Camaro Pace Car Merchandise is now available !!

Support Camaro Pace Cars .com

Camaro Pace Cars .Com    My Forum Home Page    All Years Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  1967 Pace Car  Hop To Forums  1967 Indy 500 Pace Car Discussion    First 1967 Camaro Indy Pace Car
Page 1 2 3 4 5 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
First 1967 Camaro Indy Pace Car
 Login/Join 
Victory Lane
posted Hide Post
Slightly off topic,but this relates to the shipper form that Tom posted for the hand stamped number reference. I see on that form the arrow pointing to the hand written data. T0419MW is the engine code,8W00 is the ignition key no.,9X48 is the glove box key no., not sure about #8074. Stock or order/shipping number?
 
Posts: 540 | Location: Southeast Ohio | Registered: 01 March 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Victory Lane
Picture of festival
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rich:
Was pointed to this thread and joined to make this one post.

After skimming the entire thread, I realize that as a group you all basically enjoy argument - and that's fine. However, while I don't mind a fact-based discussion on disagreement I'm personally not interested in arguing for argument sake, so if you want to disagree with me that's fine, but I won't be replying to it.

As to what car of a given type is "first", I have my opinion, but acknowledge there could be some difference of opinion. You all feel free to enjoy your discussion on that.

But as to whether or not cars came off the assembly line in VIN order or not, there can be no rational disagreement - they did, period. All the residual paper evidence is consistent with this. And those who were not only present at the time, but true manufacturing engineering experts at the time, and of the time, like John Hinckley, will tell you this. Read his assembly process article at the CRG site, and believe it. And if you tour a modern facility you'll see that they still do this.

Also, the VIN is/was more than a federal nuisance - it is/was the offical ID of the build, and is used by all car builders as such, GM or otherwise.

Will this post put your thread to bed? I doubt it - like I said, you all like to argue amongst yourselves and that's OK. Just don't argue about the VIN order off the line...

Best wishes, Rich



Welcome Rich,

Before you say we are "arguing" about anything here perhaps you should visit this thread below where some members (of your board) started the very thing you falsely accuse us of right here.

Required reading for you my friend- I am quite sure you will recall the screen names as they are all from your group - "stirring the pot" at another site which is what you are now attempting to do here. roll


http://www.yenko.net/ubbthread.../page/0/fpart/1/vc/1


Pay special attention to the post on page 9 specifically post# 32954.

Where Kurt S states:

"Because the staging lanes scramble the VIN order a little"

Exactly what we are discussing here. Very specific terms for a very small snap shot of production. (the pace cars)


CoolBut by all means if you think you or any other member of the CRG - knows more about 1967 Indy Pace car replica's PLEASE DO hold back!

Do...Provide us all with the grace and knowlege you have! Just hold the "full helping" of hypocracy you just served up here in your very first post. hello

By the way did I say welcome? Topic


Phil@camaropacecars.com
 
Posts: 4788 | Location: Chillicothe Ohio | Registered: 05 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporter
Victory Lane
Picture of Tom McGinnity
posted Hide Post
Everybody is allowed to participate: Using final sounding words will never work though because of all the changes we and others have made to the hobby since reanalizing all the would be facts from the early years of Camaro research.. Respectfully Rich I don't believe there is a rational explaination for why the VIN needed to be beat through the fresh Fisher paint in two spots or onto the block as well for that matter had the VIN been the true Social Security Number of the car from the get go..
I respectfully would like an explaination of how a factory ( Chevy side ) can assign a VIN at the beginning of a 6 or so lined factory and have all the cars leave sequentially?

I'm serious about not wanting a bickering contest.. I want to actually know

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tom McGinnity,


tom @ camaropacecars.com ( remove the space between m,@,c)
 
Posts: 13409 | Location: Arlington Mass | Registered: 01 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<GaryB>
posted
Anyone besides me smell "poopy pants"? Big Grin
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporter
Victory Lane
Picture of Tom McGinnity
posted Hide Post
the old thread.unresolved of course


tom @ camaropacecars.com ( remove the space between m,@,c)
 
