GM Norwood Salaried Christmas Party

[70 copo]

Originally Posted by JoeC

another interesting thing was the white paint on some of the trim tags. I have seen original photos where it looked like a light spray of white paint just on the tag and one 1967 Camaro, original photo, and it was a heavy coat of white paint just on the trim tag.

Joe,

The white paint on the 1967 body plate is already described in Echoes. If you would like I can revisit the topic within a thread here on this forum.

[Kurt S]

It was a visibility thing.
The twist is that not all cars got the whited tags.

[70 copo]

Originally Posted by Kurt S

It was a visibility thing.
The twist is that not all cars got the whited tags.

That's correct. There were multiple workforce issues driving this situation all occurring at the same time, Line speed increase allegations from the union, the new computer system increasingly setting production rates, and the pressure for all workers to use all of the new data technology universally to capture the increasingly complex RPO content. The old timers wanted to build them the old way, and it became a component of the larger "we are overworked" labor issue as a component of a series of protest strikes in 1967.

The situation was described to me as follows:

"When the workers that were most agitated by the changes were assigned to the element the body plates were painted white as a form of protest."

"GM removed the problem in 1968 by deleting the content from the plate."

This worker has since passed away.

[70 copo]

Party was well attended yesterday. I am looking at the replies I received to the questions asked within the thread and I did get some answers. I will begin to post later today.

Here is a couple of images... The highest three seniority production superintendents in attendance had start dates in 1957, 1958, and 1959. I also met another (new to me) superintendent that started in 1967. Very intelligent, his recall of the plant, its processes and the details were amazingly crisp. I am looking forward to interviewing him in detail.

[70 copo]

Originally Posted by Jeff H

If they have any more information about the JL8 option that wasn't in Wayne's book it would be cool to hear about it. I know it was a pretty obscure option so they might not have handled too many of them but anything they can remember would be nice to find out.

"Never had the specific brake hoses for that option on the line. We sent them to AGR to get brakes on them, I bet they discontinued that option over that problem, I only recall a couple of cars"

[70 copo]

Originally Posted by NorCam

Another obscure option that I would like to know more about is V75 Liquid Tire Chain.

Being a rare option, it is reported as being documented in only four Z/28's and a handful of Copo cars leaving Norwood in 69. It leaves me to wonder if any of the Norwood line workers or managers recall the option and how well it seemed to work, or for that matter, didn't work well in solid lifter cars when tested?

I ask due to it being Vacuum actuated and wonder how effectively it performed in these solid lifter cars when installed new, and how it was tested before leaving Norwood. Hearing anything at all from plant workers on this option would be kind of cool to me?

Thanks and enjoy the Party!

They were aware of the option, but nothing remarkable to report on LTC from the workers as it was not something that was tested on the line.

[70 copo]

Originally Posted by Paul_S

Anyone attending that worked back in 1963-64 for 1964 production? Not sure if these were asked in the past (maybe documented somewhere?):

Yes several in attendence were there for the Chevy II NOVA build

Originally Posted by Paul_S

-How did they feel about the Nova Convertible, Hardtop/Coupe and SS being cancelled for '64? -Coupe and SS did return few months after production started.

They were concerned about layoffs. Sales dropped off in 1964,and they looked at the plants building the Chevelle as having the product that would sell.

Originally Posted by Paul_S

-How did they feel about V8 finally being a regular production item/option (L32 2-brl 283 only for '64)? Any inquiries/responses why no 327 offered? This would have required additional training for the new V8 specific components (now offering four engines: 153 4cyl, 194 & 230 6-cyl & 283 V8).

All the V-8's installed the same way. Big engines usually were kind of rare then since the 6 was the majority seller.

Originally Posted by Paul_S

-Any info on the late '64 introduction of the L77 4-brl 283 (220HP)? Remember it being a short run or delayed introduction?

No information.

Originally Posted by Paul_S

-Any special builds or issues they remember during that time frame?

No information.

[jl8z28]

Just saw this thread next time ask why the 11A late 69 Z28 got a 2003 distributor instead of the 480

[70 copo]

Originally Posted by Tracker1

Possible transmission anomaly question about my 10D '68 built 1969 Z28:

The M21 transmission is a bit of a mystery. The family members of the original deceased owner have no recollection of the car ever needing trans work. But the VIN is 528195 on the case and this car is 529996. So if the transmission was replaced in the 70's or 80's they hit a home-run with the replacement because it is (A) a 1969 M-21 from (B) a Norwood Camaro and (C) built within 48 hrs. of this car, thus perfectly dated to it, at October 19th, with its original tag in place and it is equally dirty as the motor. That is quite a match for finding a random tranny.

GM of Canada has no record of a 1969 Camaro with a VIN ending in 528195 being imported and also 528195 unfortunately falls outside the roll of VINS with info available from NCRS so I cannot rule out that this trans is from a real Camaro. My gut tells me its an assembly line mis-stamp, or swap maybe, but then again numbers are numbers.

Also, my car is built right at the October 21st 1968 date when the Muncie model designator letters started to be stamped into the cases. But I found a B (usually for M21) here in this location (see pic) not at the end of the P9R19 Muncie number.

Just wondering if it is possible an assembly line worker might have a plausible explanation for these two queries. Thank You.

"The mystery transmission was likely a goofed up assembly from the manufacturing plant, the original car it was installed in would not shift correctly at roll test and was sent to AGR where the tranny was pulled and sent to the salvage shop and quickly repaired. Now the next car that showed up at AGR (Your buddie's car) also had a goofed up Tranny and had its tranny pulled and it also sent to salvage for repair, In this scenario the VIN your asking about is now sitting in AGR without a tranny so an exchange was made form salvage with the previous tranny that was already repaired as repair swap part. Trannies coming out of salvage could be mix masters, case and parts swaps were common. Functionality and cost savings were the priorities to management back then"

[70 copo]

Originally Posted by jl8z28

Just saw this thread next time ask why the 11A late 69 Z28 got a 2003 distributor instead of the 480

Likely the same answer to Tracker 1's question. A salvage swap after the car wound up in AGR.