Author Topic: Just Bought "Numbers Matching" 67 RS/SS, Did I Make A Mistake? (Read 40882 times)

naptownrick · « **on:** September 09, 2010, 12:44:27 PM »

Hello,
I just bought a nice condition survivor "numbers matching" 67 RS/SS. The car is in pretty nice condition, not fully restored, but fully documented. I have the protect-o-plate, original title, owners manual, and all "accessory" fliers that came with the car in the owners manual. The car was purchased in 1967 from a dealership that is about 20 miles from my house. After 39 years, the original owners sold it in 2006 to the guy I bought it from yesterday who lives about 15 miles from my house. He spent 4 years doing his best to clean up the car and do some minor restorative work, making sure to only restore the original parts, not replace anything unless it was absolutely necessary (such as the side view mirror which had badly pitted, dome light cover and other smaller parts. The engine was said to be original, was rebuilt, but not decked so all stampings are very clear. This is what I have found, I may have missed something and I would like some help:

VIN: 124377N186552 (matches protect-o-plate and tag in drivers door jamb)

Cowl Tag:
03A E
67-12437 NOR 84114
760-Z G2
W 2LG 3SL
4P

Engine Block Stamp:
Partial VIN: 7N189552 (this is what I am worried about, and is not a typo on my part)
Code: VO22IMS
Block #: 3892657

I have decoded all of this and come up with everything being correct, date codes and all. What is not correct, is the 10th number in the vin and the corresponding 5th number on the partial VIN. On the engine stamp it is a "9" and the actual vin on the car is a "6" and the protect-o-plate is a "6". Is it possible the previous owner was being sneaky and managed to find a date code correct, 1967 350CI engine that was only one digit off from their vin? Or, could the stamper at the plant flipped the "6" and the "9" when stamping this block? There is so much great documentation on this car, I would be surprised to find they scoured the US to find a block with almost the exact partial vin. The guy I bought the car from did not touch the engine other than cleaning it up.

Anyone have any ideas if this could have been a stamping mistake? I still love the car, and I dont believe I overpaid, but I would be much happier to clear this up. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!!

Thanks!
Rick

tom · « **Reply #1 on:** September 09, 2010, 02:08:03 PM »

To find a date code correct block with a vin off by exactly 3000 units seems unlikely. It's possible someone put the 6 upside down in the stamper. If they did there are probably a number of similarly stamped blocks. The experts will chime in I'm sure.

Kelley W King · « **Reply #2 on:** September 09, 2010, 02:58:42 PM »

Check some cast dates. Block, heads ,exhaust. Might not really prove anything but looking production dates and numbers might make you feel better or worse.

naptownrick · « **Reply #3 on:** September 09, 2010, 03:30:40 PM »

Thank guys! I was also thinking it would be tough to find a date code correct and correct 350CI block exactly 3000 units off, and have that somehow also have been an L48 SS 350/295. What is the chance the car with that vin (189552) was a 1967 350SS 4 speed with the engine built before the first week of march!

I make these assumptions from:

Block Casting: 3892657 = 1967 302 or 350
Engine Code: V022IMS = (V) Flint Engine, (022I) built on Feb 21st, (MS) L48 350/295 w/4 speed built in 1967
Heads: I found "12252" stamped on one of the heads, not sure what this means yet.

I plan on jacking the car up tonight and checking the transmission and the rear axle.

If any experts have an opinion I would love to hear it! Thanks!

Rick

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 09, 2010, 04:03:32 PM »

dont forget these guys were looking at these numbers backwards too! it is an upside down six. the casting date on my 67 rs-ss block has the six upside down. dont loose sleep over it. nice find by the way

naptownrick · « **Reply #5 on:** September 09, 2010, 04:17:14 PM »

Thanks, I was thinking everything else was too much of a coincidence. I could very easily see the 6 and 9 getting swapped by the stamper. It's like trying to decode the protect-o-plate, you get your 2's and 5's, 6's and 9's mixed up sometimes.

