Help, I need some assistance regarding a car my brother is looking at. All indications are that its a 69 SS 396/350 car. Owner says 'original SS as far as he knows', not alot of paperwork, just some old owner refs..

Vin #136379B...

Cowl tag says build date is 10 D.

Engine stamp says T0910JE..does this sound right? Seems a bit early to me.

I read the JE as 396/350, TH400 (which does match the car). Maybe its NOM?

We will be checking the block dates, casting #, and head info soon.

I guess you're asking about the posibility of the car being an original factory SS car.

In 1969 there is no way to tell for sure without some form of documentation unless it was built in Canada or has the original engine with the VIN on it.
Everything else can be added to a non SS car.


How to spot a genuine SS Chevelle / El Camino (http://chevelles.com/shop/ss_ident.html)

I have the same "problem", if you want to call it that. Though the VIN does not indicate whether the car was originally an SS, it can help. In '69, the only way to get a big block was with the SS option. If the engine VIN matches the dash VIN, you can usually rest assured that it is an original. There are those who will tell you that you can't be sure without a build sheet, the engine might be restamped, blah, blah, blah. IMHO, you'd have to be blind to be fooled by a re-stamp on a engine that has the VIN by the oil filter. Any process to remove the original VIN would leave a smooth surface as opposed to the rough casting surface. While a build sheet would be helpful, it is not the ONLY means of identification. Another option is to contact previous owners, the farther back the better, and talk to them. Cloning wasn't nearly as prevalent in the 70's & 80's, especially for the more "common" models.

I purchased my car in 1987. I have no build sheet (I probably found it and threw it away back in high school!). BUT, all my numbers match and the 2nd owner from the late 70's has confirmed that it is an SS.

Just my .02

Thanks for the responses..I guess to be more specific, does it seem odd that the engine stamp would be that much earlier than the build date on the cowl tag? I always thought that these two #'s should be pretty close together (days) not a month apart.

We will be checking the VIN # too..

Neuman,
I did find the original owner of my 69 SS who had the original engine with a hole in the #5 cylinder. I bought it for $200 plus $200 shipping.
Here's the point: The vin pad by the oil filter was clean virgin casting with no stamp. So I'm taking the word of the first owner and the 'signs' as confirmation for my car, but it is not based on numerical fact.
I have:
The 'word' of the original owner.
3.73 posi 12-bolt.
M-22 4-speed w/console.
Big Block rag joint.
Box rear lower control arms.
The two extra factory reinforcements that connect the upper and lower rear control arms.
6000 redline tach/gage set-up (no idiot lights, no A/C). But the car does have a one peice 3/8 fuel line and a one peice 1/4 vapor return line. So that tach might have been added by someone or a factory screw-up to my benefit.

etc..........

I don't have:
Build sheet
Dealer invoice
Factory documentaion of any kind....

The only documentation I have is the original carpet tags that were in between the jute and carpet, and the rearend tag. That's it.

Personally, I am satisfied that the car is an original SS and that's how I'm restoring it. I have no intention to sell as it is already willed to my son. But all these things would legally be called 'circumstantial' evidences. Give me a file, a hammer, a ***** punch, and a sandblaster and I can duplicate to perfection a cast iron surface; especially after its painted.

Originally posted by jtm60:
does it seem odd that the engine stamp would be that much earlier than the build date on the cowl tag? I always thought that these two #'s should be pretty close together (days) not a month apart.It's certainly not unheard of for the dates to differ by one or even two months. I think it's more common for them to be closer together, but I doubt that anyone would give it much thought.


Neumann,

As Lou says, it's not all that difficult to replicate a cast surface. Might not fool some real experts, but for the average person who really wants to see 'matching numbers' on an engine, it can look perfect ;)

Give me a file, a hammer, a ***** punch, and a sandblaster and I can duplicate to perfection a cast iron surface; especially after its painted. WARNING: Don't buy a "matching numbers" car from Lou (or his son!) :eek:


Just giving you a hard time graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Aww, Man.....
Did I ever tell you about my son's C.O.P.O./Yenko/Baldwin Motion 70 Monte Carlo SS with the 307?

Here's to our Chevelle's:
graemlins/beers.gif

Did I ever tell you about my son's C.O.P.O./Yenko/Baldwin Motion 70 Monte Carlo SS with the 307?
Hey Lou,

Your son's name wouldn't be Bain, would it?? :D

i'm PRETTY SURE 69 BEING A STRIKE YEAR THAT CHEVROLET DID ORDER extra engines too get them thru the strike period , this would put some time between the dates of the motors and the asembly dates , creating a situation described above. :confused: