Camaro Pace Car Merchandise is now available !!
Support Camaro Pace Cars .com
I don't know how to explain it any differently than I have above. They got their VIN when they came through the wall from Fisher, and were released into the Chevrolet system in that order unless option content dictated that they be spaced out differently.
The only way that they would be released to the Chevrolet system 100% in VIN sequence all the time would be to eliminate the Chevrolet scheduling and line-balance function entirely and let them free-flow in the same order in which they were received from Fisher, which would result in chaos.
Ok got it now, thanks for clearing that up. The statement you made earlier on page two which is also in your CRG report that:
“cars went through the Chevrolet assembly system in VIN sequence.”
And statements like this:
"the CRG coordinator, who stated and I quote 'that the cars came off the assembly line in VIN# order. There can be no rational disagreement, they did period.'"
Led me to believe that the cars came down the Chevrolet line 100% in sequence, with no exceptions.
So it appears that wasn't necessarily the case as indicated by what you say above. Thank You.
Just a comment from a couple items back. Norwood closed around 87. I lived in Cincinnati at that time and watched many friends and neighbors deal with the closing. The balance of third gen production was finished in Van Nuys alone.
An excerpt from the CRG Assembly Process Report in the Chevrolet Assembly - Body Bank Operations states "The trimmed out shells from Fisher were received in a "body bank" on the Chevrolet side. The VIN was assigned in sequential order and the hidden VIN derivatives were stamped on the cowl top and on the dash adjacent to the heater opening. The receiving body bank matched the arriving bodies against customer orders so that the final assembly could be scheduled. Assembly scheduling sorted the units based on equipment and option content to maintain assembly line work station balance."
The statement "The VIN was assigned in sequential order" refers to "The trimmed out shells from Fisher were received in a "body bank"". If that statement is accurate, the VIN order depended on how they came from Fisher Body. The Chevrolet line would not necessarily need to be in sequential order as released. This is backed up by "Assembly scheduling sorted the units based on equipment and option content to maintain assembly line work station balance.", not VIN sequence.
If the VIN sequence on the line were to be consecutive, the VIN assignment would likely take place as the vehicles were released from the body bank.
The statement "Once released from the Body Bank, the assembly sequence was "locked-in" all the way to the end of the Final Line" appears later in that paragraph. So the "locked-in" applies to how they are released from the body bank by scheduling. The VIN was not a factor in the order they were put on the line.
So from these statements, I conclude the VIN sequence on the Chevrolet assembly line was not consecutive. It would not necessarily need to be increasing as vehicles were released. Because of the scheduling restrictions, vehicles assigned VINs in the body bank could be released to the line after vehicles that were assigned VINs later as they entered the body bank.
If I were to make a statement concerning VIN order on the Chevrolet Assembly line, it would be:
VIN order would be generally increasing but not necessarily sequential.
What i get out of all this is tyler's body came out of fishers first and stamped with vin first but Phils car was ordered first. The body # is computer link to dealer order as quote by john. So your both first its just how you look at it. What came first the chicken or the egg.
John Thanks for your input. It is great that a person who was actually there can provide some input as to what actually happened.
Rich Thanks also for your input.
I am a little surprised that anyone who was obviously previously NOT a member , but would on their first post have the audacity to come in guns blazing on their very first and only post. Is this an insecurity thing? To me I dont really give a rats about how important you are at being a self proclaimed expert. Perhaps a few manners and a little etticate may be used in the future? Let me know if you would like to discuss this in a PM.
We have not been around for as long as the CRG , but close to nearly half of the lifespan of CRG. We will probably still be around for a whole lot longer. Being self funded we have a very stable group of core members as well as other general members who also participate. We here are actually a very close group who all meet annually at the GM Nationals in Carlisle PA. You may have even seen the large tent we have there or even read about us in magazines , who often publish articles about us. Apart from this annual gathering there are other meetings all over the world for that matter which go on between members. Add to that our conference calls which the research group regularly conduct as well as the many emails , faxes and forum posts (both in the public forum as well as the 67 IPC Owners Group private forum. As we are a close group and understand each other we often have discussions , NOT ARGUMENTS. Our discussions are based on research of 67 IPC's which sometimes obviously gets the attention of other people. We do welcome other people and their CONSTRUCTIVE input. I for one know of some of the CRG research topics which have been rewritten due to facts that our pace car group has found and shared with the CRG. Sometimes we get it right and yes sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes research topics have been released prior to full research being completed. Now we can only base anything on facts , the facts are that this is NOT THE FIRST TIME CRG have come in here this way. I am not in this hobby to listen to the continual belittling by insecure CRG members. By all means if you want to discuss my concerns please send me a PM.
