68 SS350 numbers help

[mivy]

Hi, I need some assistance.  I am looking to purchase a "numbers" matching very nice restored 68 SS350 car.  Based on research on this site I am seeing confusing information and would like some help.  The cowl tag date is stamped 07C which is 3rd week of July for the build however, the engine stamping is as follows:

Casting number 3914678 which seems to check out
18L348146  VII29MS - the first part matches the VIN of the car but the 1129 indicates a November 29th date which is far from the 3rd week of July date on the body.  The MS indicates the correct 295HP 350.  Could the engine date be this far off from the body build date?  Also, would that be November 29th of 67 or 68?  It's very confusing to me and would like some additional advice.  I have also attached pictures of the engine stamp and the cowl tag.  The VIN of the car is 124378L348146


Thanks in advance for any and all help!

[bertfam]

In my opinion, the pad is real and original to the car. Yes, it's outside the "accepted range" of 6 months (car built 3rd week of July, 1968, and the engine assembled November 29th, 1967, so an 8 month lag), but it's a VERY late LA car and there are a lot of examples of late LA cars having early to mid 1968 parts.

Can you post a picture of the axle and transmission stamps?

Ed

[bcmiller]

I don't see any red flags, but I am not 100 percent convinced at this point.

[z28z11]

There are some additional stampings to the extreme left side of the pad - I see a "45", could be a machine shop marking, but it does raise an eyebrow. Pad surface look a little artificial, some of the broach markings are not in parallel, or just too frequent. Flint "V" has a strange appearance to it, maybe I'm just too paranoid ? I do admit the stamp looks good, and certainly I haven't seen every pad stamping in existence, either -

Regards,
Steve

[69Z28-RS]

There are some additional stampings to the extreme left side of the pad - I see a "45", could be a machine shop marking, but it does raise an eyebrow. Pad surface look a little artificial, some of the broach markings are not in parallel, or just too frequent. Flint "V" has a strange appearance to it, maybe I'm just too paranoid ? I do admit the stamp looks good, and certainly I haven't seen every pad stamping in existence, either -

Regards,
Steve

The 'broach marks' raised my eyebrows a little too...      a fairly good 'fake' broach maybe?

[mivy]

Thanks everyone for the replies.  Steve, you have good eyes my friend!   After you mentioned additional numbers on the deck next to the partial VIN I went back and studied the picture again and I can actually make out a “26” pretty clearly.   I’m not sure what that means and why it is so faint but it’s definitely something to be suspect about. 

[bcmiller]

Engine pad should be completely clean for a good evaluation.

[cook_dw]

A clean pad and a whole shot of the pad will help.  It could be as simple as a 2nd strike of the gang stamp.  BUT I would not assume anything in todays age.

[racernhra]

Hello all.

My name is Kevin and I am the owner of the car in question. I sent Mark here to verify what I was telling him was correct and was surprised by some of the responses. But, it is to be expected and I would expect nothing less if there is any doubt. I am a lurker here and have gathered a wealth of information regarding Camaros. I do not have a lot of expertise to add, other than what I have learned here and the .NET site. However, I love Camaros and I am committed to maintaining the integrity of the cars, including my own, even if it means personal loss. My integrity and my word are much more important than money, as well as keeping this hobby as honest as possible.

With that said, this morning I disassembled portions of my car and took several pictures of the stamp. I cleaned it as best as I could with non-caustic cleaners to hopefully provide a clearer image of what I have. The picture in question was taken approximately 2003 prior to taking the engine to the machinist. I wanted to make sure that I had a record of the pad stamp in the event something happened and is not that great of quality. The link below is what I took this morning.

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ao0YvGUdTJoIlnloN7-XPPZvNuAO

I was able to get a picture of the casting but not the date as I was pressed for time. I did include my notes from approximately 2004 when I decoded the numbers from the block itself.

For some history, I purchased the car in 2002 and restoration had begun. Prior to me getting the car, it had not been registered since 12/1978 and I have a scan of the pink slip that I received at that time. The car did not come with documentation of any kind but had all original parts that you would typically find with an SS to include the original air cleaner and valve covers. It also had all of the original badging, steering wheel, and tell-tell signs of being an SS to include the brake proportioning valve under the driver's seat and 28 coil spring hood. These items came with the car that I verified after purchase as I did not know about these attributes prior.

From the NCRS data report, this car was produced on 7/17/1968 and delivered to Grant Bishop Chevrolet in Los Gatos, CA. I purchased the car in Los Gatos so I am of the belief the car spent its life in a rather small area.

I am open to any questions and will answer as best as I can, to the best of my knowledge.

I am open to any questions and discussion and will answer all questions that I can.

I will be getting in touch with Jerry Macneigh to inquire about his services

[cook_dw]

Something was stamped there at one time from what I can see.  I almost wanna say it looks like a trans stamp.  Do you have that info?  Also zoom in just below the partial vin.  Are my eyes playing tricks?

[racernhra]

Darrell,

A case that came with the car was a 3851325. I researched at the time and learned this would have not been correct so I didn’t use it. There were some very odd numbers stamped on it but I didn’t give it much time as I knew it was wrong.

[Petes L48]

I recall on my 67 L48 block there were a couple stamps around the machined surface of the block where the intake seats.  I believe it was John Z who said those were engine plant inspection markings.  Just a random thought, but has anyone ever seen those up near the front stamp pad as well, and might be these phantom stampings sometimes observed?  But I think mine were toward the rear side of the block.  Just a SWAG.     

[69Z28-RS]

When I first looked at the engine pad, my thought was that the 'broach marks' were 'too distinct'.. and looked a little weird to me (compared to others I've examined)...   After looking more and at the new photos and doing more comparison, I stand by my initial thought (broach marks look 'different' than others I've seen/examined), BUT.. thinking about all the information presented on this car/engine, IF I were looking at this car for purchase, I don't think I'd let such doubts stand in my way of purchase...  FWIW...   If it's a 'fake', it's a pretty dang good one, and from the current owner's info, if it was 'faked', it was done a LONG time ago... and I doubt an earlier owner of this SS would have taken such steps and missed the date by 6-7 months.  It's more likely that it's a real engine for the car, just at the extreme of the engine datiing...

[BULLITT65]

So... Have Gary look at it and he will certify it! J/K

Curious other than Jerry, and Steve S, are there other known (trusted) guys that will certify a first gen.

[maroman]

Gary W. , you brought up something I was going to ask. If they went to so much trouble why would they miss the date by so much?