CRG Discussion Forum

Camaro Research Group Discussion => Research Topics & Reports => Topic started by: bcmiller on January 09, 2013, 03:48:08 AM

Title: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on January 09, 2013, 03:48:08 AM
It appears that 12 bolt rear axles with casting number 3969341 started showing up in 69 Camaros sometime around early August of 1969.  Prior to this, only the 3894860 casting number was used.  

What I am looking for are dates (casting date of housing and assembly date stamp - with letter codes - on the axle tube) for early 3969341 axles and late 3894860 axles.  If you know it is original to the car, you can post the body assembly date from the cowl tag too.

Please let me know what you have.  Post pics if possible.  There was probably somewhat of an overlap, but not sure how much.    

Thanks in advance!

Bryon

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: x77-69z28 on January 12, 2013, 07:30:37 AM
Where are the casting numbers?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bertfam on January 12, 2013, 05:08:22 PM
Here you go.

Ed

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on January 12, 2013, 11:33:47 PM
09A Dusk Blue Z28 124379N680789
12-bolt 3:73 Posi:
assembly stamp C BU 0828
                           E
Casting # 3969341
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: KurtS on January 14, 2013, 02:06:11 AM
I parted out 9N677954  CBS0805G  341, cast G259. I only know of 2 341's before that one. There have to be more.....

Not a lot of axle casting data on these late cars in the db.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on January 14, 2013, 05:22:18 AM
My 09C Z28/RS has the 3969341 rear, stamped BU0828

Gary
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: x77-69z28 on January 14, 2013, 07:09:30 AM
Here you go.

Ed
Oh. Thought he was talking about the axles themselves! Duh!!!

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69glacierblue on January 19, 2013, 04:11:27 AM
Maybe a little earlier than you want, but here goes:
06A
9N665238
BM0625G
Cast 860

Dennis
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 09, 2013, 06:33:47 AM
Keep the information flowing guys. Thanks for the replies so far!
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: restore-z28 on February 10, 2013, 08:20:45 PM
Build date 08E (Z28)
Casting number 3969341
Assembly stamp CBU 0828 G2
Casting date H139
                           
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 12, 2013, 11:19:45 PM
My 09C Z28/RS has the 3969341 rear, stamped BU0828

Gary

Gary, is it stamped BU or CBU?  The one Kurt posted had a casting date earlier than yours and it used the 3 letter code. 

I am just trying to see if maybe the casting date change corresponded with the change from 2 letter codes to 3 letter codes.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 12, 2013, 11:20:42 PM
Build date 08E (Z28)
Casting number 3969341
Assembly stamp CBU 0828 G2
Casting date H139

Thanks! 
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on February 13, 2013, 04:48:37 AM
My 09C Z28/RS has the 3969341 rear, stamped BU0828

Gary

Gary, is it stamped BU or CBU?  The one Kurt posted had a casting date earlier than yours and it used the 3 letter code.  

I am just trying to see if maybe the casting date change corresponded with the change from 2 letter codes to 3 letter codes.

only 'BU'...  2 letter code..   (see photo attached)
and actually I see that I posted the incorrect date...   BU0829G1 ....
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: KurtS on February 15, 2013, 06:06:05 AM
That looks like a C to the left of the BU. Pretty hard to see...
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on February 15, 2013, 01:46:37 PM
..  then you have better eyes or a better imagination than I, Kurt..  :)
Do you have a photo of a CBU stamp?  I don't think I've ever seen one, so maybe it's not like I was expecting..?
or maybe Bryon can post a pix of his as he has a C BU code??
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: Steve Shauger on February 16, 2013, 12:35:25 AM
Gary my car is a 9A and is coded C  BU date is 82X I believe either a 6 or 8. I think the exhaust system had rubbed against the tube and now the last digit is hard to identify.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: mickeystoys69RSSS on February 16, 2013, 03:47:36 PM
No help in answering your question because my 69 is an early build 11C '68.

K 88 dated 860 casting with BI1115G1 assembly.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: restore-z28 on February 17, 2013, 04:29:50 PM
Do you have a photo of a CBU stamp?  I don't think I've ever seen one, so maybe it's not like I was expecting..?
or maybe Bryon can post a pix of his as he has a C BU code??

Here you go Gary....


Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on February 17, 2013, 07:50:47 PM
Thanks for the photo Sonny.  It's interesting to see how much separation there is in the 'C' and the 'BU'.   Does anyone have any idea why the separation?  stamped separately?  or ??  if so, maybe the 'C' is carrying some other piece of information we aren't aware of?
and seeing the separation, perhaps Kurt was correct, and there 'was' a 'C' before my BU code, but if so, it was apparetly hit by a highway rock, or debris, and became obscured to the point it is no longer clear.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: KurtS on February 19, 2013, 04:36:22 PM
I think the axle stamp didn't have a place for the extra C character. Not sure how they handled it, but the letters are spaced like that.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 20, 2013, 03:00:30 AM
I agree with Kurt, I think it is C BU.

I am starting to think more that the 3 letter code started when the casting number changed to 3969341.  But more data points are needed.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on February 20, 2013, 02:11:23 PM
I went back to the CRG data on differentials, and it says the 3 letter code began wtih the '70 model year, and the 'C' represented 'cars' (I supposed as opposed to truck differentials?)..  Given that, it makes sense that at the time they would have normally began building the new model year (late July or August or so?), they would have began using the new parts; as they did for a number of different items on our late '69 cars; several items are labeled as, or carry characteristics of the '70 model year, rather than the '69 model year.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 21, 2013, 07:15:32 PM
The space between the C and the other two letters of the code is there for most (I am not quite sure I can say all) cases that I have seen for late 69 Model year and early 1970 model year Camaros.  It is not always there for Chevelles. 

Attached is a 1970 C OZ code that shows similar spacing.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on March 27, 2013, 05:20:28 PM
The attached image is from an Impala.  Casting number is 3969341 with casting date I 5 9.  Just for additional reference.  It has the C before the FW.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on September 23, 2013, 07:06:28 PM
Saw this one yesterday but did not get a picture.  Was in a 70 Camaro at one time so perches had been moved.  Was either in a 70 Nova or 69 Camaro originally from what I could tell.
Casting number  3894860
Casting date      F 24 9
Stamped code   C BM 0807G1

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: HawkX66 on January 30, 2014, 12:14:48 AM
I wish I had better pics for you, but my rear end isn't there yet...

Casting Number 3969341
Casting Date H 11 9
Stamped Code C BS 0820G2

(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q573/SgtHawkUSMC/69%20Camaro%20SS396%20L34/69%20Rear%20End%20BS/20130823_075200.jpg) (http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/SgtHawkUSMC/media/69%20Camaro%20SS396%20L34/69%20Rear%20End%20BS/20130823_075200.jpg.html)

(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q573/SgtHawkUSMC/69%20Camaro%20SS396%20L34/69%20Rear%20End%20BS/20140129_183358.jpg) (http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/SgtHawkUSMC/media/69%20Camaro%20SS396%20L34/69%20Rear%20End%20BS/20140129_183358.jpg.html)

(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q573/SgtHawkUSMC/69%20Camaro%20SS396%20L34/69%20Rear%20End%20BS/20140129_184441.jpg) (http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/SgtHawkUSMC/media/69%20Camaro%20SS396%20L34/69%20Rear%20End%20BS/20140129_184441.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on January 30, 2014, 02:57:26 AM
Thanks for posting the pics!
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on January 30, 2014, 07:59:13 AM
sorry just noticed this thread
Here is a pic of mine from a 08C ( August of 69) car.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: HawkX66 on January 30, 2014, 04:57:15 PM
sorry just noticed this thread
Here is a pic of mine from a 08C ( August of 69) car.
That's interesting. Five days between your rear end and mine and yours isn't a "C" rear end. Gary's is 9 days after mine and it isn't a "C" rear end either.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on January 30, 2014, 05:14:09 PM
Nope..   Gary's IS a C rear end..  although the C is partially obscured by an 'impact' wtih a rock or something in the past..?
(Bryan and Kurt finally convinced me there was a 'C' out there in front of the BU..)

see image here..     http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10375.0;attach=10540;image
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: HawkX66 on January 30, 2014, 08:11:07 PM
Nope..   Gary's IS a C rear end..  although the C is partially obscured by an 'impact' wtih a rock or something in the past..?
(Bryan and Kurt finally convinced me there was a 'C' out there in front of the BU..)

see image here..     http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10375.0;attach=10540;image
Gotcha. I think I can barely see it now. That makes sense.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on May 08, 2014, 03:50:59 AM
sorry just noticed this thread
Here is a pic of mine from a 08C ( August of 69) car.

Do you have the casting number and casting date from this rear?  Maybe I missed it in an earlier post?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on May 08, 2014, 06:00:07 AM
I am going to have look through my archive of pics, since I am not near the car right now.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on May 14, 2014, 06:57:04 PM
OK, please post up that data when you have a chance.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: wisemanz28 on June 18, 2014, 01:29:23 AM
I have a 860 C.B.U. rear end, casting is  September 6th of 1969 and axle stamped 9 16. I will try to post pics of the C.B.U. axle stamp tomorrow.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: wisemanz28 on June 18, 2014, 11:41:47 PM
I was incorrect , my rear end is not a 860 casting it is a 341 casting with a CBU 9 16 tube date and a J 6 casting. I took pics but not sure how to post on this site. My TT has a 9 A date ( 1st week of September) so my rear end is a little late for my car. I see some fellow members on this post have good dates that would be correct for my car. I'm assuming the rear ends are under there cars but if not are any of you guys interested in selling or trading your rear end ? 
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 27, 2014, 01:02:08 PM
Kurt would be able to answer better, but your axle stamped CBU0916 may be OK for your car.  