Posts: 13409 | Location: Arlington Mass | Registered: 01 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<tnpace>
posted
I too have worked in the automobile industry for the last 18 years. In all the major brands, whether it be Ford, GM, Toyota, or whomever, they all have subcontractors. In this particular instance, Chevrolet,had many subcontractors: Firestone, Goodyear, Holly, Muncie, Harrison Radiators, and Fisher Body just to name a few. But to say that you had the first one of any of these items is only that... components. And without all of the components, they are not functional pieces, that as a whole, make a vehicle. It took Chevrolet to run the car down their assembly line, and they used their subcontractor parts to make their product. That's why they didn't stamp in the carburetor# from Holly, the transmission# from Muncie, nor the body# from Fisher Body. They used a VIN#, which is a Vehicle Identification Number, as they process the car down the assembly line. These numbers help track not only the vehicle, but daily production, and also controlled inventory of their particular subcontractors. That's why you see the VIN# stamped into the body and on the drive train and also the plate that is visible on the dash.
There is no logical reasoning that the VIN# would not take precedence over any of the subcomponents. There are many things that could be speculated as to why the body sequences didn't come through as they should, but the fact remains that they didn't. And chances are, we'll never know why. And even though I own this car with the lowest VIN#, I will still take the position with anyone on any car, that the VIN# is proof of when the car is completed off of the line in sequence. And the rest of the subcomponents are just part of the process that it takes to make a complete car. And while their dates are important, they do not have any association to when they get pulled.
BTW the theory in relationship to conceptions of babies and mechanical processes of automobiles, is not a very good example. I have enjoyed the thread thus far, and respect everyone's opinion that has put input into this thread, however I still have found no hard evidence that the VIN# does not take precedence over subcomponents. Cheers
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporter
Victory Lane
Picture of Tom McGinnity
posted Hide Post
Wheel weight positions
With all due respect and simply for the benefit of all the guys reading this thread who are not privy to past discussions..
The tire thread is proof positve that nobody remembers everything exactly as it really was and as you can read most of the site members also did-do not know the truth on wheel weights either.. a small example mind you but regardless it proves first hand accounts cannot be absolute. Its always been hard to dispute a claim like " residual paper evidence " that none of us Pacecar Guys get to see.The point being that we should continue to beat this dead horse. I'm not interested in blind faith at this point
Tyler! Nicely put up there brother. I appreciate your position


tom @ camaropacecars.com ( remove the space between m,@,c)
 
Posts: 13409 | Location: Arlington Mass | Registered: 01 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<JohnZ>
posted
Tom, you and the rest of the guys really should read my long and detailed "First-Generation Camaro Assembly Process" paper on the CRG site; go to the home page, click on the "CRG Reports" box at the top, and you'll find it in the listing.

I wrote it because I was there, and wanted restorers to know exactly how the cars were built in the plant, to help them make their restorations more authentic.

Norwood was a Fisher/Chevrolet plant, not a GMAD plant; Fisher/Chevrolet plants didn't assign the VIN until the finished body was delivered to Chevrolet, which is why the last six digits of the VIN are rubber-stamped on all the computer-generated paperwork, all of which was printed days before the car was built. GMAD plants were different - they operated under one Division's management, and their scheduling system allowed assignment of the VIN before the body was built, as they controlled the entire plant, not just final assembly.

The six-line schedule bank on the Chevrolet side was only for sorting and scheduling bodies into the SINGLE main assembly line; there was only ONE Chevrolet assembly line from the exit of the schedule bank all the way to Roll-Test. The VIN was assigned and affixed at the beginning of the schedule bank; other than minor sequence adjustments made in the schedule bank to equalize subsequent line balance, cars went through the Chevrolet assembly system in VIN sequence.

Conversely, the body number on the cowl tag was assigned when the plant accepted the dealer order for production, not when it was built, and the cowl tag (which was physically created the day prior to body build) was affixed at the end of the Body Framing Line in the Body Shop. There was no direct correlation between the body number and its actual build sequence on the Fisher Body side of the plant.

Read the assembly paper and it will make more sense to you.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Victory Lane
Picture of festival
posted Hide Post
John,

I have little doubt your paper applies quite well for 1969... .

Question, Pertaining to 1967:

Here: Please comment on posts #328441-32843--32845-32852 confused

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthread.../page/0/fpart/4/vc/1

You appear to be the "source" Smiler


Phil@camaropacecars.com
 
Posts: 4788 | Location: Chillicothe Ohio | Registered: 05 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post

