Author Topic: lets reunite another 302 with the original car (Read 18636 times)

shupee · « **on:** December 30, 2010, 02:40:15 AM »

OK in another post I asked if anyone knew of a 68Z with 477646 vin# and a fellow member told me where to look and for $4.95 I know that the car is in currrently registered in New York State soooo any police from New York that can run the vin??? it would be pretty neat to get it back to the car.

shupee · « **Reply #1 on:** December 31, 2010, 12:53:42 PM »

any ideas---help??? is there a website eith this info that a someone has access to??? The NY DMV website will not work

x66 714 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 31, 2010, 05:36:53 PM »

I would think by now all DMVs should be able to do a nation wide search. They probably won't give you any information but you might try the approach of reuniting an original engine with it's long lost car. You might get them to give you the city & state or if they're real nice they might let you give them a letter with your request & they could mail it to the owner. Then see if the owner get back to you. It might not be in the computer if it hasn't been registered in the last 7 years. Good luck...Joe

luv2sixty9 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 31, 2010, 06:32:33 PM »

Shupee,
I sent you a private message with the current owner info. He indicated that his car has it's original engine. give him a call.

elcamino72 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 01, 2011, 11:37:06 PM »

Uh! Oh!!!! Sounds all too familiar to me!!!!

lasereye · « **Reply #5 on:** January 02, 2011, 12:21:15 AM »

I bet somebody didn't sleep well last night.......and it wasn't from too much partying. WOW!

shupee · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2011, 02:09:57 AM »

I've called him twice with no return call as of yet. Might not be to interested?

I would be burning the phone and or road up right now if someone had mine. Oh well, once it goes in my car it will stay there.

dutch · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2011, 02:46:51 AM »

It sure would be interesting to see the stamping and casting codes for this engine you have. Any pictures to share?

I'm sure the owner of the car would be a lot more enthusiastic if the numbers were shown and garnered favourable comments from some of the experts on this site.
Obviously he would be crazy not to get worked up enough to contact you if the general consencious was that your engine carried an original stamping and casting dates to match the VIN number series...

GI JOE · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2011, 07:12:19 AM »

Yes please post the photo of the engine stampings...

Maybe the guy will sell the Camaro Z28

and I then could buy the OEM motor from you and reunite the two...

Hey its still new years... can't I can dream a little... LOL

shupee · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2011, 03:18:56 PM »

Here is a picture of my pad stamp

dutch · « **Reply #10 on:** January 02, 2011, 06:30:25 PM »

http://www.camaros.org/drivetrain.shtml#EngineStampLocations

Think the vin portion should be preceded with the numeric character (1) and the engine code stamp with an alpha character denoting the engine plant - both which seem to be missing on your block stamp here...
The picture isn't all that good and neither are my eyes - but even after enlarging the picture it doesn't make either of these features nor any broach marks come to life here between the overstamping and pitting on the pad. I would say (and since I'm certainly no expert) that I wouldn't consider this a proper stamp.
Hope others who have seen many more examples and anomolies will for your sake, chime in and add comments to change my mind and school me.
Randy

shupee · « **Reply #11 on:** January 02, 2011, 07:06:23 PM »

most restamps I've seen are much much neater and they certainly would not overstamp the assm stamp maybe Kurt or Jerry will take a look???

shupee · « **Reply #12 on:** January 02, 2011, 07:17:25 PM »

Jerry M. looked at the stamp @ Camaros.net and said that the assembly stamp looks correct but he does not feel that the vin stamp is. I take his decision as golden so I will not pursue any further contact with the owner of the car itself. In fact this is actually the perfect motor for my car since my car will never be a ####'s car(unless a miracle happens) soooo I'll drop in my car and drive the @#$%^ out of it.
Thanks for everyones time and help

Jerry@CHP · « **Reply #13 on:** January 02, 2011, 08:07:43 PM »

Here's a real one,

Jerry

KurtS · « **Reply #14 on:** January 02, 2011, 08:29:02 PM »

The engine code is good - the V is under the 4.
I think the VIN is probably OK (hard to tell for sure with that angle), but it's missing the leading 1. That's more problematic.
What's the chances they found an non-VIN stamped block and picked a VIN that matched a 68 Z?

Personally, I'd want to see the other block's stamps. That would tell alot.
But given that they aren't calling you back, just run it.

Jerry@CHP · « **Reply #15 on:** January 02, 2011, 09:11:20 PM »

If the trans is original to the car, the vin stamp there will not match the one on the block. This engine block vin stamp on this block was stamped one character at a time and is not consistant with other original Norwood vins.....it's my professional opinioin that the vin block stamp is not original.

Jerry

GI JOE · « **Reply #16 on:** January 02, 2011, 09:22:20 PM »

Jerry, on your photo the N is very faint... Have you found missing N's on any Camaro block VINs?

Jerry@CHP · « **Reply #17 on:** January 02, 2011, 09:31:54 PM »

Not really, I have found some of the earlier Norwoods use a larger N. I've been studying the '68 Norwood vins now for well over 20+ years. Some of the plant workers were transferred to the Baltimore plant in the late 1980's. I spent quite a bit of time with them back then. That was when I was putting the first Camaro book together. I learned about these sloppy stamped vins way back then. There was a reason for it..........

Jerry

shupee · « **Reply #18 on:** January 02, 2011, 09:57:32 PM »

Jerry,
Isn't there a means to pull an original number back up ie: an acid test of some fashion

?

