[SCG] Photo of similar convertible rear speaker boxes

66vairman at comcast.net 66vairman at comcast.net
Tue Jan 21 15:14:32 EST 2014


Kent & Mark: 

I want to thank you both for this very interesting information. Did the multiplex units have RPO numbers or were they considered "dealer add-on" items? Kent, I would appreciate a picture on one of your rear speaker boxes to get an idea on installation and box color. I have heard the majority of these boxes are kept the cardboard black in color. Speaker grill black as well? Thanks. 

Tom 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Kent Sullivan" <kentsu at corvairkid.com> 
To: "Mark Corbin" <airvair at earthlink.net>, 66vairman at comcast.net 
Cc: scg-list at tiger.skiblack.com 
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:00:19 AM 
Subject: RE: Photo of similar convertible rear speaker boxes 



I reviewed my ’66 accessories installation reference manual and RPO U80 (single rear speaker) was definitely available for convertibles that year, using what appears to be the identical box as the multiplex installation. 



--Kent 




From: Mark Corbin [mailto:airvair at earthlink.net] 
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:58 PM 
To: 66vairman at comcast.net; Kent Sullivan 
Cc: scg-list at tiger.skiblack.com 
Subject: Re: Photo of similar convertible rear speaker boxes 





All, 





So far what Kent has said is accurate. The rear seat speaker was available on ALL LM Corvairs. On ‘66-9 as U80 RPO and as a package with the radio (AM or AM/FM) as the same RPO. I once had a ‘69 with the factory rear seat speaker and defogger. 





The multiplex evolved quickly, from a two-speaker (front/rear), three knob unit in ‘65 to a full 4-speaker stereo unit in ‘66. It was available thru ‘68 and then changed from a 12 pin radio plug to a 9 pin plug in ‘69. Hence, it’s only correct for ‘65-8 and only if you have the correct unit, as each year was different from the previous year. 





-Mark 





From: 66vairman at comcast.net 


Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:21 PM 


To: Kent Sullivan 


Cc: Mark Corbin ; scg-list at tiger.skiblack.com 


Subject: RE: Photo of similar convertible rear speaker boxes 





Kent & Others 


I thought the multiplex unit did not become available until the 1967 model year. Mark could probably confirm. The 1966 RPO U80 single speaker option was available I thought as a single rear speaker (plus dash speaker) only. And the speaker box was mounted in the right rear on the backside of the rear seat. I did see one in an original 1966 all original cameo beige 140 Corsa at the Sturbridge, Massachusetts show (older gentlemen had the Corsa for sale) but did not think to document it since only recently did it occur to me to consider adding this option to my Corsa convertible. Unsure if anyone at this convention that may be reading this might know who the gentlemen was, if the car sold and who the new owner may be for further documentation of this issue. Several years ago, David Trull of Stockton, CA did initiate a "list" of 1966 turbo vert owners in the US. I have a copy of the list and may attempt to contact some of these owners for this further documentation. 


Tom 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Kent Sullivan <kentsu at corvairkid.com> 
To: 66vairman at comcast.net 
Cc: scg-list at tiger.skiblack.com, 'Mark Corbin' <airvair at earthlink.net> 
Sent: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:19:16 -0000 (UTC) 
Subject: RE: Photo of similar convertible rear speaker boxes 


Yes, two. The ’65 multiplex was the only year with single rear speaker (and single dash speaker). ’66 and later multiplex used two door speakers plus two rear speakers. I know that a single rear speaker was offered in ’66 for the non-MP “rear speaker” option (RPO U80), as it was in ’65 (and ’67). I don’t recall offhand if one could get a single rear speaker (in the box we’re talking about) in a convertible. It was technically possible, of course; just don’t remember if it was offered. If no one has ready access to the answer, I will dig into my ’66 accessory reference installation manual and see what it says. 