Rick

pjbizjak · « **Reply #6 on:** September 09, 2010, 06:39:05 PM »

I have a 68 Z/28 04A that is all original except for the block and I have a lead on a 68 z/28 block that is only 238 units(vin) away from my original VIN and the assembly date is dead on. So yes it's possible to fine a close match but highly improbable. Close, yes, but I definitely think yours was a stamping screw up!

naptownrick · « **Reply #7 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:03:56 PM »

I wish I knew more about the whole block production process, then I could make a few more assumptions. I wonder if the blocks and the VINs were consecutive and increasing, which would mean the blocks made for VINs around #189552 that are 3000 units away from my vin of 186552, would be way past the date code possible for that stamp. Meaning, blocks made for cars around the 189552 VIN would have Date Codes of April or May, which makes the date on my block of Febuary 21st not possible for a 189552 vin stamp.

Or I'm wrong, and they made 3000 blocks in a week at that factory and it is entirely possble this is not the original engine.

Wow, I think I am starting to speculate a little too much, but this is all really interesting.

Rick

alex68rs · « **Reply #8 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:11:35 PM »

Hi
I just looked in my book name ''Chevy engine casting numbers 1955-93'' and for your engine block number 3892657, There are 4 possibilities

1- 327 64-67 Passenger,Chevelle STD& Hi Perf, Small journal
2- 327 64-67 Truck Small Journal
3- 327 66-67 Corvette 300,350hp,Small Journal, 2bolts main

4- 302-327 67 Camaro&Z28 Small Journal 2 bolts main

It doesn't talk about 350 cid. Is that an error on my book?

naptownrick · « **Reply #9 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:37:18 PM »

I'm going off the CRG website ( http://www.camaros.org/drivetrain.shtml ) under the "Drivetrain Decode" in the "Block Casting Numbers" section. I am now noticing they do have that block # under the 1967 327 column as well as under the 1967 302 and 350 column. Nonetheless, I am sure I have a L48 block because of the IMPORTANT and correct stamp of the Engine Code right next to the VIN, which you can decode above the Block Casting Number section of that same webpage:

V022IMS = (V) Flint Engine, (022I) built on Feb 21st, (MS) L48 350/295 w/4 speed built in 1967

Therefore, I am sure this block is a L48 350/295 and went on a 4 speed car, which I have. The VIN is the only discrepancy.

I'm not sure about your book, maybe it just doesnt get into a lot of detail. Most people are sure the same block was used for 302/327/350 and they changed the stroke to increase displacement. CRG seems to be the best, and very complete. They're hosting this forum too!

Rick

alex68rs · « **Reply #10 on:** September 09, 2010, 11:54:52 PM »

do you have some picture of your camaro. it seems to be a beautiful project. I agree with you for your engine if the stamp is there with this code it is a l48.

JohnZ · « **Reply #11 on:** September 10, 2010, 05:05:37 PM »

Quote from: naptownrick on September 09, 2010, 07:03:56 PM

I wish I knew more about the whole block production process, then I could make a few more assumptions. I wonder if the blocks and the VINs were consecutive and increasing, which would mean the blocks made for VINs around #189552 that are 3000 units away from my vin of 186552, would be way past the date code possible for that stamp. Meaning, blocks made for cars around the 189552 VIN would have Date Codes of April or May, which makes the date on my block of Febuary 21st not possible for a 189552 vin stamp.

Or I'm wrong, and they made 3000 blocks in a week at that factory and it is entirely possble this is not the original engine.

Wow, I think I am starting to speculate a little too much, but this is all really interesting.

Rick

Any close correlation between block casting dates and car VIN numbers is a coincidence; the VIN on the pad was stamped at the car assembly plant, not at the engine plant. The engine plant had no clue what car the engine would end up in. Each of the two engine plants made over 5,000 engines every day (300 per hour at each plant).

jdv69z · « **Reply #12 on:** September 10, 2010, 07:46:42 PM »

Quote from: alex68rs on September 09, 2010, 07:11:35 PM

Hi
I just looked in my book name ''Chevy engine casting numbers 1955-93'' and for your engine block number 3892657, There are 4 possibilities

1- 327 64-67 Passenger,Chevelle STD& Hi Perf, Small journal
2- 327 64-67 Truck Small Journal
3- 327 66-67 Corvette 300,350hp,Small Journal, 2bolts main

4- 302-327 67 Camaro&Z28 Small Journal 2 bolts main

It doesn't talk about 350 cid. Is that an error on my book?