You can send pics to my email and I will post them if you want. Click on my username to get my contact info.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on June 27, 2014, 01:43:21 PM
Ok Gary got me back under my car and I got the rest of the info. I have the 3969341 rear end, dated (I think ) G 25. So far it looks like the only one with 341 casting but still has just the 2 letter format.
There are a couple of other 08C guys on here ( Sonny, vellu, Jims69, and nick -Daytona Yellow 69 Z)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on June 27, 2014, 01:46:50 PM
I just went through my correspondence with Jim, and his vin is a couple of hundred after mine and his rear end is the 3 letter format. Hopefully he will chime in with his info. So mine may be one of the last of the 2 letter format, and Jims may be one of the first for the 3 letter format.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on June 27, 2014, 02:03:22 PM
Bullitt's 0815, without the C (but with the 341 rear), and Sarge's WITH the C, stamped 0820..  pretty well brackets the change to use of the 'C' (1970 format) to between the dates of 15 August and 20August 1969.   Bullitt's diff is the later casting number, but without the 'C', so that seems to imply that the two changes (C) and 341 casting, did not occurr simultaneously...

The rear end casting, and use of the 'C' in front of the diff app stamp are two more items to add to our list of intended 1970 changes that were applied to 'late 1969 extended production of Camaros and Corvettes.   I think it would be a good research report to itemize all the things that 'changed', as well as best known dates of change, for late production, and would be useful in the generation of an 'ultimate' Restoration and judging reference manual for Camaros.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on June 27, 2014, 02:10:08 PM
Actually Jims69 will bracket it better, his car is about 197 after mine and his has the C. I sent him a message hopefully he can post the casting and date on his.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on June 27, 2014, 02:49:52 PM
Actually Jims69 will bracket it better, his car is about 197 after mine and his has the C. I sent him a message hopefully he can post the casting and date on his.

Wow..   197 cars is like a few hours, unless it's the end of one day/beginning of the next day production, OR with it being a new thing (stamping the C) in the differential plant, perhaps they just weren't consistent yet..?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 27, 2014, 04:24:23 PM
We are getting closer on this.  When you post, make sure you include not only the casting number and casting date, but the COMPLETE data on the assembly stamp. That includes 2 or 3 letter code, date code, assembly plant and shift.  

And having pics to back up the data would be great.

Will get something written up when things are closer to final.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on June 27, 2014, 05:29:05 PM
You saw my earlier post with the pic of the stamp right?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 27, 2014, 05:45:08 PM
Yes, I see it now.  

sorry just noticed this thread Here is a pic of mine from a 08C ( August of 69) car.

You also said
Quote
I have the 3969341 rear end, dated (I think ) G 25.

Can you post a picture of the casting date please?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 27, 2014, 05:51:56 PM
I am going to try to summarize what we have so far and put into one post.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on June 27, 2014, 06:04:16 PM
Sorry, my rear end is in the car. I tried to get off some undercoating and wire brush it, and while I can "see" it I can't get the camera at the right angle to capture it. I can try again in a few days when I am by the car again.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 27, 2014, 09:35:31 PM
OK, I went through what we have so far and tried to put them in order.  It is more difficult to put the data together if everything is not in one post.  Let me know if you see errors.

Looks like we have at least a few days of overlap of the housings used in early August at the axle assembly plants. Not surprising.

06A - 9N665238
BM 0625G
860

9N677954  
C BS 0805G  
341, cast G 25 9

Build week and/or VIN ?
C BM 0807G1
860, cast F 24 9

Build week and/or VIN ?
C BS 0820G2
341, cast H 11 9

08E  
C BU 0828 G2
341, cast H 13 9

09A - 9N680789
C BU 0828    
341

09A
C  BU date is 82X
xxx

09C
CB U 0829G1
341

Build week and/or VIN ?
C BU 0916
341, cast J 6 9
                        
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on June 27, 2014, 09:40:34 PM


Looks like we have some overlap in early August.

06A - 9N665238
BM 0625G
860

08C N672394
BU 0815G2
341, cast G 25 9


9N677954 
C BS 0805G 
341, cast G 25 9

Build week and/or VIN ?
C BM 0807G1
860, cast F 24 9



Build week and/or VIN ?
C BS 0820G2
341, cast H 11 9

08E 
C BU 0828 G2
341, cast H 13 9

09A - 9N680789
C BU 0828     
341

09C
CB U 0829G1
341

Build week and/or VIN ?
C BU 0916
341, cast J 6 9
                         
(I added my partial vin, and moved myself in the order)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 27, 2014, 09:50:25 PM
That's fine. I am trying to look at the data right now by assembly date stamp.

And I can go back to modify my posts.   :)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on June 27, 2014, 09:55:44 PM
well that F24 860 must have been on the back of the rack when the 341's came in....?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 27, 2014, 10:01:39 PM
In my humble opinion, that would not be unusual.  There is almost always some overlap.

For example, on the weekend I saw Muncie M20 assembled in August of 1969, with a 1970 VIN on it (I think for a Buick).  It had the 660 case but with both a drain and a fill plug - and used the 1970 style plugs. 
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on June 27, 2014, 10:04:31 PM
well I guess there is always some exception to the rule.. :D
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on June 28, 2014, 02:37:25 AM
In my humble opinion, that would not be unusual.  There is almost always some overlap.

For example, on the weekend I saw Muncie M20 assembled in August of 1969, with a 1970 VIN on it (I think for a Buick).  It had the 660 case but with both a drain and a fill plug - and used the 1970 style plugs. 

How is that unusual Bryon?   An August '69 Muncie trans for a Buick would be going into a '70 model Buick wouldn't it?   Typically model changeover during those days was July for the transition, and by late July and August they are building for the new model year..
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 28, 2014, 04:22:16 AM
Gary, on the transmission, Yes, an August of 69 assembly sure could go into an early 70 Buick. No issue there.

There is some overlap on the 3925660 and 3925661 cases early in the 1970 model year (and in the extended 1969 Camaro production).  

The anomaly is that from what I have seen, any 3925660 cases used early in the 1970 model year with both a fill and drain plug were M22s.  The one I saw was definitely an M20 and it appeared to be all original, with both an original fill plug and an original drain plug.  

All 3925661 cases that I have seen had a fill plug and a drain plug.  
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 28, 2014, 04:25:10 AM
sorry just noticed this thread.  Here is a pic of mine from a 08C ( August of 69) car.

This stamping looks anomalous.  I have consulted with others, so it is not just my opinion.  Sorry.

It also does not appear to fit well in the 2 letter / 3 letter code data.  I am going to modify my list of summarized data in the previous post above.  

Any late July or early August axle assembly data (plus casting number and casting date) will be greatly appreciated.  Post pics if possible.
 
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: KurtS on July 06, 2014, 05:07:23 AM
Austin,
The axle stamp does not appear to be like other typical stamps that we have seen due to spacing. I know a lot of the history of your car is known, but it is not a typical stamp.
To help reduce possible distortion of the data, it will not be included with the other data gathered until other stamp photos corroborate it as a production anomaly.
Thanks!
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on July 06, 2014, 11:34:37 AM
Kurt,

Thanks for putting those threads back in and for *improving* some of the wording... :) 
.. maybe you can give Bullitt an opportunity to 'reword' some of his original post(s) - eliminate use of the word 'ethics' from the title and text and perhaps improve some of HIS OWN wording - now that he's had a week to think about things...?   :)

(I'll be away this week for the CNA convention, but I wanted to Thank You first for trying to cool down some of the heat, and to Thank Ed Bertrand publicly for all his contributions and help in the past..... :)

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 6667ss138 on July 07, 2014, 01:04:29 AM
Hope this helps.
Here is my 07A X77 rear stamping and casting date photos. With the Norwood factory shutting down July 11th and not starting up again until August 11th I think my car would have been one of the last Z's built before the shutdown. My NCRS production date was July 10th.

VIN 9N6687XX
BU 0630 G2
E 26 9 casting date
#860NF
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on July 07, 2014, 02:42:27 AM
Interesting. So the cars that are 7A or 8A were they the cars that they assembled out of the rest of the parts that were on hand, until production started back up?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 6667ss138 on July 07, 2014, 02:53:39 AM
I think so because I have a LOT of original May dated parts still on my car. I figure they were winding down and using up everything laying around knowing the shut down was coming. Trying to get rid of parts inventory.
According to William there were no cars manufactured at Norwood after July 11th until August 11th.
I will also ad that it would be surprising if they used up "everything" before the shut down so therefore I would assume that there were still parts around to be used up on the early August cars when production resumed on August 11th but that is only a guess.

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=12251.0
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on July 07, 2014, 01:15:33 PM
6667ss138 -

Thanks for posting the information from your car.  I appreciate it.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 6667ss138 on July 07, 2014, 05:25:13 PM
6667ss138 -

Thanks for posting the information from your car.  I appreciate it.
Thank you Bryon!
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: cook_dw on July 20, 2014, 04:42:57 PM
Found this on craigslist.

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on July 21, 2014, 04:09:50 AM
Thanks Darrell.

Looks like

Build week and/or VIN ?
C BS 1028
341, cast J 3 9 or J 8 9
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: flyingskibiker on August 10, 2014, 02:34:56 AM
3894860NF
A239
BU 0128 E

It is in my '68.  So, no '69 build date or VIN...

(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h140/hmbrew4u/Camaro%20Odd%20Balls/RearAxleAssemblyCode2sm.jpg) (http://s63.photobucket.com/user/hmbrew4u/media/Camaro%20Odd%20Balls/RearAxleAssemblyCode2sm.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on August 10, 2014, 02:51:18 AM
Looks like 0128 is the date.  You had 0218, so I modified your post so it matches the picture.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: KurtS on February 25, 2015, 01:06:16 AM
Here's an early 341.
08C CBL0806G1  I don't know the casting date.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on February 25, 2015, 01:39:22 AM
Was the axel code " C BL" the last thing to get stamped ?

