CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 22, 2014, 02:53:14 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.
103338 Posts in 12156 Topics by 4691 Members
Latest Member: 67Nick
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  Decoding/Numbers
| | |-+  cowl tag buid date question.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print
Author Topic: cowl tag buid date question.  (Read 3631 times)
samanatoo
Member
***
Posts: 129


69 Z28 Hugger Orange/Orange Houndstooth


View Profile
« on: September 08, 2008, 12:46:12 PM »

My car has a 08C build date on the cowl tag. I was informed on this site that 08B week was skipped.  So does that mean that my 08C car body build started in the second week and not the 3rd???  Did the plant just not produce car bodies during the second week?? Talked with  the original owner yesterday and he remembers buying the ca rin the middle or toward the end of the month of August.  I know the builds dates on the cowls are not exact to the cars build.  Any thoughts just trying to document the cars history as accurate as possible.
Logged
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4067


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2008, 09:44:55 AM »

Could have been the second OR third week - production wasn't skipped, just the 08B code on the tag.
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
samanatoo
Member
***
Posts: 129


69 Z28 Hugger Orange/Orange Houndstooth


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2008, 01:06:34 PM »

Thanks, that makes sense that he picked up the car towards the end of the month of August.
Logged
BULLITT65
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1436


BULLITT65
View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2012, 05:14:18 AM »

John why wouldn't they use 08B for the second week?
Logged

1969 garnet red Z/28 46k mile unrestored X77
Looking for 3192477 (front) spiral shocks 3192851 (rear) please
Looking for an original LOF soft ray windshield
Looking for original Delco side post negative battery cable part # 6297651AV
Mark
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 933



View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2012, 08:32:20 AM »

Somebody forgot to change the letters on the trim tag machine, and didn't figure it out until after the weeks tags were stamped, so they went striagth to 08C from 08A
Logged

Mark C.
1969 Indy Pace Car
350/300HP RPO Z11
BULLITT65
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1436


BULLITT65
View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2012, 02:26:48 PM »

So your saying that there are 2 weeks worth of 08A cars out there? What I still don't understand is if you look at the calendar for the year 1969, August 1st was a friday, so it seems odd they would have been on top of their game to change it for the one day, and then slacked off the whole next week and left it as 08A. Seems like it would have made more sense for friday the 1st to be an 07E cars, and the week starting August 4th to be designated 08A, and then then next 08B and then 08C and end the last week of the month with 08D.
This also makes me curious did they also have 03E for cars built only on March 31st, or I would suggest 06E for cars built on June 30th, but I think I saw that all june cars were 06A, (was that for the same reason they forgot for the month of june?)
Logged

1969 garnet red Z/28 46k mile unrestored X77
Looking for 3192477 (front) spiral shocks 3192851 (rear) please
Looking for an original LOF soft ray windshield
Looking for original Delco side post negative battery cable part # 6297651AV
Mark
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 933



View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2012, 03:23:33 PM »

Assuming the Fisher build weeks more or less follow the calendar weeks, August 1 would have been the last day of 07D.  08A started 8/4, and 08C started 8/18.
Logged

Mark C.
1969 Indy Pace Car
350/300HP RPO Z11
BULLITT65
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1436


BULLITT65
View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2012, 03:32:28 PM »

So if I follow you correctly 08E cars would have been the first week of september?
Logged

1969 garnet red Z/28 46k mile unrestored X77
Looking for 3192477 (front) spiral shocks 3192851 (rear) please
Looking for an original LOF soft ray windshield
Looking for original Delco side post negative battery cable part # 6297651AV
william
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1162


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2012, 05:08:08 PM »

The date on the body tag represents when Fisher Body stamped the tag and released the production order. They probably released two weeks of orders during the first week; that's why the tags are all 08A. In addition a released order can be placed on hold due to a quality issue or component shortage. Production of 2012 ZL-1s is currently on hold; all the released orders will sit there until the issue is resolved.