To be honest I really dont care about which car was first. It really doesnt make any difference to the research we do , nor does it make the car more valuable or more collectible. Its just a wank value to be honest. Its obvious Tylers car is the earliest vin # at this stage. Its also obvious Phils car is the earliest Body number. Now Tyler will you come back and play with us? We need all the 67 IPC owners we can get in here. DOnt get pissed just because your thoughts may vary to other 67 IPC owners. The way I see it everyone is right. Lets get over this and get back on track here please guys. Are we ever going to have a few groups who may one day actually work together to help each other out for the interest of the hobby by sharing what they find and also to be CONSTRUCTIVELY involved across the groups in research? Lets all be adults now and try to work this out hey???
I am actually very interested in the ordering process and also the assembly process. Fortunately John was there and has been able to offer us some very good advice of what he saw. In quoting John from his earlier post it seems the VIN's were consecutive with the following exception.
This to me makes it loud and clear that the VIN's were NOT always in sequence.
Now we need to have a look into how the 67 IPC's were made , which we all actually realise were not made by elves in the woods. To us they are as important as COPO's and their history are important to their owners. The fact that the 67 IPC is possibly the smallest run of COPO cars ever made and were made across three small production runs and all cars were virtually identical has turned out to be extremely beneficial to the Camaro hobby. As a result of this close production group of near identical cars we have been able to learn a lot more than perhaps other groups have been able to learn in the past. We have been adding to the 67 IPC registry which has been floating around for many many years. Not only have we been adding to it but we have expanded it to include many more items of interest than possibly any other registry around. We originally had these cars in the registry listed numerically by VIN #. However during our research into the COPO ordering process by which the 67 IPC's were ordered and made , it was found that we believe the cars were batch made by Body number and we believe , the VIN has very little to do with the complete picture. This has been found to be true with the 67 IPC ordering of the cars as well as the building of the cars , which we can assume applies also to other 67 Camaros. BUT THIS HAS NOT YET BEEN CONFIRMED. As a direct result of this we also have another version of the registry which is in order numerically by body number. John , as you have mentioned in an earlier post , that sometimes the bank had no cars in the sixth line. Is it possible that when the 67 IPC's were built this became the line of 67 IPC bodies in the sixth line? Are we correct in assuming they would be in order by body # at this stage? We have many cars which are consecutive by body number with variations in VIN #. Obviously they are all CONVERTIBLES , as well as RS , as well as CONSOLE cars. Obviously this would make them very time consuming to build. Is it possibly then how the higher body number did reach the end of the line before a lower body number? It could also then explain how then the higher body number ends up with the lower VIN #. Just throwing a few ideas out there for others to consider and to debate.
(quote)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.(/quote)
John , I am very very interested in the above statement you made also in an earlier post. Are you able to advise us any more on this part of the ordering and build process? Are you able to show us a copy of the dealer order form? As the 67 IPC's were not dealer ordered what was used? Was there an actual COPO order form? When the car was built and off the production line , what happened next? Are you able to show us a copy of a shipper paperwork or what ever its called? Has a GM Invoice to the dealer ever been found? If so can we see a copy of one? On the subject of invoices how did GM handle the 67 IPC's? Obvioulsy they were not sold to a dealer when new. I am also interested how the body number was not in sequence when being built.
My final question is , John would you draw a basic rough freehand picture (like a flow chart) of the assembly process , showing where it began in Fisher Body and the respective lines and differing areas of the plant which may help someone like me digest the build process a little more? I am trying to understand the lines and the body banks etc etc.
I know this is a very very long post , and I thank you all for having the patience to read it all.I also look forward to our continued involvement and hope Tyler and others will continue to enjoy our company.
Secret stuff revealed for the first time here with the exact detail removed to protect the registry's security.
Here is some examples from the registry where all the evidence all points to a Fisher run in body sequence.
Playing the Body numbers against the VIN# in any type of formula is provides no mathamatical consistancy at all, however if you run the VIN against the body numbers this is what you get:
There is a 12.26666 (12.2) average body number to VIN# deviation across the 03-C run.
There are back to back body numbers where the VIN#'s are also very close.
Here is three examples:
Tylers car and the earlier TT car are seperated by 16 VIN#'s. If from the exact point of assignment with an exact assembly sequence allocation then tyler's car sees the end of the plant first.