It looks like most rear ends the date is gang stamped, but the letters hand stamped?

Also, Kurt do you know the vin of that car?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 25, 2015, 03:43:54 AM
Thanks Kurt!  Here is another one.  

341 casting number
CBS 0829G1
Casting date H 17 9

Can't verify it is a Camaro axle.  Might be from a 70 Nova.  It was found under a pickup truck. 
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: rszmjt on February 25, 2015, 05:38:24 AM
08E Z28, "341" cast number , BU0828G2
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on February 25, 2015, 06:52:27 AM
Just to clarify-
That looks like C BU 0828G2
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 25, 2015, 02:20:42 PM
Here is what we have so far - arranged by axle date..  We need more data points for axle assembly dates between late June and early August. 

06A - 9N665238
BM 0625G
860, casting date unknown

07A - 9N6687XX
BU 0630G2
860, casting date E 26 9

08E  9N677163
C BL 0812G2
341

08E  9N677954
C BS 0805G 
341, casting date G 25 9

08C
C BL 0806G1 
341, casting date G 23 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BM 0807G1
860, casting date F 24 9

08E  9N677163
C BL 0812G2
341

08D  9N6745xx
C BU 0818G2
unknown casting number or date

08D
C BS 0820G2
341, casting date H 11 9

08E 
C BU 0828G2
341, casting date H 13 9

08E
C BU 0828G2
341, unknown casting date

09A - 9N680789
C BU 0828   
341, casting date unknown

09A
C BU 0826 or 0828
unknown casting number or date

09C
C BU 0829G1
341, casting date G 31 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 0829G1
341, casting date H 17 9

09C   9N685397
C BU 0910G1
341, casting date I 2 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BU 0916
341, casting date I 6 9 (changed to I 6 9 - could not be J 6 9, J is October)

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 1028G1
341, casting date J 3 9
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on February 25, 2015, 02:43:45 PM
Bryon,

After noticing that I failed to provide you my cast date, I checked some photos of my differential made when I was cleaning it, and found one with the cast date..  G 31 9

Please update the following entry in your data...

09C
CB U 0829G1
341, unknown casting date  G 31 9
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 25, 2015, 02:51:32 PM
Got it.  Thanks Gary!
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on February 26, 2015, 08:25:33 AM
Austin,
The axle stamp does not appear to be like other typical stamps that we have seen due to spacing. I know a lot of the history of your car is known, but it is not a typical stamp.
To help reduce possible distortion of the data, it will not be included with the other data gathered until other stamp photos corroborate it as a production anomaly.
Thanks!
Kurt another piece of info that you may want keep as a side note is John Berry's 08A car has a correctly dated rear end with the original axel tubes, but does not have any stamp present. I know originally it was thought that it was a replacement that happen to fit date wise, but maybe the time frame of early August of 69 there was something weird going on with the rear end stamping process? It would be nice to find more cars between his and mine that have there original rear end stamp. :)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 26, 2015, 03:23:16 PM
There are a few known replacement axles out there.  Nothing unusual happened with the stamping process around that time as far as we know.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on February 26, 2015, 03:35:29 PM
I am sure replacements are out there. I just thought it was interesting that if it was a replacement, that it still had a good date for his car, I believe.

Also there was a couple of breaks in production around that time frame of late July beginning of August, and I think there are some mysteries from the factory that may never be solved.

 I'm just putting it out there as a side note, and hope to see more cars found within that time frame is all.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 26, 2015, 04:02:28 PM
There was probably a higher than normal need for replacement axles around this time based on the track and street racing that was taking place. COPOs, L78s, etc.  And the Novas used the same axle, so that added to the need as well.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on February 26, 2015, 04:19:29 PM
There was probably a higher than normal need for replacement axles around this time based on the track and street racing that was taking place. COPOs, L78s, etc.  And the Novas used the same axle, so that added to the need as well. 

A couple of possible answers to the question that Bullitt raised about 'no stamping' on the axle...  besides oversight.. is this:
1) Did replacement differentials (bought OTC) have the same date stampings?  (I'm guessing they probably did if they were complete rears)..
2) BUT... a replacement housing (no gears/axles/etc) would probably NOT be stamped, since it was sold without gears, etc.  I suspect this was what happened to the car that Bullitt questioned...

Note:  With the '70 models changing axle length, isn't it 'likely' that GM parts depots would stock spares for the '67/8/9 differentials??   and the cast dates on those 'spare parts' would more than likely occur near the end of the production year.. and August '69 would qualify for such a period?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 26, 2015, 06:08:04 PM
Gary, I believe into the 1971 model year, the Nova 12 bolts used the same dimensions as the 67-69 Camaro.

I will stick with the thinking in my previous post, at least for now.   :)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on February 26, 2015, 08:00:58 PM
Byron,

I think we're saying the same thing, that the 'unstamped' differential was likely an over the counter replacement axle housing...  at least that was what I was trying to suggest, and I *think* you were saying...  :)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 27, 2015, 01:36:13 AM
Gary, it is my understanding that a replacement empty housing would not be stamped.  So yes, I think we are saying the same thing.

I don't think they would stockpile extra housings though, since the same housing was used for Novas up into the 1971 model year. 

JohnZ or someone else would probably be able to answer better, but I believe that "in general" - service parts were produced based on demand. 
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: rszmjt on February 27, 2015, 01:43:44 AM
I have seen 2 - Z28,s now with what I think are replacement hsgs under warranty. Both were "341 housings. 1 was a 02B Van Nuys car and the other a 11A Norwood Z. Both axle housing were cast date D-9?-1 ( might have been D-7-1), and neither car had any numbers on the tube.
 The 02B car had Dec/68 dated 373 gears and posi as well as original GM brake shoes and backing plates/axles etc. Housing appeared to be bare steel, looked newer than other components but the brakes backing plates/diff cover were black and appeared older.
 If cars ripped the spring perches off ( they wheel hopped without traction bars) while under the 5 yr warranty period, did GM just change the housing and reinstall the other diff parts?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: KurtS on March 01, 2015, 06:06:41 PM
I added the cast date to the 0806 axle and added an 0818 axle too.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on March 01, 2015, 06:57:23 PM
Ft
There was probably a higher than normal need for replacement axles around this time based on the track and street racing that was taking place. Coops, L78s, etc.  And the Novas used the same axle, so that added to the need as well. 

A couple of possible answers to the question that Bullitt raised about 'no stamping' on the axle...  besides oversight.. is this:
1) Did replacement differentials (bought OTC) have the same date stampings?  (I'm guessing they probably did if they were complete rears)..
2) BUT... a replacement housing (no gears/axles/etc) would probably NOT be stamped, since it was sold without gears, etc.  I suspect this was what happened to the car that Bullitt questioned...

Note:  With the '70 models changing axle length, isn't it 'likely' that GM parts depots would stock spares for the '67/8/9 differentials??   and the cast dates on those 'spare parts' would more than likely occur near the end of the production year.. and August '69 would qualify for such a period?

Question: wouldn't they still have a date stamp, but not the two letter code for ratio? Also if the rear end already had a casting date, why would there be a need to stamp the date of assembly( quality  control?) Further  why  does it appear that the two letter axel code looks stamped separately from the date, and looks to be hand stamped, along with the "E" below?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on March 01, 2015, 08:16:29 PM
I am going to give my opinion but JohnZ or someone else may be able to answer better.

A complete rear axle for service/warranty would have an assembly stamp with ratio code.  These would not be common, in fact they would probably be pretty RARE. 

In most cases, only the bad parts would be replaced.  For example, see the post made by rszmjt above.  It appears that just the housing was replaced and other parts were reused.
A bare housing for service/warranty - would not have received an assembly stamp at the axle plant since it was not "an assembly".

Austin, I don't have an answer to every question and it is probably not in our best interest to answer every question anyway.  Those searching for information on how to restamp parts can see the same posts that we can.  That is why certain details about how or why tags / or drivetrain stamps were made or specific details will not be discussed.  Sorry, but that is the way it is. 
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on March 01, 2015, 08:17:07 PM
I added the cast date to the 0806 axle and added an 0818 axle too.

Thanks Kurt!
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on March 01, 2015, 09:18:38 PM
I understand, just trying to piece it all together like everyone else on here. Some things are easy to extrapolate, others are still puzzling.
Also in looking at the pic you posted from reply #69 on this thread, it looks like the "C" was double stamped (look to the left), and possibly some other numbers as well?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on March 01, 2015, 09:30:38 PM
Yes, it appears that at least part of that axle assembly information was stamped at least twice on that particular housing.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on March 30, 2015, 07:07:50 PM
Well just saw another 08A car ( N667270) at a show, it also had the 341 rear, and curiously enough no stamp on the axle tube. Could be just coincidence
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on March 30, 2015, 07:58:32 PM
Well just saw another 08A car ( N667270) at a show, it also had the 341 rear, and curiously enough no stamp on the axle tube. Could be just coincidence

Are you sure?  I think that VIN should have an 07A tag.  And should be a 3894860 casting on the axle.  Did you see the casting date on the center of the housing?

Was it a Z?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on March 30, 2015, 08:04:26 PM
sorry my mistake, it was a 860. It was a 08A on the tag could have been a repo tag I suppose? It was presented as a Z/28. I could not see the casting date on the housing, ( It was at a car show, not on jack stands or a rack). He let one of us go underneath with a small light and see the stamping on the axle tube, but there wasn't any it was smooth. I went under just to identify which housing, (860).
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on March 30, 2015, 08:08:38 PM
It was a 08A on the tag could have been a repo tag I suppose?

Kurt would be able to answer that question better. 

But I think other VINs close to that are 07A.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on March 31, 2015, 03:41:29 AM
It was a 08A on the tag could have been a repo tag I suppose?

Kurt would be able to answer that question better.  

