Help With Date Codes - '74

[stylerthedeuce]

I have a '74 L82 4-Speed that supposedly has under 10k original miles with original engine. Everything about the car seems to confirm that the miles are original, but the date coding seems to be off on the engine.

The car was produced in February '74. The casting number on the block by the bellhousing is 3970010, and the date code is B204. The VIN on the stamping pad reads 14S420XXX (correct sequence), but the engine code reads V3001CLR.

From everything I've read, the "3001" can't be correct, and I'm seriously hoping I don't have a replacement block that's been incorrectly restamped.

Can someone tell me if there's some way the engine code is somehow correct, or if there is some way to determine if it was incorrectly stamped at the plant?

 

[JohnZ]

Probably a stamping error - if it was 0301, it would fit nicely with your production date (mid-March, 1974 based on the VIN). Got a photo of the pad?

 

[stylerthedeuce]

John, thanks for the post, I appreciate your help.

I see I read the production date by VIN chart wrong (thought it was Feb. '74), plus I confirmed on the door tag that it was produced in March '74, which makes me feel a bit better.

I've attached 2 pictures which together show the whole stamping pad. What do you think?

 

[Vettehead Mikey]

The machine code looks legit- it's unlikely that a restamper would make that basic an error by stamping the date as 3001 instead of 0301. It could have been the first engine of the month and the stamp operator forgot to 'think backwards' when changing from Feb to March.

Possibly the operator was a new hire Canadian or Brit and the real ass'y date was January 30th.

What's also unusual is the VIN stamp. The surface damage around the stamp could be a factory grind out of a previous stamping. I've seen weirder stuff that was known to be legit, and don't have a problem with your pad.

 

[Tom73]

Let me throw my two cents in here. The VIN is 20513 which would be an early Feb build (19258 through 22366 were feb builds). If the engine assembly is in reality 0301, March 01, then the engine was assembled after the car was built. Also, I am no where near the expert but I have not seen a zero with those squared off corners like in the V3001.

tom...

 

[6880 Mike]

...Let me throw my two cents in here. The VIN is 20513 which would be an early Feb build (19258 through 22366 were feb builds)....

Black Book lists #19258 and the last February '74 and #22367 as the last March car. Are those numbers incorrect?

 

[Tom73]

Black Book lists #19258 and the last February '74 and #22367 as the last March car. Are those numbers incorrect?

My bad. I was reading those numbers as the starting, not the ending. So forget everything I said. Sorry. But I have never seen those squared off zeros before.

tom...

 

[stylerthedeuce]

The VIN sequences messed me up at first, too, but it is a March '74 build based on VIN sequence, plus the door tag states it was produced 3/74.

I'm pretty confident now that the engine assembly stamp is original, and the date was intended to be "0301" - which is consistent with the block casting date of Feb 20 and vehicle build date of 3/74. It does appear to be original, with no grind marks or signs of tampering.

What concerns me now is the VIN stamp, which in person just looks a little rough, but in the pictures it looks like a possible re-do. It didn't look out of the ordinary to me until I saw the pictures. I don't see any kind of grind marks in that area, though, and it feels smooth to the touch.

I'm hoping Mikey is right that it's a factory re-do, or even that the stamping pad was just a little rough in that area to begin with. It would be odd to me that someone found basically a duplicate engine, with correct casting codes, and correctly dated L82 4-speed stamping code, from another vehicle and then changed the VIN to match.

 

[6880 Mike]

...I'm hoping Mikey is right that it's a factory re-do...

I agree. Mikey's explanation makes the most sense.

 

[Vettehead Mikey]

There was discussion above about the shape of the 'zeros' in the machine code stamping. Here's a string I ran across over on the brand X board, scroll way down to post #23 with the three pictures and you'll see the square zeros again.

This is not to suggest that all zeros need to be square, just that the factory had all sorts of weird stuff on hand.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?p=1565445368#post1565445368

 

[stylerthedeuce]

Mikey, that's great info... all the numbers in that pic have the same look as mine.

Thanks to all of you for easing my mind on this!

 

[JohnZ]

Although most of my pad stamp images are C1/C2, I have several '72 images, and two of them have the "square" zeros; I don't have a problem with the machine code stamp.

I'm not comfortable with the VIN stamp, however - that locally beat-up surface with no circular grind-out marks bothers me; it started out smooth, just like the machine code end (it's a continuation of the deck surface) and I don't know what would cause it to look the way it does, only in the VIN stamp area. There may be a rational explanation, but I just don't like it.

 

[Vettehead Mikey]

John,

There's a bunch of '66 427/390s that underwent heavy repair as a 'batch'. The VIN code grindout areas on each look very similar to this engine. Al Grenning has many photos of these pads, one of my chapter members is the orignal owner of an affected car.

Interesting story.