But to do this and achieve consistancy and the ability to support it the VIN# spread sequence would have to remain the pretty consistant and always ahead of the body number.
It does not. So:
The next example is more the high end of the varience. In the middle of the commitment run we again have two cars with back to back body numbers this time with a 40 VIN# assignment spread.
This example underscores the variable introduced by the schedule bank and the havoc introduced when trying to line up the VIN's in sequence. Seemingly which line in the bank moved first as determined by the production scheduler then determined which VIN# got shuffled up to the front and on to Final Assembly.
The third example is in the last third of the 03-C run where back to back body numbers appear again. This time there is a 5 VIN# number spread with the earlier body number getting the early VIN# assignment and the later (but still Next body number) getting a VIN# 5 sequence positions later.
In each evaluation of the Body numbers versus the VIN assignment the VIN deviation for 03-C never exceeds the stated capacity of the body banks as stated by John Z earlier as:
"Depending on how full the schedule bank was and how many high-option units were in their lines vs. how many regular units were in their lines, there could be as much as a 72-unit difference in VIN sequence from one unit to the next as a body progressed through the Chevrolet final assembly system, but that wasn't the norm".
"The body schedule bank had six lanes, and each lane (if full) could hold 12 bodies. In normal operation, the bank was about half-full, and only used five of the six lanes. The sixth lane was primarily for holding bodies for which an un-planned Chevrolet material shortage had developed, and was seldom used; it was empty most of the time."
So the data in the IPC registry for 03C stands in suppport of John Hinkley's opinion(s) above.
And Keith C states:
If I were to make a statement concerning VIN order on the Chevrolet Assembly line, it would be it would be VIN order would be generally increasing but not necessarily sequential:
I would agree with Keith C's assessment since within the registry the VIN flow sequence has examples that are actually reversed in order.
Which takes me right back to my earlier question from two pages earlier: Using the CRG's own criteria can it be proven that Tyler's car was the first bar built?
Now we are right back at at the actual title of the thread again.
From what has been concluded about VIN sequence, the only way to determine which vehicle went first down Chevrolet assembly is to KNOW all of the IPCs were routed through a single body bank line. This would control the VIN sequence with respect to one another as they came into that line and also control how they were released as they could not jump in the body bank line either. Without being able to establish that criteria, all the other info says any VIN number could have been first in final assembly.
It would seem possible to be the case the IPCs would flow into a single body bank line. With all the complex assembly features common to them, they fit the restricted criteria put forth for scheduling. With a body bank capable of holding 12 cars, there could be a reason to put all the IPCs in say the sixth body bank line that John says was seldom used. This would then dictate final line order being in VIN sequence as they received their VIN coming into that single body bank line.
Does the special paint code have anything to the idea that these cars went into a single body bank line? It has yet to be determined what the significance is of the paint code difference for the IPCs. This could be key to them being directed to that single (sixth?) body bank line to potentially have whatever special process was done while the other five lines flowed normal production.
I would say a key piece of info to establish is the likelihood the IPCs were all sent to a single body bank line, possibly number 6.
I can't help you with the precise '67 IPC ordering process and how it may have differed from the daily norm; I'm only familiar with the normal production order process and production/shipping documents. Someone in your '67 IPC group should have some examples of IPC-related shipping documents, invoices, etc. - I don't follow that. I've attached a copy of the regular '67 Camaro dealer order form.
Shown below is a simplified flow chart of the production process, showing the in-line accumulators between Fisher departments and the Chevrolet-side process. Details of each department and process are covered in the Assembly Process paper on the CRG site.
In 06C, of the 10 RS Canadian festival (0-1 D 2MG 3SL 5BY-) built on 6/15, a few of the VIN's were more then 100 apart (158 max, 14 min), and for the 10 RS/SS (0-1 D 2ZG 3SL 4N 5BY-) built on 6/16 VIN spacing was (126 max, 8 min) although each group of cars has sequential body numbers and were ordered at the same time.
There was also an 11th BB festival car built on 6/19 and a 12th car built on 6/20.
We have a C-4 2LG 3L 4P (blue topper) car that was built 8 VIN units after the 10th RS/SS festival car, but it was made on the 19th... Its body sequence number is about half way between the RS and RS/SS car groups, so perhaps the order was entered at about the same time.