Yes the Camaro was also available with a 350 when the SS option was ordered. First year and first car that used a 350.

Jimmy V.

naptownrick · « **Reply #13 on:** September 11, 2010, 05:11:53 PM »

Here are some pictures, obviously i need to swap this back to the correct paint, and put the black vinyl top back on. The price I paid definately allows for the restoration!

naptownrick · « **Reply #14 on:** September 11, 2010, 05:15:34 PM »

JohnZ,

What is your take on the 9 and 6 issue I have with the engine's Partial VIN stamp vs the Full VIN? Could this have been a stamping mistake at the assembly plant? Or is it more likely one of the two previous owners tracked down this engine that was almost exactly the same partial vin stamp??

Thanks for your ideas!

Rick

JohnZ · « **Reply #15 on:** September 11, 2010, 08:33:47 PM »

Quote from: naptownrick on September 11, 2010, 05:15:34 PM

JohnZ,

What is your take on the 9 and 6 issue I have with the engine's Partial VIN stamp vs the Full VIN? Could this have been a stamping mistake at the assembly plant? Or is it more likely one of the two previous owners tracked down this engine that was almost exactly the same partial vin stamp??

Thanks for your ideas!

Rick

It could be a plant error, but it's unlikely at that position in the gang holder; the die in that position was only changed once a day. A good close-up photo (using the camera's "macro" mode) of the pad would be helpful.

naptownrick · « **Reply #16 on:** September 12, 2010, 05:45:45 PM »

I will post the pictures tomorrow, I have them on my computer at work. I have spent some time with the Protect-o-Plate today, the engine code on the plate (V0221MS) matches the code on the engine block, so I am thinking this might confirm the engine is numbers matching? Or could someone still have found the correct date code block with a very close VIN?

Thanks
Rick

NED · « **Reply #17 on:** September 12, 2010, 11:54:33 PM »

Stamping error, plain and simple
Clem

tom · « **Reply #18 on:** September 13, 2010, 01:00:41 AM »

Post the photos. Like I said earlier if the thousand die was wrong I would expect there to be a number of other mis stamped blocks from the same day. Post a photo.

My68SS · « **Reply #19 on:** September 13, 2010, 11:51:19 AM »

Quote from: tom on September 13, 2010, 01:00:41 AM

Post the photos. Like I said earlier if the thousand die was wrong I would expect there to be a number of other mis stamped blocks from the same day. Post a photo.

Yup, the previous 521 would have also been wrong....possible but seems far fetched. Another possibility is that number could have accidentally slipped out while changing from 521 to 522 - distraction, accidental dropping of gang etc.
522 gets stamped wrong, the error is noticed and corrected for 523.
I know I would be driven to distraction [exasperation!!] with changing numbers in a gang all day!!

naptownrick · « **Reply #20 on:** September 13, 2010, 02:08:22 PM »

See attached pictures, I have attached two of the partial vin/engine code with one being a little easier to read. I also attached the VIN plate from the door jamb.

The vin on the door jamb and the engine code on the block both match the Protect-o-plate.

KurtS · « **Reply #21 on:** September 13, 2010, 03:17:20 PM »

Do you have a shot of the engine code stamp? That would help.

naptownrick · « **Reply #22 on:** September 13, 2010, 04:56:26 PM »

Attached below is the block casting number (3892657). The full Engine Code is visible on the one of the previous pictures next to the partial VIN (V022IMS).

(whoops, just realized the "S" is not in the picture. I can re-take that later if necessary, but I am sure that is correct)

Is there any other number I should look for?

