1969 Engine Code question

[Mtnbiker]

I checked both the technical specs page and did a keyword search, but didn't find an answer to this question, so here goes...

I'm interested in a '69 427/400, but it's out of state so I have to (for now) rely on the seller reading #'s of the block to me. He read the following numbers to me:

19S702869 (last 6 match the VIN);
3935439 (seems to be correct casting # for a 427); and
TO517IG.

What the heck is the last number? He sent me a digital photo, the number is hard to read and could be TO51710.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Doug

 

[KOPBET]

Look here.

http://www.nastyz28.com/chevy-engine-code-stampings.php

Can you post the pic you have?

 

[Mtnbiker]

Look here.

http://www.nastyz28.com/chevy-engine-code-stampings.php

Can you post the pic you have?

Sure, he actually sent me 3 shots... I'm going to guess that he doesn't make his living through photography.

 

[Mtnbiker]

KOPBET,

Thanks a lot... your link answered my question.

It's T0517IO

T - Tonawanda
0517 May 17 build
IO - 427/400 with the Turbo 400 tranny.

So far, so good. Thanks again!

Doug

 

[Vettehead Mikey]

If you're considering paying extra bucks for this car because it may have still the original engine, I would be very cautious.

The engine stamp pad appears to be in poor condition and the 'funny' O in the engine machine code will always be cause for concern.

Does the seller have any documentation to indicate that this is the original engine? I'm not saying that it's not the original -unusual pads are seen all the time- just that I believe that there's two warning flags already.

 

[KOPBET]

"IO" looks like a 68 suffix - 427 w/Turbo Hydromatic.

http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/c3/1968/68id.html

 

[Vettehead Mikey]

"IO" looks like a 68 suffix - 427 w/Turbo Hydromatic.

Ruh-roh!hnoes

 

[Mtnbiker]

Ruh-roh!hnoes

Yeah, no kidding... a '68 motor in a '69. Who woulda thunk it. Although I thought I read somewhere that because '69 was such a long running model year, the earlier models had '68 parts. I have no idea how I'd confirm such a thing, though, and I don't know if it applied to engines.

It's a dealer consignment sale, a 69 'vert w/ 427/400, AT for $27K. It'll need a paint job and some serious cleaning up, but otherwise it's mechanically sound.

 

[Mtnbiker]

"IO" looks like a 68 suffix - 427 w/Turbo Hydromatic.

http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/c3/1968/68id.html

Good catch... the guy's had it for 20 years, so it almost doesn't make sense that it would be a scam. Any chance some '69's had '68 motors?

 

[Vettehead Mikey]

Although I thought I read somewhere that because '69 was such a long running model year, the earlier models had '68 parts. I have no idea how I'd confirm such a thing, though, and I don't know if it applied to engines.

I've never seen a discontinued engine build code used in a following year car. The assembly date on the engine is May 17th. It is unknown at this point whether that's 1967 or 1968-need to determine by the block casting date. 1969 Car serial number 2869 was built in late September 1968, a delay of at least fourth months. That's kinda long. If the casting date is 1967, more Ruh-Roh.

This just throws more suspicion on this car. If you buy it as a NOM car, then it won't matter. Price seems high for a car that needs work and with an auto trans though.

 

[6880 Mike]

May 1969 was during the strike. Since no production was going on, there should be no Corvette 427s assembled in May 1969.

That probably makes the engine assembly date May 1968 and jives with the IO suffix ('68 only).

Casting number of the block is correct for 68 or 69, but not 67.

You say the VIN deriviative matches the '69.

What's the time/build date for the car in question?

 

[Mtnbiker]

May 1969 was during the strike. Since no production was going on, there should be no Corvette 427s assembled in May 1969.

That probably makes the engine assembly date May 1968 and jives with the IO suffix ('68 only).

Casting number of the block is correct for 68 or 69, but not 67.

You say the VIN deriviative matches the '69.

What's the time/build date for the car in question?

It was car # 2889, so it was in the first run (September of '68).

Doug

 

[6880 Mike]

It was car # 2889, so it was in the first run (September of '68).

Doug

I think you may have a left over '68 427 in this '69. Can't explain why it laid around St. Louis from May 68 until September '68, but the VIN derivative jives. Early '69s have been documentated with left over '68 parts.

 

[Mtnbiker]

I think you may have a left over '68 427 in this '69. Can't explain why it laid around St. Louis from May 68 until September '68, but the VIN derivative jives. Early '69s have been documentated with left over '68 parts.

I decided not to go with this vehicle... trust me, I REALLY wanted a tripower convertible for 27K, but I'm not experienced enough or wealthy enough to rescue this one. I'll be regretting this for a while, but I'm sure my family thanks me. Needing food to eat and all.

 

[JohnZ]

I think you may have a left over '68 427 in this '69. Can't explain why it laid around St. Louis from May 68 until September '68, but the VIN derivative jives. Early '69s have been documentated with left over '68 parts.

No such thing as a May '68-built engine being "left over" and installed in a September-built '69; among other things, it wasn't emission-certified for use in '69, and using a '68-suffixed engine in a '69 was illegal.

 

[6880 Mike]

No such thing as a May '68-built engine being "left over" and installed in a September-built '69; among other things, it wasn't emission-certified for use in '69, and using a '68-suffixed engine in a '69 was illegal.

Drat. I was hoping it wasn't a restamp.
:cry