[blm]

I find that very hard to believe. First off, their shouldn't be that many USABLE extra parts at the assembly plants once all the scheduled production has been completed, and anything further back in the supply chain could just go to parts distribution. As for NEVER using previous years parts in the next year's stuff, well, I have an all original 1973 454 from a C20 pickup with a steel crank. Every source I have ever found says that ALL 1973 454's got cast cranks. Where did that steel crank come from? Please don't read any of this to mean that I think the OP's car has the as built transmission in it.

That information comes straight from a man that worked the line at the Baltimore plant for 33 years starting in 1966. He was there and would think he would know about these things. I don’t believe the man makes up tales. He was very specific about this and witnessed it first hand.
As far as these parts not going back into the supply chain that was my first question when this GM worker relayed the information. He stated he does not know why they did it this way but someone at GM had a reason for this.

 

[Droptop72]

Tom
That information comes straight from a man that worked the line at the Baltimore plant for 33 years starting in 1966. He was there and would think he would know about these things. I don’t believe the man makes up tales. He was very specific about this and witnessed it first hand.
As far as these parts not going back into the supply chain that was my first question when this GM worker relayed the information. He stated he does not know why they did it this way but someone at GM had a reason for this.

Well, I guess I could see it happening with small number of leftover parts, but I can’t see it being a mass thing. If everybody was doing their job, the assembly plants shouldn’t have THAT many more parts than it had cars to build. I have to wonder if the majority of these destroyed parts weren’t rejects or mistakes.

 

[blm]

Well, I guess I could see it happening with small number of leftover parts, but I can’t see it being a mass thing. If everybody was doing their job, the assembly plants shouldn’t have THAT many more parts than it had cars to build. I have to wonder if the majority of these destroyed parts weren’t rejects or mistakes.

My point is that there were no parts from previous years to install in the vehicles coming down the line. The OP stated "he knows" GM installed parts from previous years. How does he know this? I have information that conflicts that statement from what I consider a very reliable source.

 

[MikeN]

Someone would have to document for me with proof that GM destroyed surplus parts instead of putting them into the supply chain. Hearsay doesn't cut it.

 

[69_CHEV_ELLE]

No matter the parts used on the line, would there be a vin or not?

 

[Star22Racer]

My point is that there were no parts from previous years to install in the vehicles coming down the line. The OP stated "he knows" GM installed parts from previous years. How does he know this? I have information that conflicts that statement from what I consider a very reliable source.

I will tell you why I feel this way.......my dad purchased a 1979 Camaro brand new. There were many items on that car stamped '78. Albeit, they were mostly lenses and such but that tells me there were parts from '78 being put on '79's.

The explanation of the Muncie splines and corresponding clutch/yoke requirements however makes complete sense to me.

Maybe I am reading some of these replies wrong.....but I am wondering why people are so quick to criticize? Again, I am trying to call the car what it ACTUALLY is! In a day of mass cloning and everyone claiming they have original this and numbers matching that, I would think desiring the truth would be refreshing.

 

[blm]

Someone would have to document for me with proof that GM destroyed surplus parts instead of putting them into the supply chain. Hearsay doesn't cut it.

Ok, I posted a statement in this thread that some of you are calling BS. I was simply relaying it from someone else. That person was there, should know more than anyone here and I believe was telling the truth.
But for any disbelievers here I have a solution for you. Tomorrow and/or Saturday head to the Mid Atlantic Chevelle Show. Look for a 1969 Monoco Orange SS Convertible owned by Richard Doyle. I’m betting he will be there. When you see him ask him if what I said here was true. When he says “ yes it is” then you can call him a liar to his face.
Mike, you seriously think there would be paperwork to back this up? Get real.

 

[MikeN]

If Mr. Doyle repeats the same hearsay you repeated, that still doesn't make it true.

 

[blm]

If Mr. Doyle repeats the same hearsay you repeated, that still doesn't make it true.

No it doesn’t make it true. But then I don’t believe he would have any reason to make that up so it doesn’t make the statement untrue either. I’ve met the gentleman and believe every word he says.
There have been a multitude of claims about things that happened at the GM plants. It’s allways said “ well we can’t be sure because we weren’t there”. Well Richard was there.
Also as I heard it from Richard it wasn’t hearsay as he witnessed it first hand.

 

[Second_chance_SS]

I will tell you why I feel this way.......my dad purchased a 1979 Camaro brand new. There were many items on that car stamped '78. Albeit, they were mostly lenses and such but that tells me there were parts from '78 being put on '79's.