Perhaps when a bunch of these pacer type cars which were more loaded up then the std cars (also having the special 0-1 paint treatment) that were ordered together in sequentuial groups of body sequence numbers, upon making there way over to the cheverolet side of the plant could have been loaded/pulled off into that 6th line of the banks which resulted in more then 72 VIN spaces in some instances?
John , Thanks for posting the info you just did. On your flowchart of the assembly process am I correct in saying that it does not show the body banks? Or is this what you are calling the Chevrolet Schedule Bank? Also on the order form it has the number 27646. Is this part of the VIN or body number? Does this number carry over directly to a corresponding Factory invoice number? The reason I ask is when looking at Jerry McNeish's 67Z28's car Manufacturers Statement of Origin it lists an invoice number of BN20181. Is it possible that the B = Baltimore , N = Norwood and the 20181 is the same number as used on the actual order form. It appears there is no obvious correlation to VIN or body number from either the MSO or the order form. Does the window sticker have this same number on it if the window sticker ever had a number? Also when looking at the original order form would this have been the same form or procedure to order a COPO car? On the bottom of the order form it lists on the one you have provided as the zone office copy. At what level would the pace cars have been ordered? If at the Zone office it makes sence to use this same form. If not how would they have been ordered? Do we have any 67 IPC's with MSO , Window sticker and factory invoice (not to be confused with the dealer invoice to the end purchaser).Do we have any other NON 67 IPC's with all of these pieces of paperwork to see if they do i fact line up? As the commitment cars were never sold new , what would have happened to their MSO's , Factory invoice ? When sold used was that the first time they were titled? They needed to have registration so they could be driven , so I am assuming that they were originally titled to GM? Man i have a headache too many questions and trying to understand it all ....
Ok so I searched for 67 Camaro GM Factory to dealer invoices and was unable to find any at all. I managed to copy a 69 GM Factory Invoice from another website. I hope they dont mind me using it to demostrate the Invoice numbers. On the invoice attached there are two invoice numbers. The first is T 568xxx? The second on the same invoice is TN568xxx? The invoice is from the GM Tarrytown NY plant. Is this why the invoices are T and TN? Anyone have any input into this? I wonder if the order number had a similar number to what is on the end of the invoice number? Also I am interested on this invoice it lists Zone 32 and also dealer code 32 613. Is there a list somewhere of all of the different zone numbers as well as all the different dealer numbers?
Geoff, NCRS site has a dealer decoder available.
32 613 Scuncio Chevrolet Inc 446 Putnam Pike Greenville Rhode Island 2828 1969 No longer in Busines
Tyler just posted this in the wanted section, of the board and since his comments relate to the thread topic I am going to put them here so we capture all the comments that relate to the topic.
Posted 27 February 2010 07:05 PM Hide Post
yes, i got it and he called me the other day and lest a voice mail.i have just simply been too busy as we are building another auto
sub assembly plant near my curret plant and we are very active in getting it up and running. I'll give him a call when I get an opportunity. BTW their making trailer hitches for the new upcoming Mercedes-Benz SUV. Hey, I just thought of something, maybe I'll grab the 1st trailer hitch off the line and then I'll have the 1st Mercedes-Benz built! LOL Oh, but that's right, you can't drive a subcomponent! ha ha regards, Tyler.
That's possible - scheduling our of the bank was a dynamic business, and downstream constraints could change by the hour depending on what was going on material-wise in the system or in the Chevrolet Paint Shop. What have you used in determining on what date each unit was "built"?
Thank you for being so astute. But that is exactly my position. As I've followed this post of approximately 80 threads thus far, I see that approximately 10 that came up with the "Vin# first" theory. And several people that say that the VIN was first also said that is was unusual or under different circumstances that the VIN would NOT be first.
Obviously, you are trying very hard to validate your car. Because when you go back and read all the posts, you have a rebuttle to just about everything that doesn't substantiate your theory. As a matter of fact, approximately 20-25% of these posts are from you, giving others little, if any, credit to express their theories or experiences they have had with these cars. In short, I will state my position once again. All subassemblies, including Fisher bodies, were just that, until they rolled out the door. I know this will not change your mind, but I would think it would be wise to tour an automotive assembly plant. There's one approximately 45 miles north of me in Bowling Green, KY that assembles Corvettes that I have been through on several occasions. There's also another one approximately 30 minutes south of me that is Nissan that I am in about every other week. Since this post began, I have asked these same questions about body#s vs. VIN#s and they all came back to me with the resounding consensus that the VIN# in all probability would have been the first car off of the line. So I guess if you want to try to validate your car as the first Indy Pace Car, it looks like to me that you would have to validate why the "highly unlikely event" or "the unusual event" that threw the cars out of VIN# sequence actually happened.