Thanks!
Rick

KurtS · « **Reply #23 on:** September 13, 2010, 05:15:08 PM »

Sorry, I missed it.
Not definitive, but I suspect it's original stampings.

naptownrick · « **Reply #24 on:** September 13, 2010, 05:58:45 PM »

Good to hear. I wont be selling this car, I am keeping it to enjoy and restore for a very long time. I expect I may have problems with this discrepancy if I ever do sell it, but I'm hoping the rest of the documentation supercedes the apparent mistake made during the stamping. All I can do it present the documentation I have, and hopefully it will be worth more than a car that doesnt have the Protect-o-plate and original title. I want to base the level of restoration on my findings, so maybe I wont go quite as far as I would have if the numbers matched without question. Either way, I'll have fun doing it!

One question I didnt ask before, if the engine is stamped at the car assembly plant, does this mean the partial VIN on the transmission might also be stamped at the same time? By the same stamper? Maybe I'll find the tranny to have the same issue, I'll post what I find.

Thanks,
Rick

Ron C. · « **Reply #25 on:** September 14, 2010, 01:42:16 AM »

No matter what its still a real RS/SS,congrats on the purchase and enjoy the ride!!

Petes L48 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 14, 2010, 04:18:56 AM »

Quote from: naptownrick on September 13, 2010, 05:58:45 PM

One question I didnt ask before, if the engine is stamped at the car assembly plant, does this mean the partial VIN on the transmission might also be stamped at the same time? By the same stamper? Maybe I'll find the tranny to have the same issue, I'll post what I find.

Thanks,
Rick

If you look thru the CRG Reports to the article The First-Generation Camaro Assembly Process, it indicates that the engine pad and trans were both stamped in the same operation on the engine dress line. You would assume that the same stamp gang from the engine was used on the trans, but JohnZ might confirm as he authored the article.

JohnZ · « **Reply #27 on:** September 14, 2010, 04:22:56 PM »

Quote from: naptownrick on September 13, 2010, 05:58:45 PM

One question I didnt ask before, if the engine is stamped at the car assembly plant, does this mean the partial VIN on the transmission might also be stamped at the same time? By the same stamper? Maybe I'll find the tranny to have the same issue, I'll post what I find.

Thanks,
Rick

Typically both partial VIN stamps were done at the same time, by the same operator, using the same gang holder, after the transmission was bolted to the bellhousing.

babaron · « **Reply #28 on:** September 16, 2010, 01:00:17 AM »

So did they stamp the trans the same way? I'm dying to see.

Ron

naptownrick · « **Reply #29 on:** September 16, 2010, 02:17:45 AM »

Sorry, I'm really procrasinting on checking this. I havent even been able to drive her since last Friday. I will definately check by this weekend, work is kicking my butt!

Rick

naptownrick · « **Reply #30 on:** September 19, 2010, 11:49:21 PM »

Ok, finally got under the car today with a flashlight and a rag of paint thinner to clean off years of muck/undercoat fom the tranny. There was no partial VIN next to the transmission code on the passenger side where is should be. I did a search in this forum, and looked on the CRG website, and I understand on 67's it could be on the drivers side or the top as well. I checked the driver's side and could not find anything, but there are a few crevices I could not get to. I guess it could also be on the top, in which case I would need a really small mirror, or to drop the trans.

All the other codes checked out correctly:
Trans Casing: 3885010 (1967 Muncie 4spd)
Trans Code: P7A24 (4spd Muncie, 1967, built Jan 24th) which is before the assembly date of the car and would be correct.

There was also a small stamped metal tag under a bolt on the bottom of the trans toward the drivers side, with the number 3870357 on it. Any idea what this is?

So can anyone provide an accurate location of the partial vin when it is stamped on the top or the driver's side? Is there any way to see it with the trans installed if it is on the top (which I guess would depend on where it normally is stamped)?

All the date codes seem to be correct, so I would be really surprised if this is not numbers matching. I guess the engine VIN mis-stamp was worrying me, I'll just have to accept it as unknown if the trans was stamped wrong too until one day when i have to drop the trans.

