2 Different Vins.... one 1969 Muncie Transmission

[Fast67VelleN2O]

Now this is a new one for me. Bought this greasy thing that's been sitting for decades.

[muscle_collector]

ive actually had a couple of them like that. first one I saw was around 81 and I pulled it out of a firebird that was in a salvage yard. no body was restamping anything like that back then especially to put in a plain firebird. always wandered why.

[ZLP955]

Second partial probably added at the same time someone put the 'E' after the factory M21 assembly stamp.

[rszmjt]

The 9N558896 2 is a really bad restamp , individual hand stamped. LOL even has too many characters.

[SS69chevelle]

the chevelle vin is a 06B build, the first B looks like it might have been an E at some point which would fit better for a june chevelle build but i guess anything is possible. thanks for posting.

[SuperNovaSS]

Crazy Matt. Thanks for sharing.

Rszmjt,

What do you mean by too many characters?

Jason

[Keith Seymore]

The 9N558896 2 is a really bad restamp , individual hand stamped. LOL even has too many characters.

Not only that - but it would be impossible for the same transmission to be installed originally at two different assembly plants (Baltimore and Norwood).

K

[bbjohnny]

Here's an interesting 68 transmission. Sorry for the editing. Not mine!!

[Schonyenko2]

I wonder if possibly it was a re work piece. I've had blocks that had nbrs that didn't match up with the cast dates. Bad pieces weren't fixed on the line and replaced on the car. Our bad parts went to the re work area, and they got to it whenever.

[Kurt S]

That's what I'm thinking - rework. Parts were returned to the source plant for repair.

That NOR stamp was hit at an angle. I have others like it.

[Mr70]

Those do look like factory stampings & agree they're probably re-worked.
Somewhere here I have a main case w/2 stampings as well.

[William]

Chevy was not well run in those days; one problem area was Materials. John De Lorean noted that after taking over as General Manager in 1969:

"As a result of poor coordination of materials, Chevrolet every year led the company in costs for interplant shipments, premium [mostly air carrier] freight shipments and inventories of obsolete parts at the end of each model run."

We see it in late production Z/28s-not unusual to see a May or June Muncie trans. Came from another assembly plant.

[bbjohnny]

The vin numbers are consecutive. I think that the stamper forgot to change his stamp for the next car, seen his error and stamped it correctly.

[Keith Seymore]

The vin numbers are consecutive. I think that the stamper forgot to change his stamp for the next car, seen his error and stamped it correctly.

That happens - except the official repair is supposed to be to “X” out the offending digit(s) and restamp only those.

At least that was the policy when I ran the area that stamped the VIN on the frames in a truck plant.

K

[70 copo]

Keith,

That’s correct. As a matter of fact I have the actual “X” stamp that was used (if there was time that is):biggthumpup:

[ZLP955]

the chevelle vin is a 06B build, the first B looks like it might have been an E at some point which would fit better for a june chevelle build but i guess anything is possible. thanks for posting.
So what thoughts regarding the assembly stamp, first letter 'B' or modified from 'E' - given that the Norwood partial is February and the Baltimore partial June? Someone's definitely added the E at the end, but the rework theory is plausible if the trans was assembled February and was destined for a Camaro, but had to be reworked and finished up in a June Chevelle/Elky.

[SuperNovaSS]

Maybe the “E” is a factory serviced stamp?

Jason

[ban617]

Maybe the E meant exchange...

[TimG]

It looks like they forgot to advance the number on the one transmission and corrected that with the second stamp.

Here's the transmission stamp on my very early 1967 Corvette #350. This was the first year they used the letter S in the transmission on Corvettes. Of course, they forgot to advance the numbers for the transmission to 350. The Warranty Plate date of manufacture for the transmission matches the date on the transmission and the unit has never been out of the car. I'm sure this was not at all uncommon. Thank goodness they got the pad stamp correct.

[iluv69s]

Interesting that they did not use the same stamp for the engine and trans.

I believe that after 1969 they stamped (with the same stamp)the engine and trans after bolted together.

I had a muncie trans that had the same VIN stamped 5-6 times !!

[TAR6569]

That is interesting so St Louis had 2 partial vin stampers?

[TimG]

Not all years, but in 1967 they did. The transmission stamp included the "S".

[RCH]

It looks like they forgot to advance the number on the one transmission and corrected that with the second stamp.

Here's the transmission stamp on my very early 1967 Corvette #350. This was the first year they used the letter S in the transmission on Corvettes. Of course, they forgot to advance the numbers for the transmission to 350. The Warranty Plate date of manufacture for the transmission matches the date on the transmission and the unit has never been out of the car. I'm sure this was not at all uncommon. Thank goodness they got the pad stamp correct.


Looks like a stamper to me. LOL

[70 copo]

Mixing letters and numbers can create slight spacing differences within the gang especially if the MFG of an individual stamp made it to a different spacing specification for the characters or older stamps were mixed in to the gang with newer stamps and used together.

I have identified three different stamp vendors that GM used at Norwood - all prior to the advent of VIN font stamps which changed the appearance entirely.