Build Date confusement - NCRS Discussion Boards

Build Date confusement

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Roger D.
    Expired
    • June 3, 2014
    • 180

    Build Date confusement

    Restoring my base model 69 which has a trim tag showing C 04 but the last six digits are 703636 So I thought this was an early model but maybe a bogus trim tag since the vin on the block matches the windshield. So what do I go by??Roger
  • Edward B.
    Expired
    • March 29, 2013
    • 691

    #2
    Re: Build Date confusement

    C04 is October 4th, 1968 so you're right on the money.

    Ed

    Comment

    • Alan S.
      Extremely Frequent Poster
      • July 31, 1989
      • 3415

      #3
      Re: Build Date confusement

      Hi Roger,
      I don't know if you looked at the Final Monthly Serial Number lists in your 68-69 TIM&JG's Interior Section, but when you do you'll see the interpretation Edward posted is verified there.
      Regards,
      Alan

      Nice to see you on the DB!
      71 Coupe, 350/270, 4 speed
      Mason Dixon Chapter
      Chapter Top Flight October 2011

      Comment

      • Roger D.
        Expired
        • June 3, 2014
        • 180

        #4
        Re: Build Date confusement

        Originally posted by Edward Bertrand (58273)
        C04 is October 4th, 1968 so you're right on the money.Ed
        I was talking to John Pirkle who asked me for the last 6 numbers of the vin. He then said oh your car is a late model. I am getting a starter from John. He was not sure but he thought early starters had 10 and 4 other numbers not 70. He said he would check that he may be wrong so I was just wondering. If John is right then I have totally screwed up my restore.Thank you Ed.Roger

        Comment

        • Jack H.
          Very Frequent User
          • April 1, 2000
          • 477

          #5
          Re: Build Date confusement

          Just as a reality check, there were 28,566 Corvettes made in 1969. Yours is 3636 out of 28566, so I'd definitely categorize that as early. The October 1968 date is in agreement with "early" too.

          Maybe you or John had a simple miscommunication with the VIN number???

          Not sure what your numbers about "10 and 4 other numbers not 70" referred to BTW.

          Comment

          • Edward B.
            Expired
            • March 29, 2013
            • 691

            #6
            Re: Build Date confusement

            Yeah, I'm not sure what John is referring to either. The 1969 base engine used a 1108338 starter for manual transmissions, and a 1108427 starter for the automatic. Since you have an "early" car, you might have had a 68 starter (1108361 for manual or 1108338 for automatic), but I can't verify this.

            Ed

            Comment

            • Roger D.
              Expired
              • June 3, 2014
              • 180

              #7
              Re: Build Date confusement

              Originally posted by Edward Bertrand (58273)
              Yeah, I'm not sure what John is referring to either. The 1969 base engine used a 1108338 starter for manual transmissions, and a 1108427 starter for the automatic. Since you have an "early" car, you might have had a 68 starter (1108361 for manual or 1108338 for automatic), but I can't verify this.Ed
              In defense of John or clarify . John asked me to give him the last few numbers of the vin after the letter S. So when I gave him the 703636 he said I think that might be a late model because early models started with a 10 after the S but he needed to check that he may be wrong. That's what got me wondering if he is right then I am screwed in thinking my car was an early model. So I am very happy to see that the car is an early model and will continue on . Thank you everyone for responding quickly so I can get some sleep.Roger

              Comment

              • Robert R.
                Very Frequent User
                • May 31, 1975
                • 358

                #8
                Re: Build Date confusement

                Back before the terms for Corvette models were called: C1, C2, C3, etc, the '68s to '82s were called Late Models.
                That may have been his comment instead of referring to the actual serial number.
                Just a thought.
                Bob

                BTW - 53-62 were called Solid Axles and 63-67 were of course Sting Rays.