The explanation of the Muncie splines and corresponding clutch/yoke requirements however makes complete sense to me.

Maybe I am reading some of these replies wrong.....but I am wondering why people are so quick to criticize? Again, I am trying to call the car what it ACTUALLY is! In a day of mass cloning and everyone claiming they have original this and numbers matching that, I would think desiring the truth would be refreshing.

In the case of the plastic parts on your Dad's Camaro. When a vehicle used the same part for a number of years, the mold was not changed to reflect the year vehicle it was going on. It is VERY common to see the origination year molded into these parts, even though the part was produced in the current year. Look at the C/K pick up line, 1968 thru 1972, to be specific. The same tail light lenses were carried over for all those years and a new 1972 pick up had lenses with 1968 molded into them, side markers too. There is no way GM produced enough of those lenses in 1 year to supply enough for a 5 year run. The lenses were produced the same year as the truck. Same for the parts on that Camaro.
For the transmission, you've got some good advice on how to identify the trans. The main case casting number for 1. There should be 2 sets of numbers stamped in it near the midplate too. 1 set will be the build date and code. There should be a letter at the end of that code, A,B, C,etc. which will identify the series of the trans i. e. M20,21,22. There should also be a partial vin which will identify the vehicle line it came from, Chevelle, Camaro , LeMans, GTO, etc. They all used the same transmission but have identifier numbers specific to that model series. If you can get that info, people on here can advise you on, pretty much, exactly what the trans is from. Finding the original trans could be a long, exhausting search, going back thru previous owners, which federal law makes very difficult now by the vin. If the trans you have now is working good, I don't know that I would go thru the cost and labor to swap it back to a 1971 trans, just to have a year correct unit in the car. That won't be much different than the situation you have now, but it IS up to you...

 

[sbc stan]

I'm confused. You say it isn't numbers matching, but then ask if it's okay to say it's numbers matching.

somewhere on the transmission it will have your cars vin on it, my Camaro has 8 or 10 digits of the vin on it. If it does not match that will tell you it is from another vehicle.

 

[blm]

I’m not sure all Muncies have a vin on them. I have two M21s, a 1966 and a 1969. The 69 has a vin number on it but the 66 doesn’t. IIRC the 69 vin is stamped on the mid plate while the 66 has date info on the mid plate there is no vin anywhere on that trans. Don’t know how common that is or maybe the vin was stamped somewhere else on the trans and later replaced?

 

[Star22Racer]

Ok.......this thread has gone off the rails a bit. With that said, I have identified the M-21 as a '70. The VIN on the trans is not even close to the rest of the car. So yes, the original trans is long gone. So now I have a car that all the numbers match EXCEPT the tranny.
1. What does that do to the value of the car?
2. Even if I find a correct '71 M-21 with no VIN stamped on it, is that "numbers matching"?

 

[69_CHEV_ELLE]

There is guy on this forum that maintains a vin tracking sheet. If you send him the VIN from your trans, maybe he can link it to a car and put you in touch with that owner. That car owner may love to have his original trans back. On a hail mary, maybe that guy has your trans. Good luck!

 

[sbc stan]

I’m not sure all Muncies have a vin on them. I have two M21s, a 1966 and a 1969. The 69 has a vin number on it but the 66 doesn’t. IIRC the 69 vin is stamped on the mid plate while the 66 has date info on the mid plate there is no vin anywhere on that trans. Don’t know how common that is or maybe the vin was stamped somewhere else on the trans and later replaced?

Chevelle Restoration and Authenticity Guide 1970-1972 in 1968 they started putting codes on the transmissions showing build date and so on this article explains if it has the right date codes I would say it came in the car, really no way to refute it.

 

[sbc stan]

Chevelle Restoration and Authenticity Guide 1970-1972 in 1968 they started putting codes on the transmissions showing build date and so on this article explains if it has the right date codes I would say it came in the car, really no way to refute it.

Muncie 4-Speed Identification Guide - Chevy DIY good article on muncie transmissions

 

[sbc stan]

Someone would have to document for me with proof that GM destroyed surplus parts instead of putting them into the supply chain. Hearsay doesn't cut it.

Ok.......this thread has gone off the rails a bit. With that said, I have identified the M-21 as a '70. The VIN on the trans is not even close to the rest of the car. So yes, the original trans is long gone. So now I have a car that all the numbers match EXCEPT the tranny.
1. What does that do to the value of the car?
2. Even if I find a correct '71 M-21 with no VIN stamped on it, is that "numbers matching"?

