6S406 - Bring A Trailer

[Bob Gaines]

Yes, that casting and assembly date would be very helpful in this claim.  It will be interesting to see where the bid goes, maybe an informed Shelby enthusiast will buy it.

If you read Reply #2 and are aware of Howards credentials that should be enough to put most minds at ease about the block vin stamp mistake IMO. Of course that is if you are familiar with SAAC, what it represents and the SAAC 65/66 SAAC registry for the last 50 years. Any other aspect of the car is open to scrutiny and verification.

[Mikelj5S230]

I am not questioning that the VIN, as corrected except for one digit, matches the Shelby chassis records.  I am just questioning the engine stamp, which appears to be an opinion.

[Mikelj5S230]

Well, at least the casting date lines up with the car build date, but I am a bit curious about the claim the engine assembly date is: "usually within a day or two" of the casting date.  That seems very fast.

[s2ms]

Not that unusual. I have a spare block cast on 2-1-66, assembled on 2-2-66 2-3-66.

[Mikelj5S230]

Wow, that block must have still been warm.

[J_Speegle]

Well, at least the casting date lines up with the car build date, but I am a bit curious about the claim the engine assembly date is: "usually within a day or two" of the casting date.  That seems very fast.

Agreed that the process of casting, machining and assembly can often be within a couple of days or a bit longer. Plenty of documentation. Guess it was just due to demand and how many castings of that particular engine block was being done at the time.

[Greg]

From my understanding, extra ordinary claims need to be backed up by extra ordinary evidence.  Opinions are just that and we must judge all vehicles by the same standard.  I definitely appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this site but we shouldn't deviate without the extra ordinary evidence.  If it is the original born with engine it is unfortunate that this "?" will always surround it.  It will also hurt its value IMO without the extra ordinary evidence of fact to prove it is. 

[Bob Gaines]

I know I wouldn't want one with all that over stamping regardless of if with back up documentation or not.

[Mikelj5S230]

I agree Bob, there are too many good cars out there without the stories and "?" to pay top dollar for one with them. Oh, and I would add that knowing the engine assembly date would not solve this problem.

[Vernon Estes]

Not that unusual. I have a spare block cast on 2-1-66, assembled on 2-2-66.

Discussions like this depend on people's interpretation of the phrase "not that unusual" but I'd personally call a 1 day spread pretty unusual..just my own judgement though.

Not saying it's impossible at all, just certainly a LONG way away from the norm from my experience scrutinizing engine vins and date codes.

I'll also throw in there that, in my opinion, a hipo engine would be even less likely to have a 1 day spread since they were almost certainly assembled in batches after periods of casting cores where they would be measured for core shift and the best castings put to the side to build hipo engines out of. Not continuously assembled like on "lowpos".  Was the engine your referring to a hipo or a regular strength? 


Just my opinion here..interesting discussion.

Kind regards,
Vern

[s2ms]

Discussions like this depend on people's interpretation of the phrase "not that unusual" but I'd personally call a 1 day spread pretty unusual..just my own judgement though.

Not saying it's impossible at all, just certainly a LONG way away from the norm from my experience scrutinizing engine vins and date codes.

I'll also throw in there that, in my opinion, a hipo engine would be even less likely to have a 1 day spread since they were almost certainly assembled in batches after periods of casting cores where they would be measured for core shift and the best castings put to the side to build hipo engines out of. Not continuously assembled like on "lowpos".  Was the engine your referring to a hipo or a regular strength? 

Just my opinion here..interesting discussion.

Kind regards,
Vern

Hi Vern,

This is a standard block out of an A-code car.

Gotta fess up, I was going by memory and notes on the block dates but decided I better dig it out and take a look. They casting date is indeed 2-1-66 but I was wrong on the assembly date which is actually 2-3-66. My apologies!

Dave

[A-Snake]

The digits on that engine photo can be 'combined' to achive many different six digit VIN. Which combination is correct? And if the problem was just a prefix number, why would the stamper try to correct several numbers? Why not just "correct" the 8?

[FL SAAC]

Yes, that casting and assembly date would be very helpful in this claim.  It will be interesting to see where the bid goes, maybe an informed Shelby enthusiast will buy it.

If you read Reply #2 and are aware of Howards credentials that should be enough to put most minds at ease about the block vin stamp mistake IMO. Of course that is if you are familiar with SAAC, what it represents and the SAAC 65/66 SAAC registry for the last 50 years. Any other aspect of the car is open to scrutiny and verification.

+ 1

[J_Speegle]

Think we've spent allot of time on the VIN. It is what it is and anyone considering the car will have to determine what all of this means to them.

Hope anyone considering the car and bidding will spend as much time looking at the other (all) of the pictures posted with the same level of focus as should always be done. Just a thought 

[Mikelj5S230]

Yes, this will be an interesting one to watch, as I get more interested in GT350s.  I know some Shelby enthusiasts don't seem to care or worry about "numbers matching engines" the way Corvette people do, since with Shelbys they are not judged.  So what is a 100% solid, unquestioned GT350 original engine car worth, vs. one with some questions?