Victory Lane
Picture of MLakin
posted Hide Post
Well there is a big difference between brainstorming, debating, and arguing. While brainstorming, throwing out an idea for others to consider in a way they've not before to see if it "sticks", and debating to bring valid points forward to help make a point are all productive ways of trying to reach a conclusion. Arguing on the other hand is ego driven, pointless, and never productive. On this site I've seen many things be productively brainstormed and debated and as a result we've all learned new things. The only arguing that I've ever seen here is not done by core members but by people who aren't open to debate and believe thier opinion is the be-all-end-all and beyond reproach.
I have no first hand knowledge of any of this, that is why I tempered my views with "In my opinion."
The issue that makes me wonder at this point is this. If the VIN is assigned before the car is built and the paperwork produced, then why wouldn't the complete VIN be typed on the documents at that time. It would certainly save time to not have to come back later and rubber-stamp the remainder of the VIN later and add an additional processing of hundred and hundreds of documents for the cars built each day. So I would open for debate as to why they would do that. I may be wrong that the lower VIN is the car first completed, however I stand by my opinion that the first finished car that is driven out the big doors at the end of the process and parked on the lot to await delivery is the first car, therefor we may truely never know which car is first. We all should know when it comes to automobile factories you can never say never.


Mike L.
 
Posts: 2529 | Location: Indy | Registered: 20 September 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporter 2009
Victory Lane
posted Hide Post
I think it is a great thread, think it is VERY important to have everyone's opinion and knowledge, and great that we get to hear from others who seldom post. I've got an opinion of which came first but have no pertinent info to back it up, so I'm keeping it to myself. Thank you all for keeping it civilized, and sharing. One day we will know the answer by research and threads like this.
 
Posts: 1602 | Location: Canada | Registered: 13 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Larry C Weaver>
posted
I like what Mike said about argueing ect! Great point on that aspect and I hope all involved will look at things in a similar "train of thought".I have seen several things in the past (not on this site!) that someone says this or that is written in stone.Later it turns out much different.Ok, enough talking with my big brain! Back to being a goof!! Razzer
Da Weave
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporter
Victory Lane
Picture of Tom McGinnity
posted Hide Post
I too have tried the conception - birth thing... its a bad analogy but initially seems corker Roll Eyes.. oh well, no biggie
The reality of it is that we are trying to compare apples to oranges... its can't be done but they are in the same bushel and forcing the issue.
Again I respectfully submit that nobody I know of was there in 1967 and where as I agree little changed from 67 to 69 the trim tags sure did. that in itself opens the door for possibilities and needs to be explored. Its ok to say you don't know. I'm telling you right now I don't know.. But I want to know. I do know that we have blocks of Trim Tags in sequential order. I understand that could fit both schools of thought but regardless its what drives this debate in my mind. Like any first hand account some amount of weight needs to be put on the eye witnesses from 67' that claim long lines of IPC's

I can't help but wonder if-when that elusive GM paperwork shows if it wouldn't help solve this dilemma with delievery or invoice #'s...surely they would need to be sequential as well to back the sequential VIN theory. Actually now that I think of it: Does the Pontiac info show any trends like that I wonder?

I think I've been told that we are not the only people listing specialty cars by body number.. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Yenko Nova guys do that as well? Not that this would prove anything.. just curious


tom @ camaropacecars.com ( remove the space between m,@,c)
 
Posts: 13409 | Location: Arlington Mass | Registered: 01 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporter
Victory Lane
Picture of Tom McGinnity
posted Hide Post
Is it a fact that " ceremonial " last cars are not the last VIN?


tom @ camaropacecars.com ( remove the space between m,@,c)
 
Posts: 13409 | Location: Arlington Mass | Registered: 01 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporter
Victory Lane
Picture of Tom McGinnity
posted Hide Post
Not to drone along here but I also feel its important to acknowledge that without the guys that have been banging away at this for all these years we wouldn't know anything at all ( like a Pinto owner ) and that all the discoveries and deeds of the past are very much appreciated. I was stuck reading Time-or Newsweek last night waiting at my kids karate class to come to a merciful end and read an article about global warming and how the scientists that promoted this crisis have impeached themselves by refusing to share their data with the bloggers and the critics...ultimately when one scientist did she was proven wrong and that has soiled the waters for scientific credibility in this field... apparently others found legitimate flaws in the data..( Al Gores hockey stick graff I think ).. The point being that it is exceedingly hard to accept absolutes without a chance to see what needs to be seen.


tom @ camaropacecars.com ( remove the space between m,@,c)
 
Posts: 13409 | Location: Arlington Mass | Registered: 01 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<JohnZ>
posted
quote:
Originally posted by festival:
John,

I have little doubt your paper applies quite well for 1969... .

Question, Pertaining to 1967:

Here: Please comment on posts #328441-32843--32845-32852 confused

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthread.../page/0/fpart/4/vc/1

You appear to be the "source" Smiler


That's correct - my "First-Generation Camaro Assembly Process" paper is the source, along with the extensive vehicle data analyzed by William and KurtS that supports it.