But I think other VINs close to that are 07A.

That VIN is 3260 or so into July's production total of 5111, but that is a 'funny month', in that only about 1/3 as many Camaros as a normal month are shown as being produced that month.  I have wondered if production stopped around 11 July for some reason and not resumed until around 11 August??
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: KurtS on April 02, 2015, 03:01:44 PM
July had/has a 2-week shutdown, used for retooling the line for the next model year.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on April 02, 2015, 03:29:36 PM
July had/has a 2-week shutdown, used for retooling the line for the next model year.

For a normal year yes, but ... for '69 they continued current production for 5 more months.   Was the shutdown related to a union contract (ie. the workers expect the 2 weeks off in July?) or Was the extended production 'in doubt' at that time in July??  or ??   

August also had reduced production.. as if they were still shut down for half of that month...  Any idea on the reason for that?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: cook_dw on April 02, 2015, 04:38:29 PM
Not sure how accurate this is but this is what I have been told over the years.  GM always shutdowns during the July time frame (and still do).  Since there were other cars that were built at NOR & LOS along with the stamping dies discovered being incorrect for the 70 model they had to back pedal due to the led time to have another die made causing the lengthening of the 69 production life..  Im sure this caused suppliers to have to build back up enough units to cover the extended run which in turned caused a slowing of production during August.

Hopefully someone can confirm whether or not this is the truth.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on April 02, 2015, 05:38:25 PM
That's been sorta my thought a well Darrel, but I've never read/heard an official GM explanation..  it certainly makes sense to me.   30June has typically been the 'end of a model year'..  with July timeframe being the changeover (the actual changeover time depends on how much of a tooling change is required).
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on May 10, 2015, 09:11:51 PM
I am curious, of those that have the "C" stamping on there rear end, does anybody have the protecto plate showing the "C" as well?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on May 11, 2015, 03:46:02 AM
That's a great question, Austin...  but I assume you mean a protecto plate for a 'late' '69 model Camaro, rather than for a '70 model, but the question really would apply for 70 models also?    The displacement of the 'C' from the rest of the stamped code still bothers me... Did the '70 models have the 'CAAnnnnGz stamp all together?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: rspallina on May 12, 2015, 12:54:40 AM
Axle information for VIN 124379N685397:

09C
C BU 0910G1
341, cast date I 2 9
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on May 12, 2015, 01:25:29 AM
Thanks Rob!  I will add to the summary list above.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on May 12, 2015, 03:22:55 AM
That's a great question, Austin...  but I assume you mean a protecto plate for a 'late' '69 model Camaro, rather than for a '70 model, but the question really would apply for 70 models also?    The displacement of the 'C' from the rest of the stamped code still bothers me... Did the '70 models have the 'CAAnnnnGz stamp all together?

rspallina's rear end data, along with the protecto plate has answered the question if the C would show up on a 1969 Protecto plate!~  It doesn't..  yet his late rear end has the 'C'....
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: rspallina on May 15, 2015, 10:09:19 PM
REVISED Axle information for VIN 124379N685397 that now includes casting date:

09C
C BU 0910G1
341, I29
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on May 16, 2015, 02:12:05 AM
Thanks Rob!
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: rspallina on May 16, 2015, 02:36:41 AM
No problem Bryon - any idea why this date was on opposite side of the 860 casting location where the foundry stamp would be. And as a follow-up to my thread, where is the 341 casting number?  We can't find it in the spot where they are on the 860s.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on May 16, 2015, 02:50:06 AM
Rob, if the axle is installed in the car - the casting date is normally in the vertical "webbing" area on the top left or top right of the center section.  You will see it looking from the back of the car forward.  May not been in exactly the same place on every axle.

Casting number is normally on the front part of the lower "webbing" on the drivers side.  See this pic.

Edit:  To clarify wording and add back photo.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: rspallina on May 16, 2015, 03:02:46 AM
Bryon - the casting date was opposite side on passenger side where pics show foundry to be. But those pics reference an 860 casting and not 341. Darell and I did an extensive search and never found the casting number in the place it should be. Is it possible it wore off...jerry has it in the report. Thinking with these 341s that they, like the cast date, may be opposite side or different spot altogether.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: rspallina on May 16, 2015, 03:13:53 AM
Found a Google image of location and just found it 3969341NF...driver side of lower pumpkin facing forward. Maybe you have a new note...casting number location and casting date on 341s not in same location as 860s?  At least based on my location and the pics on this site of the 860s
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: lynnbilodeau on June 10, 2015, 03:49:37 AM
Because of the circumstances, this probably doesn't help you much.
3
41 Cast F 28 9

No assembly code, and never had one.

My car is an 08A car, 671122.  I do not believe the axle is original to the car for several reasons.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 11, 2015, 03:45:17 PM
Thanks Lynn.  Yes I do remember talking about your housing, which is probably a service replacement. 

Actually the casting date for the 341 housing does help.  The latest 860 housing we have so far has a casting date of F 24 9 (which has a 3 letter ratio code) and your 341 housing is only 4 days later than that.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 11, 2015, 05:28:57 PM
I am curious, of those that have the "C" stamping on there rear end, does anybody have the protecto plate showing the "C" as well?

I don't think you will find that on any POPs.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 12, 2015, 05:19:12 AM
And for what it is worth, I have a pic of a 1970 Chevelle POP.  Axle assembly date is September and the engine assembly date is November.  The engine code and the axle code on the POP are both 2 letter codes. 
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: lynnbilodeau on July 01, 2015, 10:08:14 PM
Austin,
The axle stamp does not appear to be like other typical stamps that we have seen due to spacing. I know a lot of the history of your car is known, but it is not a typical stamp.
To help reduce possible distortion of the data, it will not be included with the other data gathered until other stamp photos corroborate it as a production anomaly.
Thanks!
Kurt another piece of info that you may want keep as a side note is John Berry's 08A car has a correctly dated rear end with the original axel tubes, but does not have any stamp present. I know originally it was thought that it was a replacement that happen to fit date wise, but maybe the time frame of early August of 69 there was something weird going on with the rear end stamping process? It would be nice to find more cars between his and mine that have there original rear end stamp. :)

I did not know this about John Berry's  Z.  It is same week (08A) and only 86 numbers after my car.   I know of several similarities, and talked with John back in the 90's when he still owned the car.  I am curious how certain it is that the rear is original.  Seems strange that are cars are that close and NEITHER of them has the assembly stamp.   I have always just assumed mine was replaced.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on July 02, 2015, 02:52:48 AM
Lynn, have you checked both axle tubes to see if the stamp might be somewhere other than the typical location? 
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: lynnbilodeau on July 03, 2015, 02:53:15 PM
I have been all over it.   Even put a micrometer on it to make sure it hadn't been filed off and then sanded down smooth.
Other than not having a stamp, here is why I always believed it to be a service replacement housing.
The original round pinion snubber has a chunk missing.  When I pulled the gas tank, and found the date code, it was dated Jan of 1970.
So, I always assumed there was a catastrophic failure that took a chunk from the snubber and knocked a hole in the tank.

I don't believe the car has ever been out of Oklahoma.   Shipper report confirms it was sold here, but no one has figured out which dealer.  Normally, an Oklahoma car can be traced back to day 1.   But, as luck would have it, mine is one of the few that cannot be traced back.  The Tax Commission (the agency which handles titles in OK,... think of the DMV in most states) lost large portions of information when they changed computer systems in the late 70's.   They don't even have a record of my original purchase in 1976, nor my brother's in 1975.

Attached a clearer shot of the date, as well as a shot of the axle tube.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on July 03, 2015, 04:48:53 PM
Your idea of catastrophic failure makes the most sense to me based on the things you mentioned.

Definitely would like to have more data from the June to September 1969 timeframe.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on July 03, 2015, 06:18:26 PM
Your tank is actually spot on. Our cars were produced right when a switch to the 70 model would have occurred. Hence your gas tank dated 1 70. (Mine is dated 2 70). If you go to the gas tank thread you will see you actually have the original correctly dated tank in your car.
Unless you have other evidence, I doubt there was a catastrophic accident....Maybe there was no accident at all.. ;)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on July 03, 2015, 08:18:16 PM
I was not aware of the gas tank date thread. Thanks Austin.

Lynn, there could still have been a failure though. Any other signs of that? Dents or signs of repair?

Again we need more data from this time. I have not run across anything unusual from the axle plants for full size or Chevelles. Yet.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: lynnbilodeau on July 03, 2015, 09:14:36 PM
I no longer have the tank.  One of my nephews decided to jack the car up by the gas tank back in the late 80's.   He was about 10 years old at the time.

I did pressurize the tank to pop the dent out, and it wasn't leaking, but it was just too ugly.   I gave it to a local guy who was building a 69 on a tight budget and needed a tank.

I had no idea that tanks were dated as much as 4 months after the car build.  Will have too look for that thread.  Makes no sense.   Perhaps a government worker was put in charge of gas tank dating.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on July 03, 2015, 09:36:31 PM
I was not aware of the gas tank date thread. Thanks Austin.

Lynn, there could still have been a failure though. Any other signs of that? Dents or signs of repair?

Again we need more data from this time. I have not run across anything unusual from the axle plants for full size or Chevelles. Yet.
No problem, And I agree it would be nice to find some more cars from this time frame. I don't see to many 08A, or July cars, but I know they are out there.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on July 04, 2015, 01:50:57 AM
Lynn, not all government workers are bad.

The coding changed and for your tank the decode was week one of the 1970 model year, not the calendar year. Obviously the Camaro model year for 69 was extended - but the gas tank codes changed.

What I meant was - is there any other damage on the underside of the car that might suggest a failure?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on July 04, 2015, 02:27:27 AM
Lynn,

Your 1  70 tank was from the first week of August...
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: lynnbilodeau on July 04, 2015, 08:28:29 PM
Lynn, not all government workers are bad.

