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.
It's hard to tell in the picture. I can't really see broach marks but I'm far from an expert on that subject. The 0 in the V0225CTU is slightly different from both 70 LT-1s that I have owned, but I think they often used 0s and Os interchangeably. The inconsistency that I see is the VIN derivative should start 70S4 not 10S4. Both 70s I owned started 70 for the year and according to NCRS Tech Man, all should. Mistakes were often made on the line, but that seems like a pretty big one to me. What is the body build date? Based on the VIN, that would be one of the last CTU LT-1s built. What else do you know about the car?
Last edited by mstanton; Jan 25, 2008 at 08:08 AM.
Reason: edit
the car is on ebay now and was listed one time before not to long ago. i don't know if it's legal to post links to ebay but I'm pretty sure it's the only '70 LT-1 up right now. The first time up for auction the this was the picture of the pad that was provided.
I don't know it was chrome plated or if he did some weird effect in photoshop or something in an attempt to get it to show up better? Either way it just doesn't seem right to me. I don't see the bounce on the "1" in this picture either.
To me, this may be a legit car, and may be the right engine, but for sure it has been restamped. Some of the dates are questionable. The build date on my '70 is 3/18 with the engine 3/05. Why it would be such a large time gap on this one I would not have a clue. I suppose it could have gone back for rework but in my mind this one was stamped at least once, maybe twice.
Both of the pictures with obvious broach marks are big blocks. I believe that broach marks stand out clearer on big blocks, especially in pictures. The time gap between the engine and car build is a little long but I don't think so long that it should be a red flag by itself. At that time the last of the CTU engines were being used and that may explain the gap. Again, I think the biggest thing that needs to be explained is why the VIN starts with 1 vice 7.
Last edited by mstanton; Jan 25, 2008 at 08:18 PM.
Reason: Can't type or spell
Severity of "broach marks" is a function of how old the broach bar is. After so many passes, those bars go back for sharpening. After sharpening, they generate a smoother appearance...then wear till the marks get pretty obvious. Don't expect the same appearance on every engine...it doesn't happen that way.
any thoughts on the picture in my last post with the upsidedown stamping? Did some come from the factory like this, or is it perhaps a sign of a restamp?
Just a guess... but I would bet that anyone trying to make it appear original would know which way to stamp the block. It's more likely that some "newbie" in the machine repair ranks installed the stamping equipment upside down. Now that you have mentioned it, I would imagine that others [with similar condition] will be commenting about that.
Just a guess... but I would bet that anyone trying to make it appear original would know which way to stamp the block. It's more likely that some "newbie" in the machine repair ranks installed the stamping equipment upside down. Now that you have mentioned it, I would imagine that others [with similar condition] will be commenting about that.
OK - something is not right with pwsusi's head number. That pad stamp should be identical to all but the first four digits of the vin number. The first two digits should be 71 because it's a coupe (7) made in 1971 (1). I hate to say it, but it looks double stamped in the 1 area. The suffix of CTU is correct for an LT1. Maybe it's from a different year...
Here's the what the code from a vin should look like...
1 - Chevrolet (Line)
94 - Corvette (Model)
37 - Coupe (Body style)
1 - 1971 (Year)
S - St. Louis (plant)
4 - can't remember what this was
08532 - manufacturing sequence number (serial number)
Thanks Z Man. This was original picture was actually from '70 LT-1 coupe; not a '71. So the first digit alone (1) is a red flag...should start with "70" like yours. I passed on the car.
70 and 71 VIN engine codes were not the same. 70s were as depicted above, 70S4XXXXX. Early 71s used te same format, 71S1XXXXX. Most 71s were as follows, C11S1XXXXX. The upside down VIN should be a 72, 12S5XXXXX.