The key difference between what I've posted and what some others have posted is that I WAS THERE, ran production in many Chevrolet (and later, GMAD) assembly plants, and I know the entire Fisher/Chevrolet/GMAD production system, from plant receipt of the dealer order to delivering the finished car to the shipper at the gate.

Interviewing retired hourly employees is NOT an accurate way of gathering information about how the plant operated; they weren't involved in the plant-wide production scheduling operation or the criteria that guided it (and they didn't need to know anything about it in order to do their job), and they speak only about what they observed that affected their individual operation (frequently embellished for shock/humor value).

The production and scheduling process at Norwood didn't change from 1967 to 1969; the Firebird addition in mid-April of 1969 only added more tooling and more parts.

The Assembly Process paper accurately describes how the production system operated; some folks don't like that because it doesn't square with how they think it worked, and I can't help that - I was there, I was involved with the total production system, and spent 38 years developing assembly processes and tooling, running production, and being a Plant Manager. I know more than a little about it, and that's why I wrote the paper, to share that knowledge with restorers and enthusiasts.

I'm always available to answer questions about it or to provide more detail on specifics if anyone needs them, but I won't respond to rants or endless ramblings from folks who refuse to accept facts and just want to argue; life is too short for that.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Victory Lane
Picture of festival
posted Hide Post
John,

Thanks for the reply. The detail of your technical experience-nor the fact that you are aligned with the CRG is not in dispute.

Your opinion is not in dispute.

The fact that you state for the record that you know (or knew) the Chevrolet assembly processes from some past time period is not in dispute.

The fact that you were not present at Norwood as an employee in 1967 appears to not be in dispute.

That fact that you assert that you were a plant manager actually goes along way torwards diminishing your credability as a detail oriented guy with the type of process detail we are actually seeking - because as the plant manager you would far removed from the "weeds" of the production assembly line worker and the engineering portion of the IPC production process.

With your history as a plant manager your opinion of the retirees is not that suprising at all to me. Frankly their opinion they voiced to me was not complementary of Management at the plant either. That's to be expected.

IMO...What is in dispute is your continued efforts to assert that your opinion, your facts, and your technical research is applicable specifically to the 1967 pace cars. In my opinion you have failed to make the case sence you have admittedly no specific recall of the program or the production processes relating to the cars that are the focus of the topic here.

I think framing your replies to this topic with "In my opinion" (first) will go along way to everyone working with you and you working with us to develop the thread here further. Will you work with us to that end? Cheers


Phil@camaropacecars.com
 
Posts: 4788 | Location: Chillicothe Ohio | Registered: 05 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Victory Lane
Picture of festival
posted Hide Post
For those of you watching this thread the topic of the retirees mentioned above originates from post #329268 (last post on the page) located here: http://www.yenko.net/ubbthread.../page/0/fpart/9/vc/1


Phil@camaropacecars.com
 
Posts: 4788 | Location: Chillicothe Ohio | Registered: 05 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporter
Victory Lane
Picture of Tom McGinnity
posted Hide Post
I still do not understand the logistics of splitting cars up into 6 lines and then having them all merge back in numerical order.. I'm sorry and we can dispute whose the best qualified to make the final determination til the cows come home but it just plain ol' doesn't make sense... even IF ( and I don't, especially in the case of IPC buildups)I conceed that the body numbers were not sequential..starting from the very beginning at Chevy where we all agree the VIN's are issued... how can a mix of easy and hard to build cars go down an area made specifically for doleing cars about for various time concerning reasons all land back at the exit in order? Simple question..

If building high optioned convertibles takes no more time than strippers and logistics men made sure all the parts were present before the build began then why the 6 lines confused To land back in sequential order there would be no need for the bank at all it would seem


tom @ camaropacecars.com ( remove the space between m,@,c)
 
Posts: 13409 | Location: Arlington Mass | Registered: 01 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Victory Lane
Picture of festival
posted Hide Post
"If building high optioned convertibles takes no more time than strippers and logistics men made sure all the parts were present before the build began then why the 6 lines To land back in sequential order there would be no need for the bank at all it would seem"


B-I-N-G-O! That about hits the nail on the head. Cool


Phil@camaropacecars.com
 
Posts: 4788 | Location: Chillicothe Ohio | Registered: 05 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<IPC 93>
posted
First, let me preface what I am about to write I know to be fact. Not speculation. At the three GM assembly plants of which I worked, and of which I was a supervisor. This is how banks played into the assembly procedure.

The banks are there for one specific reason. Each department runs at a production speed a little faster than the others that follow it. The body shop being the fastest, the final line the slowest of the completed product.