Thanks again for all of the help!
Rick

1968RSZ28 · « **Reply #31 on:** September 20, 2010, 12:56:45 AM »

Quote from: naptownrick on September 19, 2010, 11:49:21 PM

There was also a small stamped metal tag under a bolt on the bottom of the trans toward the drivers side, with the number 3870357 on it. Any idea what this is?

Rick,

That tag is the "assembly number" for the transmission - it identifies the specific combination of main, side cover, and tailhousing castings, gearset type and ratios, input and output shafts, and output shaft speedo drive gear diameter and tooth count to suit a specific usage. Although most Muncies look the same externally, there were about a dozen different "assemblies" used, and that part number tag (and the broadcast code) identified which one they were.

Paul

1968RSZ28 · « **Reply #32 on:** September 20, 2010, 01:15:10 AM »

Quote from: naptownrick on September 19, 2010, 11:49:21 PM

So can anyone provide an accurate location of the partial vin when it is stamped on the top or the driver's side? Is there any way to see it with the trans installed if it is on the top (which I guess would depend on where it normally is stamped)?

Rick,

I have only seen Los Angeles built Camaros with the partial VIN stamped on top of their Muncie transmissions. It's possible to view transmission top partial VINs with the transmission in the car. All you need is a flexible mirror and a drop light.

Paul

JohnZ · « **Reply #33 on:** September 20, 2010, 03:47:26 PM »

The '67 Assembly Manual (section M20, sheet A1) identifies 3870357 as the Muncie 4-speed transmission assembly used with L-48 and L-35.

naptownrick · « **Reply #34 on:** September 20, 2010, 05:51:17 PM »

This is great information guys, thanks!! So far everything fits, I'm glad to hear the tag number confirms everything else found.

I'll have to get some kind of small mirror on a flexible holder to look on top of the trans for the partial vin. My car was not an LA built car, but I'm not sure it could be anywhere else. Is that a pretty certain fact that only LA cars had the stamp on top, or just speculation?

Did anyone ever see it on the passenger side, maybe I need to remove the linkage and clean off behind there to see it? It just figures it couldnt be in the easy to find place

Thanks again!
Rick

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 20, 2010, 07:44:37 PM »

IF IM NOT MISTAKEN, THE ASSEMBLY CODE IS ON ONE SIDE AND THE VIN IS ON THE OTHER on 67's. MY CAR HAS BEEN UP ON JACKS FOR SIX MONTHS, AND I TOOK IT DOWN YESTERDAY!

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #36 on:** September 21, 2010, 04:19:11 PM »

just went out and jacked up my car again, and the assembly code is on the passenger side, rhe vin stamp is on the left. happy hunting.
buddy

naptownrick · « **Reply #37 on:** September 21, 2010, 04:25:30 PM »

Buddy,
Do you have the exact location on the drivers side? Is it behind the linkage in a certain location? I'm hoping to pinpoint the area and scrape all the junk off.

Thanks!
Rick

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #38 on:** September 21, 2010, 04:40:59 PM »

rick, it is stamped at the back edge of the main case where it bolts to the tailshaft, above where the back up switch bolts to the side cover.
buddy

naptownrick · « **Reply #39 on:** September 26, 2010, 08:56:58 PM »

FINALLY!! Found it!

Thanks for your help Buddy, it was stamped right on the edge of the casing on the drivers side behind the linkage and buried under 1/4" of crud. The partial VIN matches the car's VIN, and does not have the 6/9 issue like the engine stamp. Maybe the worker saw the mistake in the engine stamp and corrected it for the trans? Here are pics below of the trans stamp, and another good shot of the engine stamp.

So, what I have is an engine code (V022IMS) that matches the protect-o-plate, and the VIN is one number off (189552 vs. 186552). Maybe I asked this before, but if the engine code matches the protect-o-plate does that mean this is 100% the correct engine, or could the engine from car# 189552 had the same engine code and somehow a previous owner found this block? This would mean the 189552 car would have happened to have an L48 engine built on the same day at the same plant, and had a Muncie 4speed. I guess it's possible with the volumes that were coming out of these factories, but unlikely considering all the coincidences that would have had to take place.