I know not all Gov workers are bad.  Just easy to make fun of them.... like making fun of lawyers, right?   And I do that too.

There were very minor dents just in front of the pinion snubber, but nothing bigger than a pencil eraser.  I worked them out when I was detailing the floor, and did not have to use any filler.

Yes, I now know the 1 70 tank was first week of Aug.  Just didn't know at the time, and probably would not have used it anyway because of the dented up bottom.

Owning an 08A car has made me take special note over the years when I see one.   Seems that dated components are all over the place.  I have seen an 08A car with a May dated engine, as well as one with an Aug. 2 dated engine.  Engines, alts, distributors and trannys are all over the place, especially transmissions.

Also, 08A is when they started using the mylar vin decal in the door.   I know my car should have received one, but it didn't.  The John Berry car, which probably rolled out the same day, did get the sticker.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on July 04, 2015, 08:45:33 PM
*I am not sure about Johns having the sticker. It has a reproduction sticker on it now, ( you can see a pic of it in Jerrys book), and when I asked about a pic of the original sticker, I was told they never took a picture of it prior to restoration? So, much like Bryon with this thread, I would like to see another 08A car with the original sticker to verify that cars from 08A came with the sticker.
 So far in my research I have Zilch. Earliest I have seen I think was 08E. ( which would have been delivered after September 1st when it was required)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: lynnbilodeau on July 05, 2015, 03:46:36 PM
I guess I incorrectly assumed that Berry's white Z was an unrestored car.   I have the earlier version of Jerry's book, and IIRC (big if) it just refers to it as a 5000 mile Z.  Don't know why you would restore a 5000 mile car.   But then, mine had only 26000 on it and if DEFINITELY needed restoring.  It had been rode hard and put up wet.
Personally, I don't know that the mileage makes much difference once a car is restored, other than mileage since restoration.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on July 05, 2015, 05:27:36 PM
Maybe as a testament to how much the car was used? or for a original motor, maybe to indicate that a rebuild wasn't neccessary.

So it sounds like there wasn't any major damage, and its possible your rear end is original to the car. When you purchased the car did they give you any history about the car, or do you by chance still keep in contact with anyone that used to own it? You said your car has been kind of a local car for a while, maybe there are others familiar with your cars history? I am just trying to think of some different ways to figure it out

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: lynnbilodeau on July 05, 2015, 06:11:26 PM
My car's history is a complete dead end for anything prior to my brother purchasing in 1975.   He was only 15.   The car was sitting behind a repair shop when he bought it from the business owner.   No one remembers the name of the business.  Years ago I even tracked down the former owner of the building.   Turned out to be a retired judge.  I was able to find him in the 90's.   He  had no recollection of who the tenant was in 75, and told me he had multiple tenants during the 70's but kept no records.
That was my first dead end.   The second one was the Tax Commission "losing" any record of the car prior to my ownership.   They don't even have a record of my brother owning it for that year (I traded for it in 1976).    It really doesn't matter to me if it is the original rear or not.  But.... would be nice to know.

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: lynnbilodeau on July 05, 2015, 06:49:20 PM
BTW, there is an 08D Z on ebay.   http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-Z28-/191615774396?forcerrptr=true&hash=item2c9d30aebc&item=191615774396

Had a color change from FG to burgundy, so it will be no help on the sticker issue.  BDY number 103834
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on July 10, 2015, 06:37:29 PM
I started a new thread, which will open things up a bit to include stampings from 10 bolt axles.

Here is the thread.
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=13565.0
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on November 04, 2015, 08:27:10 PM
Bump...
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: ss jim on November 05, 2015, 05:02:25 PM

1969 SS350
BM 01 024G1
01C
A 21 9

Jim
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on November 09, 2015, 03:28:52 AM

1969 SS350
BM 01 024G1
01C
A 21 9

Jim

Thanks Jim. The time frame that we are most interested in is around August 1969.  But we will use your data.  Thanks for posting. 

Just one thing though.  It looks like you have an extra number in your axle assembly date info.  Can you check it again?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: ss jim on November 10, 2015, 03:44:04 PM
You are correct. Assembly date should be BM 0124G1.

Jim
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: ko-lek-tor on October 23, 2016, 03:19:12 AM
Just drug this out of a barn in Indiana this afternoon. The "C" has been peened over, guessing at the factory. This axle has never had the numbers area cleaned off till I bought it. Will get a better pic of Cast Date tomorrow. Looks like F119 (June 11th)?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on October 23, 2016, 05:06:46 AM
funny how out of small sample now 3 guys have "penned" or debris marks where the C would have been. (insert conspiracy theory here)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on October 23, 2016, 05:19:08 PM
... I noticed this also...  makes me wonder if the factory workers (either in the differential plant, OR at auto assembly (for the late '69 series rears, did that on purpose to eliminate (or try to eliminate) the discrepancy between '69 and '70 part assembly codes (ie. 70's got the 'C' in front)...??
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: x66 714 on October 23, 2016, 09:42:12 PM
08E,9N677163 has an 341 axle with a code of CBL0812G2. Can't read the casting date. Too crusty from oil...Joe
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on October 24, 2016, 08:30:12 PM
Interesting. I have an original BU 0815 G2. No C, and I have also found an original BS 0822 G2, again no C on either and no marks on either where a C could have been. Only similar thing I have noticed is they were both made 2nd shift on a Friday. (1 week apart).

Can you post a pic of the axel stamp?



Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: ko-lek-tor on October 24, 2016, 09:31:44 PM
Clearer pictures of rear I posted on the 22nd. I erred in the cast date of May (F). It is in fact (I) Sept. makes sense. More current pics
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: ko-lek-tor on October 24, 2016, 09:34:41 PM
peened over "C"
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: ko-lek-tor on October 24, 2016, 09:37:22 PM
casting Sept 11 69
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: x66 714 on October 26, 2016, 02:10:53 AM
Here's a picture from my 69 ss396. 08E 124379N677163..Joe
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: Kelley W King on October 26, 2016, 01:27:35 PM
Bentley,
Can I get a job with you? You seem to have time to do fun things.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on October 26, 2016, 03:26:43 PM
Thanks for the additional information everyone.  I will get the data updated and post below.

Joe, does the casting number on the center housing end in 341 or 860?  And what is the casting date?

Austin, can you post good pics of the other stamp you have without the C please?   Thanks
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on October 26, 2016, 03:43:46 PM
Here is what we have so far - arranged by axle date..  We need more data points for axle assembly dates between late June and early August. 

01C
BM 0124G1
860, casting date A 21 9

06A - 9N665238
BM 0625G
860, casting date unknown

07A - 9N6687XX
BU 0630G2
860, casting date E 26 9

Unknown build date
BE 0708G1
860, casting date D 28 9

08E  9N677163
C BL 0812
341, H 5 9

08E  9N677954
C BS 0805G 
341, casting date G 25 9

08C
C BL 0806G1 
341, casting date G 23 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BM 0807G1
860, casting date F 24 9

Unknown
No assembly stamp, possible warranty axle
341, casting date F 28 9

08E, 9N677163
C BL 0812G2
341, unknown casting date xxx

08D  9N6745xx
C BU 0818G2
unknown casting number or date

08D
C BS 0820G2
341, casting date H 11 9

08E 
C BU 0828G2
341, casting date H 13 9

08E
C BU 0828G2
341, unknown casting date

09A - 9N680789
C BU 0828   
341, casting date unknown

09A
C BU 0826 or 0828
unknown casting number or date

09C
C BU 0829G1
341, casting date G 31 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 0829G1
341, casting date H 17 9

09C 9N684457 
C BU 0829G1
341, unknown

09C   9N685397
C BU 0910G1
341, casting date I 2 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BU 0916
341, casting date I 6 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BU 0922G2    C area is peened
341, casting date I 11 9

10A
C BU 0929G1    C area is peened.
341,

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 1028G1
341, casting date J 3 9
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: KurtS on October 26, 2016, 06:27:10 PM
I just noticed another CBU0829G1 axle. Just like Gary's, the C is peened out (completely!).
9N684457  09C

And another - CBU0929G1 10A car - pic doesn't show all the C, but the area is peened.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: ko-lek-tor on October 26, 2016, 07:30:20 PM
I theorize that axles were built and in racks ready to deliver for the Camaro/Nova line. Because the Camaro line was held over, considered a 69 by Norwood brass? a directive came from Norwood that said they did not want that C on the axle, so shipments slated for Norwood had to be manually gone through by a worker at Eaton? or Norwood? and correct them to what Norwood wanted to show as a 69 axle maybe for warranty or some other accounting reason? Some, made it through because for the same reason other discrepancies exist.   
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on October 26, 2016, 09:10:16 PM
How dare you say there were discrepancies!!!

Don't hint that the facts have a variation, you run the risk of your data not being used....hahaha

 8)

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: x66 714 on October 26, 2016, 09:30:16 PM
Mine is 341.

Casting date is H 5 9.

It was in the upper right. Can't take a picture. Muffler is in the way..Joe
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on October 26, 2016, 11:13:51 PM
I bet they were peened by previous owners. None of the originals I have seen were peened. And I think if they REALLY did it at the factory, they would have obliterated the C. So I am not buying it.

I have also seen loose blocks peened.

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on October 26, 2016, 11:18:02 PM
Mine is 341 but I can't read the date at the moment until I can get it cleaned. Casting date of the rear end on curb side lower, back side?...Joe

Normally on the back side in the webbing, drivers side.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: x66 714 on October 26, 2016, 11:19:37 PM
I adj my post. Take a look...Joe
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on October 27, 2016, 12:48:12 AM
I bet they were peened by previous owners. None of the originals I have seen were peened. And I think if they REALLY did it at the factory, they would have obliterated the C. So I am not buying it.
...

