VIN verification

[BobH11]

Hello, I'm new to the site and bought a 1969 Z/28 about a year ago. Could someone help me with the date codes to see what is correct on this car? The Dash Vin# block and trans are the same .

                      Thanks, Bob

[william]

Sure, post them here.

[BULLITT65]

Welcome to the site.
If you have trouble posting, sometimes it is easier to post a link to where the car was for sale on the internet. Many times the ad is still there long after the sale takes place, and pics of the firewall tag, Vin and other components are displayed in the ad.
 

[bcmiller]

When you post pics, you may have to reduce the size.

We look forward to helping you with your questions.

[BobH11]

thanks for the reply. I'll have to send the pics one at a time.

[BobH11]

next set

[BobH11]

last ones

[BobH11]

a pic of the car

[bertfam]

Bob, a few observations if I may.

1. The rear axle is dated April 15th, but we need to know the casting date on the pumpkin. However, an axle dated 6 months before the car was built means it's probably not original. Yes, we HAVE seen anomalies to the "6 month rule", but not on a common 3.07 ratio.

2. The trim tag has the wrong rivets, so it's been off the car. It may have been removed when the car was restored because it appears to be real, but just an FYI.

3. The transmission probably isn't original. It's got a 1968 date (P8P16 - assembled September 16th, 1967 for use in a 1968 passenger car) instead of a 1969 date.

4. The engine suffix appears to be original, but you would need to post a picture of the pad with the paint removed to make sure. Use paint remover and NOT a screwdriver or scraper to remove the paint!!

5. Related to the suffix, the VIN stamp on the engine is too difficult to make out. Can you get a better picture of that?

Oh, and welcome to the site! If you got the car for the $24.5k that I'm seeing on Google, you got a great deal. Of course, that was back in 2012, so that's probably not what you paid since you said you just got it last year.

Ed

[BobH11]

Ed thanks for the reply,  I'll get a better pic of the block number.  How would the VIN# be on the trans?

[bcmiller]

Ditto what Ed said.

[bertfam]

How would the VIN# be on the trans?

That's what's strange. The VIN stamp appears to be real, so the date stamp may be a factory mistake. I would have to let Kurt or one of the other guys that have access to the database comment, but I think we have a few cars in the DB with this kind of mistake. If it IS a mistake, and it's supposed to be a 9 instead of an 8, the date (September 16th, 1968) actually lines up well with a 10B built car!

Higher resolution pictures would certainly help. You can email them to me (see my email address in my signature below), or host them on a picture hosting site and link them to your reply.

Ed

[bcmiller]

Ed thanks for the reply,  I'll get a better pic of the block number.  How would the VIN# be on the trans?

Appears to be a restamp.

[bcmiller]

For this case - and all others in the future - to effectively evaluate the stamps on an engine pad, it must be free of paint. Do as Ed suggests. Don't use anything abrasive. Use paint remover or some lacquer thinner on a rag. Be careful so you don't damage the paint on the body of the car. 

[BobH11]

Ed, I was told that everything is model year stamped except the trans. they were stamped calendar year, so I thought this trans was stamped 6 weeks before the car build date.

[bertfam]

Ed, I was told that everything is model year stamped except the trans. they were stamped calendar year, so I thought this trans was stamped 6 weeks before the car build date.

No, that's not correct. The transmission is stamped model year.

Ed

[jdv69z]

Here's a pic of my original Muncie in my 69 Z. Note the assembly date P9P11 indicating model year 69. but below is the main case casting date of I3 8. So main case was cast in  Sep 3 68, and trans was assembled Sep 11 68. Part of your partial main case casting date shows up in the pic, but not the year. If it's as Ed suspects, it's a 7. Or maybe the 7 in the pic you provided is the year the main case was cast?

Note that my Z is a 1968 10B build just as yours is.

[bcmiller]

Here's a pic of my original Muncie in my 69 Z. Note the assembly date P9P11 indicating model year 69. but below is the main case casting date of I3 8. So main case was cast in  Sep 3 68, and trans was assembled Sep 11 68. Part of your partial main case casting date shows up in the pic, but not the year. If it's as Ed suspects, it's a 7. Or maybe the 7 in the pic you provided is the year the main case was cast?

Note that my Z is a 1968 10B build just as yours is.

That's not a casting date. It may somewhat line up for that particular case, but I just checked 15 cases that I have here at home and none of them line up that way.  Attached is an example of a 69 case.  There is no real rhyme or reason for the numbers that relates to date as far as I know.  It MIGHT have to do with the casting mold number.

[bertfam]

It MIGHT have to do with the casting mold number.

Yep. It's a foundry pattern number used to track the mold the pattern was made from in case there were problems found.

If you want to know the month and week the individual parts (main case, extension housing and/or side cover) were cast, look for two circles as shown in the picture below. (Sorry, no year indicator, but you can always go by the casting numbers)

In this case (this is an extension), it was cast in the 3rd week (3 dots) of March (3). The other circle will contain a blueprint number and a deviation notice letter (usually, it's blank).

Ed

[BULLITT65]

Here is an old link describing the car:
http://www.soldbyauctions.com/homes/advert_details/JiwzNFgtI0RYCmAK/
Looks like it was silver at one point.

