CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Camarocards on November 01, 2014, 09:34:31 PM
-
I just received the shipping data report for my '68. The production date in the report is listed as February 15, 1968. The trim tag on my car is 01D (4th week of January). Is it unusual for the production date to be later than the date on the trim tag?
I've confirmed that there was a GM strike in January '68 so maybe my car got held up because of the strike??? There are a few assemblies and parts on my car which sort of points to this theory; (rear axle assembly is dated February 7, 1968, steering box is dated February 7, 1968, rear brake e-brake brackets dated February 5 and 6, 1968 and power brake booster is dated February 2, 1968).
Anyone else have a Camaro built around this time frame that has seen the same thing?
Thanks,
Bob
-
My 68 & another I know of are both 02E. Both finished March 13th. My 69 was started & finished in the same week...Joe
-
There are a multitude of reasons that would cause the actual production date of an individual car to be different (earlier or later) than it's scheduled production date.
-
Is it unusual for the production date to be later than the date on the trim tag?
Tag came first, so it should be before the production date.
Not knowing specifics on your car, I can say that Fisher body dates were for Fisher's purposes and may or may not be close to a calendar.
-
Anyone else have a Camaro built around this time frame that has seen the same thing?
Thanks,
Bob
Bob, for comparison, my LOS built '68 Z/28 has the same production date (2-15-68) as your car. My cowl tag build date is 02C.
Paul
-
Thanks Kurt. I wondered when the trim tag was applied. It now makes perfect sense to me why certain components are dated after the trim tag date but before the production date.
Thanks as well Paul. Looks like your car has an even bigger spread than mine between the trim tag date and the production date.
Bob
-
See http://www.camaros.org/assemblyprocess.shtml
-
I still think there might be confusion in some of our minds about the 'week' on the trim tag.
As I understand it, the 'production week' which ended up on the cowl tag is the Projected week of production *at the time the order is placed*! The complete cowl tag information was generated at the time of order (including the 'week of anticipated production').
During the time between order (and generation of the cowl tag data) and production, sometimes *crap happened*.. typically affecting vehicles scheduled for production. Schedule dates are shuffled to keep the production line flowing, which delays vehicles needing parts that might be in short supply, but also 'moves up' vehicles not affected by those shortages. Thus actual production dates can be before or after the 'scheduled' week on the cowl tag.
If the above is correct as I believe, it is not a good technique to use the 'production week' from the trim tag to determine when your car was produced. One should use the VIN and the actual production schedule to determine a *better date*.. in most cases we can figure the actual production date of your car within a day.
-
My BY LOS L78 is 02C. NCRS prod date is 2-21-68.
-
Gary,
That's not correct. Orders were placed sometimes months in advance.
The tag was made for the build, not for the order.
-
Gary,
That's not correct. Orders were placed sometimes months in advance.
The tag was made for the build, not for the order.
That being said, is Gary's conclusion that the VIN will get you closer to the build date than the tag (without other documentation) more valid? A combination of both?
-
Gary,
That's not correct. Orders were placed sometimes months in advance.
The tag was made for the build, not for the order.
So the tag was made by the Fisher production people shortly before (a week or so) an order was actually released into production in the plant, as part of the production process. Thus, the trim tag date has a direct relationship to the actual production date, where the order date has no relationship to the actual production date. Hope that is close?
-
Gary,
That's not correct. Orders were placed sometimes months in advance.
The tag was made for the build, not for the order.
'Months in advance' may be true for larger volume orders, or for dealers orders leading into a new model year, but in cases of a 'customer order' (which receives higher priority for build scheduling), it is generally 2-4 weeks. I 'special ordered' a handful of cars (Chevrolet and Chrysler) during the early 70's, and the fastest a car came in was 2-3 weeks, and the longest was around 4 weeks prior to the cars' build. I know from my own engirneering/manufacturing background (not the automobile industry), that when an order was received, it was 'estimated' when the order could be filled (for feedback to the customer). Since all the other information on the cowl tag (model/options/etc) is KNOWN, or generated (bdy nbr), at the time of order acceptance I'm curious just exactly how long after order acceptance did it take Chevrolet to provide the information to Fisher and and when did Fisher 'fix' the data that would go on the cowl tag? I'd think this would happen in a few days to a week at most.
