I wouldn't do stainless lines ever. What problem are you trying to fix with the stainless?

More exact: http://www.camaros.org/numbers.shtml#b

[MUST]

I made a major error. I believed the magazine.
Of course the order schedule wouldn't have the VIN's on them - VIN's were unknown until the Chevrolet side assigned them. So USCC just assumed there were no VIN's involved.

7N100001 is 09B NOR860
7N100013 is 05B NOR46
7N100031 is 09B NOR890

I'm not so sure about "built on a trim tag already Batch assigned for fall production". Some of the early cars have 09B, but not all. There are 05B tags (which fit when the cars were built) and 09B is over a month off from when that body # would have been built. NOR 8xx is mid August, not mid Sept. And that would have been a tag stamped 4 months and thousands of cars before it was needed.
It's probably the biggest anomaly #-wise I've seen. I can't explain the puzzle piece but I'm guessing it involved prepping the car for sale (removing the 110v lighting, etc).

Phil,
How far ahead did they stamp trim tags? I believe it was only when the car was on the schedule (to be built), i.e. a couple of days ahead.

I helped Jobin when #100001 first showed up - too bad I didn't ask him about the wiring cause the headliner was maybe original - the rest of the car sure wasn't!

126677N100013 MUST be a pilot car. I don't think (but I could be wrong. I often am!!) Chevrolet would have built a "production" car in May of 1966. During that time, Norwood was still building full size cars and Novas.

126677N100031 could possibly be the first "production" convertible, but we don't have too many cars before that in the db.

Pre-production cars were run down the line, mixed in with regular production. John or Phil could expand on how they pull that off, but mainly it involved leaving space on the line before / aft the car.
Remember the schedule was for 49 NOR cars. There were 2 convertibles in the first 10.
Anything before VIN 7N100050 would have been one of these pre-production cars.

Cars after the first 49 appear to have normal VINs, dates (08A), and body #'s, btw.

There are real early 68's that are stamped June, so the 68's were built to the same time schedule.

I went thru the bomber plant several times (it's under 10 miles away) a couple of years ago when they auctioned off the transmission tooling.
Really cool to see where the engines and wings were assembled and met the main body. Looonnnnngggg plant. It make the sharp turn near final assembly so that the plant was all in the same county.

I guess what I was getting hung up on is that the AIM called for a different #, 797, on the L78 car and I could not figure out exactly why. My car,like I said has the original trans and rear.

The AIM only listed the base configuration. Your car has an optional ratio, so it used a different trans than the base.

Guys - stop the sniping back and forth.

Back to the topic:
Note that these are pre-production units and not saleable, hence no VIN.
Interesting that they went to the proving grounds with show paint. Obviously they weren't using them for any corrosion or durability testing!

And in 67, some have a half-size 7 at the end of the stamped code.  The extra code may be some internal plant indicator that we'll never know why....

I will note that there are inspector stamps located on the top of the case, so that's not what these codes were used for.

Here's the info on site that Don referred to:
http://www.camaros.org/engine.shtml#bbcover

Gary,
Your car came with side-posts.

Danny,
Yours would be the earliest I know of.

I'm not covering for anyone. Several people *did* see original paint that was left.

The changeover time is pretty clearly defined on the page, IMO.

http://www.camaros.org/underhood.shtml#Batteries

For LOS cars, the change to side post batteries occurred during the 05A week (cowl tag date). For NOR cars, it appears the change to the Y77 side post battery occurred in late April, while the R79 side post battery was used starting in early- to mid-May. (See the Battery Usage section for application information.)

Clem,
I completely believe that is how you ordered it and what you ordered.
From people that actually saw the paint, I'm not convinced that what was received.
At this point, I don't think there's any original paint to compare to, so we'll never know.

Two questions (that Warren asked above):
I'm confused. Both Phil and Tom say that people followed the assembly article and misassembled their NOR cars. Can you please explain how you could tell in a finished car?

Other than this detail in the differences in the plants, are there other known issues in John's article?  So far, you've just attacked it. Why not discuss issues with it, if there are any?

As expected, no response on either question.
This whole conversation is going no where, just a whole lot of pot-stirring.

Closed.

Clem,
When you ordered it, how did you specify the color to the dealer?

Sorry, totally my fault. I'm on a limited time schedule lately and some things fall thru the cracks...