CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 07:28:56 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.
97448 Posts in 11712 Topics by 4581 Members
Latest Member: Cooper48
* 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 3366 times)
69Z28-RS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1958


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: 1149


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: 3068


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: 277


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: 3068


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: 277


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: 591


69 RS Z/28 Red/White Vinyl; 1of 1??


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: 1136


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: 1958


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 0.088 seconds with 17 queries.