I have been told by many chevy guys that no chevelle ever had a sbc 400 in it. But in 1972 I saw one in a heavy chevy chevelle that a kid in my high school bought new, and I was expecting to see a bbc when it said 400 on the fenders.

 

[blm]

So now I have a car that all the numbers match EXCEPT the tranny.
1. What does that do to the value of the car?
2. Even if I find a correct '71 M-21 with no VIN stamped on it, is that "numbers matching"?

IMO your car is still considered numbers matching. Obviously with a numbers matching trans it could be worth slightly more but most folks are primarily concerned about a numbers matching engine.
Just look up what it takes to prove a 70 SS is real ( Chevellestuff.net) and you will see a numbers engine mentioned but nothing about a transmission.

 

[DZAUTO]

The SB400 was introduced in 1970. Up through the 1974 model, the SB400 was only a 2bl carb engine. The BB400 was sorta, kinda introduced in 70. BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT, during the later part of the 69 model year, the 396 was increased to 402 and they were 4bl carb engines. The SS396 model was so popular and so common, that SS cars with the BB400(402) retained the SS396 badging. Depending on what model Chevrolet product (Chevelle, truck, full size, etc) was ordered with the BB400, it had a 396 (such as Chevelle) or 400 emblem (such as full size or truck). But again, if it had a SB400 it had a 400 emblem and if it had a BB400, it still had a 400 emblem, but was actually a 402.
As I mentioned, up to 74, a SB400 was only a 2bl carb engine. But in 75, the SB400 was available as either a 2 or 4bl carb engine.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE-------------a SB400 was NOT available in a Chevelle until 73-----------------BUT, it was available in the Monte Carlo. GO FIGURE!

In Mar 72, I special ordered a fully loaded pwr and AC 9-pass Concours wagon with BB (402), 4sp, posi and CI hood (lost it in a divorce in 76). It had a 400 emblem on the front fenders.
I had to go to FIVE different Chevy dealers to find a salesman that would order the car!!! I KNEW FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT THAT A 4sp was available in a wagon. ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the salesmen at the dealers said it was not and would not work with me.. Finally, I located an older salesman at a Chevy dealer in downtown OKC. He was skeptical, BUT, he checked and sure enough, a 4p in a wagon was shown as an option.
After I took delivery of the wagon, I went to 2 of the dealers that I had gone to earlier, showed them my FACTORY built 4sp wagon and the paperwork. Rubbed it in their face that they would not help me and lost a sale.

 

[sbc stan]

The SB400 was introduced in 1970. Up through the 1974 model, the SB400 was only a 2bl carb engine. The BB400 was sorta, kinda introduced in 70. BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT, during the later part of the 69 model year, the 396 was increased to 402 and they were 4bl carb engines. The SS396 model was so popular and so common, that SS cars with the BB400(402) retained the SS396 badging. Depending on what model Chevrolet product (Chevelle, truck, full size, etc) was ordered with the BB400, it had a 396 (such as Chevelle) or 400 emblem (such as full size or truck). But again, if it had a SB400 it had a 400 emblem and if it had a BB400, it still had a 400 emblem, but was actually a 402.
As I mentioned, up to 74, a SB400 was only a 2bl carb engine. But in 75, the SB400 was available as either a 2 or 4bl carb engine.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE-------------a SB400 was NOT available in a Chevelle until 73-----------------BUT, it was available in the Monte Carlo. GO FIGURE!

In Mar 72, I special ordered a fully loaded pwr and AC 9-pass Concours wagon with BB (402), 4sp, posi and CI hood (lost it in a divorce in 76). It had a 400 emblem on the front fenders.
I had to go to FIVE different Chevy dealers to find a salesman that would order the car!!! I KNEW FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT THAT A 4sp was available in a wagon. ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the salesmen at the dealers said it was not and would not work with me.. Finally, I located an older salesman at a Chevy dealer in downtown OKC. He was skeptical, BUT, he checked and sure enough, a 4p in a wagon was shown as an option.
After I took delivery of the wagon, I went to 2 of the dealers that I had gone to earlier, showed them my FACTORY built 4sp wagon and the paperwork. Rubbed it in their face that they would not help me and lost a sale.

i do not know what carb it had, just saw the engine with breather on it and was amazed it was a sbc, at that time I had a 1969 ss chevelle with a 396, so I do know a sbc from a bbc. I was not aware at that time chevy built a sbc 400 ,that was the first one I had seen.