Thanks again all, I love the car, and having a blast enjoing it the way it is until I figure out how far to take the restoration. I find all of this decoding fascinating, it is so awesome to have a community of people who are this interested in the details of these cars and keeing them original!

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #40 on:** September 28, 2010, 06:42:20 PM »

congrats. feels good doesnt it

tom · « **Reply #41 on:** September 28, 2010, 08:34:57 PM »

Sounds like the engine has been swapped. If the stamp was wrong for the engine, I would expect to see the same thing on the trans stamp.

JohnZ · « **Reply #42 on:** September 29, 2010, 03:54:13 PM »

Quote from: tom on September 28, 2010, 08:34:57 PM

Sounds like the engine has been swapped. If the stamp was wrong for the engine, I would expect to see the same thing on the trans stamp.

I doubt it - the odds of finding another engine with exactly the same last three VIN digits is pretty remote. However, making any evaluation of a painted pad is impossible, as you can't see the pad surface. The paint should be removed (WITHOUT using any abrasive material) and take another high-res close-up macro photo of the pad.

naptownrick · « **Reply #43 on:** September 29, 2010, 06:40:48 PM »

JohnZ,
I will use a chemical stripper to remove the paint, no abrasive material, and take some very high-res pics of the bare metal with my wife's nice camera. I was hoping to get your opinion on the stamp and will certainly get it cleaned off so we can make an accurate assessment. Thanks, I should be able to do this by the weekend.

Thanks again!
Rick

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #44 on:** September 29, 2010, 09:22:51 PM »

i still say it is orig!

KurtS · « **Reply #45 on:** September 30, 2010, 02:26:14 AM »

Can you get a good pic of the trim tag while you're at it? Thanks!

naptownrick · « **Reply #46 on:** September 30, 2010, 01:05:48 PM »

Will do!! Thanks!

1968RSZ28 · « **Reply #47 on:** September 30, 2010, 09:36:55 PM »

John,

Did the engine always get the partial VIN stamped before the transmission? Is it possible the gang stamp operator notice the "6" was upside down after he stamped the engine, and corrected it before stamping the transmission?

Paul

JohnZ · « **Reply #48 on:** October 01, 2010, 02:40:52 PM »

Quote from: 1968RSZ28 on September 30, 2010, 09:36:55 PM

John,

Did the engine always get the partial VIN stamped before the transmission? Is it possible the gang stamp operator notice the "6" was upside down after he stamped the engine, and corrected it before stamping the transmission?

Paul

Either one could have been stamped first - it was done after the transmission was assembled to the engine. The operator could have corrected the error, but without a clean hi-res photo of the pad without any paint on it, you can't tell. A painted pad is always a red flag to me.

crobjones2 · « **Reply #49 on:** October 01, 2010, 07:17:39 PM »

John
When the motor was painted, did they mask the pad or was it cleaned prior to stamping?

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #50 on:** October 01, 2010, 07:26:17 PM »

i believe they put a piece of tape across it prior to painting

JohnZ · « **Reply #51 on:** October 02, 2010, 05:33:53 PM »

Quote from: crobjones2 on October 01, 2010, 07:17:39 PM

John
When the motor was painted, did they mask the pad or was it cleaned prior to stamping?

The engine was painted LONG after the pad was stamped, and the pad was masked with a piece of tape.

Claus · « **Reply #52 on:** October 03, 2010, 05:19:15 PM »

Quote from: JohnZ on September 11, 2010, 08:33:47 PM

Quote from: naptownrick on September 11, 2010, 05:15:34 PM
JohnZ,

What is your take on the 9 and 6 issue I have with the engine's Partial VIN stamp vs the Full VIN? Could this have been a stamping mistake at the assembly plant? Or is it more likely one of the two previous owners tracked down this engine that was almost exactly the same partial vin stamp??

Thanks for your ideas!

