Last post on Feb 19, 2003 at 3:14 PM
You are in the Classic Cars - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost In The Town Hall... discussion.
What is this discussion about?
#230 of 239 whoa now!... just a sec.....
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Feb 17, 2003 (12:45 pm)
I think you are making some very questionable assumptions here, if you don't mind me cautioning you.
I don't think that's what NADA says and I'm not sure what OC is talking about either. The option listing in the NADA guide clearly applies to the full size cars in the guide, it says nothing about the 442 per se. I'm lookin' right at it here.
If the dealer was installing 425s as replacement engines for defects then it is not a factory option, nor it is an "original engine" that came with the car. However, one can argue that it is a factory-authorized replacement block. Fair enough!
But cars with defective engines certainly didn't go back to the factory, and it seems like a stretch to presume that if a 400 tested bad at the factory they'd just plug in a 425??? Sez who, and with what proof of such a strange goings-on?
I think you still aren't any closer with this issue.
As for your confusion on the plate numbers, the plate you are reading is not an engine plate, but the "Body Number Plate".
So what's your engine number, taken from the right cylinder head?
Let's see...your car decodes as a Turquoise body/black interior/sport coupe with 442 option. Does that sound right?
My opinion is that you do not have the original engine in that car, based on no compelling evidence to the contrary.
However, as I stated, I don't think it affects value very much, especially on a '65 coupe. If it were a later W-30, this would be more of a problem.
Feb 18, 2003 (7:18 am)
And, in those days, if there was a problem with an engine, the dealerships would REPAIR the problem and not replace the engine like they do now.
But, I'm curious as to how the owner knows it's a 425 and not a 400? Didn't they look alike?
If it is, in fact, a 425, it is highly doubtful it came that way since it wasn't an option.
Feb 18, 2003 (8:23 am)
that's why I wanted to know the prefix and numbers off the deck on the right cylinder head.
Actually, you know, if they do a nice job on the car, it probably won't even matter if it's not the right engine. This is a coupe and a '65, it's not a W-30 and doesn't pull the big money. So the car will speak for itself regardless of authenticity.
I would rather hope people would just forget about this matching number nonsense and enjoy their cars. These are not hand-built french poodle cars, they are sturdy 60s cars meant to be driven and enjoyed.
Feb 18, 2003 (8:42 am)
"Ultimately, you can never accurately document a car without the original build sheet."
Thats true...but sometimes even the build sheet is wrong. My 71 firebird's build sheet states the block code is XX but its really a YX...checked the block date code and the portion of the VIN stamped on the block..it all matches up.
#234 of 239 Fix vs. replace...
Feb 18, 2003 (11:39 am)
"And, in those days, if there was a problem with an engine, the dealerships would REPAIR the problem and not replace the engine like they do now."
You know, that's a really good question to bring up. I agree that it would have been much more practical to fix even pretty heinous problems in days of yore rather than replace a short or long block...but I've seen a heckuva lot of dealer installed replacement engines in muscle cars through the years. (I'm thinking, what?, CE codes on Chevy's?...1971 Boss 302 blocks...etc.).
I wonder what the replacement rate was?
Another area I was musing about was repaints. It's amazing how many 60 and 70's cars have repaints, a lot of times just to spruce the car up I imagine...these days, it's pretty hard to justify the 3-5k (just as a flyer) that this would cost. I expect in 15 years, you'll see quite a few shabby y2k cars, as people let this sort of thing go.
Feb 18, 2003 (12:28 pm)
Actually the build sheet isn't technically "wrong", since XX and YX and interchangeable terms--same engine.
Repaints, etc: Unfortunately you may be right. Any car that doesn't start to pull strong money as a collectible will probably deteriorate and be junked, because it will get more and more expensive to restore them as time goes on. But really, it's always been like this with old cars. If you look at 50s and 60s restorations (that is, done in the 50s and 60s) they are pretty down and dirty.
One partial solution would be to stop restoring these cars to standards that are ten times better than the way the factory slammed them together in the 1960s. Overspray and orange peel were factory standard, so I don't see why you have to put on a $7,500 paint job. Just do some neat taping and decent body work. These 60s domestics were built as working class utility/enjoyment vehicles primarily, not as coachbuilt cars for the rich.
When I see a '57 Chevrolet with velvet ropes around it, I want to...well...nevermind....
I tip my hat to anyone who takes a collectible car out on the road and bangs it up a little having fun.
Feb 18, 2003 (12:46 pm)
"Actually the build sheet isn't technically "wrong", since XX and YX and interchangeable
Yes...both blocks share the UPC as the L-65 400(early-mid 70s at least)
Forgive me if I sound naive...
If the build sheet identifies the listed codes to that particular vehicle, then why wouldn't my build sheet indicate that it is YX and not XX ?
Since they are both the same, what's the point in having 2 block codes?
Feb 18, 2003 (2:42 pm)
I dunno..the books often show them as XX "or" YX, or "xx,yx", as if it could be either/or take your pick. No other codes have this double entry.
Feb 18, 2003 (4:25 pm)
blh7068-- There is no YX code for '71; it first appears for '72. The '72 YX shares the same cam (#555), CR (8.2), carb (different #s but same specs) & trans attachment (automatic) as the '71 XX, but used the new #7J2 cylinder head vs. the #99 on the XX- and that's the reason for the code change. Both the XX and YX were the mildest-tuned 400s in those years- having but 265 HP net in '71, 200 in '72.
It's very possible that PMD substituted the 7J2 head for the 99 (and therefore the code changed) BEFORE the actual model year production change over, which could explain the matching VIN on your block. What is the time-built code for your 'bird?
Feb 19, 2003 (3:14 pm)
Actually I have found a few sources(here on the net) that do indicate YX as correct for 71.
Block date code is B051 with the car build date as 03/71. So the switchover you mentioned would have taken place pretty early in that model year. But thanks for the info.