The fact that some cars cowl tag date and actual build date differ significantly suggests that there was sufficient time between the "cowl tag data generation" (that could be well before the cowl tag actually being made) that temporary unforeseen parts shortages etc could affect the time difference. If the cowl tag data (production week) was generated at the time the car was actually beginning the build, then we should not be seeing the significant difference in the dates as we do. We've already been informed by JohnZ and others that once the body began the process, hardly nothing affected the build sequence, and the production rate was 'fixed'...
-
Example:
5,741 cars after the last vin in Nov of '66 which is listed as 140230
Build week 11E
vin - 145971
Engine pad is stamped 1013, rear was 0706
-
Gary,
That's not correct. Orders were placed sometimes months in advance.
The tag was made for the build, not for the order.
'Months in advance' may be true for larger volume orders, or for dealers orders leading into a new model year, but in cases of a 'customer order' (which receives higher priority for build scheduling), it is generally 2-4 weeks. I 'special ordered' a handful of cars (Chevrolet and Chrysler) during the early 70's, and the fastest a car came in was 2-3 weeks, and the longest was around 4 weeks prior to the cars' build. I know from my own engirneering/manufacturing background (not the automobile industry), that when an order was received, it was 'estimated' when the order could be filled (for feedback to the customer). Since all the other information on the cowl tag (model/options/etc) is KNOWN, or generated (bdy nbr), at the time of order acceptance I'm curious just exactly how long after order acceptance did it take Chevrolet to provide the information to Fisher and and when did Fisher 'fix' the data that would go on the cowl tag? I'd think this would happen in a few days to a week at most.
The fact that some cars cowl tag date and actual build date differ significantly suggests that there was sufficient time between the "cowl tag data generation" (that could be well before the cowl tag actually being made) that temporary unforeseen parts shortages etc could affect the time difference. If the cowl tag data (production week) was generated at the time the car was actually beginning the build, then we should not be seeing the significant difference in the dates as we do. We've already been informed by JohnZ and others that once the body began the process, hardly nothing affected the build sequence, and the production rate was 'fixed'...
The body tag could remain in queue if a sudden material shortage arose. Our '67 Z/28 project of many years ago had an 06E tag, V0706MO engine-no question it was OE. Car was final-assembled the second week in July. What happened? Who knows. Car had a blue custom interior, all it takes is one missing part to put the order on hold. Material-assuring orders must have been an error-prone manual process in those days.
Don't forget Fisher occasionally punched out tags well in advance. All June '69s are 06A, all July are 07A.
-
Gary,
That's not correct. Orders were placed sometimes months in advance.
The tag was made for the build, not for the order.
'Months in advance' may be true for larger volume orders, or for dealers orders leading into a new model year, but in cases of a 'customer order' (which receives higher priority for build scheduling), it is generally 2-4 weeks. I 'special ordered' a handful of cars (Chevrolet and Chrysler) during the early 70's, and the fastest a car came in was 2-3 weeks, and the longest was around 4 weeks prior to the cars' build. I know from my own engirneering/manufacturing background (not the automobile industry), that when an order was received, it was 'estimated' when the order could be filled (for feedback to the customer). Since all the other information on the cowl tag (model/options/etc) is KNOWN, or generated (bdy nbr), at the time of order acceptance I'm curious just exactly how long after order acceptance did it take Chevrolet to provide the information to Fisher and and when did Fisher 'fix' the data that would go on the cowl tag? I'd think this would happen in a few days to a week at most.
