I wanted to post this here since there is much debate of 68's with a build sheet.. It helpled me fiqure out what some of the numbers related to on my Trim Broadcast sheet..

See in this ebay add. Also some other nice docs.. This car was built 4 weeks after mine at Fremont.. I still have some hiding spots to look in....:D And may I add.... it's a beautiful car.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevrolet-Chevelle-396-SS-1968-CHEVELLE-396SS-325HP-BUILD-SHEET-FRAMEOFF-RESTORED_W0QQitemZ320223635714QQcmdZViewItem?hash= item320223635714

in the picture it SURE looks to be a REAL build sheet ...... :thumbsup:

I'll tell you this ...... there are a lot of people who don't believe 68 had them ....

Me I believe :D I've seen a hand full now ...an so far they've all been Fremont built :yes:

He posted a pic of the carb numbers, and it's incorrect for the car. :clonk:
Nice car, nice docs, but not as accurate a restoration as he makes it out to be.:noway:
BillL

He posted a pic of the carb numbers, and it's incorrect for the car. :clonk:
Nice car, nice docs, but not as accurate a restoration as he makes it out to be.:noway:
BillL

oh you mean that 68's didn't have rear swaybars ?? ;)

Nice car, but isnt it weird that the stamp on the block looks pretty deep and the number 8 is a smaller font?

Nice car, but isnt it weird that the stamp on the block looks pretty deep and the number 8 is a smaller font?

Good eye. definately a restamp, and here's why. Seller or restorer didn't do their homework. Engine is stamped T0621ET. Protect-o-plate has engine number of T0527ET.

Some interesting things about the build sheet of this car bring some things to light. The driveshaft colors, OGNO. Orange, green, orange. This confirms original shafts I've seen that have three rings, so the code is the same no matter how the shaft laid in the bin.
This car also would have been equipped with the smog pump. Box 105 is marked D/VLV, DG. This is the code for the diverter valve.

its still one of the nicest 68 SS's ive ever seen though:thumbsup:

This car also would have been equipped with the smog pump. Box 105 is marked D/VLV, DG. This is the code for the diverter valve.

Dave, I have to disagree with you on this point. 325HP automatic cars didn't have the smog pump-note that there's nothing listed in boxes 40 and 41. These motors came with the closed air cleaner with the heat stove from the right exhaust manifold feeding the thermostatic air cleaner.
I do agree with you on the restamp. Engine build date of June 21 on a 6 D assembly date car is too close IMO, even if we didn't have the POP for backup.
BillL

Nice car, but isnt it weird that the stamp on the block looks pretty deep and the number 8 is a smaller font?

I have 2 Fremont Motors and Both have various size stampings.

http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/data/500/medium/Picture_0083.jpg

Dave

Good eye. definately a restamp, and here's why. Seller or restorer didn't do their homework. Engine is stamped T0621ET. Protect-o-plate has engine number of T0527ET.


That is a great Catch.. SO what can we believe here?? Fake Stamp, Buildsheet or Protecto??? Or all the above..

I think the protecto plate numbers more line up with build date of the car.. Both my motors are stamped a little over 3 weeks prior to build date.. Which is 1 Month eariler than this car.. Mine is a 05D

Dave

Dave,
On that car the "8" digit on the VIN stamp pad is different size than the rest.
Also, lots of items that are not right. Even with the fit and finish.
Such as the body side moldings behind the rear tires are not lined up the same from one side to another. Seat buttons are wrong. Tailpipe tips. Boxed rear trailing arms. No flaps on fender wells, etc.
But it is a NICE car tho....great pics :)

I have 2 Fremont Motors and Both have various size stampings.

http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/data/500/medium/Picture_0083.jpg

Dave



As do I.

Fremont cars are known for this irregular size stampings.

I think the point being made is that the stamping in the same line is different fonts on the ebay car which means it is a poor restamp. But I'm just guessing.

I think the point being made is that the stamping in the same line is different fonts on the ebay car which means it is a poor restamp.

I am not sticking up for this "fraud" car by any means, but on both of mine the 6th and 8th digits are a differnt size in the partial vin.. Look Closely at my pic.

18Z155938

Dave

I am not sticking up for this "fraud" car by any means, but on both of mine the 6th and 8th digits are a differnt size in the partial vin.. Look Closely at my pic.

18Z155938

Dave

It's just that your number pics look so real and the ebay doesn't.

I'm not sticking up for the car either way. It's a very nice car. And, I agree with what others have said. It's a shame people feel the need to falsely represent what is otherwise a very well presented car.

Fremont cars are also known for the letters/numbers not lining up.

I think between me and Dave, were just trying to point that out.

