Body stamp dates vs chassis number

[cook_dw]

Now I’m confused..    180xxx vin would be the beginning of March?

[bertfam]

That series of VINs we have in the database range from 01D to 01E.

Ed

[MO]

First NOR March vin is 185267, so the vin on this car (180xxx) is definitely before that. That can only mean one thing.

[99t]

Sorry guys, didn't mean to cause confusion! To recap.

Hidden vin in two locations, doesn't appear to have been tampered with to my (admittedly non-expert) eye is 180XXX which I dated using the attached table from another site to very early March '67

Rear quarter pressing stamps are H4, end of Jan '67 which a member kindly suggested was a reasonable gap to the above.

Vin plate hasn't been with the car since owned, the last 20 years.

Cowl tag is earlier than it should be compared to VIN - 12E and NOR63657 so is not original to the car, although the spec on the tag mostly matches the limited amount of car that is left to consider.

Exception to the spec matching is there is no evidence of Butternut anywhere on the car but it has had a LOT of repaints over the years. However, if I had to guess from poking around in flanges and other areas that have *probably* never been touched, I would say it was white from the factory.

Engine that came with the car dates from '79 and the gearbox had been swapped to a T5.

12 bolt with the car is not the original, I was told it had been ripped off at some point - there is a substantial dent to the chassis rail on the drivers side above the axle and welded repairs to the shock mount same side (non-rusty) which all point to this quite possibly being true.

I'm guessing the traction bar was damaged / deleted at the same time..?

[cook_dw]

Like 99t, going by this sites production numbers and vin's per month.  I realize there was a strike (cant recall if it was LOS or NOR) at the end of Jan IIRC..  Please correct me if my memory is failing me.  Obviously the tag isn't correct.  I realize that the 67 production numbers are a little screwy so I am just looking for clarification and a better understanding.  Disclaimer:  I haven't had my coffee yet this morning so I'm a little slower than normal which isn't saying much..

[bcmiller]

It is important to follow this note below with the VIN date by month list. Have had cases before where people assume this it completely 100 percent infallible. Not the case. The database (like Ed mentioned above) is much more accurate.

The list below is Chevrolet's documentation of the end-of-month VIN for the GM assembly plants. * Due to several limitations the VINs in this list will not necessarily correlate exactly with either a specific calendar day or the build week on the cowl tag. The data for some months (especially May and June 68 at Norwood) deviate significantly from actual build dates, while other months correlate well.* We are unsure of the source of these deviations, but uncertainties include:

[cook_dw]

Thanks for the reminder.

[bcmiller]

I really wish those lists were more accurate.

[bertfam]

The old USCC (United States Camaro Club) once published a list of totals by month (see below), but I'm not sure how accurate that one is either (I've never check it against the actual numbers in the DB). Nor do I know where they got their info from.

Ed

[67/68Brian]

Hi,
I think the USCC numbers are ok and I have two examples in my garage which fit.

#1 67 LOS car vin L122130 with cowl tag 11B (hidden body numbers match vin)

#2 68 LOS car vin L302530 with cowl tag 09C (hidden body numbers match vin)

So, a very small sample size but at least it is a random example which fits the data provided.

I hope it helps,
Brian

[KurtS]

Guys, this is all the same data!! All from the same source!!

[bertfam]

1969 is the same for Norwood, but different for Los Angeles starting in May.

1968 Norwood is the same until you get to January.

1967 is completely different for both plants.

One tiny difference between the two charts for May of 1968 in Los Angeles is that our chart shows 342085 and the USCC chart above shows 342086. One's probably just a typo, but which one?

Ed

[KurtS]

I have a copy of the original *GM* data. That's the CRG source.