                Comment

                • Michael W.
                  Expired
                  • April 1, 1997
                  • 4290

                  #9
                  Re: Build Date confusement

                  Originally posted by Roger Dinunzio (60097)
                  In defense of John or clarify . John asked me to give him the last few numbers of the vin after the letter S. So when I gave him the 703636 he said I think that might be a late model because early models started with a 10 after the S but he needed to check that he may be wrong. That's what got me wondering if he is right then I am screwed in thinking my car was an early model. So I am very happy to see that the car is an early model and will continue on . Thank you everyone for responding quickly so I can get some sleep.Roger
                  Before you doze off- running changes of components happened throughout the model year. If there was an 'early' starter and a 'late' starter, the change over might have happened in the first few week(s) of production, the last few weeks or anywhere in between. It confuses the issue by thinking of the car as a whole. Carrying over part numbers from previous years for the few few days or weeks or months is pretty common in just about every production year.

                  Does the judging guide not offer a date or car serial number for when the change over might have occured?

                  Comment

                  • Ron G.
                    Very Frequent User
                    • December 1, 1984
                    • 865

                    #10
                    Re: Build Date confusement

                    Jack - Don't have the data in front of me, but you may want to re-think that number of 1969 Corvettes built that year. Going from memory, I believe there were 38,762 Corvettes built for the 1969 model year. Again, don't have the data in front of me and I am getting old, so you may want to re-check that number. I believe the number 28,566 that you made mention of is the number of 1968 Corvettes made.
                    "SOLID LIFTERS MATTER"

                    Comment

                    • Roger D.
                      Expired
                      • June 3, 2014
                      • 180

                      #11
                      Re: Build Date confusement

                      Originally posted by Michael Ward (29001)
                      Before you doze off- running changes of components happened throughout the model year. If there was an 'early' starter and a 'late' starter, the change over might have happened in the first few week(s) of production, the last few weeks or anywhere in between. It confuses the issue by thinking of the car as a whole. Carrying over part numbers from previous years for the few few days or weeks or months is pretty common in just about every production year. Does the judging guide not offer a date or car serial number for when the change over might have occured?
                      Yes Michael the judging book calls for a #1108338 for a manual transmission. Still not sure what the vin had to do with that starter.

                      Comment

                      • Edward B.
                        Expired
                        • March 29, 2013
                        • 691

                        #12
                        Re: Build Date confusement

                        Mike, the manual only states that "There may be some overlap of starter motor numbers in late or early production cars" but doesn't elaborate. I would imagine that by the time October 4th rolled around, they were no longer using 1968 parts, but I've no data points to back that up.

                        Ed

                        Comment

                        • Ron G.
                          Very Frequent User
                          • December 1, 1984
                          • 865

                          #13
                          Re: Build Date confusement

                          Mike - I am almost certain that the 338 is the correct application for you car, at least that is what I have seen on bowtie/survivor cars.
                          "SOLID LIFTERS MATTER"

                          Comment

                          • Jack H.
                            Very Frequent User
                            • April 1, 2000
                            • 477

                            #14
                            Re: Build Date confusement

                            Originally posted by Ron Goduti (8076)
                            Jack - Don't have the data in front of me, but you may want to re-think that number of 1969 Corvettes built that year. Going from memory, I believe there were 38,762 Corvettes built for the 1969 model year. Again, don't have the data in front of me and I am getting old, so you may want to re-check that number. I believe the number 28,566 that you made mention of is the number of 1968 Corvettes made.
                            Yep, you are correct Ron...I did mistakenly quote the 1968 model year as you suggested. Thanks for setting the record straight.

                            Comment

                            • Michael W.
                              Expired
                              • April 1, 1997
                              • 4290

                              #15
                              Re: Build Date confusement

                              Originally posted by Roger Dinunzio (60097)
                              Yes Michael the judging book calls for a #1108338 for a manual transmission. Still not sure what the vin had to do with that starter.
                              Originally posted by Edward Bertrand (58273)
                              Mike, the manual only states that "There may be some overlap of starter motor numbers in late or early production cars" but doesn't elaborate. I would imagine that by the time October 4th rolled around, they were no longer using 1968 parts, but I've no data points to back that up.

                              Ed
                              There's the answer. The car in question was built far enough into the production year (as witnessed by the VIN) that there's little or no chance that it would have a leftover (or early) starter from '68. Therefore the car would have a 'late' part number starter.

                              BTW- Someday I'll find the guy that invented the terms early and late and give him a stern talking to. '1st design', '2nd design' etc would be much less confusing.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              Searching...Please wait.
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                              There are no results that meet this criteria.
                              Search Result for "|||"