CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 29, 2014, 12:11:52 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.
106672 Posts in 12435 Topics by 4791 Members
Latest Member: DEL
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  lets reunite another 302 with the original car
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Print
Author Topic: lets reunite another 302 with the original car  (Read 5903 times)
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2011, 04:11:20 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
Logged
GI JOE
Member
***
Posts: 198



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2011, 04:22:20 PM »

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

SFC GI JOE - Airborne Paratrooper
68- L-78, M22, BV
69- L-78, M22, BV, Conv
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2011, 04:31:54 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
Logged
shupee
Member
***
Posts: 35


View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2011, 04:57:32 PM »

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

   Once agian it's perfect for my car so I'll run it Grin
Logged
RonM
Member
***
Posts: 59


View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2011, 05:15:00 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.
Logged
paceme
Member
***
Posts: 462


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2011, 10:10:26 PM »

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

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

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.
Logged

Steve Shauger
Vintage Certification™ Program, Providing Recognition And Status To Unrestored Vehicles. Website www.vintagecertification.com
GI JOE
Member
***
Posts: 198



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2011, 11:10:22 PM »

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

SFC GI JOE - Airborne Paratrooper
68- L-78, M22, BV
69- L-78, M22, BV, Conv
1968 Z28
Member
***
Posts: 444


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2011, 12:02:33 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".

     
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 12:27:02 AM by Sonet » Logged

Jerry G.

Z28-1968-07C-Norwood
Ermine White, Red Std. Interior
2nd. Owner, 38,000 miles
shupee
Member
***
Posts: 35


View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2011, 07:39:30 AM »

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
Logged
1968 Z28
Member
***
Posts: 444


View Profile Email
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2011, 09:28:44 AM »

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.  
Logged

Jerry G.

Z28-1968-07C-Norwood
Ermine White, Red Std. Interior
2nd. Owner, 38,000 miles
9T4Z
Member
***
Posts: 239



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2011, 10:08:45 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.

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. Smiley

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

Gary 9T4Z

94Z rag blower 491 rwhp (now 505!)
69 Pace Car, 70RS,91Z,91RS
Charley
Member
***
Posts: 415


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2011, 01:18:57 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.
Logged

shupee
Member
***
Posts: 35


View Profile Email
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2011, 07:24:22 AM »

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

Logged
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2011, 03:06:13 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
Logged
9T4Z
Member
***
Posts: 239



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2011, 03:09:14 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........
Logged

Gary 9T4Z

94Z rag blower 491 rwhp (now 505!)
69 Pace Car, 70RS,91Z,91RS
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.366 seconds with 17 queries.