Once agian it's perfect for my car so I'll run it

RonM · « **Reply #19 on:** January 02, 2011, 10:15:00 PM »

I don't mean to hi-jack this thread but it seems that on some of the late engines the engine code is not perfectly in line with the assembly date. I know it's not on my L30 which also is dated July 11. I've always thought it had something to do with it being a very late car but didn't know for sure. Thanks for any opinions on this, RonM.

Steve Shauger · « **Reply #20 on:** January 04, 2011, 03:10:26 AM »

Quote from: shupee on January 02, 2011, 09:57:32 PM

Jerry,
Isn't there a means to pull an original number back up ie: an acid test of some fashion ?

Once agian it's perfect for my car so I'll run it

Ken I believe the VIN stamping is legit. The latest picture you posted on camaros.net presents a very clear picture. I posted a picture below of a stamping which is a good representation of a 68 Norwood stamping.

I would also say that if this is a "supposed restamp" several things would need to align:

1 you would need to find a legit perfectly dated 68 Z with a legit assembly stamping which this block has.

2 Then eliminated the original VIN ...and leave no trace

3 Then carelessly stamp the "new" VIN partially on top of the assembly stamping. Most restampers usually make them too nice.

GI JOE · « **Reply #21 on:** January 04, 2011, 04:10:22 AM »

hey RonM, Can you post a pic of your engines stamp?

1968 Z28 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 04, 2011, 05:02:33 AM »

Here is a picture of my '68Z, 07C block stamping. You have to look real close to see the last number of the VIN, hard to make out. The last two are "99".

shupee · « **Reply #23 on:** January 04, 2011, 12:39:30 PM »

Sonet,
Is this the matching number block for your car??? It's only 50 after my car with a 475449 vin and has the stamp been "validated"
thanks

1968 Z28 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:28:44 PM »

Ken.....Yep, the original block. Has been "validated" to my satisfaction. I have owned the car since 1972, am the second owner, and I know for sure it came from my car......I'm the one who removed it. I have talked to the original owner, he lives only about a mile away from where I live, and he says the engine was never touched when he owned the car.

BTW....we have discussed the 50 difference in the VIN's before over on TC.

9T4Z · « **Reply #25 on:** January 05, 2011, 03:08:45 AM »

Quote from: Jerry@CHP on January 02, 2011, 08:07:43 PM

Here's a real one,

Jerry

umm meaning that the OP's vin is not real? A better angle pic with high resolution would be helpful.

Quote from: KurtS on January 02, 2011, 08:29:02 PM

The engine code is good - the V is under the 4.
I think the VIN is probably OK (hard to tell for sure with that angle), but it's missing the leading 1. That's more problematic.
What's the chances they found an non-VIN stamped block and picked a VIN that matched a 68 Z?

Personally, I'd want to see the other block's stamps. That would tell alot.
But given that they aren't calling you back, just run it.

Me too! Nice to see side by side b4 decide which is the real one......

Charley · « **Reply #26 on:** January 05, 2011, 06:18:57 AM »

I don't think you need to see the other one to know this one is real. The one Jerry posted is painted so not a very good example.

shupee · « **Reply #27 on:** January 05, 2011, 12:24:22 PM »

here's a better pic that I posted over at camaros.net

Jerry@CHP · « **Reply #28 on:** January 05, 2011, 08:06:13 PM »

This is a much better photo as it allows you to see it directly overhead, and the variations in depth on the vin stamp. You can also see the "1" that is not seen in the other photo. The other photo does not show the variations in depth either. Two completely different perspectives. From this shot, I would give the opinion that the stamping is real..............from the other photo, it does not look real.

Jerry

9T4Z · « **Reply #29 on:** January 05, 2011, 08:09:14 PM »

Makes no sense to me why anyone would fake a vin on a loose block. Only thing I can think of is if the 'other car' has a vin stamp that has been 'verified' and nobody wants egg on their face........

9T4Z · « **Reply #30 on:** January 05, 2011, 08:10:12 PM »

Sorry Jerry, I was posting right when you were, so jumped under your comment.....

shupee · « **Reply #31 on:** January 05, 2011, 11:09:12 PM »

Thanks for your comments Jerry. This whole deal got started because I wanted to do the "right thing". I was good either way since my intentions were to drive my car. I can only assume that the owner of the car in question is either out of the country

or just can't swing it right now with a bad economy or who knows?

I would certainly entertain buying his car as well if that could be worked out. My correct e-mail is automarttr@yahoo.com

Once again thanks for the help and everyones time

JL8Jeff · « **Reply #32 on:** January 06, 2011, 05:24:14 PM »

How many different fonts(stamps) did they use for the VIN in 68? It seems like there are 3-4 different fonts at different times of the year it looks like.

JohnZ · « **Reply #33 on:** January 06, 2011, 07:29:30 PM »

Quote from: JL8Jeff on January 06, 2011, 05:24:14 PM

How many different fonts(stamps) did they use for the VIN in 68? It seems like there are 3-4 different fonts at different times of the year it looks like.

That's not unusual - there were at least three different suppliers for the individual VIN gang-stamp dies, and they were replaced regularly as they wore down, broke, were lost, etc.

john302 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 08, 2011, 02:36:09 AM »

Hello Paceme, I think I seen that vin before? John

News:

Author Topic: lets reunite another 302 with the original car (Read 18636 times)