CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2014, 03:17:47 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
102433 Posts in 12087 Topics by 4667 Members
Latest Member: hrascoll
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  Production Dating a vehicle by VIN
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print
Author Topic: Production Dating a vehicle by VIN  (Read 8124 times)
CNorton
Member
***
Posts: 177


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2007, 07:43:47 PM »

The following quote was copied from the web site:  <http://www.usmemorialday.org/backgrnd.html>.  According to this information, prior ot 1971 Memorial Day was observed on May 30, no matter what day of the week it happened to be.


"But what may be needed to return the solemn, and even sacred, spirit back to Memorial Day is for a return to its traditional day of observance. Many feel that when Congress made the day into a three-day weekend in with the National Holiday Act of 1971, it made it all the easier for people to be distracted from the spirit and meaning of the day. As the VFW stated in its 2002 Memorial Day address: "Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day. No doubt, this has contributed greatly to the general public's nonchalant observance of Memorial Day."

On January 19, 1999 Senator Inouye introduced bill S 189 to the Senate which proposes to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day back to May 30th instead of "the last Monday in May". On April 19, 1999 Representative Gibbons introduced the bill to the House (H.R. 1474). The bills were referred the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government Reform."


At least someone has tried to do something about restoring the day to its intended significance.
Logged
Flowjoe
Member
***
Posts: 340


View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2007, 10:21:13 PM »

OK, thanks.  If true then the 30th would have been a Friday...so the total number of work days would have been the same at 21 and that would not influence which week the final VIN of the month were produced.  But it would influence whihc day a given VIN could have been produced.

Memorial day has suffered a better fate than Armistice Day...it's now called Veterans Day, celebrates all veterans and no one knows why it is celebrated on Nov 11th. 
Logged
CNorton
Member
***
Posts: 177


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2007, 11:21:01 PM »

Let us never forget the sacrifices of those who have gone before.  Veteran's Day or Armistice Day, it makes little difference, the thoughts should be the same.  Although it will soon be ninety years, marking the end of WWI appropriately is simply the right thing to do.
Logged
sdkar
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 641



View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2007, 04:15:21 PM »

There must have been something going on at Norwood during April as far as how many cars were built per day.  I just came across a 69 pace car with an 04C build and a VIN of 628591.  My pace car is a 04C with a VIN of 636285.  That means that at least 7,694 Camaros were built during 04C, the third week of April.  Also, I am sure that there are earlier and later VIN's with an 04C which would increase the third week of April's production. With a 5 day work week and two shifts totaling 16 hours per day, based on the VIN's I have, then GM made over 1,540 cars per day for 04C.  That's almost 100 cars per hour.  If you look at CRG's break down of production figures, they show the first VIN of April as 623588.  That means that GM built less than 5,000 cars for the first two weeks of April, 04A and 04B.  CRG shows an ending VIN for April of 637106.  That means, if you assume my car was the last one built in 04C, which I bet it was not, than GM made at most, only 821 cars for 04D and 04E.  April 30th was a Wednesday, so there were 8 weekdays during 04D and 04E, which would mean GM only made about 100 cars per day for the last two weeks of April yet for the third week of April, 04C, they built about 100 cars per hour.  Something doesn't make sense.         

Is there any mistake with my math or was GM really messed up?  Is it possible they could go from building 100 cars per hour in 04C and then drop to about 6 cars per hour the following week?
Logged
william
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1158


View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2007, 06:19:06 PM »

Having spent many years and much time studying Norwood Camaro production for 1969 it is time for my 2. There is not always a direct correlation between body tag date and production date.

The date on the body tag was fixed when Fisher released the production order for the body. I do not know how far ahead they released POs; I'm sure there was a bank of orders as the last thing you want to do is starve the line. Lets say there were always a couple days of body POs queued at Fisher. This means a PO printed on Wednesday with an 04C tag attached may not have been started until Friday. That car would not be on the Chevrolet side until 04D.

In comparing a lot of cars it is not unusual to see an earlier VIN with a later tag date. The first two ZL1s N569358 & N569359 have 12E tags but earlier VINs than many 12C and 12D Camaros. It is well known those cars were built Dec 30, 1968 and delivered to Gibb the next day. That means the 12C and 12D Camaros that followed with later VINs were actually built on or after January 2, 1969.

For whatever reason Fisher did not always release POs in a orderly manner. This was around the time Firebird production moved to Norwood and there may have been some co-ordination issues. There is no question Fisher banked POs; how else could 06A Z/28s have mid-June engine dates? Ergo an 04C car may have actually been built 04B.

Remember the body tag meant nothing to Chevrolet. Fisher was free to do as it pleased.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2007, 12:23:53 AM by KurtS » Logged
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4043


View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2007, 09:55:49 AM »

Is there any mistake with my math or was GM really messed up?  Is it possible they could go from building 100 cars per hour in 04C and then drop to about 6 cars per hour the following week?

The line rate didn't change - they ran 57 cars per hour all day, every day. Changing the line rate in an assembly plant requires re-assigning every work element, re-organizing every single line operation, rearranging tooling, equipment, and materials, and re-training every worker in the plant. You can't always extrapolate based on published numbers, or by trying to compare Fisher Body numbers and scheduling systems to Chevrolet off-the-line production numbers - Fisher and Chevrolet were two different GM divisions and two different worlds, in spite of their plants being on the same piece of property.
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
jdv69z
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 618


69 RS Z/28 52E


View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: July 04, 2007, 10:46:24 AM »

I'm just curious. Did the line ever stop, or it ran basically continuously?? Unless there was some major snafu?

Jimmy V.
Logged

Jimmy V.
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4043


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2007, 10:25:37 AM »

I'm just curious. Did the line ever stop, or it ran basically continuously?? Unless there was some major snafu?

Jimmy V.

It ran continuously, unless it was manually stopped momentarily or there was a conveyor drive breakdown; if more than 5 or 6 units were lost due to a breakdown, incremental overtime was usually scheduled (in tenths of an hour) at the end of the shift to make them up.
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.082 seconds with 17 queries.