:D

As others have stated. Fremont pad stampings (partial vin) are totally different than other plants. The size of the letters/numbers are all different and may also have different fonts. The engine plant code (Tonawanda stamp) should be like all the others. The Fremont partial vin on my 69 has letters and numbers in different sizes too, and it's well known to be the original block.
Thats just the way those crazy Calfornia folks did things. Probably had something to do with smokin those
funny weeds back in the 60's:D

I'm starting to like that color too!!

I asked the dealer about the difference between the #'s on the POP and on the motor. His reply-

First a very close look at the POP in my hand show the number as TO521ET the engine is original and it is TO621ET but if you look at the engine stamp the "6" could easily be mistaken for a 5because the loop over at the top cannot be seen, it just goes straight up. The engine has not been restamped and is the absolute originla block that was birthed with the vehicle from the factory.


- remarkableautos

So, do ya'll believe him?? Could a block assembled in New York on June 21st make it to California in time to be installed in a car with a 6 D build date? That seems awfully quick to me.
BillL

Believe a dealer!

are you kidding? Those guys are bearly a step above the green fuzzy stuff that grows on cheese.

Seems a little too quick to me too. Especially for the manufacturing processes of 40 years ago. As I recall from the documents, this was an ordered car too.

I saw this car on ebay also and although very nice, it is not what is claimed. I give the guy credit for all the pictures but these pictures also bring out quite a few discrepancies to us with original 68's. My 68 did not come with a build sheet (Baltimore) so I can not compare. I had a fake window sticker made (I have the original invoice.) and it is aged just like the picture of the build sheet. I believe history of ownership is the best bet if you can find all the owners and they remember what they did back 40 years ago.

That seller had a 64 impala SS409 conv on ebay about a month ago said it was original pad but it was clearly a restamp 100% sure. So I wonder. I don't see any broach marks on the pad so I think it is a restamp. Other stuff looks good.

I would agree with the restamping comments on this one, but have to say the build sheet appears to look original. The trim tag and build sheet numbering system is similar to the 69 Fremont tags and sheets, which could mean it is original, however without other known original examples it may be hard to say for sure. FWIW Andy

Build sheet and the POP look to be authentic to me as well. The deck stamp is the question, as the engine T date does not match the POP. The POP COULD read T0521 instead of T0527, but the deck of the block is definately hokey looking. The "6" in the date definately looks like the "6" in F1's picture. Notice that there are what appear to be marks that go 90 degrees to what would be broach marks. I don't see GM broach marks, but marks that look suspicious. Anyone concur?

Build sheet and the POP look to be authentic to me as well. The deck stamp is the question, as the engine T date does not match the POP. The POP COULD read T0521 instead of T0527, but the deck of the block is definately hokey looking. The "6" in the date definately looks like the "6" in F1's picture. Notice that there are what appear to be marks that go 90 degrees to what would be broach marks. I don't see GM broach marks, but marks that look suspicious. Anyone concur?

Actually Dave. If you zoom in on the pix. The six in Fi's pic has a oval lower part where the suspect 6 in the ad has a larger o shape which is closer in shape to the lower part of the 5 in Fi's pic. The last number has a straight line at the top where the 1 in the con-vin is angled down.
I'm not saying this stamp is or isn't genuine, But I can see where there could be the possibility of some mistaken identity on the numbers.

Just for comparison I am including a pic of my ED Fremont Stamp.. It is a little worn towards the end but I assure you it is original. It is also stamped 4 days after the EG block.

Vin 18Z155713 with the various size fonts.

http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/data/500/medium/Picture_0072.jpg


In the sellers defense I did notice he also has the trim tag info typed out wrong in his ad. Would really love to know the real story..

Dave

Actually Dave. If you zoom in on the pix. The six in Fi's pic has a oval lower part where the suspect 6 in the ad has a larger o shape which is closer in shape to the lower part of the 5 in Fi's pic. The last number has a straight line at the top where the 1 in the con-vin is angled down.
I'm not saying this stamp is or isn't genuine, But I can see where there could be the possibility of some mistaken identity on the numbers.

I think it is the differences in the angles of the pics that make the loop of the 6 look different. If it were really a 5 in the ebay car, do you think there might be a gap in the loop, where to me, it looks like it is completely closed like a 6??
Also, what about the lack of broach marks?

Not arguing, just discussing...:beers:

I think one more piece of the puzzle would be to find out what the Casting #’s on the Block and the Date it was cast.

Not sure if you noticed but both of the ones I referenced are for Fremont built cars and within “225” vin numbers away from each other.

ED Block was cast on May 7th and Stamped on May 10th

EG Block was cast on April 23rd and Stamped on May 6th

And while we are on the subject of Legit Stampings, I was so insistent on mine being original that no one commented. Please feel free to supply an opinion. Only thing I really never understood was why the ED block stamp faded out towards the end. (Weak hammer?)

Dave