Our documented '67 Z/28 project of many years ago was a great example. Body tag was 06E; engine was V0706MO. Car was final-assembled July 12, 1967. All original.
Logged
BULLITT65
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1436


BULLITT65
View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2012, 05:35:02 PM »

So to prove that things were correct for that situation or one similar I assume the protecto plate is one true way of proving that you had the correct motor for the car. Seems like this would also be true for a couple of the 08C cars that have May motors in them (protecto plate could be used document these instances as well). How else could you legitimately say the motor was originally mated to a car body otherwise?
 
Thank you for the info I was trying to figure out how my 08C car has a motor with a stamped date 0f V0811DZ, with the same info on the protecto plate, seemed like it was way to close together until you posted that info. I know my car was produced later than other 08C cars but glad you were able to shed some light on it.
Logged

1969 garnet red Z/28 46k mile unrestored X77
Looking for 3192477 (front) spiral shocks 3192851 (rear) please
Looking for an original LOF soft ray windshield
Looking for original Delco side post negative battery cable part # 6297651AV
69Z28-RS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2324


owner since '76


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2012, 05:36:57 PM »

William?  How did you determine final assembly date for the '67 Z in qustion?
Logged

Gary W.  /  69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood all tint
69 Corvette convertible, silver/black 350 hp,
60 Corvette white/red, 72 Corvette coupe (2), 
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55 Nomad, '57 Nomad, '57 B/A Sedan
69Z28-RS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2324


owner since '76


View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2012, 05:38:09 PM »

Austin,
The only sure way to correllate engine to body is via the VIN stamped onto the block...

Gary / 69 Z28-RS
Logged

Gary W.  /  69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood all tint
69 Corvette convertible, silver/black 350 hp,
60 Corvette white/red, 72 Corvette coupe (2), 
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55 Nomad, '57 Nomad, '57 B/A Sedan
BULLITT65
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1436


BULLITT65
View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2012, 05:56:31 PM »

I respectfully disagree: There is enough re-stamped blocks out there. In addition to a correct looking block stamping, a original protecto plate would add to the probability of the engine block being original to the car.  I know that certain guys have even reproduced the protecto plates, but it seems at this point in time, less common than the re-stamping of blocks.
A person without the protecto plate, and a correct looking stamping may very well have the original block. All I am stating, is in the case of blocks dated outside what is considered the norm, the addition of an original protecto plate just adds to the authenticity, and makes the point more conclusive.
Logged

1969 garnet red Z/28 46k mile unrestored X77
Looking for 3192477 (front) spiral shocks 3192851 (rear) please
Looking for an original LOF soft ray windshield
Looking for original Delco side post negative battery cable part # 6297651AV
BULLITT65
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1436


BULLITT65
View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2012, 06:11:50 PM »

Also I forgot to mention correlation of similar cars in similar circumstances such as there is at least two 08C cars that i know of with this earlier motor case. The more data that is provided that correlates this hypothesis the stronger the case is that this took place.
Such as the information that was provided on the thread about when 69 SS got the stacked hood during production. You had like 20 or so guys provide build dates, plant build, and what hood they had on their cars, and this created a working model that you could look at and project what hood a 69 SS 350 or 396 camaro would probabley have based on the gather data. (early style vents vs the later style stacked hoods)
Logged

1969 garnet red Z/28 46k mile unrestored X77
Looking for 3192477 (front) spiral shocks 3192851 (rear) please
Looking for an original LOF soft ray windshield
Looking for original Delco side post negative battery cable part # 6297651AV
william
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1162


View Profile Email
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2012, 06:28:33 PM »

William?  How did you determine final assembly date for the '67 Z in qustion?

