1967 muncie trans question
 

I just picked up a nice proj and noticed my car was built 05C on the cowl tag and my muncie is stamped P7E24 iam thinking thats later than the build of the car right? But the vin is stamped on the top of the trans ,Its a cali car if that matters? Thanks.

Re: 1967 muncie trans question
 

That's may 24 on the trans. A month before the car build.

Re: 1967 muncie trans question
 

I think the date on the trans is fine. Just a few days before the car's build.

Re: 1967 muncie trans question
 

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COPO</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the date on the trans is fine. Just a few days before the car's build. </div></div>duh, 5c is May, not April. My bad.

Re: 1967 muncie trans question
 

Wouldn,t o5c build only add up to may 21st? if there are 7 days in a week?just seems very close.

Re: 1967 muncie trans question
 

I know some camaros had rears dated slightly after the car...probably same with your trans...good question for Kurt from CRG

Re: 1967 muncie trans question
 

That's unusual Scott that your trans is dated one week after your build date. I looked on line for the May 1967 calendar year and found out that May 1 was on a Monday...May 24 was on a Wednesday which is 3 weeks later. Very odd. By the way, Jerry M's book states that California built cars exclusively stamped their transmissions (4 spds anyway) on the top of transmission case.

Sal [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img]

Re: 1967 muncie trans question
 

Car's build when TT was stamped could have been started at end of 3rd week of May and build continued into the 4th week of May. Unusual, but still think the trans is likely original to the car given the other evidence.

Re: 1967 muncie trans question
 

I agree with Charlie. I bet its original. I looked at a '69 Z with the engine build date within 1 week from engine assembly date to the car's final assembly date. I found it so hard to believe only because the supply chains of the 1960s were hardly just in time or lean. Ironically the car had a beautiful stamp. Nonetheless the car proved to be 100% legitimate. Same applies here...

Re: 1967 muncie trans question
 

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MosportGreen66</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree with Charlie. I bet its original. I looked at a '69 Z with the engine build date within 1 week from engine assembly date to the car's final assembly date. I found it so hard to believe only because the supply chains of the 1960s were hardly just in time or lean. Ironically the car had a beautiful stamp. Nonetheless the car proved to be 100% legitimate. Same applies here... </div></div>

I think there are documented blocks that are date assembly stamped the next day after casting date... ( if my memory serves me)...where is Kurt when you need him...haha..???

..and I had a 69 RS Z Van Nuys car that had a BB and M-20 when I bought it... I never realized it was the original trans. til I put a clutch in it and found the VIN on top of the muncie... I never thought they put M20s in the Z's until then either... !! Boy was I happy because that helped document the car as a real Z also !!