Author Topic: Cowl Tag vs Vin #  (Read 1868 times)

pjbizjak

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Cowl Tag vs Vin #
« on: January 25, 2010, 01:38:07 AM »
The starting body assembly date on my 68 Z/28 cowl tag is 04A(April 1st week) and my VIN # is 123478N4 _ _ _ _ 5( I deleted 4 numbers for security) and according to the numbers posted on this web site, the VIN # calculates to the fact that the car was completed the 8th day of April 68. The calculations were made using the last VIN # produced for March 68 and the last VIN # produced for April 68. For the month of April 68 18,227 units were built, and using a 5 day work week there were 22 work days in April 68, this means around 830 +/- units were built per day((3 shifts). Now if the VIN # were sequencial by 1, I multiplied the 830 units per day X 8 = 6640, I added that to the VIN # of the last unit built in March 68 and my VIN # falls into that range. I do not have the origional motor to check the assembly date stamped on it which would have helped in determining the final production date. My reason for doing this is because I am restoring my Z to origional matching numbers and the only thing that is not original is the motor, as mentioned before, and in my search for the parts I have to find them with the right casting dates. The correct casting dates would be within 10 days of the final assembly date. IF YOU FIND THIS IN ERROR PLEASE REPLY, THANKS.

KurtS

  • CRG Coordinator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3572
    • View Profile
Re: Cowl Tag vs Vin #
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2010, 03:37:10 AM »
The correct casting dates would be within 10 days of the final assembly date. IF YOU FIND THIS IN ERROR PLEASE REPLY, THANKS.
Castings do not have to be within 10 days. Most are close, but there is no 10-day rule.
Using the month-end VIN's this way is not very accurate because we don't know how GM generated those #'s. You probably are within a few days. BTW, production was actually about 900/day.
Kurt S
CRG

pjbizjak

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Re: Cowl Tag vs Vin #
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2010, 05:33:00 PM »
OK thanks, BTW what woukld you think of an original 3914678 302 68 block with a casting date of D-1-8 and assembly  date of V0526MO? Sounds a little fishy to me since most block assemblies were done usually within 10 days of casting date.

68Zproject

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1634
    • View Profile
Re: Cowl Tag vs Vin #
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2010, 03:48:22 AM »
What's the VIN on that block, out of curiosity?
68Z28

KurtS

  • CRG Coordinator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3572
    • View Profile
Re: Cowl Tag vs Vin #
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2010, 04:55:34 AM »
I really don't watch casting dates. I look at the engine stamp.
Kurt S
CRG

pjbizjak

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Re: Cowl Tag vs Vin #
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2010, 04:12:43 PM »
The vin number is unreadable, ebay # 200432176656, search 68 302, look at the block assembly date???

1968RSZ28

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5179
    • View Profile
Re: Cowl Tag vs Vin #
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2010, 05:51:48 PM »

1968 Z28

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Re: Cowl Tag vs Vin #
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2010, 06:36:17 PM »
The vin number is unreadable, ebay # 200432176656, search 68 302, look at the block assembly date???
Looks like there is an 18N and then it looks like the rest of the number runs into a rust spot.  My original 302 block with a date of  F138 does not look like that block....my block does not have the HB on the front and it doesn't have the two big hole plugs under the timing cover...don't know what difference that makes.
Jerry G.

Z28-1968-07C-Norwood
Ermine White, Red Std. Interior
2nd. Owner, 38,000 miles

68Zproject

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1634
    • View Profile
Re: Cowl Tag vs Vin #
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2010, 11:00:24 PM »
It's just real close to mine, but mine is L.
68Z28

KurtS

  • CRG Coordinator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3572
    • View Profile
Re: Cowl Tag vs Vin #
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2010, 03:13:59 PM »
Wow, what a miserable picture.
But I tend to think it's not original.
Kurt S
CRG