The Stovebolt Site Forums The Parking Lot '60-'66 Trucks original engine for my 1963 chevy k10

Mike, I didn't mean any yearly shop manual was 'the bible', nor that the shop manuals were the sole source of the info in the resto packs, there was certainly much design and policy documentation that wasn't part of anything released to the public back in the day [or now], and something like "left over" engines used in certain models only isn't something that would be considered relevant

also, the 63 manual wasn't "intended" for use until 66, it was assembled for 63, and when the 64 vehicles were introduced, a 'supplement' was issued to cover the changes because there wasn't enough difference to justify writing a whole new manual, a procedure common in all the series, a complete new manual assembled only if there was a major design change - but I believe you'll find there are separate owners manual and sales brochures for every year - you'll also find that what's available to us today isn't what was around at the time, like the Factory Assembly Manual "reproduction" covering [labeled for] 60-66, check the dates on the pages

Bill

I just came across some interesting info from the Chevy trucks forum.
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=565919
For those interested, 'aerotruck63' posted some literature that explains a lot I think. It is a 1963 service bulletin that list the c10-20 suffix-N with a 230
the k10-20 suffix-J with a 235
the k10-20 suffix-LB with a 261

https://plus.google.com/photos/113840717762774560215/albums/5850749337022566817?banner=pwa (page 5)

And a second one he has listed with the same info;
https://plus.google.com/photos/113840717762774560215/albums/5847055909458411057?banner=pwa (page 4)

Very cool stuff!

Mike

yes, Service Bulletins are something we don't have enough access to, they were constantly issued, like Change Orders at the assembly plants, which are never found in the Assembly Manuals

Bill

Looks like your truck engine is original. Congrats, you found positive documentation. One theory would be once they decided to get rid of left over 235's and 261's, they decided only one frame package would be built for them and that frame package would only have those engines and that package was a K.(plus a 283 V8). That would make it more manageable and "sort of" match the public sales brochures which don't mention those engines. It could be explained to the utilities companies, surveyors, ranchers and farmers that bought 4x4, the "public" could not afford one for hunting and playing around as today.. Most of the 4x4 stuff I have had pre 66 has been owned by State, city or utility and then auctioned off and finally sold to 4X4 enthusiast....Yours is pretty darn Valuable/Rare in the market place.....BUT as an example how whaky the info can be, The TSB Director who wrote this (your link) uses an example of serial number suffixes at the end of the Truck Suffix list. His example uses an L, there is no L in the list. If the L is "left over" from a list in 1962, why use it when explaining the "new" suffixes? This post has been very informative with great documentation, albeit sometimes hard to rectify fully. I think we got to the bottom of this and saved TC's reputation.

Sounds like a win-win for all. I certainly enjoyed it and am happy with the outcome.
Thanks all.
Mike

Having something, is one thing. Proving it was purchased, that way, is entirely a different story. So often, I hear or read someone stating their '60-'66 Chevy truck, is numbers matching. Such a misnomer, since the VIN tag & the G.V.W. tag, does not indicate the original equipment found on the truck, neither from the factory, nor accessories, that may have been added at the dealership. S.P.I.D. labels, commencing in 1966 in the trucks, is a great piece of documentation, as well as a factory build sheet, tucked in the seat springs or a dealer invoice. In most cases, this information/documentation, is long gone, never to be seen again, therefore no proof.

When dialoging with a '60-'66 Chevy truck owner, that is hell-bent for election, that his truck has something factory, that can not be documented, I simply say, "Never change it, because you may have the only one that ever existed, therefore it must be priceless and why would you want to change it anyway?" In the car world, numbers-matching & proof thereof, is paramount, in establishing, determining and retaining the value of the vehicle. Without this information/documentation, the burden of proof, is on the owner of the vehicle and failure to produce such, leaves one talking, with nobody listening.

It would be a hellava coincidence that someone put in an engine that happens to be dated exactly when the original motor could have been dated. An actual GM document says they used 261. Even if a PO blew the original motor and found a correct one, it's correct! "Numbers matching". I think I would advertise and sell it like that without any worries. As Tony indicates , most early, mass produced vehicles do not have paper work. I believe they can be called matching numbered if the cast codes are correct. That's all there is. Certain era trucks are viewed to be orig without paper. To be frank, it really does not matter for that truck that much, except to the owner. The price is not affected on that truck. The value points are 60-66 1/2T, Short bed, Fleet side, 4x4, engine, trans, big window, Deluxe, condition. 1st year for coil (2wd), last year for wrap windshield. Original engine and such would mean one or two more buyers. 454 w/400T, a few more different buyers, etc.

Tony,
I can agree with you "Proving it was purchased, that way, is entirely a different story."
Although with technology there is not much that can't be forged, especially when big money is involved so proof is not always proof. I think the next best thing is a scientific approach. Inspecting my truck, there seems to be no changes that are not original to a 1963 besides a paint job. I have a title from 1975 with 46,980 miles on it. The next from 1998 with 47,216 miles. Next one from 2003 with 47,885. Then mine with 48,100.
It is possible that 101,005 miles were put on the truck between 1975 and 1998 and the motor changed in that time.
The majority of trucks like this one were bought for farm work which seems to go along with 46,980 for it's first 12 years. It is unlikely a truck geared so low could have had 146,980 put on it from 1963-1975.
The 261 engine in it just had the water pump changed and it was an original GM, painted Jobmaster green.
I think Bartamos makes some good points about coincidence of the engine but also the relatively unaffected value. Has little to do with monetary worth to me. Just neat to know it might be relatively unchanged from birth.
Mike