[jdv69z]

So much for my theory!  So the casing don't have a casting date? Ok, got it now.

[bertfam]

Sorry Jimmy. I was updating my post to include casting date indicators while you were posting. See the picture above.

Ed

[jdv69z]

Yes, I see the circles on the side cover, for example, just like you stated.

[BobH11]

So what I'm getting is transmissions were built a year in advance of the assembly date stamp.

[bertfam]

So what I'm getting is transmissions were built a year in advance of the assembly date stamp.

No, transmissions were built on a daily basis and shipped to the various assembly plants for immediate installation. A "typical" date will only be a few days to several weeks before the car assembly date. I think you're getting confused on the MODEL YEAR stamp.

For example... Let's say you have a 1969 Camaro assembled in October of 1968 (remember, the new model year started in August, so the 1969 Camaro actually went on sale in August of 1968). The transmission would probably be built in September of 1968, but since it was destined for a 1969 car, the stamp would be P9xxxx. The transmission year stamp was always the MODEL year, not the CALENDAR year it was actually built.

Does that help?

Ed

[bcmiller]

Not many main cases have those date marker circles, WITH DATES indicated. Side covers and tail housings usually do.

[jack92584]

Here is an old link describing the car:
http://www.soldbyauctions.com/homes/advert_details/JiwzNFgtI0RYCmAK/
Looks like it was silver at one point.

And here is the link to the actual Russo Steele auctions results. It has a few more pics of the car when it was silver. Also mentions the rear axle not being original to the car
https://russoandsteele.com/vehicle-details/?show_vehicle=16981&current_index=4&total_results=11&auction_pk=51&=&caryear=&caryearto=&search_text=&page=&showpage=1

[BULLITT65]

So my question for the OP is : did you pay full price based on the seller saying it was all numbers matching?

[bcmiller]

Not many main cases have those date marker circles, WITH DATES indicated. Side covers and tail housings usually do.

Quick survey of 67-70 complete transmissions and main cases that I could find quickly at home.  10 main cases had no date circle at all, 5 had the date circle, but had no data in the circle.  None had a date circle with data in the circle.

[KurtS]

The trans is a restamp, as is the engine pad. IMO.

[jdv69z]

So carrying this casting date just a bit further. Attached is a pic of my original bell housing. It has the circles like is being discussed here for the dating of the casting. It also has an 8 cast in it, and 68 is the year of my car's manufacture. Is that 8 a pattern number or something, and just another coincidence on my car, or does that indicate the year?

[bcmiller]

Jimmy, bellhousings have date circles like some of the Muncie parts. I can't see what it shows on yours.

On yours, I think the 8 is a foundary pattern/mold number.

[bertfam]

So carrying this casting date just a bit further. Attached is a pic of my original bell housing. It has the circles like is being discussed here for the dating of the casting. It also has an 8 cast in it, and 68 is the year of my car's manufacture. Is that 8 a pattern number or something, and just another coincidence on my car, or does that indicate the year?

Yes, bell housings are dated the same way transmission cases are, with two 1/2" circles cast into them. That's the "yes" part. As for the "no" part, there's no "year" indicator, so dating a bell housing is pretty much useless.

Attached is a picture of a 621 bell housing with 12 (December) and 4 dots (4th week). The 3 in the below picture (or 8 on your bell housing) is a mold (aka pattern) number and has nothing to do with the date.

Ed

[jdv69z]

So the 8's on my trans case and bell housing were just to confuse me!  They did.

[bcmiller]

We got off topic and we should probably split out the date circle posts. Might be hard to do though. I will try to do that later today.

[BobH11]

So my question for the OP is : did you pay full price based on the seller saying it was all numbers matching?

                 I paid 50,000. I'm not real sure what full price would be. I've seen clones going for way more, but I probably wouldn't have bought the car at all if knew it wasn't numbers matching.

[BULLITT65]

Well if the seller is a stand up  individual maybe you can bring some of this up with him, and work out a partial refund or sell the car back to him for what you paid? Worth a try

[BobH11]

I'm trying figure out what an original Z with non original parts is actually worth.

[BULLITT65]

well last time it sold for 24.5 in 2012, plus a nice paint job.

BUT, Are we sure it is a original Z? Did Jerry ever certify it as a original Z?
Have you done the easy stuff of verifying the hidden Vin numbers?
Does it have the X3 behind the rear seat (could be duplicated), but somewhere to start. Did it have the correct dated rally wheels? What other Z specific original parts does it have?

[bcmiller]

Bob, when you bought it, it was advertised as "numbers matching"?

Unfortunately, there is a lot of variation in what people call "numbers matching". 

Original engine, original transmission and original rear axle would be wording I would look for.  Some people use "born with engine".

Also - have you checked the partial VIN on the top of the cowl?

[BobH11]

I got the car from someone I know, he gave me the paper work he received which included pictures of the trans numbers and the engine numbers. He had bought the car in 2012, so I kind of thought he checked it out.

[bcmiller]

Dang.  Sorry to hear about that.  I would still check the partial VIN on the top of the cowl.  Sometimes that car be seen through the openings, without having to take the panel off.

It's tough to say what it is worth.