Why would any owner 'peen' over part of a stamped number on a differential??  And what are you not buying??
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on October 27, 2016, 01:20:40 AM
I bet they were peened by previous owners. None of the originals I have seen were peened. And I think if they REALLY did it at the factory, they would have obliterated the C. So I am not buying it.
...

Why would any owner 'peen' over part of a stamped number on a differential??  And what are you not buying??

Peened over by some, because they didn't know it should have the C, and they wanted it to look right. 

I theorize that axles were built and in racks ready to deliver for the Camaro/Nova line. Because the Camaro line was held over, considered a 69 by Norwood brass? a directive came from Norwood that said they did not want that C on the axle, so shipments slated for Norwood had to be manually gone through by a worker at Eaton? or Norwood? and correct them to what Norwood wanted to show as a 69 axle maybe for warranty or some other accounting reason? Some, made it through because for the same reason other discrepancies exist.   

I am not buying the hypothesis above.  Possible, but very low chance of reality in my opinion.  Why do I think that?  Because they aren't all that way.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on October 27, 2016, 05:20:10 AM
Whats funny to me is hardly anyone on here knew that there even was a "C", but now we are going to credit red neck owners of the 70's and 80's of having the know how, to peen or hit the "C", and in some cases just rough it up a little???
I was not around the car scene in the 70's or 80's, but I have turned wrenches with the best of them, and guys were into horsepower, and going fast. My friend bought a 69Z in '93 and at that point guys were checking for a DZ motor (not caring, let alone checking the date), a muncie 4 spd, and a 12 bolt. So if 99% of the buyers were not checking the axle code and date stamp on the components, who would these highly informed red necks be trying to impress by rubbing out the "C" on the rear??
I think theses rear ends speak for themselves, but then again I do subscribe that there was some variance in the manufacture of these cars, because they were put together by human hands.
A good example would be the trim tag I posted that has a date of 4L. Obviously a error at the factory. But using your logic a owner must have done it, because we have never seen a 4L tag before?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on October 27, 2016, 12:54:35 PM
I agree with Austin on this one; it's ludicrous to even think that some quantity of 69 Camaro owners even knew what their rear end code was before the last few years (the fellas on CRG are the *extreme*, not the norm for Camaro owners!), and even more extreme to believe that a bunch of Camaro owners crawled under their car and 'peened' on that 'unrelated' C out in front of the axle code.  I've been a car nut for over 50 yrs, a Camaro fan since they were introduced, past owner of '68 and 70 Z28s, and an owner of my '69 Z28 for 40 yrs, and until a couple of years ago, I had NEVER even thought of crawling under and checking the rear end code on any of those cars (I knew they were original to my cars by other factors, and didn't even know there was a code on them until getting involved with CRG).

Anyway, I think the idea proposed by Bryon that 'camaro owners over the years' had peened off the 'C'... (I'm still laughing at the idea).. is pretty ludicrous. 

IMO, there are only two possibilities for the rears where we 'see', or imagine we see, a damaged 'C' out in front of the axle code:

1)  roadway objects, rocks, etc, happened to hit that area...?
2)  OR.. there was some confusion in the axle plant, given the changing of the axle code schema for the 70 model year cars, combined with the extended production of the '69 Camaro into the 70 model year.

Note:  Corvettes were also extended production...  Was there a corresponding change in Corvette axle codes? ( I have an original '69 Corvette I've owned since 1988 or so which I've never checked a rear end code either...)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: X33RS on October 27, 2016, 12:58:05 PM
I agree, I don't believe owners were peening over the C back in a time when no one cared, and now thinking that was the case when the presence of the C hasn't been know by the experts until recently, and still isn't fully understood.

Sometimes I think there is a little too much skepticism in the hobby.  I understand for good reason but some of it simply hasn't been completely explained yet so it's easier to throw it under the bus.

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on October 27, 2016, 01:39:09 PM
Think what you want. I have been crawling under cars since the 70s to look at axle codes. Nobody care about axles codes back then? Better think again.

Ludicrous? Ha!

I won't start anything but you notice all of the peened ones are BU - right? Think about what those are in.

And what about all of the ones that aren't peened?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on October 27, 2016, 01:53:54 PM
lu·di·crous

 ...so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous.
"it's ludicrous that I have been fined"  or 'saying that multiple owners peened the 'c' off is ludicrous...  :)
synonyms:   absurd, ridiculous, farcical, laughable, risible, preposterous, foolish, mad, insane, idiotic, stupid, inane, silly, asinine, nonsensical; informalcrazy
"a ludicrous idea"
 

Your comment made me laugh, Byron....   that's what 'ludicrous' means to me..  :)   and to be clear, I'm not 'laughing at you', I'm laughing at the idea that multiple/many people over the years have saw those 'C's out there and had the same idea of 'I'd better remove that C or people will think this is a '70 model year rear instead of the '69 it came in!"    makes my wonder why those same people didn't PEEN off that 'E' just under the axle code too!  :)

You may have been the only one crawling under checking axle codes in the 70's...  (actually, jacking up and crawling under given how low Camaros are)... :)     How many of those C's have you peened over in those years?/  :) :)   

Further comments:   
1)in most of the cases, the existence of the 'C' is still obvious; if someone had wanted to 'hide' it, they would 'grind it off' OR peen it into nothingness...
2)  the 'C' is displaced so much that *most* people reading their axle code ignore it... 
3) This thread over the past year has been the ONLY reference/mention I've ever seen related to the existence (or not) of that C at the beginning of the '70 model year, and i've been reading/absorbing auto mags since Dizzy Dean was calling baseball games.. :)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on October 27, 2016, 02:14:59 PM
Gary, just because it hasn't been written or in print before doesn't mean it wasn't known.

As a kid, it was easier for dad to send me under cars to look at codes when we were in junk yards. Growing up around a racing family - dirt track,  1/4 mile, street - things are a little different.  But in a good way.  Lots of memories.  Ever reach way under to feel for the P casting on a 58-64 full size center section in a car in a junkyard?  If I did that once, I did it 1,000 times or more.

Know anyone that has a "numbers infatuation"?  Anyone looking for a correctly dated carb, alternator, exhaust manifold? 

Trust me, there are those out there that if they saw a C there, and didn't like it or thought it looked wrong for their car, they would peen it. 

Just my opinion.  I am entitled to that, and you are entitled to yours. 

Bottom line, they are not ALL peened, so my idea makes as much sense as anyone elses.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: x66 714 on October 27, 2016, 02:59:00 PM
I remember the first time I posted my vin Kurt contacted me to ask if it had a rear end code with 3 letters. That was my first time to learn about the "C". I know the engine has a 3 letter code indicating a 402....Joe
 
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: X33RS on October 27, 2016, 03:04:08 PM
I agree Gary, if someone didn't like the C or were trying to hide it, they wouldn't just "peen" over it.  That makes it look even worse and more skeptical than if you were to just leave it alone.  That's why the owner theory just simply doesn't make sense.

I've seen enough originals, and owned enough myself,  to know this was done for another reason, we just simply don't understand it yet, that's all.  No disrespect meant to anyone.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on October 27, 2016, 07:35:36 PM
Just drug this out of a barn in Indiana this afternoon. The "C" has been peened over, guessing at the factory. This axle has never had the numbers area cleaned off till I bought it. Will get a better pic of Cast Date tomorrow. Looks like F119 (June 11th)?

Do the guts match the code?  What are the dates of the ring and pinion?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: ko-lek-tor on October 28, 2016, 04:11:34 AM
Just drug this out of a barn in Indiana this afternoon. The "C" has been peened over, guessing at the factory. This axle has never had the numbers area cleaned off till I bought it. Will get a better pic of Cast Date tomorrow. Looks like F119 (June 11th)?

Do the guts match the code?  What are the dates of the ring and pinion?

Sorry, no guts. Just a housing, backing plates and cover. There were 3 more 1st gen 12 bolt housings in the back of the barn, 1 NOS! a fiberglass 69 front "doghouse" out back and several sets of BB heads and headers of unknown engine type inside. It was dark and cob webs everywhere. I came out with the housing , set of 026 square port heads and a pair of 69 Camaro buckets and of course, my rust free trunk lid. Next stop yielded a Victor 2-R tunnel ram, 2 660 holleys a 4346 holley, a oval port strip dominator and a bunch of other stuff...I'm broke! A lot of fun treasure hunting though.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: KurtS on November 08, 2016, 03:36:39 PM
I went through my axle pics. There are several CBU axles with the C wiped out. Several are also untouched. I don't see the C removed on any other ratio.
I won't even hypothesize on this one......
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on August 08, 2018, 02:26:49 PM
Another piece of data.

860 housing
Casting date D28 9
BE0708G1
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on August 13, 2018, 01:03:28 AM
Updated January 11, 2021

Remember when submitting data - put all of the information requested in ONE POST - PLEASE.

Some notations have been made for C BU axles where the C has been peened. I did not note this on all of the ones listed.

Here is what we have so far.  We need more data points for axle assembly dates between early June and early August.  My apologies if your data was inadvertently missed.

It appears that the 341 casting number started being used in June. It appears that the 3 letter code had started by early August, possibly earlier. 

Remember that there was a shutdown for the latter part of July and into very early August. 

