BBCorv70

I ran across this ad, claims to be matching numbers. Curious. Can this possibly be original? 10 Months from cast date of the block to final assembly of the vehicle? I noted the ad does not say the engine is original. Buyer beware?


Description: This 1970 Chevrolet Corvette Coupe features a 454/390HP V8 engine. It is equipped with a 4-Speed Manual Transmission. The vehicle is Monza Red with a Red Vinyl interior.
This 1970 Chevrolet Corvette has been painstakingly frame off restored to its original Monza Red Color, and comes complete with a numbers matching 454/390HP V8 and 4 speed manual transmission. This award winning Corvette comes with tons of documentation, including the original tank sticker, as well as Chapter and Regional NCRS Award Certificates!!!


Engine: Numbers Matching 454/390HP V8

Engine Block Number: 3963512

Engine Casting Date: H28 9 (August 28, 1969)

Engine Stamp Pad: T0508CZU 70S4112344

Transmission: 4-Speed Manual

Trim Tag Info: Build date F15 (June 15, 1970, St. Louis, MO) Paint Code 974 (Monza Red) Trim Code 400 (Black Vinyl)

VIN: 194370S412344

Miles: 86,196 miles showing on the odometer (this vehicle will be sold as mileage EXEMPT)

Items Included with the Car: Tank Sticker, Warranty Book, Saratoga Top Directions, Road & Track Article (photocopy), DMV Title Certification, NCRS Letter (documentation is viewable in the photo gallery)

keithinspace

Not that I'm a big NCRS guy, but if the car has been inspected and the owner can present the supporting documentation, I'd put at least a small amount of stock in that.

BBCorv70

A 6 month span is the maximum span I've heard of being accepted from casting date to final assembly. 10 Months seems way too long. I've heard anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months is typical. Funny how the engine assembly date, if I decoded it correctly, seems much more reasonable. Restamp?

vettebuyer6369

What's an "NCRS Award Certificate?"

Third Flight?

You know even Top Flight can be had with a loss of points on the pad, right?

Mike Ward

Even if the pad clearly identifies the engine as originally coming from grannie's Belair or a dump truck.

I wish more people would take the time to understand how the system works.

BBCorv70

True, but the date code is what bothers me. I'd expect to get a big deduct for that date code. Maybe it still made it to Third Flight?

LS4 PILOT

documentation seems likely true for the car being a LS5 .....but personally from what I've seen, I wouldn't trust that block being the cars original born with block. Sounds like a restamp vin on a block from another Chevy of earlier 70 vintage. 10 months is not right, unless their is written documentation to back up this story.

so many BB motors were decked and numbers erased .

to bad people can't just state the facts , always playing games.

yes ...when the sellers, especially dealers are learly of lawsuits on a expensive car, they covered their azz by not claiming original born with wording .....thats a certain red flag if original means something to you. this listing just sounds fishy.......

matching numbers doesn't t mean original with cheats today...... just means the correct numbers are stamped in the components.

I think most people who have true original cars still hold on to them and they rarely come up for sale.

BBCorv70

With proper documentation I'd imagine the seller could prove the car was originally built with a 454. Unless there is some very interesting story explaining why the long period between the block casting and final assembly, I'd assume it's a restamp.

694speed350

since '69 production continued through december of 69. I would question it.

Easy Mike

Stranger things have happened. The engine could be original.

Assuming it's a restamp could be a mistake.

Let's agree all of us would want to hear the story from the owner.

Eric Voigt

I've always heard the "the 6 month acceptable span" however 10 months really bothers me. Wasn't there a GM strike in 1970 that could account for this lapse? When was the strike and how long was it? Maybe this BB falls into the window and could explain the disconnect

It really would be beneficial for the owner to show some of the documents on this...

Eric

Easy Mike

The strike began about mid-September, 1970 and ran through most of November affecting the 1971 models. There were no October built 71s and not too many November cars. This would have had no affect on an engine assembed May 8, 1970.

A strike at St. Louis did not necessarily have anything to do with either of the engine plants.

Food For Thought: At Tonawanda in May, 1970, they went around the plant and collected whatever unused engine cases they had sitting around. One of these happened to be cast in August of 69. Since it was a correct block and otherwise useable, they machined it and assembled it on May 8, 1970 and shipped to St. Louis where it was installed in a Corvette assembled on June 15th.