The fact that some cars cowl tag date and actual build date differ significantly suggests that there was sufficient time between the "cowl tag data generation" (that could be well before the cowl tag actually being made) that temporary unforeseen parts shortages etc could affect the time difference. If the cowl tag data (production week) was generated at the time the car was actually beginning the build, then we should not be seeing the significant difference in the dates as we do. We've already been informed by JohnZ and others that once the body began the process, hardly nothing affected the build sequence, and the production rate was 'fixed'...
The body tag could remain in queue if a sudden material shortage arose. Our '67 Z/28 project of many years ago had an 06E tag, V0706MO engine-no question it was OE. Car was final-assembled the second week in July. What happened? Who knows. Car had a blue custom interior, all it takes is one missing part to put the order on hold. Material-assuring orders must have been an error-prone manual process in those days.
Don't forget Fisher occasionally punched out tags well in advance. All June '69s are 06A, all July are 07A.
William
Interesting! Would the part shortage have been on the Fisher or the Chevrolet side?
I am itrigued as my 69 06A - for what it is worth - has a 0526 built motor and all the engine accessories date to the same time, but the NCRS puts the shipping date as June 18th
-
Just guessing here.. Tell me how close I am? :)
VINs from ~ 658146 to ~ 658795 came off the line on 18 June 1969. Does your VIN fall into that range?
-
Gary,
That's not correct. Orders were placed sometimes months in advance.
The tag was made for the build, not for the order.
'Months in advance' may be true for larger volume orders, or for dealers orders leading into a new model year, but in cases of a 'customer order' (which receives higher priority for build scheduling), it is generally 2-4 weeks. I 'special ordered' a handful of cars (Chevrolet and Chrysler) during the early 70's, and the fastest a car came in was 2-3 weeks, and the longest was around 4 weeks prior to the cars' build. I know from my own engirneering/manufacturing background (not the automobile industry), that when an order was received, it was 'estimated' when the order could be filled (for feedback to the customer). Since all the other information on the cowl tag (model/options/etc) is KNOWN, or generated (bdy nbr), at the time of order acceptance I'm curious just exactly how long after order acceptance did it take Chevrolet to provide the information to Fisher and and when did Fisher 'fix' the data that would go on the cowl tag? I'd think this would happen in a few days to a week at most.
The fact that some cars cowl tag date and actual build date differ significantly suggests that there was sufficient time between the "cowl tag data generation" (that could be well before the cowl tag actually being made) that temporary unforeseen parts shortages etc could affect the time difference. If the cowl tag data (production week) was generated at the time the car was actually beginning the build, then we should not be seeing the significant difference in the dates as we do. We've already been informed by JohnZ and others that once the body began the process, hardly nothing affected the build sequence, and the production rate was 'fixed'...
The body tag could remain in queue if a sudden material shortage arose. Our '67 Z/28 project of many years ago had an 06E tag, V0706MO engine-no question it was OE. Car was final-assembled the second week in July. What happened? Who knows. Car had a blue custom interior, all it takes is one missing part to put the order on hold. Material-assuring orders must have been an error-prone manual process in those days.
Don't forget Fisher occasionally punched out tags well in advance. All June '69s are 06A, all July are 07A.
William
Interesting! Would the part shortage have been on the Fisher or the Chevrolet side?
I am itrigued as my 69 06A - for what it is worth - has a 0526 built motor and all the engine accessories date to the same time, but the NCRS puts the shipping date as June 18th
Fisher released per Chevy's schedule so in this case it was likely a Fisher shortage. If Chevy had a known shortage they would not schedule the unit.
-
Just guessing here.. Tell me how close I am? :)
VINs from ~ 658146 to ~ 658795 came off the line on 18 June 1969. Does your VIN fall into that range?
Close
based on my original guess I presumed the production completion date to be the week prior- possibly the 13th
based on your numbers, June 16th
-
Chris,
Lots of cars built at the same time as yours have the same date of production as yours.