--Kent 




From: 66vairman at comcast.net [mailto:66vairman at comcast.net] 
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:50 PM 
To: Kent Sullivan 
Cc: scg-list at tiger.skiblack.com; Mark Corbin 
Subject: Re: Photo of similar convertible rear speaker boxes 





Kent/Mark/Others 





You mention boxes, plural. I assumed the 1966 rear speaker option was only one mounted to the right rear backside of the rear seat. Did you add two? Thanks for the measurement. The Clark's C10638 I have does measure 4" depth at the base. The other one I obtained off ebay (on the right in the photo) measures 3 1/2" depth at the base. Does your box(s) look like the one on the left in my picture? If so, I will the use the Clark's C10638. Any information then about box or grill cover colors? 





Tom 






From: "Kent Sullivan" < kentsu at corvairkid.com > 
To: 66vairman at comcast.net 
Cc: "Mark Corbin" < airvair at earthlink.net >, scg-list at tiger.skiblack.com 
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:55:35 PM 
Subject: RE: Photo of similar convertible rear speaker boxes 





Tom (and others), 



I just measured the repro speaker boxes that I have had in my ’66 convertible for many years. The depth at the base is 4”. Perhaps that measurement will help you / Mark @ Clark’s to make sure the repro parts have the correct numbers. 



Because it has been so long, I do not believe I have my original notes any longer telling me what the specific sources were for the research that led to the flyer that Clark’s provides. All I can say is that I was 100% sure of its correctness at the time of publication and that I believe Mark Corbin reviewed it. I seem to recall that one or more CORSA members lent me original speaker boxes for patterns that Clark’s then made. 



--Kent 




From: 66vairman at comcast.net [ mailto:66vairman at comcast.net ] 
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 7:59 AM 
To: Kent Sullivan 
Cc: Mark Corbin; scg-list at tiger.skiblack.com ; Calvin Clark Jr 
Subject: Re: Photo of similar convertible rear speaker boxes 





Kent: 





Wow! I did not know there was a third style for the 67-9 model years. I know the 1967 model year did start with optional two speakers in the rear so I am unsure if the single rear speaker option was still available starting in 1967. Knowing GM to "slim down" between years (seat back of 1966 to 1967 for example), I still cannot believe the 1965 box to be thinner than the 1966 and then go back to the thinner one in 1967. Common thinking for GM here would be to have the larger box for 1965, skim down then to the thinner ones then for 1966 & 1967. Did your research include photos or original owner information for these different style/size convertible boxes? 





Tom 






From: "Kent Sullivan" < kentsu at corvairkid.com > 
To: 66vairman at comcast.net 
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:58:00 PM 
Subject: RE: Photo of similar convertible rear speaker boxes 





Hi Tom, 



Thanks. I found my original document that I sent to Clark’s with the research. That document lists a different part number for the ’66 vs. ’67-9 convertible speaker box. C10638 is the ’66 number while C7295 is the one for ’67-9, with C10082 being the ’65 number. This implies to me that there were three box designs. 



--Kent 




From: 66vairman at comcast.net [ mailto:66vairman at comcast.net ] 
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:08 AM 
To: Kent Sullivan 
Subject: Photo of similar convertible rear speaker boxes 





Kent: 





Here is the photo. On the left is Clark's catalog advertised 1966 convertible rear speaker box (Part#C10638) and on the right is a speaker box I purchased off ebay which was described as a "late model" Corvair convertible box. Cal Clark is now stating that the one on the right (the slimmer box) looks identical to his catalog advertised 1965 convertible rear speaker box (Part#C10082). Again, Mark Corbin said the one on the right, the slimmer box, is identical to the one in his 1967 Corvair. I did not get any email responses from 1965 or 1966 convertible owners who may have this original option to clarify the correct box. Hope you can assist me in this endeavor. And, thanks for the update about Steve Goodman. I am looking forward to his response as well. 





Tom 









More information about the SCG-list mailing list