I have some Canadian shipping records from July '67 listing VINs and final assembly dates. The car fit in the range listed.
Logged
69Z28-RS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2324


owner since '76


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2012, 12:24:19 AM »

I respectfully disagree: There is enough re-stamped blocks out there. In addition to a correct looking block stamping, a original protecto plate would add to the probability of the engine block being original to the car.  I know that certain guys have even reproduced the protecto plates, but it seems at this point in time, less common than the re-stamping of blocks.
A person without the protecto plate, and a correct looking stamping may very well have the original block. All I am stating, is in the case of blocks dated outside what is considered the norm, the addition of an original protecto plate just adds to the authenticity, and makes the point more conclusive.
If one had a protecto plate to identify the stamped code on the engine (from the factory), AND you believed the protecto plate.. then the engine could STILL be a restamp!   having the protecto plate doesn't discount that possibility.   Basically, if you can't tell the difference between restamps and factory stamps/marks, then ... you're behind the 8 ball.. Smiley ..  protecto plate or not..

Gary
Logged

Gary W.  /  69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood all tint
69 Corvette convertible, silver/black 350 hp,
60 Corvette white/red, 72 Corvette coupe (2), 
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55 Nomad, '57 Nomad, '57 B/A Sedan
BULLITT65
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1436


BULLITT65
View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2012, 01:01:24 AM »

I am just saying the more info you have like an original looking stamp on the motor along with the protecto plate just gives the car more credability, when dates may raise questions about the authenticity of a numbers matching car. *Sure ANY car could have a restamp or parts switched out. Even if you bought the car off the original owner in 1970. But having both a correct stamp motor and the original protecto plate makes your case stronger, the more info, the more documentation the better.
Logged

1969 garnet red Z/28 46k mile unrestored X77
Looking for 3192477 (front) spiral shocks 3192851 (rear) please
Looking for an original LOF soft ray windshield
Looking for original Delco side post negative battery cable part # 6297651AV
KurtS
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 3171


View Profile Email
« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2012, 08:31:42 PM »

Realize production was down a bunch in July (due to shutdown), went back up in mid-Aug, back to full speed in Sept.
No way of knowing how they chose to do the weeks. 08A may have had 10 days in it....
Logged

Kurt S
CRG
crobjones2
Member
***
Posts: 284


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2012, 08:17:18 PM »

Kurt
How did June work? With everything being an 06A?
Logged

Chris
69 SS 350
KurtS
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 3171


View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2012, 11:23:58 PM »

Not sure of the question. But they never changed the date and just ran all month that way, +13K cars.
Logged

Kurt S
CRG
crobjones2
Member
***
Posts: 284


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2012, 04:55:52 AM »

Not sure of the question. But they never changed the date and just ran all month that way, +13K cars.
Just wondering why it was all month - I would've thought if someone forgot to change the date, they wouldve caught it within the first week and they would've changed it for the third and fourth week - like August.
Logged

Chris
69 SS 350
jdv69z
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 634


69 RS Z/28 52E


View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2012, 02:04:34 PM »

Wonder when the cutoff for ordering by the dealers was? Maybe Fisher thought that they were close to finishing out the production year, and just ran all the order tags at the same time?

Jimmy V.
Logged

Jimmy V.
william
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1162


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2012, 02:35:30 PM »

Since body production was the 'gateway' operation in the production of a car, I assure you Fisher Body was well aware '69 production was to be extended. Chevrolet Central Office drove their schedule; there was undoubtedly near continuous contact between the two organizations.

The body tag date represents when Fisher released the order. With Central Office pulling in/pushing out build orders it makes sense to have a large queue of released orders ready to go. There were several 'missed' weeks at both plants, not always the same. Common missed weeks could indicate a material shortage.

The body tag was there for use by Fisher; Chevrolet Assembly had no need for it.
Logged
69Z28-RS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2324


owner since '76


View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2012, 11:02:58 PM »

In 1969, for Chevelles, the last production date was the 3nd of June... I know becuase I was planning to order one, and missed the date by a few days..  I think the end of June was *normal* changeover time during those years for all models.  Back then the new cars were introduced generally in September...  of course, the end of '69 Camaro production (and Corvettes also) was very different in '69 for several reasons...

Gary
Logged

Gary W.  /  69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood all tint
69 Corvette convertible, silver/black 350 hp,
60 Corvette white/red, 72 Corvette coupe (2), 
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55 Nomad, '57 Nomad, '57 B/A Sedan
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 1.662 seconds with 17 queries.