transmission with wrong stamp ?

[69Z28X33]

I was checking the numbers on my transmission and something seems to be wrong.
3925660,    N9602043   P8B03B       ?
Can anyone help me with this, should the 8 in the date be a 9.

Larry

[Gramps69Z]

I believe N9602043 should be 9N602043, which is the VIN of the car the transmission belongs to.  The February date aligns with the VIN.  If the car VIN matches the transmission, check to see if you misread the 8 for a 9.

[RamAirDave]

I would double check the #s again, and maybe get a nice, clear pic of the stamp if possible.

The VIN layout isn't quite right, and the "P8" would signify a 1968 model (not calendar year) transmission.

[69Z28X33]

thanks for the response
i believe the numbers are correct
the tag number 1946798
i am trying to send pics but i'm having problems.

larry

[JohnZ]

The P8B03B must be a mistake, or the "8" is actually a "9" - the "B" suffix (denoting the ratio, an M-21), didn't start until mid-October, 1968, during the 1969 model year, and that transmission is Muncie-dated February 3, 1968, for the 1968 model year.

[69Z28X33]

the vin # on transmission matches my car's vin # with the exception of the 9 & N transposed.
the tag # on transmission is 1946798.
here are a few pics.

larry

[69Z28X33]

thanks

larry

[zzmike]

I will wait for others to reply, but I'm not liking the looks of that stamping at all.

[bertfam]

Here are the pictures cleaned up a bit. The Tag reads 3945798 which is correct for a 1969 Nova, Chevelle, Camaro M21 with a 3.55 or 3.73 alxe and either the 302 or the 396.

Tag:



The VIN and date stampings are another issue altogether.

VIN and Date:



Ed

[69Z28X33]

maybe the guy who stamped the numbers on the transmission was behin in production and drunk or hi on drugs.
I've owned this car since 1978. I believe back then the value was not very much. I paid $2,400. The transmission tag # is 1946798 not 3945798

larry

[KurtS]

Both of those stampings were in a gang stamp holder.
I have pictures of hundreds of original trans code stamps; none look like that. And the wrong year is the clincher.
Sorry.

[RamAirDave]

I know there can always be anomalies, but neither of those stamps look remotely original.

I would look around other areas of that Muncie to see if any areas have been altered.  Some that were used for other applications were stamped on the top flange where it meets the bellhousing, usually on the RH side I believe.

[Gramps69Z]

Maybe he was high or drunk, or just didn't know what he was doing. Not a professional job.  I guess he should have bought Jerry's book. 

[bertfam]

Larry, the part number may appear to be 1946798, but it's actually 3946798. 1946798 is a starter bolt and this clearly isn't one of those.

Working on an automotive assembly line is a very dangerous place to work. You have to continually keep your wits about you or you'll end up dead. I sincerly double if ANY UAW worker would be dumb enough to get high or drunk on the job. I'm sure John can chime in here, since he actually worked in this field, but I really don't think this would occur.

People have been restamping components on these cars since they first started rolling off the showroom floor. Even in 1978 a numbers matching Z28 was worth more than a non-numbers matching Z28, so a lot of parts were stamped (incorrectly in this case) to make it appear to be something it's not.

You've had the car for almost 30 years. Does it really matter if the transmission isn't the correct stamping?

Ed

[Jerry@CHP]

Not an original factory stamping,

Jerry