Completely hypothetical, but possible. That would make an August 69 casting date absolutely correct for a June 70 built car.

Vet76te

There's a lot of discussion around re-stamps,....but don't forget that you can re-stamp a decked block,....but you can NOT change the block number and date code. Those are cast into the block and I've never heard of any method to alter them.

Most people use that as a measuring tool for verification.

For example, I went to look at a basic 1969 an advertised matching numbers 350. Nothing special, just a basic car. The stamp pad did in fact match the VIN, however, the block date code showed the engine build date of 1977.

If the cast block number and build date match the stamp pad number AND that number matches the VIN ....very good chances its correct matching number car.

keithinspace

Story:

Purchase of my 1970 was of a declared "LT-1 Clone". The guy was trying to make an LT-1. Had an L88 hood, but was going for the engine and other components to be true to an LT-1.

For $7k, I wasn't too worried about how close the guy came. It was 100% complete, ran decent, came with 500# of extra/old parts, was all one color, started, stopped, and wasn't an absolutely tragic rust-bucket, so I went with it.

I found some very interesting parts on the car including a rare carb, a full TI ignition, double hump heads, Winter's intake, and solid lifters, to name a few.

After issues here and there, I finally pulled the engine. Turned out that it was an absolutely 100% correct GM built, pink-rod, forged crank, plastic timing gear, forged piston, purchased from a dealership, LT-1 engine.

Since I pulled it before anything really major happened, my engine builder called it a "9 out of 10" as a starting point. We didn't even bore it...just cleaned up the walls so we could re-use the TRW mini-dome pistons.

Based on cylinder wall wear, he's guessing that the engine had about 10k miles on it. Dates put the block between 1976 and 1978 and it had never been apart. #2 main bearing failed in 1989, but they were replaced in the car...the block was apparently not pulled, judging from the main bearing shavings we saw with no worn bearings present in the car. Then the dates on the main bearings revealed the truth.

Pretty cool stuff.

My point is this: Sometimes previous owners aren't blowing smoke up your tushy. Sometimes they are actually representing something that you just don't quite believe until you find out for yourself.

dtamustang

there are many reasons why the 10 months could be legitimate. and I doubt if you will ever find anything to "document " why. 1 possible reason is that blocks that needed remachined for one reason or another were stored until enough of them piled up and were all repaired at the same time , then shipped.
not being ncrs savvy I would assume the 2 -6 month window is "normal" but not etched in stone. if there is a hard cutoff time of six months they are not taking a lot of variables into account.

as far as what the add saying numbers matching vs. original engine , in todays lawsuit happy environment and the almost neurotic obsession with "original" , when it comes time to sell mine it will be advertised as a "corvette" with nothing other than a description of the car , I will let the buyer make all of his or her conclusions about correctness to them.

Mike Ward

Grinding off casting numbers or dates and redoing them with epoxy and metal filings is as old a practice as restamps. Not as common, but seen now and then especially on high end C2s.

Not picking on you, but a common practice seen here by others is to 'assume' what the rules are and attempt to apply them in an effort to authenticate or discredit a car. Usually ends up with people concluding that judging is for idiots because they do it wrong.

There is a 'soft' line in the sand at six months for most components except glass which is one year. If a component is outside of that time period, other factors can be brought in to either substantiate it's acceptability or assignment of a deduction.

Most people are oblivious to the simple plain fact that Flight Judging is not an attempt to authenticate a car or any of it's components so whether this car scored 100% or 0% is no indication of it being the real deal.

theblackvette

I wonder if Bob Barker thinks the price is right for this car????

The ad says red vinyl interior color. HUH????????



http://www.hendrickperformance.com/d...-10483614.html

exposingtime

Why dont you look on the corvette registry for another 454 car with the approx build date that yours has and email the owner to ask for some of the stamp pad info.

If you find other within a +/- the vin of your car and there is a ten month window on those two I would think that it could be original.

Gary

BBCorv70

I'd be suspicious since the date code falls far from the typical 6 months we usually hear about. For the money they're asking, I'd like to hear the story, have the pad checked out to look for evidence of tampering. We'll never know for sure if it's original.

theblackvette

Were you trying to be funny here?

Because you are. I just saw this post. How did i miss it!!!!!