When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I was going to say, the broach marks look very fresh. Very sharp and clean, and some don't look perfectly parallel. The broach NEVER made some lines cut slightly out of parallel.
The different font size is a real killer. They almost look right, but I don't think I've ever seen that on the partial VIN. The assembly codes I have seen hanging last digits but the partial VIN seem to always be right.
Interesting note.
In Nolan Adams' restoration guide, 115888 happens to be an RE engine with F0214RE. So on the surface, this one at 115871 looks right with F0214RE. One day before on both car and engine. Looks good, right?
Here is where it gets funny. If you check other cars in that area of the VIN, you find most with engines from mid-April to early May, or simply F04xxRE or F05xxRE.
The 115888 car with the F0214RE is actually an oddball.
Now you have another car 17 numbers away also with an oddball engine date.
Call me skeptical.
One engine stuck in the back getting a bit old on the shelf is one thing. Two?
I think someone checked the book, for the VIN that was close, and stamped one to match.
One way to be sure. Get the block casting date off the back flange behind the distributor.
Last edited by Procrastination Racing; Aug 11, 2012 at 10:19 PM.
Often times during the manufacturing process, when there is a variance, more than one unit is found until the process is corrected and back to spec. So, depending on a particular variable, having more than one engine set aside is not a stretch.
Last edited by Vette Daddy; Aug 12, 2012 at 12:45 AM.
Often times during the manufacturing process, when there is a variance, more than one unit is found until the process is corrected and back to spec. So, depending on a particular variable, having more than one engine set aside is not a stretch.
I was thinking engine assemblies were used in a LIFO ordering anyway as they were received at the plant, causing a seemingly unordered sequence to engine assembly dates, relative to VINs.
I was thinking engine assemblies were used in a LIFO ordering anyway as they were received at the plant, causing a seemingly unordered sequence to engine assembly dates, relative to VINs.
Jeff,
Just for a point of reference, My '63 (not the stamp pad at the beginning of this thread) has the following dates:
1-31-63 Block Casting
2-11-63 Engine Assembly
2-15-63 GM Official Production Date
So, my car would represent last in, first out.
Last edited by Rich Yanulis; Aug 12, 2012 at 12:19 PM.
One engine stuck in the back getting a bit old on the shelf is one thing. Two?
I think someone checked the book, for the VIN that was close, and stamped one to match.
I agree - it certainly wasn't "typical" for an engine to sit at St. Louis for 14 weeks when every 10th Corvette required that engine. The VIN stamp isn't typical either - I've been at this for a long time, and I've never seen a VIN stamp where the first three digits were the correct size and the last four were a uniformly larger size, and off-angle to the first three. I don't like the broach marks either.
Hey Guys,
Again, thank you for the feedback.
There have been some very valid comments made in this thread.
I continue to learn and gain knowledge from this forum.......
And thats a good thing
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.