01C
BM 0124G1
860, casting date A 21 9

06A - 9N665238
BM 0625G
860, casting date unknown

07A - 9N6687XX
BU 0630G2
860, casting date E 26 9

Unknown build date
BE 0708G1
860, casting date D 28 9

08E  9N677954
C BS 0805G
341, casting date G 25 9

08C
C BL 0806G1
341, casting date G 23 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BM 0807G1
860, casting date F 24 9

Unknown
No assembly stamp, possible warranty axle
341, casting date F 28 9

08D  9N6745xx
C BU 0818G2
unknown casting number or date

08D
C BS 0820G2
341, casting date H 11 9

08E, 9N677163
C BL 0812G2
341, casting date H 5 9

08E
C BU 0828G2
341, casting date H 13 9

08E
C BU 0828G2
341, unknown casting date

09A - 9N680789
C BU 0828   
341, unknown casting date

09A
C BU 0826 or 0828
unknown casting number or date

09C
C BU 0829G1
341, casting date G 31 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 0829G1
341, casting date H 17 9

09C 9N684457
C BU 0829G1
341, unknown

09C   9N685397
C BU 0910G1
341, casting date I 2 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BU 0916        C area is peened
341, casting date I 6 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BU 0922G2    C area is peened
341, casting date I 11 9

10A
C BU 0929G1    C area is peened.
341,

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 1028G1
341, casting date J 3 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BE 1030G1 not peened
341, casting date J 3 9 or J 8 9 (hard to read)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: Kelley W King on August 14, 2018, 11:26:05 AM
Bryon, I don,t think I gave you my 08E. I will try and get it to you in a day or so.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: ko-lek-tor on August 14, 2018, 12:02:10 PM
... The "C" has been peened over, guessing at the factory...
I went through my axle pics. There are several CBU axles with the C wiped out. Several are also untouched. I don't see the C removed on any other ratio.
I won't even hypothesize on this one......

Rereading my own post I felt I was vague in saying, “done at the factory.”. The point I was trying to convey is that I have only known Camaro housings that had the “C” peened. I am under the belief that it was done at Norwood Assembly , as a Supervisor directive, and not done on axles dated the same at, say, the Nova Assembly line. I have been under the opinion that this peened “C” is a confirmation that the housing came out of a Camaro. Not to hijack this thread’s original topic, but it would be interesting to research this aspect of these C-less housings in the future. Further, Kurt’s observance of only the BU housings being affected, which I had not heard previously, is intriguing data to research, as well.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on August 15, 2018, 12:57:17 AM
Back then this was not common knowledge to average gear head.  But if you were into racing and wanted to know what ratio you were getting - this was how it was done.

Obviously I have no way of proving what I think, but the evidence does support my thinking.  See my previous post as to why.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on August 15, 2018, 02:59:57 AM
I still disagree with Byron re various/sundry owners 'peening' out the C in much the same way all across the country.. Unless it was some kind of 'Let's Obliterate the C'  underground conspiracy!  :)    BUT...  you say you have HUNDREDS of examples - maybe if you compile the DATES, CODES, etc .. along with peened or not peened (or photos?), then I might come to agree with you, but in lieu of that....   I cannot believe such an 'aligned' conspiracy existed!

When I first examined my rear, I didn't even notice the 'C' (it was well in front of the 'code' and was not clearly stamped).   I think it was Kurt who suggested it looked like the C was there but damaged (perhaps by a stone or ?); now I would say it appeared like a single 'peen'!   But when we see MANY peened the exact same way, and all of them are in that 'transition period', where they are installing 1970 stamped rears in 1969 cars, I tend to lean towards the factory doing it (to appear more like the thousands of '69s assembled earlier in the year)...

Can you show us your database of '69 transition-period rears to help convince us of your theory?
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on August 15, 2018, 03:14:22 AM
You are saying they are all peened exactly the same way? Let’s see YOUR database that shows it.  8) 

They are not all peened the same way. 

The axle plant just stamped what they were told to do. The vehicle assembly plant people would not have cared. The stamped code is NOT what was used on the assembly line for quick identification.
Typically quick ID was done by a sticker with the axle code on it - stuck on the outside of the brake drum. 

Here is a a link to a reproduction example from HBC.

http://www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/product/24582/1969-Camaro-12-Bolt-COPO-BE-Rear-Axle-ID-Stickers-Pair/ (http://www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/product/24582/1969-Camaro-12-Bolt-COPO-BE-Rear-Axle-ID-Stickers-Pair/)

You can disagree with me a thousand times, but it will be as productive as hitting your forehead against the wall.  Show me REAL PROOF otherwise and I will listen.   
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: Kelley W King on August 15, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
Not that I know, but just a thought. Think someone was thinking here are actually 70 model parts slated for 69 cars? Of course if only one ratio kind of makes that ? But I don,t think rocks or whatever did it. Could someone say" this load is going to Norwood and should not have the C" ? Maybe one guy on one shift who was later corrected. Maybe his work station was in the 12 bolt area? Lot of maybes here. I worked on an assembly line in the 70,s for IBM and heard phrases like that part came off 3rd shift because someone installed something differently. Not wrong just different.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: 69Z28-RS on August 15, 2018, 02:05:17 PM
1970 model Novas are the ONLY 1970 model car that used a rear end that was identical (in dimension, etc) to our '69 Camaros.   The 1970 Nova differentials, was produced in the same plant (EATON? - that produced Camaro differentials I believe).  Of course the 1970 Camaro had a different physical configuration (wider), but the 70 Nova differential was the same as the earlier '69 Camaro differential.  I just checked the 1970 Nova differential listing from Nova resource and it shows the leading 'C' in the code as we believe all '70 models had, BUT...  there was no 3.73 (BU) code used on 1970 Novas!  THIS fact would make the 'transition period' (Aug-Nov'69) 1969 Camaro 3.73 (BU) differentials unique coming out of the EATON plant at that time, as they were destined for extended 1969 Camaro production~   Maybe THAT precipitated the BU axles (for Camaros) to get 're-marked' by peening the 'C' off...??

1970 Nova differential codes

CBA - 2.56 open 10-bolt
CBB - 2.56 posi 10-bolt
CBC - 3.36 open 10-bolt
CBD - 3.36 posi 10-bolt
CBL - 3.07 open 12-bolt
CBM - 3.31 open 12-bolt
CBN - 3.55 open
CBP - 2.73 open 10-bolt
CBR - 3.07 posi 12-bolt
CBS - 3.31 posi 12-bolt
CBT - 3.55 posi
CBW - 4.10 posi 12-bolt
CPA - 3.08 open 10-bolt
CPE - 3.08 posi 10-bolt
CPI - 2.56 open 10-bolt
CPJ - 2.56 posi 10-bolt
CPO - 3.08 open 10-bolt
CPR - 3.08 posi 10-bolt
CPX - 2.73 posi 10-bolt
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on August 15, 2018, 02:21:24 PM
One big problem with that thinking Gary. There are documented original cars that do not have the C peened out.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on August 15, 2018, 02:59:43 PM
The axles were assembled at Detroit Gear and Axle. I have tried for years to find a contact, just like I have tried to find a contact for Fisher Body at Norwood. No luck so far.
Eaton made the posi units, they did not assemble axles.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on August 20, 2018, 10:12:52 PM
The peening topic was started in a new thread. If anyone want to discuss that, then please post anything related to that in that thread. Thank you!
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=16781.0
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on September 30, 2018, 02:13:36 PM
I went back and cleaned up / removed several posts not directly tied to the current topic.  This includes removing some of my own posts. 

Thanks for your help and cooperation in this thread.  I do appreciate it. :)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on January 01, 2020, 05:22:29 PM
Note here from the Chevrolet Dealer Service Information Bulletin dated September 29, 1969.

The first C in the code designates it as a Passenger (car) type axle versus Truck. This is for very late 1969 model year axles and continued into 1970.  Things changed again in 1971. Remember that GM "Corporate" 10 bolt axles were gradually implemented in the early 1970s.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: GCS SS350 on October 19, 2020, 01:54:58 AM
Build Date : K208
Housing Stamp : BS1205G2
Num : 3894860NI

Early 1969 SS350
Vin : 124379N561885

Assume Diff, is orignal as matchs protecto Plate Numbers
Has 3.73 posatraction currently & have orignal 3.31 gm gears
If anything else naaded let me now
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on October 21, 2020, 12:58:48 AM
Build Date : K208
Housing Stamp : BS1205G2
Num : 3894860NI

Early 1969 SS350
Vin : 124379N561885

Assume Diff, is orignal as matchs protecto Plate Numbers
Has 3.73 posatraction currently & have orignal 3.31 gm gears
If anything else needed let me now

Thanks for your post and welcome to the site.

What we are looking for in this thread is data on cars built the summer of 1969.

I will send you a private message.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on January 11, 2021, 04:35:33 PM
Had someone else send me some data, it is the last one on the list.  C BE 1030G1  - not peened.

This does remain an active topic. I may have a few more to add that were obtained the past few years.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on January 13, 2021, 09:18:31 AM
Updated January 11, 2021

Remember when submitting data - put all of the information requested in ONE POST - PLEASE.

Some notations have been made for C BU axles where the C has been peened. I did not note this on all of the ones listed.

Here is what we have so far.  We need more data points for axle assembly dates between early June and early August.  My apologies if your data was inadvertently missed.

It appears that the 341 casting number started being used in June. It appears that the 3 letter code had started by early August, possibly earlier. 

Remember that there was a shutdown for the latter part of July and into very early August. 

01C
BM 0124G1
860, casting date A 21 9

06A - 9N665238
BM 0625G
860, casting date unknown

07A - 9N6687XX
BU 0630G2
860, casting date E 26 9

Unknown build date
BE 0708G1
860, casting date D 28 9

Unknown build date possible over the counter/warranty axle
C 107 231 G1 with 7 and 1 peened out, shows C 10 23 G1
341-A, Casting date E 14 9

08E  9N677954
C BS 0805G
341, casting date G 25 9

08C
C BL 0806G1
341, casting date G 23 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BM 0807G1
860, casting date F 24 9

Unknown
No assembly stamp, possible warranty axle
341, casting date F 28 9

08D  9N6745xx
C BU 0818G2
unknown casting number or date

08D
C BS 0820G2
341, casting date H 11 9

08E, 9N677163
C BL 0812G2
341, casting date H 5 9

08E
C BU 0828G2
341, casting date H 13 9

08E
C BU 0828G2
341, unknown casting date

09A - 9N680789
C BU 0828   
341, unknown casting date

09A
C BU 0826 or 0828
unknown casting number or date

09C
C BU 0829G1
341, casting date G 31 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 0829G1
341, casting date H 17 9

09C 9N684457
C BU 0829G1
341, unknown

09C   9N685397
C BU 0910G1
341, casting date I 2 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BU 0916        C area is peened
341, casting date I 6 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BU 0922G2    C area is peened
341, casting date I 11 9

10A
C BU 0929G1    C area is peened.
341,

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 1028G1
341, casting date J 3 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BE 1030G1 not peened
341, casting date J 3 9 or J 8 9 (hard to read)


Updated
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on June 08, 2022, 02:33:47 AM
If anyone can confirm if there is an NF or something else after their axle with a casting number ending in 341 I would appreciate it.