And as I said in my earlier thread, chances are that there is another car out there that we don't know about that has an earlier VIN# on it. And at that time, IT will become the first Chevrolet Indy Pace Car produced.
Just as a thought on the registries, I thought at one time I had found a COPO Camaro. When I got in with the group and asked them to share with me the list of cars, they gave them to me in VIN# order. ANd while I don't know this first hand, while I was chasing a Yenko and I spoke to one of the gentlemen on their site, they didn't ask me for the body# or any other number but the VIN#. My belief is that the VIN#, or the Vehicle Identification Number, is proof that the car is built and completed.
I'm not upset about this, and while this is only my 3rd post to this thread, it just becomes monotonous to examine unusual circumstances pertaining to a particular car, and highly unusual events, etc. to validate one's position. I would lean more towards the other way. And then if there was some type of freak thing that disrupted the process for sure, and not speculated, I would have to base all of my opinion on what the average was. And according to most of the things that I have heard and read, the average car came off in VIN# sequence.
BTW to state that we are back to where this thread started, after all the information that has been brought forth, is wrong. Whether it validated my car or gave instances or other events that discredited my car, it has been a very informative thread. And I highly disagree that we are back where we started.
Regards, Tyler Collins
The flow chart shows the in-line accumulator banks between Body and Paint and between Paint and Trim, and the Chevrolet Schedule Bank where the body was received from Fisher; those were the only "banks" of significance in the system. The Chevrolet Schedule Bank was the only one where the sequence of a body relative to the one ahead of it or behind it could be changed; the others were simply accumulators - "rubber bands" in the system, if you will, to absorb minor interruptions.
The "27646" on the sample dealer order form was pre-printed on the multi-sheet order form; each dealer had many pads of these forms, and each form had its own unique pre-printed order number; that number has no relationship to the "Invoice Number" on the Dealer Wholesale Invoice, although the Dealer Order Number was printed on the Body and Chassis Broadcast Copies, the Car Shipper, and the Dealer Wholesale Invoice.
The key number is the "Ident Number" - it was assigned by the plant when the order was accepted, and appears on every piece of paper generated from then on, including the window price sticker (it's the number in the upper right-hand corner). That number was used to track the order internally until the VIN was assigned.
As I noted earlier, I don't know specifically how or with what form the IPC's were ordered or how they were distributed/sold later on. Logic would dictate that they used the same order form as any other Camaro, but the orders got special handling in terms of how they were grouped, submitted and prioritized.
With all due respect you have stated you own the first pace car not I.
When I asked you to justify your claims - you asked for a thread.
We gave you what you wanted.
You still have not been able to state why you have the first pace car yet - ouside of your opinion.
Lets look at what we have so far
The issue is you say you have the "First Pace car" You are basing this on your contention that due to the VIN# being the lowest it is the first car completed.
The consensus of this thread indicates that the cars made very likely did come down the assembly line in VIN sequence - but only after the VIN# assignment order was "adjusted" by the production scheduler.
The CRG agrees on this position and So do I. The registry of the 03-C IPC production also supports.
OK... So there is one area still to look. Again we return to the CRG because nobody here besides you has contended strongly for a "VIN# first" assembly sequence theory.
In the past the CRG has also adopted the position that Fisher did NOT build the cars in exact body order at all.
OK Now if you agree with that CRG assertion (No body order at Fisher) where is your car now??
You see you cannot have it both ways, In order to be "first" you need body order assembly at Fisher body to get you up close to the front where at the schedule bank your car "jumps to the lead"
Tyler, Any way you play this thing out (and I mean anyway) there is no proof that your car was first as you contend.
Not a replica...
I'm just happy to own a Pace car
As Tony would say, it's time to sit down and have nice tastey cold brew
It's a new day so lets all have a good one and enjoy the good things we have in life.
Charley's = the real thing
Clarey's = the other real thing
All others = replica (maybe with the exception of the possible giveaway car)
I would also like to add that the NCRS recognizes cars by VIN number as order of production on their registries.
But there's no disagreement of who's got the real deal. Congrats to Charley and Clarey!
Anybody else scared to open their mouth for fear of a blistering manifesto and "quotes" from statements made on the playground in 6th grade
|Powered by Social Strata
|Page 1 2 3 4 5