Looking for production info on verifying 1968 Charger R/T 440 originality

[Bill Clay]

Hi all!

I am trying to learn more about verifying the originality of an engine in a very early production car. I'm helping a guy sell his '68 R/T 440 and have been asked by interested parties to check some stampings to confirm the originality of the engine, transmission, and chassis against the fender tag and decode sheet. I've done a BUNCH of reading here and I understand a lot, but still have some questions, which I realize may not have definitive answers. I am posting what I think I know along with questions in bold about what I know I don't know. Please confirm or correct or explain where you can. Thank you!


The decode sheet identifies Shipping Order Number 095410 for VIN XS29L8B124138, which had a scheduled build date of Sept 07, 1967 in the Hamtramck plant. I read here that production of 1968 Chargers began in September of 1967, which would put the planned manufacture date of this car in perhaps the first week of production. When did production of 1968 Charger R/Ts in Hamtramck begin? If this is indeed a very-early-production car, I realize that all bets on how it should be stamped may be off.

I know that the Shipping Order Number 095410 should appear on the fender tag, on the radiator support, and on the trunk lip. The number is on the fender tag. On the radiator support, the stamping is completely covered by the yellow sticker, but I can see the stamping indentations on the underside of the support - but I can't make out all of the stamped letters and numbers from the underside. I can make out 3 or 4 of them (and these correspond to an expected stamping of B8X095410) but not all. I only learned about the trunk lip stamping yesterday, so I will check that one tomorrow. If I find the shipping order number on the trunk lip, that should verify that the tag belongs to the chassis. If it is missing from the trunk lip, does that indicate that the driver side quarter has been replaced? The spot welds at the driver door frame look original to my untrained eyes. I'm want to tie the fender tag to a SO Number stamping on the car, since I cannot definitively read the stamping on the radiator support.

On the engine, the stamping on the flat pad at the front of the engine seems to be correct - it is stamped "D440 [cross symbol] /B" on the first line, and "8  29  HP2" on the second line. This stamping indicates that the engine was original to a 1968 440 and was built August 29, second shift.  Is it at all possible that it was built in August 1968 instead of August 1967? Or would they have been building 1969 Model Year engines by then?

I have read that some engines were stamped with the SO Number on the underside, next to the corner of the oil pan, next to the transmission. The engine in this one is stamped there with "T440S 095410" - which ties the engine to the fender tag. I have read here that later engines and transmissions, as well as some random early ones, were stamped with the partial VIN at the back of the engine near the oil pressure sender, and that the partial VIN was also stamped right next to it on the transmission housing, but not necessarily for early engines and transmissions. The engine looks like it may have has something stamped there but I cannot read it through the paint, and the transmission housing is not stamped. Would the engine but not the tranny be stamped with the partial VIN? As an aside, where were the engines for 1968 Charger RT 440s built?

The transmission is stamped on the side with what appears to be a serial number of 3M23H9A195896. Does that give any indication that it is or is not original?

Here's a link to auction if you want to read more: http://bringatrailer.com/listing/1968-dodge-charger-rt-440/)

[BLK 68 R/T]

Hi all!

I am trying to learn more about verifying the originality of an engine in a very early production car. I'm helping a guy sell his '68 R/T 440 and have been asked by interested parties to check some stampings to confirm the originality of the engine, transmission, and chassis against the fender tag and decode sheet. I've done a BUNCH of reading here and I understand a lot, but still have some questions, which I realize may not have definitive answers. I am posting what I think I know along with questions in bold about what I know I don't know. Please confirm or correct or explain where you can. Thank you!


The decode sheet identifies Shipping Order Number 095410 for VIN XS29L8B124138, which had a scheduled build date of Sept 07, 1967 in the Hamtramck plant. I read here that production of 1968 Chargers began in September of 1967, which would put the planned manufacture date of this car in perhaps the first week of production. When did production of 1968 Charger R/Ts in Hamtramck begin? If this is indeed a very-early-production car, I realize that all bets on how it should be stamped may be off.

I know that the Shipping Order Number 095410 should appear on the fender tag, on the radiator support, and on the trunk lip. The number is on the fender tag. On the radiator support, the stamping is completely covered by the yellow sticker, but I can see the stamping indentations on the underside of the support - but I can't make out all of the stamped letters and numbers from the underside. I can make out 3 or 4 of them (and these correspond to an expected stamping of B8X095410) but not all. I only learned about the trunk lip stamping yesterday, so I will check that one tomorrow. If I find the shipping order number on the trunk lip, that should verify that the tag belongs to the chassis. If it is missing from the trunk lip, does that indicate that the driver side quarter has been replaced? The numbers are under the trunk rail drip channel on the drivers side under the weatherstripping, not possible for it to be missing and have the weatherstripping fit. The spot welds at the driver door frame look original to my untrained eyes. I'm want to tie the fender tag to a SO Number stamping on the car, since I cannot definitively read the stamping on the radiator support.

