Engine Block Stampings

[JFStoltz]

I have a 69 Pace Car with a 350.  It is a March car and the engine is a Tonawanda built on 2/28/69 with a MA code which translates to a manual trans, which it is.  The casting number and dates are consistent with that engine and build date.  I cannot find a vin stamping on either the pad in front of the right head or near the oil filter.  I have owned the car since 1972 when it had 23,000 miles on it and there is no indication that the engine was changed.  Did all of the engines have a vin stamping or were some of them unstamped?  I have the "Legends" manual, and it notes that the vin stamping should be correct "if applicable".  If they were all stamped, is it hiding somewhere else?  The Assembly manual notes only those two locations.

[bcmiller]

Those are the two locations.  The one down by the oil filter can be very hard to read.

There are some blocks that never got a partial VIN.  I have personally seen a few.

[169INDY]

I would suggest posting Hi-Res photos of you pad for the guys to look at, then also using paint stripper on the oil filter location to Really clean it to bare metal for best viewing, but also is it  NOR or LOS car, Wow since 72' has most of us beat on ownership years good job. welcome to the site

[william]

A manual trans 1969 Camaro L48 engine would be an HA code.

[Tinkerman]

I have a 04D build 69 Pace Car. The engine pad only had the T0425HB stamp (L48 350 Auto).

I figured the engine VIN stamp was on the oil pad. While the engine was in the car, I tried to get a photo of the stamp on the oil pad but was pretty much impossible to get a clear photo.

Only when I pulled the engine for a rebuild was I able to confirm the VIN stamp on the oil pad. Here is a photo of that stamp on the rough surface of the oil pad.

Even then, it was not easy to see.

V/r,
Dan

[David K]

Looks like 9N556334

[william]

There was no 04D at Norwood so has to be a Van Nuys built car. N556334 is a Norwood VIN, final-assembled on or about December 6, 1968.

Something has been re-stamped.

[Tinkerman]

William,

You are correct. My mistake. It is a 04C NOR built car. I should have double-checked before my last post. VIN stamping is 19N636334.

V/r,
Dan

[David K]

I fat-fingered the number. But the 2nd number looks like a 5 and not a 3. I seeing 656 not 636. I’m thinking a closer inspection might be necessary to verify.

[bcmiller]

656384 ?

[David K]

BC…I’m thinking yes. Looks like an 8, not a 3. Not trying to convince my self of anything here. But 656 and 636 mean a huge deal at 20,000 cars later and moves it from April to June. I would like to see the Trim Tag and VIN. We’ll see if the OP uploads any.

[x66 714]

Sometimes taking a picture from an angle with a flash will create shadows making the letters & numbers easier to read....Joe

[bcmiller]

Or rubbing chalk on the area then carefully brushing it off.

[JFStoltz]

Thanks for the thoughts. The car is a Norwood build.  I have the engine out on a stand and did the best I could with pictures.  I used lacquer thinner and a brass brush to clean the pad by the oil filter to get a good look.  Still no sign of a partial VIN in either location under strong light.  See attached pictures.  Based on the VIN the car was built in the third week of March 69 assuming a reasonably consistent production rate.  As the picture show the engine build date was 02/28.  Some sources suggest that is a short turnaround.  My son had an interesting thought.  What would happen if the engine destined for my car was found to be defective on the assembly line?  I don't know when the VIN would have gotten stamped, but if a replacement was pulled from inventory and substituted, it could have no VIN and be built a little later than the original.  According to the literature I have, if it were a post-delivery dealer replacement, it would have a CE stamped on the pad by the right head.  It doesn't.  And, of course, if it had come from another car, it would have that car's VIN on it.  Again, it doesn't.  Still a mystery.  Thanks.

[bcmiller]

Photo quality of posted pics is poor because of having to reduce the size.

I would still try rubbing chalk on the area in the first pic then carefully brushing it off.