter had already been replaced with the long splitter before the 64 MPC was published on Oct. 1st 1963. One clue to this is found in Zazarine and Roberts book, but their take on the subject is somewhat confusing. Another clue is found on the instructions that were included with accessories 984334 and 984333.

This is the text of the book.

"The optional exhaust-splitter extension was available in both 1964 and 1965. There were accounts of an early production "short-splitter," but no factory reference to it. However, the parts for it were listed: RPO number (422), the package part number (LH 984334, RH 984333) and the replacement part number (LH 9778487, RH 9776484). The hangers were the same for both years (LH 9776489 and RH 9776488), as were the splitters themselves, numbers included."

When I read this, I interpret the part numbers are belonging to the short splitters. But the accessory part numbers and hanger numbers given are found in the 64 and 65 MPC's. (for the long splitters)

I have no idea where they found part numbers 9778487 or 9776484. I think 9778487 is an error but 9776484 might actually be the part number for the short RH splitter. It would be interesting to know where they got that number.

Here is a spreadsheet of the numbers as presented in their book.



If the 9776484 is in fact the RH short splitter, I believe the corresponding LH would be 9776485. following the pattern of known part numbers for long splitters and hangers.



I had at one time a set of NOS 984334/98433 splitters and took some pictures of them and the LH instruction sheet 9776568 before I sold them.









Notice the date of the instructions, 9-6-63. There appears to be an entry made 9-17-63 in the upper right hand corner. It is not perfectly clear, but I think it says "released". If short splitters were ever an actual numbered part in the system, my conclusion is it must have been before the 9-17-63 release date of the instruction drawing. There is no doubt in my mind that they existed, given photographs of samples that I have seen, Keith's included.

[64woodwheel]

Kieth, it looks like only one of your splitters is the short one. Had you noticed they are different lengths? Or is it just the camera angle?

[Tom Vaught]

I had Short Splitters on my April Built 64 GTO convertible. Just Saying.

I received a "loud and excessive" ticket along with an "excessive speed greater that 100 mph" ticket and that was the end of those splitters.
The Judge made me put a factory "quiet" exhaust on the car as part of the fine.

Tom Vaught

The car was used by the St Louis Pontiac Zone people before I got so who knows how it was originally built. Is there a option code on the 64 KC Build Sheet that would tell?

Tom Vaught

[geeteeohguy]

Thanks, John. My billing history verifies my car was sold without seatbelts. It was built in Fremont and sold in Spokane.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by 64woodwheel

Kieth, it looks like only one of your splitters is the short one. Had you noticed they are different lengths? Or is it just the camera angle?

Yes - I was thinking about putting them back on the car and noticed the different lengths (which is why I had taken the photo).

K

[John V.]

Chad, we discussed the splitter p/ns in another thread here last April. I am convinced that he p/ns in the Resto Guide are wrong for BOTH sides.

I concluded in the earlier thread that they were BOTH most likely misreads of the p/ns found on the Instruction Sheets. And if they had checked the p/ns in the MPC, they could have gotten the correct ones.

With all the evidence of short splitters, maybe the revision that extended the splitters came later than we think.

I don't think there was a p/n change even if they did extend the length at some point. Likely they simply revised the p/n drawing. And maybe chose to use up existing inventory alongside revised parts which would explain Keith getting one of each.

Dick, we discussed your Sales Order pricing in the past.

IIRC, there are a couple discrepancies in the listed pricing, including perhaps the Base Price itself.

Adding $11 as a line item to the price when the Base Price already included that was bad enough. I'm not sure what the Base Price was in April, but I think yours looked high for a Lemans Hardtop. Maybe somebody else has the Price Lists from that time?

But either way, an April built car should have had the standard seat belts included in the Base Price and would not have shown them as an extra cost option on the Window Sticker.

[64woodwheel]

John, you might be right, but like the inboard/outboard tail lamp lenses (which are sequentially numbered) it is possible the short and long splitters were numbered at the same time. This is all based on a hunch and without knowing where part number 9776484 really came from, a pretty weak argument, I know.

If the change (if there ever was one) had occurred during the model year, you would think there would be some kind of revision history in the index, but there is not. I think that is why the real story on the short splitters is so elusive; because it happened so early, and the lack of a factory assembly manual and revisions. Also all of the evidence I have pertains to accessories and not production. Just like service part numbers, this evidence does not necessarily mirror what was happening in production.

