VIN # stampings

[oldcanuck]

My trans has only the last four digits of the ford VIN not the whole number. David

That's one of the reasons I asked as well..... mine only has 4 as well....?

...and no VIN on the block. I wonder if there is a correlation between these two things?

David

If big block no reason to think so . If smallblock maybe.

Yes - smallblock #2751

My s/n is very close to this, and also have the last 4 on the trans, and nothing on the block.

[Vernon Estes]

My trans has only the last four digits of the ford VIN not the whole number. David

That's one of the reasons I asked as well..... mine only has 4 as well....?

...and no VIN on the block. I wonder if there is a correlation between these two things?

David

If big block no reason to think so . If smallblock maybe.

Yes - smallblock #2751

My s/n is very close to this, and also have the last 4 on the trans, and nothing on the block.

#3069, in survivor condition with original paint 3 owner car which included the original owner owning the vehicle twice up into 2012....abbreviated trans VIN, nothing on block. Casting date on block, assembly date on block, and hipo heads all dated perfectly to each other and to the build date of the car. Engine had clearly never been pulled or rebuilt.

And Dave told me before I went to inspect it that there would most likely not be a VIN on the block even if it was the original block.  A corroboration of the evidence presented on that car left no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it was the original engine to the car.

I'll echo what others have said previously though. Dave M. seems to have it pretty well figured which cars should and shouldn't have block VINs..it isnt something that extends to 65 or 66 and it isn't something that applies to all 67 GT350s. Just throwing that out there because discussions like this always seem to lead to an onslaught of Hemmings ads for 67 GT350s without their original engines claiming "not all 67 GT350s had VIN stamps" when it clearly doesnt apply to the specific car for sale in the ad.

Kind regards,
Vern

[Vernon Estes]

to add to the discussion, 3167 was a survivor condition GT500...abbreviated VIN on trans.

Kind regards,
Vern

[557]

557 a gt500 has the full vin on the tranny.

[Skidado]

If there were an exact correlation between the abbreviated VIN on the trans, and no VIN on the block, then 'The Knowledgeable' would know a bit more about what to expect when they inspect a vehicle.

Is this correlation known?  Can it be revealed?

For clarity - we are talking specifically about small block cars here; no doubt there is a discussion to be had about big blocks.

David

[Bob Gaines]

If there were an exact correlation between the abbreviated VIN on the trans, and no VIN on the block, then 'The Knowledgeable' would know a bit more about what to expect when they inspect a vehicle.

Is this correlation known?  Can it be revealed?

For clarity - we are talking specifically about small block cars here; no doubt there is a discussion to be had about big blocks.

David

Re read reply #27. Unless and until all engines can be examined a educated guess is the best that can be expected. Dave M is best equipped to make the the most educated guess at this time. 

[SFM5S159]

I was able to get a look at the engine for my GT500, which had a completion date at Ford in early Jan, '67. (Jan 9th)  What is a reasonable range of date codes for the engine to be a likely match for the car?
I was unable to see a date code on the block as its sitting on the floor and not easy to get to...I found an casting date of August on the cylinder heads.  Both heads share the same August date.
Would it be plausible for a an early Jan completion at Ford to have August cylinder heads?

I know this thread is a little old but it took me a while to get a look at some of the date codes.  It is the correct C6ME-A block.  Just haven't seen the date code yet on the block. 

Mike C

[JD]

I was able to get a look at the engine for my GT500, which had a completion date at Ford in early Jan, '67. (Jan 9th)  What is a reasonable range of date codes for the engine to be a likely match for the car?
I was unable to see a date code on the block as its sitting on the floor and not easy to get to...I found an casting date of August on the cylinder heads.  Both heads share the same August date.
Would it be plausible for a an early Jan completion at Ford to have August cylinder heads?

I know this thread is a little old but it took me a while to get a look at some of the date codes.  It is the correct C6ME-A block.  Just haven't seen the date code yet on the block. 

Mike C

Possible Yes, but a very not typical. 
Have also found engine blocks with much earlier heads.  (But these were not BB engines)

[J_Speegle]

I know this thread is a little old but it took me a while to get a look at some of the date codes.  It is the correct C6ME-A block.  Just haven't seen the date code yet on the block. 

Maybe these will help out in your search. Best to collect as much data as possible to see what kind of picture the whole puzzle paints before trying to determine possible answers or conclusions

[Bob Gaines]

I know this thread is a little old but it took me a while to get a look at some of the date codes.  It is the correct C6ME-A block.  Just haven't seen the date code yet on the block. 

Maybe these will help out in your search. Best to collect as much data as possible to see what kind of picture the whole puzzle paints before trying to determine possible answers or conclusions

Just to add to Jeffs picture post for clarification is that in his first picture is the block casting date and the second picture is where the engine plant metal stamped the block when the engine was assembled. That is the difference between the two different dates.