Correct Muncie Date

[ko-lek-tor]

Hey, over on another site is a discussion about a car for sale. Namely, an early built N504 (Sept. 68' built) car. A (sarcastic) comment said,".It has the rare #s match M22 that's 9 months after the car vin.". This person has a community respect from his peers re: Camaro muscle, I believe. My question, why is this not a correct trans? Could it have been built in the year of 68, as I contend, as the 9 in the code refers to the model year, not the year of production. My limited experience in number authentication have me believing this is an original stamp and this is, indeed, the correct assembly line installed Muncie.  Perhaps the statement made was premature or a faux pas. Comments?

[1968RSZ28]

Here's the thread...

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/626712/re-wtb-69-l78-camaro

Paul

[cook_dw]

Not sure but I dont mind asking..   

[cook_dw]

I think the comment was due to that the trans is a restamp..

[bcmiller]

The ratio code was not used until later in the 69 model year, after this car was built, so it's not right. Yes likely a restamp for that reason and more.

[ko-lek-tor]

I see the error of my ways now. I understand what is not correct. Just for the record, I was not questioning this individual's statement, but saw the date as plausible not considering other obvious factors. If there was any implied questioning of the individual's expertise on this or anything else, that was not intended, hence a careful wording of the question so as not to discredit anyone and apologies to he and others if this, in fact, created that element. B.
Glad I am not buying anything these days!

[427-KING]

Not to mention that June 2 1968 was a Sunday.

[ZLP955]

Bentley that car and the transmission were discussed over at Team Camaro:
http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=355225

[cook_dw]

Not to mention that June 2 1968 was a Sunday.

Never even thought to look at the 68 calendar..  Good eye!