I do think there was a change in the instruction drawing. The drawing I posted has an illustration of short splitters but part numbers for long splitters IMO. The drawing part number does not jibe with the pattern though, which suggests to me that it was created a little later than the original part numbers for the splitters. Instead of redrawing the splitters, they just changed the part numbers on Sept 9, 1963 thereby creating new instruction drawings with new part numbers released on 9-17-63.

Back in April, I was under the impression the Resto Guide was correct. This was without much thought on my part. But now I know that it is at least 1/2 wrong with respect to short splitter part numbers.

[John V.]

Chad, here is another thread where we discussed splitters.

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=610510

Here is an excerpt I made in a lengthy post on that thread:

Originally Posted by John V.

Not sure how much I can add to the story. The best info I have on the subject was published by Phil Baumann.

That is not to say that I know this is accurate, since I cannot independently verify it.

According to Phil, the first style '64 splitter, which he dubbed the "short" splitter, had a stainless steel length of 6-1/2" at its longest point. It was used Sept. thru Dec. '63.

The "long" splitter was 8-1/2" long.

He says that during the early part of production, it was found that the paint on the quarter panel was burning when the splitters were installed.

Consequently, the long splitter was introduced into production starting in Jan. '64.

Phil claimed that the p/n was not changed, just the design. That makes sense to me but I have no proof. If there was any kind of Bulletin to acknowledge the problem, I'm not aware of it.

I also addressed Tom's short splitters, his April GTO most likely was NOT built with factory splitters, so quite likely his short splitters were supplied in the Dealer Accessory Packages installed post-production.

The 9/6/63 date represents when the Instruction Sheet Drawing was drawn.

The 9/17/63 date represents when this drawing was released. This is simply a "process". Drawings get drawn, then they must be released or "issued". There is no indication of any subsequent Revision released on this copy.

I doubt any were.

The actual Revisions would have been made on the piece part drawing for the splitters themselves. The piece part drawing would have had the dimensions used for fabrication of the part. Changing the length of the tubes was inconsequential to the Installation Instruction Drawing, so no need to revise it.

I still don't know if Phil Baumann was correct or what basis he had for making his claims. But the guy was ahead of his time with respect to these details, so I give a lot of credence to what he stated about the splitters.

The Instructions were only produced for use with the Dealer Accessory Packages.

Without seeing the piece part drawings, we really have no idea when the splitter extensions were drawn or released or revised.

I only learned in the past year that p/ns were issued more randomly than I had previously believed. Not sure what you mean by the drawing no. not following a "pattern". If you mean "not sequential", in all likelihood the piece part p/ns were issued separately from the time that the parts were combined into a package and the Installation Instruction Drawing created. That would explain it being out of any particular sequence.

The taillight lenses were released under new p/ns because they weren't interchangeable.

But a longer splitter would be interchangeable and especially if they decided to use up remaining stock, no reason to issue a new p/n, just issue and release a Revision to the existing p/n, only affecting future fabrication but not discarding existing inventory.

Phil wrote that this is what was done. Logically, it makes sense to me that PMD would have done it this way, no p/n change.

You might read the entire earlier thread for context. Another point I made then was how very rare factory splitters seem to have been based on '64 Manifest records.

[MikeNoun]

If I ever buy a 1964 GTO, I'm posting my questions here.

Once again, the level of knowledge on this site amazes me.

[64woodwheel]

Originally Posted by John V.

Chad, here is another thread where we discussed splitters.

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=610510

Also notice in that thread at post 19 http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...rs#post3769645 there is a picture of short splitters w/ accessory packaging, proving to me short and long splitters coexisted under the same part numbers. That figures, every time I think I'm on to something, I just stick my foot in my mouth.

I wish I could find a memo about the burnt paint.

[John V.]

Chad, do you have all Flash bulletins? Wondering if could have been in there?

Phil didn't reference anything IIRC, but you would think he didn't just make up the January change timing.

[64woodwheel]

Pretty sure I do. I'll have to check if there are any missing. One other place to look would be P & A Extra's. Changes, problems, errors in MPC related to parts or accessories are announced in these letters that went to dealers. I'm sure my set of P&A Extras is not 100% complete.

[bigpop]

Chad, remember when you had the splitters on ebay, a few years ago? They were advertised as the short ones, but, I Emed you, they were the long version. In a thread about that time, I said that there was a two inch difference, short to long version. That was pretty darn right on, as I did a math calculation to figure it out from his picture.
I was always convinced they indeed were early, and, very problematic (paint burning).
PMD probably just used the same P/N for both versions, and let it fly. Larry B.