Rick

It could be a plant error, but it's unlikely at that position in the gang holder; the die in that position was only changed once a day. A good close-up photo (using the camera's "macro" mode) of the pad would be helpful.

My LA build L48 has L553xxx stamped instead of L523xxx, also misstamp. Kurt S has high quality photos of the stamp.

Claus · « **Reply #53 on:** October 03, 2010, 05:27:19 PM »

Quote from: JohnZ on September 29, 2010, 03:54:13 PM

Quote from: tom on September 28, 2010, 08:34:57 PM
Sounds like the engine has been swapped. If the stamp was wrong for the engine, I would expect to see the same thing on the trans stamp.

I doubt it - the odds of finding another engine with exactly the same last three VIN digits is pretty remote. However, making any evaluation of a painted pad is impossible, as you can't see the pad surface. The paint should be removed (WITHOUT using any abrasive material) and take another high-res close-up macro photo of the pad.

My engine and M20 trans are both stamped with the 5 instead of the 2:

sorry cant find pictures with full VIN right now

naptownrick · « **Reply #54 on:** October 04, 2010, 12:35:41 AM »

John, Curt,
Ok, got the paint off, here are pics of the full pad, plus the close up of each, plus the cowl tag. I knocked a chip of paint off the cowl tag when trying to clean it, hence the silver patch at the lower right corner. Very interested in your thoughts.

Claus,
Thanks for the example, looks like we both are in a similar situation, although you have both stamps the same, and I've got one right and one wrong. Its nice to know this happened often, and there are examples of this to support each other's case.

Whoops, had to split the post, the pics were too big, see 2nd post below also...

Thanks!
Rick

naptownrick · « **Reply #55 on:** October 04, 2010, 12:37:21 AM »

Post #2.....

naptownrick · « **Reply #56 on:** October 04, 2010, 12:40:33 AM »

Cowl Tag....

Claus · « **Reply #57 on:** October 04, 2010, 06:20:21 AM »

that look like original stamps

JohnZ · « **Reply #58 on:** October 04, 2010, 02:53:09 PM »

Pad looks good to me - nice broach marks too.

qwertyme77 · « **Reply #59 on:** October 05, 2010, 03:20:48 AM »

Quote from: JohnZ on October 04, 2010, 02:53:09 PM

Pad looks good to me - nice broach marks too.

what are "broach marks"??

CNorton · « **Reply #60 on:** October 05, 2010, 10:06:46 AM »

"Broach marks" are the pattern left on the surface of the block decks during the machining process. Rebuilt engines that have had the deck surfaced are typified by a circular swirl pattern imparted by the design of the equipment used by machine shops. It is a tip-off that the engine has been rebuilt at some point. A block that has been resurfaced will have lost most if not all of the original identifying numbers stamped on the pad in front of the #2 cylinder.

naptownrick · « **Reply #61 on:** October 07, 2010, 02:30:11 AM »

Thanks guys, I really appreciate your taking a look. I am glad to hear the pad looks good.

I actually had the chance to speak with a seasoned classic car appraiser whom I had hired for a previous car I was looking at in another state (and did not end up getting, thanks to his excellent report and findings of discrepancy!). I asked what he would tell a customer who hired him to confirm the numbers matching on my car, given all the documentation I have and the numbers that do match. He would obviously point out the numbers discrepancy, but he has seen several well documented cars (from a few manufacturers) with one number off on the partial VIN and would highly suggest this not affect their decision especially given it was a number that was inversed. More than one number would be a different story, but in his experience this is not impossible.

This has been an extremely informative experience, I have to say I probably learned more about decoding thanks to the whole discrepancy than I would have if the number had not been wrong. Thanks to all, especially Kurt and John. I know nothing is definitive, but I feel much better about this after all the detail we have gone into. I've already started putting some work into the car and am loving it. Looking forward to many years of enjoyment.

Thanks again
Rick

News:

Author Topic: Just Bought "Numbers Matching" 67 RS/SS, Did I Make A Mistake? (Read 40882 times)