The banks are there to make sure that if one department ceases to run, for whatever reason, the others can keep going. If one breaks down, the other has a feeder bank to draw from. While the 'down one' gets back up and running.

The final line, where the car is totally completed, runs the slowest. From the chassis department, all the way back through hard trim, soft trim, paint, and body. Each runs a little faster than the one it feeds in to.

Otherwise, when one department stopped, they would all stop. As they had no bodies to build on. The cost in any 'down time', as it was called, cost thousands of dollars per minute. If there were no banks to draw from, that would be multiplied many times over.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Victory Lane
Picture of festival
posted Hide Post
Which plants did you work at?

When the cars are assigned a VIN and final computer lock... When and where does that happen? Cheers

Typically how many cars per bank?

How does the bank sequencing impact the production sequencing from bank to bank?

Big Grin Cheers


Phil@camaropacecars.com
 
Posts: 4788 | Location: Chillicothe Ohio | Registered: 05 May 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<IPC 93>
posted
"If building high optioned convertibles takes no more time than strippers and logistics men made sure all the parts were present before the build began then why the 6 lines To land back in sequential order there would be no need for the bank at all it would seem"

Actually, building highly optioned cars does take more time. As a line supervisor, we had to set work loads per man to make sure the cars taking more time could be built. Some cars took less time, others took more to build per operator. Scheduling played into this situation. They would have a build sequence as to what car could be build, and how close it could be placed in the line near another one that was also loaded with options.

Take for instance the cars with painted stripes than ran through the paint department. There was one model year Monte Carlo that required a lot of tape and papering prior to going in to the paint booth. They took a lot of time to prep. Scheduling allowed only so many to be fit in to the assembly process at any given time. If two, mistakenly, were close together. The production line would have to be stopped to complete the tape and paper process. A huge NO-NO cost wise.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<IPC 93>
posted
Phil asked:

quote:
Which plants did you work at?


Now I am going to date myself, badly. I began work at the Fisher Body plant in Oakland, California in 1960.

In 1963, I believe was the date, the new GMAD plant opened in Fremont, California. The old, and I mean OLD Oakland plant shut down. In some places you could see through the second floor to the first.

Then, in 1982 the Fremont plant was closed. We only got two weeks notice of that event. Quite a shock to all. Then GM and Toyota reopened it under the NUMMI name, a joint venture. Lately, GM sold their share to Toyota. I believe, but don't quote me on that one.

In 1983 GM opened a new plant in Wentzville, Missouri. I was offered a job there, and having 23 years at the time, almost 24, I took it. I didn't have much choice. People wouldn't hire long time GM employees in California, for fear they would return. I went back to college, to no avail. Even that didn't help with employment opportunities.

Cheers
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<IPC 93>
posted
Phil asked:

quote:
When the cars are assigned a VIN and final computer lock... When and where does that happen?

Typically how many cars per bank?

How does the bank sequencing impact the production sequencing from bank to bank?



1. I think after recent responses Phil, I'll leave that one up to the "experts". Wink

2. Banks varied according to which department they fed. The body shop, in Fremont, had a huge bank between it and the paint department. Because, in my opinion, it took them the longest to produce the bodies they would release back in to the assembly line process. If their bank ran low, it would take many hours to refill it. If they had another breakdown before refilling it, someone was in deep do-do. Eeker

Paint had a very small bank, about six bodies, where the bodies were lifted off the monorail by a huge forklift on rails, and placed on body trucks. Much like a train track. Not much can affect paint, other than the monorail itself caring the bodies breaking down. But the paint department did have a huge accumulator of front ends, which were on separate carriers from the car bodies. That was in case a front end got damaged, or hoods or fenders were missing. They could be painted, oven baked, and placed back on the respective carriers to make sure they were there when need be to mate up with the bodies in the trim department.

3. I can only speak about the sequencing as far as body to paint, to trim, went. As paint was the only department I was a supervisor in. In the paint department, in Fremont for example, there was a scheduling room occupied by salaried scheduling personnel. They would get info from the body shop as to what was coming up to paint, from the first floor, and they would control which bank line each body went in to. Also when, and which bank line, each body would come back out of to go in to the paint department as they rejoined the assembly line. They also had privy as to whether or not a body may have to sit in the bank due to materials not being able to be available when they were released back in to the system. Big Grin

Time for a Beer

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <IPC 93>,
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5  
 

Camaro Pace Cars .Com    My Forum Home Page    All Years Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  1967 Pace Car  Hop To Forums  1967 Indy 500 Pace Car Discussion    First 1967 Camaro Indy Pace Car