One hidden vin different

[ko-lek-tor]

The partial VIN on the engine pad shown is a restamp.  Also, the VIN number is for a 6 cylinder Camaro, so the 327 is not original.

What is the rest of the engine assembly code?  "V12" is the only part visible.

Paul

Paul & others. Do you think that someone would go to the trouble to re-stamp the block waaay back in 1980 when OP acquired this car? And a pedestrian engine at that? Not something that was done BITD, I would think, with one exception being if it has a salvage title and was inspected at a Highway Patrol inspection station. At least, that is how Ohio does their's, rebuilt/salvage. Not knowing the OP's state or state rules on this. Ohio would check all numbers (can't say if they would catch the discrepancies noted here).

[69Z28-RS]

I can only think of one reason to do all this... and it depends on which state it comes from as to the laws.

[ban617]

Do the 67's have the top of the cowl hidden Vin as well ?

[Mike S]

Do the 67's have the top of the cowl hidden Vin as well ?

Yes....there are usually two areas stamped. One on the cowl top and the other under the heater cover.

Mike

[desmreed]

Here you go. I posted the engine stamping photo. Even with the negativity on this forum I will still finish the car to drive and enjoy. The purpose of posting the vin question was to get a simple answer and not to create a dissection of every nut, bolt and crayon mark. Thanks anyways.

[ko-lek-tor]

The vin tag on the door jamb matches the cowl# and the engine# but the one under the heater motor is way different. The numbers are 50179 apart. There is no evidence that the panel section was replaced. This is an early number car (under 150) Has anyone else experienced this?

"The purpose of posting the vin question was to get a simple answer" ...."..."Has anyone else experienced this?"
Personally, No, have not experienced this, except for tampered with, fraudulently misrepresented cars(not implying yours is such).  And, on rare occasions, mis-stamps by personnel at the factory(s). But there is your answer.

Here you go. I posted the engine stamping photo. Even with the negativity on this forum I will still finish the car to drive and enjoy. The purpose of posting the vin question was to get a simple answer and not to create a dissection of every nut, bolt and crayon mark. Thanks anyways.

"Even with the negativity on this forum". I will apologize, as collectively speaking, that many of us do not see our own personality flaws or realize how we come across or that did something wrong, but we should at least know what it is , or was said, that you felt was negative. A lot of knowledge given freely to help you and us understand what exactly you have.

No one here is putting down your ride. I understand the long time ownership thing, as I have had mine since 79.

[1968RSZ28]

Even with the negativity on this forum I will still finish the car to drive and enjoy.

Wow, try to help a guy and that's the thanks you get! 

Engine assembly code stamp...


Please don't take this negatively.  The engine assembly code stamp (V1205ME) looks original and I believe works with the 12B cowl tag.  It appears someone remove the cowl tag and engine from another '67 Camaro and installed them in your car.  It also appears they then stamped the partial VIN on the engine pad which probably was blank as generally only the Z28 and SS engines had the partial VIN's stamped on '67 Camaros.

Paul

[69Z28-RS]

Actually, I thought we all addressed as positively as possible the negative aspects of his question (car)...     He will not find the answers he WANTS to find, regardless of where he looks, and if it was my car (and in the condition it appeared to be in from the photos), I'd be digging deep to find out the exact origins of all the discrepancies, BEFORE I spent a lot more $$ on it.

[Mark]

67 327's do not have vin stamps on them, so that alone indicates a restamp, even without seeing the out of line vin stamps.  Only the L48's, Z28's and big blocks got vin stamps on the engines.  The vin stamp on the top o the cowl matches the VIN plate, and both rosette rivets still appear to be original and in place, so this is a very early built 6 cylinder car, #143 probable built the last week of August 66 at Norwood.  The cowl tag is from a much later December built car that has obviously been removed from its original body (look at the area around the rivets)  Can't explain the stamp under the heater as it appears to me to be 7N750322, which is not a valid 67 (or any first gen Camaro VIN) If it was 7N150322 it would be a close match to the cowl tag, but the body appears to have been red originally, as the paint around the elephant ears seems to be the original color, and the tag indicates its from a Turquoise car with a black top so that doesn't match the remnants of the paint.  Quite a mystery, but there are parts from two cars in this one.

[Mike S]

 The numeric "1" font style in the partial VIN doesn't look correct compared to other originals I have seen in '67.
Anyhow......to the OP, just enjoy the car which is the purpose it was built for.

Mike

[firstgenaddict]

Look at the A pillar... that is Capri cream which is color Code T- which is what the trim tag states.
The bigger issue is that the number on the cowl top matches the number stamped in the block... MATCHES as in the stamps are the same, the same physical individual stamps were used to strike the characters, this is not how it was done, looking at the one under the heater box is correct, I would check the sheetmetal dates on the rest of the car as the date above the 150xxx vin is a 49... 3 week before the end of the year... perfect for a 12B build date.



FWIW - I would be willing to bet that the VIN 7N150322 has issues.

[Mike S]

 Good catch there, James, with the cowl top and engine pad stampings. It sure looks like the same fonts.
I wonder if the paint is removed from the cowl if another VIN can be seen or signs of grinding it out.
At this point I would just fix it up drive it being it's not a more sought after model.


Mike

[1968RSZ28]

Good point, James.  So another possible scenario is, this was an original 327 car and, for some reason, someone added the 6 cylinder VIN plate and re(stamped) the partial VINs on top of the cowl and on the engine pad.  They left the partial VIN under the heater box cover as-is because it was too difficult to get to or they didn't know it existed.  Whatever happened, the cowl tag has been removed.

Paul   

[firstgenaddict]

Someone may have welded the VIN pillar into the car, when we owned a dealership 30-35 years ago we bought a few mid 70's Ford pick-up trucks out of a Georgia dealer which turned out to have had the door pillars with the VIN's cut and replaced, the police found wrecking yards in Georgia with total loss trucks of the same vintage with the VIN pillars missing.

My opinion is they figured after checking the door, the easy hidden and the engine they wouldn't pull a fender and heater box.

The later (150,xxx) VIN is the one likely with issues, the car matches the 150,xxx VIN and 12 T-2 cowl tag, yet has an early VIN.
The VIN is earlier than the engine build date... IMPOSSIBLE!

[KurtS]

Agreed. I see an original 12B car with the matching VIN by the heater and a correctly dated block. I noticed that sheetmetal date too - 49th week for a 51st week car - that's original to the car. Nice catch on the A-pillar color.
327 blocks would not have VIN's stamped on them in 67. And the fonts are wrong on the cowl VIN.
Interesting that somehow the VIN has rosette rivets, but that's not the original body for that VIN.

Proceed at your own risk. I'd say that there's a good chance of a stolen vehicle being involved.

Even with the negativity on this forum I will still finish the car to drive and enjoy. The purpose of posting the vin question was to get a simple answer and not to create a dissection of every nut, bolt and crayon mark. Thanks anyways.

As a moderator, I reviewed all the posts. Not one person posted anything out of line - every statement made was factual. Sorry to see you go, but say la V.