We have found a very early 341 casting that has a -A and might be a test casting.

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on August 23, 2022, 03:08:34 AM
Found one listed in a car today. CBU 0815G2 in 9N672588 but can guarantee it’s original.

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: JST69Z28 on October 07, 2022, 07:54:13 PM
Attached is a photo of my differential date code on a 69 Z28, 07A car,  BU 0624G2 E.  On the diff, it also has 3894860NF, E189, and GM 57 numbers.  Reading through other posts it should have a C in front of the BU but I don't see one.  I'm new to the group and reading through history and adding info.  Hope this helps as you build data.  I really appreciate all of this great info.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: JST69Z28 on October 07, 2022, 07:58:00 PM
I forgot to add the VIN, 124379N665447.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: BULLITT65 on October 07, 2022, 08:02:32 PM
The "C" stamp seems to be as early as August 5th and not used consistently until the later part of August. I have rear ends as late as August 22 with no "C" Stamp present.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on January 07, 2023, 07:04:06 PM
I bought this one today.

Unknown build date or VIN possibly from a Nova
C BS 0909G1
341, G 31 9 casting date


Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on January 08, 2023, 03:55:04 PM
Attached is a photo of my differential date code on a 69 Z28, 07A car,  BU 0624G2 E.  On the diff, it also has 3894860NF, E189, and GM 57 numbers.  Reading through other posts it should have a C in front of the BU but I don't see one.  I'm new to the group and reading through history and adding info.  Hope this helps as you build data.  I really appreciate all of this great info.

It is fine that is does not have a C in the front.  That started later in the year.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on January 08, 2023, 03:57:35 PM
Updated January 11, 2023

Remember when submitting data - put all of the information requested in ONE POST - PLEASE.

Some notations have been made for C BU axles where the C has been peened. I did not note this on all of the ones listed.

Here is what we have so far.  We need more data points for axle assembly dates between early June and early August.  My apologies if your data was inadvertently missed.

It appears that the 341 casting number started being used in June. It appears that the 3 letter code had started by early August, possibly earlier.

Remember that there was a shutdown for the latter part of July and into very early August.

01C
BM 0124G1
860, casting date A 21 9

06A - 9N665238
BM 0625G
860, casting date unknown

07A - 9N6687XX
BU 0630G2
860, casting date E 26 9

Unknown build date
BE 0708G1
860, casting date D 28 9

Unknown build date possible over the counter/warranty axle
C 107 231 G1 with 7 and 1 peened out, shows C 10 23 G1
341-A, Casting date E 14 9

08E  9N677954
C BS 0805G
341, casting date G 25 9

08C
C BL 0806G1
341, casting date G 23 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BM 0807G1
860, casting date F 24 9

Unknown
No assembly stamp, possible warranty axle
341, casting date F 28 9

08D  9N6745xx
C BU 0818G2
unknown casting number or date

08D
C BS 0820G2
341, casting date H 11 9

08E, 9N677163
C BL 0812G2
341, casting date H 5 9

08E
C BU 0828G2
341, casting date H 13 9

08E
C BU 0828G2
341, unknown casting date

09A - 9N680789
C BU 0828   
341, unknown casting date

09A
C BU 0826 or 0828
unknown casting number or date

09C
C BU 0829G1
341, casting date G 31 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 0829G1
341, casting date H 17 9

09C 9N684457
C BU 0829G1
341, unknown

Unknown build date or VIN possibly from a Nova
C BS 0909G1
341, casting date G 31 9 

09C   9N685397
C BU 0910G1
341, casting date I 2 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BU 0916        C area is peened
341, casting date I 6 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BU 0922G2    C area is peened
341, casting date I 11 9

10A
C BU 0929G1    C area is peened.
341,

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 1028G1
341, casting date J 3 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BE 1030G1 not peened
341, casting date J 3 9 or J 8 9 (hard to read)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on April 04, 2023, 02:24:57 AM
Found another one. Late 69 Camaro
C BS 1022G1
341 casting
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: boomer632 on April 04, 2023, 11:20:40 AM
Build date 06A X66 396
Casting number 860NF
Assembly stamp BU 1126 G1 E
Casting date K228

Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on April 06, 2023, 01:37:58 AM
Build date 06A X66 396
Casting number 860NF
Assembly stamp BU 1126 G1 E
Casting date K228

Casting and assembly date look fine and thanks for submitting. Is that the original axle for your car? If so, we may want to document it more. That is a fairly large spread from axle assembly to your car assembly but it is possible. Would you happen to have the Protect-o-Plate for your car?

The thread is mostly concerned with the time frame of axles cast or assembled from about May of 69 through the end of the model year.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: boomer632 on April 06, 2023, 11:24:01 AM
The CHP report for the car states that he has seen late build examples with rear axle stamps with 5 months spread, and could not say for certain the axle is original to car but was possible. He did certify that the axle stamps are legitimate and not re-stamps and the car was born with 12 bolt. I do not have the POP for the car.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on April 06, 2023, 02:17:54 PM
The CHP report for the car states that he has seen late build examples with rear axle stamps with 5 months spread, and could not say for certain the axle is original to car but was possible. He did certify that the axle stamps are legitimate and not re-stamps and the car was born with 12 bolt. I do not have the POP for the car.

That’s a 7 month spread. Possible. Just wondered if there was solid proof, because it’s a potential area to learn.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: boomer632 on April 06, 2023, 02:54:16 PM
Yea I know its a stretch but I offered it as a possible data point.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: KurtS on April 06, 2023, 04:10:02 PM
It's not original. Axles were very tight in early 69. There is one 06A car in the database with an axle that is in March (and not a common axle code). All the rest are May / June axles.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on April 06, 2023, 04:29:18 PM
I am still EXPLORING the thinking

"trying to clear out parts toward the end of the model year, because the system was not a first in / first out setup."


Not saying that is the case....

:)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: boomer632 on April 06, 2023, 06:22:19 PM
As I said Im just going by what JM stated in report.. only offering data
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 21, 2024, 04:59:30 PM
Not a 12 bolt, but a late 69 model year 10 bolt using the 3 letter code convention.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: Badshifter on February 22, 2024, 02:21:57 AM
My 09C has H59 casting date and C BU 0814G1 stamp.

Fixed!
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on February 27, 2024, 12:55:39 AM
Thanks! I will add it to the list.
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on March 01, 2024, 05:53:47 PM
Updated March 1, 2024

Please when submitting data - put all of the information requested in ONE POST - PLEASE.

Some notations have been made for C BU axles where the C has been peened. I did not note this on all of the ones listed.

Here is what we have so far.  We need more data points for axle assembly dates between early June and early August.  My apologies if your data was inadvertently missed.

It appears that the 341 casting number started being used in June. It appears that the 3 letter code had started by early August, possibly earlier.

Remember that there was a shutdown for the latter part of July and into very early August.

01C
BM 0124G1
860, casting date A 21 9

06A - 9N665238
BM 0625G
860, casting date unknown

07A - 9N6687XX
BU 0630G2
860, casting date E 26 9

Unknown build date
BE 0708G1
860, casting date D 28 9

Unknown build date possible over the counter/warranty axle
C 107 231 G1 with 7 and 1 peened out, shows C 10 23 G1
341-A, Casting date E 14 9

08E  9N677954
C BS 0805G
341, casting date G 25 9

08C
C BL 0806G1
341, casting date G 23 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BM 0807G1
860, casting date F 24 9

Unknown
No assembly stamp, possible warranty axle
341, casting date F 28 9

08D  9N6745xx
C BU 0818G2
unknown casting number or date

08D
C BS 0820G2
341, casting date H 11 9

08E, 9N677163
C BL 0812G2
341, casting date H 5 9

08E
C BU 0828G2
341, casting date H 13 9

08E
C BU 0828G2
341, unknown casting date

09C
C BU 0814
341, casting date is H 5 9

09A - 9N680789
C BU 0828   
341, unknown casting date

09A
C BU 0826 or 0828
unknown casting number or date

09C
C BU 0829G1
341, casting date G 31 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 0829G1
341, casting date H 17 9

09C 9N684457
C BU 0829G1
341, unknown

Unknown build date or VIN possibly from a Nova
C BS 0909G1
341, casting date G 31 9

09C   9N685397
C BU 0910G1
341, casting date I 2 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BU 0916        C area is peened
341, casting date I 6 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BU 0922G2    C area is peened
341, casting date I 11 9

10A
C BU 0929G1    C area is peened.
341,

Unknown build date or week
C BS 1022G1
341 casting

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BS 1028G1
341, casting date J 3 9

Unknown build week and/or VIN
C BE 1030G1 not peened
341, casting date J 3 9 or J 8 9 (hard to read)
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: Badshifter on March 01, 2024, 08:25:26 PM
My 09C has H05 casting date and C BU 0814G1 stamp.

So Sorry! Casting is H59!
Title: Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
Post by: bcmiller on March 01, 2024, 11:09:48 PM
Another 10 bolt