CRG Discussion Forum

Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FinnRS on February 21, 2011, 04:15:11 PM

Title: Another VIN vs. Trim Tag
Post by: FinnRS on February 21, 2011, 04:15:11 PM

I've been browsing through 1968 Camaros for sale lately and I've noticed that the VINs and trim tag do not correlate at all with June/July built cars as for build date. I did learn from this site that VIN build dates in June actually do deviate from actual build dates, but could it be as much as 4 weeks? I've collected pictures of trim tags that have build dates of July 1968 and they show a difference of even more than a month compared to VIN.

The first picture show a trim tag with 07D. VIN of the car is N476xxx and according to the link below the car was built probably mid-late June even though the trim tag shows 07D?

http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany

The second picture shows 07C. VIN is N472xxx. Again, it should be mid-late June according to the link?

The third pic shows 07D, VIN 479xxx. According to link: somewhere late June?

I know the chances are low that all of these randomly found cars have fake trim tags on them and that they really should have a tag with 06x build date.. But does anyone have a definite answer to this? Otherwise this keeps bugging me..  ;)

Title: Re: Another VIN vs. Trim Tag
Post by: RonM on February 21, 2011, 08:21:56 PM

I think something is wrong with the chart. My car is an 07D build and some of the original parts have July dates, the last of which is July 18th for the rearend assembly. Hope this helps, RonM.

Title: Re: Another VIN vs. Trim Tag
Post by: Mark on February 21, 2011, 09:57:53 PM

The Charts are wrong (or at least misleading) and have to be taken with a grain of salt, but those are the numbers reported by GM as the final VIN that was assembled each month.  Look at May of 68, they reportedly made 39000 cars in May.  Norwood built 912 Cars a day, every day, so with a 21 day work month the most they could make any single month was 19152 cars if everything went perfectly.  So did the plant lie in May to get some kind of performance bonus, or was it a typo that they had to reconcile by fudging the rest of the year numbers, so they didn't get penalized for lack of performance, who knows.

Title: Re: Another VIN vs. Trim Tag
Post by: FinnRS on February 22, 2011, 06:25:51 PM

Thank you the replies Ron and Mark. The May production explains it all then if there was no way they could make that many cars a month..

Ron, do you mind sharing your (partial) VIN? Just that we can get the last nail in the coffin if it's close to the VINs in my first message :)

Title: Re: Another VIN vs. Trim Tag
Post by: RonM on February 22, 2011, 08:24:30 PM

No problem, the partial VIN is N477xxx. Hope this helps, RonM.

Title: Re: Another VIN vs. Trim Tag
Post by: KurtS on February 22, 2011, 09:04:25 PM

Quote from: RonM on February 21, 2011, 08:21:56 PM

I think something is wrong with the chart.

There's a lot wrong with the chart in that date range, as Mark explained.
That's why the caveats are all listed above that data, including this specific one:
"The data for some months (especially May and June 68 at Norwood) deviate significantly from actual build dates, while other months correlate well."   :)

Title: Re: Another VIN vs. Trim Tag
Post by: 1968 Z28 on February 23, 2011, 01:34:07 AM

Finn....My '68 07C's vin is N475XXX and body number is NOR176XXX.

Title: Re: Another VIN vs. Trim Tag
Post by: FinnRS on February 23, 2011, 08:36:39 AM

Thanks guys, I appreciate the help!