On the engine, the stamping on the flat pad at the front of the engine seems to be correct - it is stamped "D440 [cross symbol] /B" on the first line, and "8  29  HP2" on the second line. This stamping indicates that the engine was original to a 1968 440 and was built August 29, second shift.  Is it at all possible that it was built in August 1968 instead of August 1967? No Or would they have been building 1969 Model Year engines by then? Yes

I have read that some engines were stamped with the SO Number on the underside, next to the corner of the oil pan, next to the transmission. The engine in this one is stamped there with "T440S 095410" - which ties the engine to the fender tag. I have read here that later engines and transmissions, as well as some random early ones, were stamped with the partial VIN at the back of the engine near the oil pressure sender, and that the partial VIN was also stamped right next to it on the transmission housing, but not necessarily for early engines and transmissions. The engine looks like it may have has something stamped there but I cannot read it through the paint, and the transmission housing is not stamped. Would the engine but not the tranny be stamped with the partial VIN? As an aside, where were the engines for 1968 Charger RT 440s built? In 68 generally the engine vin was as you listed above, by the oil pressure sending unit, same for the transmission code, close to the engine vin except on the bellhousing part of the tranny.

The transmission is stamped on the side with what appears to be a serial number of 3M23H9A195896 Looks like a 69 383 roadrunner vin code to me? sure the 3 is not a R or possibly a W which would make it a Superbee . Does that give any indication that it is or is not original?

Here's a link to auction if you want to read more: http://bringatrailer.com/listing/1968-dodge-charger-rt-440/)

I dont know the answers to all of it but I will answer what I do know.

[Bill Clay]

Yes, the 3 could be an R, making it RM23H9A195896.

Thank you for the other responses too!

[BLK 68 R/T]

Well that guarantees right there that it is not the original transmission for the charger 

[Bill Clay]

LOL! Yes, I'd say so!

At this point, I'm trying to figure out what IS or even MAY BE original. The engine is of course the most important. But I'm suspicious and a skeptic so I also want to verify that the fender tag is from this car, even if nothing else is.

@ BLK 68 R/T - I may not have been very clear about the trunk lip stamping. I guess I was really asking if the SO Number stamping is on the quarter panel, and could therefore be missing if the quarter had been replaced. Certainly the lip would have to be there for the weatherstripping to fit.

[Bill Clay]

Pics of decode sheet, fender tag, and front engine stamp attached. Does anyone know what the cross symbol and the "?B" on the engine stamp mean?

[BLK 68 R/T]

Yea, the SO# stamping is on the trunk lip which is a separate piece from the quarter panel. The # is not anywhere on the quarter panel.
The Maltese cross indicates an undersize crank and the B means .010 undersize.

[Bill Clay]

Wow, I certainly came to the right place for knowledge and answers! Thank you again!

Why would the engine have been built (and cranked) under-bored? To allow for additional boring in case of error?

[6bblgt]

XS29L8B124138 = 24,138th assigned VIN from Hamtramck - production started first week of August '67
9,320th build from assembly line #2 (Barracuda & Chargers ONLY)

IMO
not original engine (the VIN number SHOULD be stamped by the oil sending unit on a '68 model year 440HP)
not original transmission (as discussed above) part number from other side would also verify transmission as a '69 383 unit
not original fender tag

a $5 sticker (nor paint) would NOT stop me from verifying the SO# on the core support and/or trunk lip (as a serious seller or buyer)

[6bblgt]

it does have: 

early air cleaner
early steering wheel
early Red/White/Blue interior door emblems (can you post a good clear photo of one?  please!)
early vent pull handles
early deck lid
early tail light panel supports

[6bblgt]

all '68 440s were assembled at the TRENTON, MI engine assembly plant & should be stamped PT440............ with a 4-digit "short block assembly date" & a 4-digit "unit number"

something is fishy if it is stamped as stated above??? got a pic? 

[Bill Clay]

@ gbblgt...

I appreciate that you have an opinion, and I believe that yours is based on above-average knowledge. That said, I have read over and over on site after site that early '68 Charger (and a one-month-into-production Charger has to be an "early" '68 Charger) engine stampings were very inconsistent in presence and location, yet here you insist that ALL '68 Charger engines were stamped uniformly in a location not even mentioned by the any of the "check the numbers here" guides, and then opine that the fender tag on this car is not original without providing any support for the statement, even when it matches the configuration of the car in virtually every detail as far as I can tell without peeling stickers off of someone else's car. You post all of that in apparent glee at the possibility that the engine on this car is not original, while asking me to take and post a picture of the door emblem for you?

