'67 TH400 partial VIN

[baseball699]

Looked all over the original TH400 in my 04A '67 and cannot find the VIN stamp.

I did read that all '67 TH400's were not stamped. Was this relatively common that year?

[1968RSZ28]

TH400 transmissions were partial VIN stamped either above the pan rail on the driver's side (very difficult to see with the exhaust system installed) or on the driver's side of the bellhousing (as indicated in the picture).



Paul

[bcmiller]

Check the areas where Paul said. 

If you still can’t find one, post a pic of the tag on the passenger side. We may be able to determine if it’s the original one for your car via that tag. For an example, go to this link and scroll down a bit.
http://www.camaros.org/drivetrain.shtml#trans

Partial VINs were mainly only on SS and Z28 Camaros in 1967. They were required by 1968. See this link.
http://www.camaros.org/drivetrain.shtml#PartialVINs

[Mike S]

Looked all over the original TH400 in my 04A '67 and cannot find the VIN stamp.

I did read that all '67 TH400's were not stamped. Was this relatively common that year?

  I'm in the same boat....I can't find the VIN on my original 04B LOS L35/TH400 Camaro. I'm beginning to suspect that not all were stamped.
The tag on the passenger side is correct and the date stamped puts it in the correct range. It's still in the car and I have used a mirror to locate it but no luck so far.

Mike

Mike

[baseball699]

Thanks for the replies.

Here is a pic of the tag. The paint is gone from the tag and all that is left are the stamped numbers.





Car was built the first week of April. Julian date on trans tag indicates March 2nd....is that an acceptable date range for an 04A build date?

The second digit of the year on the tag is obscured by scuff marks that's why I really wanted to find the VIN for proof of originality. Based on the other info on the tag it looks like the original trans. It's a '67 SS/RS L35 convertible. I plan to sell the car soon and I need proof that it is a numbers matching car.

So far it's a numbers matching car except for the engine block. The trans is the only remaining question left. I cant see if the stamped VIN is somewhere on top of the bellhousing. I plan on buying one of those inexpensive borescopes to get a better look.

[bcmiller]

Not all 1967 TH400s received partial VINs.

[Mike S]

The date on your tag (427) puts the date around March 2, 2017, if I am interpreting the date correctly with the Julian start of Jan 1 is day 366 (strange!)
Here is my TH400 tag:
The 445 (67 C 445)  date puts it approximately at March 20th 1967 and my cars built date is April 17th.
 If I am relating the dates correctly then I believe your TH400 is original.
At least the CC 67 on the bottom of yours matches the application. Is your car a NOR or LOS?

Mike

[bcmiller]

Thanks for the replies.

Here is a pic of the tag. The paint is gone from the tag and all that is left are the stamped numbers.

Car was built the first week of April. Julian date on trans tag indicates March 2nd....is that an acceptable date range for an 04A build date?

The second digit of the year on the tag is obscured by scuff marks that's why I really wanted to find the VIN for proof of originality. Based on the other info on the tag it looks like the original trans. It's a '67 SS/RS L35 convertible. I plan to sell the car soon and I need proof that it is a numbers matching car.

So far it's a numbers matching car except for the engine block. The trans is the only remaining question left. I cant see if the stamped VIN is somewhere on top of the bellhousing. I plan on buying one of those inexpensive borescopes to get a better look.

You can try to find the partial VIN with a mirror or one of those small borescope type cameras.

The transmission, is an acceptable date for the car, BUT with the last digit of the year missing, there will always be questions.  Can't say for sure that it is the original.  Sorry.

[bcmiller]

Here is my TH400 tag:
The 445 date puts it approximately at March 20th 1967 and my cars built date is April 17th.

Mike

Mike if this is your tag, yes the date and year are in an acceptable range for your car. 

Partial VIN would prove it for sure, but if you don't have it, then that's the way it is.  Not all received partial VINs.

[Mike S]

Hi Bryon,

  Looking at Baseball's picture I now realize the '7' is not visible (at least in the photo). Being my March 22 S/N of 11232 is 1123 (yes...I double checked that count being it looked so close to the S/N) units past his March 2 S/N 10109, I wonder if this can help prove it is original ...circumstantial proof anyways.

Mike

[baseball699]

The transmission, is an acceptable date for the car, BUT with the last digit of the year missing, there will always be questions.  Can't say for sure that it is the original.  Sorry.

Exactly my thoughts.

That's why I am hoping the VIN is up top on the bellhousing. I was kind of able to see the top of the bell on the driver side and I didn't see anything obvious. So unless it's on the passenger side I'm not holding out hope. It "looks" to be original but as it sits it's going to be in doubt to a potential buyer.

Thanks for all the help.

[bcmiller]

Mike those are production sequence numbers. I don’t know if a way to connect them back to a particular car.

[Mike S]

 Oh, I didn't mean to match it with a car, just in general among our discussion that the S/N's vs. dates seem to follow. If his S/N was, let's say, higher than mine for his TH400 date then maybe that would lead us to believe it may not be a '67.
But......here is what I do see, specks of black paint on his tag. Wasn't the tag on a '67 TH400 for an L35 black vs. following years?

[bcmiller]

Black tags were used in more than just 1967.

My gut feeling is that both are original but no proof at this point.

[Mike S]

 Here is a link Baseball may find of interest;
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=14113.0

Mike