Ah, the forums...

[A383Wing]

didn't they start the production of the cars in August?

[Bill Clay]

@ A383Wing - that seems to be the case according to 6bblgt. I read somewhere that production started in September, but there's now two of you here that say August, and September seems kind of late in the year to be making the first cars to hit dealer lots.

So I have an engine that is correctly marked at the front for a 1968 RT 440, and assembled 9 days before the car's scheduled production date. It would have to be a really big coincidence if that engine were not original to the car, as it would have had to have been pulled from a car that was built within a few days of the one I'm working with. It could have happened that way - or the engine could have been stamped inconsistently in the first month of production.

I will find out in the morning if the trunk lip is stamped with the SO Number from the fender tag, assuming I can find it under the glue and paint.

[birdsandbees]

Transmission is from a '69 Road Runner.

As for body markings, dont' think that you're just going to pull back that truck seal and see it immediately. I've had my Super Bird for 26 years and always wondered if it was real because I couldn't find any body stamps after numerous sessions of "searching". A few months ago, after finding my cars VIN on the official build list, it took a case of beer and a lot of staring and I finally thought I saw what I thought was one number, so I started sanding to make my day. The stamping was so light you couldn't feel it underneath or see it in the paint layer.

[69CoronetRT]

@ gbblgt...

I appreciate that you have an opinion, and I believe that yours is based on above-average knowledge. That said, I have read over and over on site after site that early '68 Charger (and a one-month-into-production Charger has to be an "early" '68 Charger) engine stampings were very inconsistent in presence and location, yet here you insist that ALL '68 Charger engines were stamped uniformly in a location not even mentioned by the any of the "check the numbers here" guides, and then opine that the fender tag on this car is not original without providing any support for the statement, even when it matches the configuration of the car in virtually every detail as far as I can tell without peeling stickers off of someone else's car. You post all of that in apparent glee at the possibility that the engine on this car is not original, while asking me to take and post a picture of the door emblem for you?

Ah, the forums...

Bill,

it is doubtful that you will find few (any?) people more qualified to answer question like yours on '68 Chargers on this, or any other board, than 6bblgt. As a seller of a car, it may be in your best interest to follow up on his comments lest something come back on you in the future...just a thought.

The fender tag is miscoded leading one to surmise a poorly remade fender tag. That's certainly not uncommon but, again, as a seller, something you might want to look into.....

[6bblgt]

there is NO glee in any of my sharing of negative information in this thread - it is actually one of the more unpleasant things I do - inform people I do not know that they spent their hard earned monies on a vintage car that has been re-bodied, or components within that are re-stamped, or documentation that has "issues".

none of the information was to "DIS'" you, the car, or its owner - I thought it was the info you desired - as was my request for a picture of a rarely seen R/W/B door emblem

[Bill Clay]

Guys,

I am indeed looking for facts and information, and I do not feel dissed, and I thank you for providing the input that I've asked for. Neither the owner nor I are trying to sell the car as something it's not - and that's why I came here looking for information on how to make that determination.

Now let's take a look at this thread from my perspective...

It has now been twice stated that the fender tag is wrong or not real - without any explanation. Similarly, the engine has a correctly-stamped front plate with an assembly date that corresponds perfectly to the build date of the car, and is supported by a picture of the stamping, but that observation has been ignored because it is not stamped as you expect somewhere else (without even seeing a picture of that stamping), even when multiple sources say that early Charger engines were not stamped consistently - another observation that is being ignored. One could look at that and see it as "Your car is wrong because we say so and you should listen to us because we're experts." Even experts can be wrong in determining the legitmacy of car - especially one they've never actually seen.

So if you want me to accept what you are saying, please present a complete explanation that weighs out all of these observations, not just the ones you choose to focus on. Otherwise, this is all just what "some guy on the forums" said on one hand, and a written attestation to the engine's authenticity on the other, and I'm stuck in a he-said/she-said situation, which I cannot do much with.

PS - Is the Yipee Ki Yay pic a reference to my screen name, or just coincidence?

[lukedukem]

bill, if there is any doubt here on this forum you could try to contact Galen Govier, or some other Mopar Guru maybe

Luke

[el dub]

I think he just stated his doubts and is waiting for a reply. I've also heard it mentioned on this forum about the lack of info on early 68's or 68's in general.

[Bill Clay]

Thank you for listening, el dub. Or should that be "thank you for reading carefully and conscientiously, el dub"? In either case, yes I'm explaining my concerns with the unsupported and lopsided statements made here and am awaiting a conscientious reply. I've spent years on car forums, and this kind of reaction was entirely expected - it happens everywhere, and it is so common it is a running internet joke. I'm here trying to ford my way past it and get to the "next level" input on this issue.

If y'all are correct about everything posted, then my wet-behind-the-ears, naive, noobie concerns and questions should be easily addressed. But I'm still sitting here with an unexplained "fake fender tag" pronouncement, and no comment on how the front plate, which is properly stamped with an appropriate assembly date, fits into the ruse that you think is hiding an engine swap. And by the way, I found the trunk lip stamp - it is visible through the original paint and has some of the original trunk gasket adhesive on it, and appears to read B8X095410 - which I believe is the correct stamping for a 095410 SO Number. Right?

lukedukem, since the auction is already in progress, with just over 27 hours left to go, I don't think I have the time to get a guru to come look at the car.

[69CoronetRT]

Thank you for listening, el dub. Or should that be "thank you for reading carefully and conscientiously, el dub"? In either case, yes I'm explaining my concerns with the unsupported and lopsided statements made here and am awaiting a conscientious reply. I've spent years on car forums, and this kind of reaction was entirely expected - it happens everywhere, and it is so common it is a running internet joke. I'm here trying to ford my way past it and get to the "next level" input on this issue.

If y'all are correct about everything posted, then my wet-behind-the-ears, naive, noobie concerns and questions should be easily addressed. But I'm still sitting here with an unexplained "fake fender tag" pronouncement, and no comment on how the front plate, which is properly stamped with an appropriate assembly date, fits into the ruse that you think is hiding an engine swap. And by the way, I found the trunk lip stamp - it is visible through the original paint and has some of the original trunk gasket adhesive on it, and appears to read B8X095410 - which I believe is the correct stamping for a 095410 SO Number. Right?

lukedukem, since the auction is already in progress, with just over 27 hours left to go, I don't think I have the time to get a guru to come look at the car.

Bill, again, I would strongly encourage you to reach out to 6bblgt privately to discuss your concerns. He is incredibly knowledgeable about your specific car, 68 Chargers, and is easily approachable. He can address all of your concerns in detail but will, probably, not do it in an open forum.

There are numerous 'fender tag wonks' in this hobby. They spend thousands of hours collecting, documenting, comparing and contrasting fender tags from all years, all plants and throughout the model years. They can spot a bad tag a mile away due to the time spent scrutinizing original tags. Regrettably, they spend more time on accuracy than the people actually making the tags and they are uncompensated for their time. Please do not expect one of them to tell you in an open forum, for free, what is wrong with your tag so the people making tags can perfect their craft and continue to charge the prices they do for bad products.

Find original early 68 Charger Hamtramck fender tags and compare them to yours. The obvious differences between yours and originals will be easy to spot.

[Bill Clay]

The tag may be a reproduction, but does this build sheet support that I'm working with a '68 Charger RT 440 (engine stampings aside)?

[6bblgt]

& welcome to Dodge-Charger!

Yes, the VIN tag indicates you are dealing with a 440 powered 1968 Dodge Charger R/T built in Hamtramck, MI
Yes, the John McClane pic was in reference to your "user name"
Yes, there is lots of information on the internet and you can find conflicting info for most if not all of it
Yes, I read this thread and your BAT ad and most of its comments and was addressing the issues that I "assumed" were still unresolved, while waiting for additional pics of the engine stampings

I'll start with 1st issue FENDER TAG - I've never seen a '68 Charger fender tag NOT coded for bucket seats - EASY - hopefully the original b'cast sheet exists not just the poor copy

ENGINE - I suspect the D440 8 29 HP2 engine originated in a 440HP equipped C-body (WAG a Chrysler), some people looking for an engine look for date correct pieces
pics of the area by the oil sending unit & the "PT440" stamp would help to determine its origin
I've NEVER seen a Chrysler Engine Plant SO# factory stamped on an engine, although there are numerous claims of such on the internet

IMO the '68 performance engines & transmissions were partial VIN stamped for the '68 model year (HEMI, 440HP, 340, 383HP & 383 4bbl based on application), it wasn't hit or miss, it wasn't random - although plenty of people w/o numbers matching cars would like to think so

[6bblgt]

also the new pics on BAT show the early '68 Charger trunk floor

[Bill Clay]

Well now we are getting somewhere! Thank you for the detailed explanations!

So the fender tag is likely a repro installed during "restoration" that's ok. The owner has the original broadcast sheet in a frame. I saw it myself - the form is printed with somewhat light blue ink. He was never concerned with the car's originality, just its condition and that it had the right goods, if not necessarily the original goods. Yes, I can see how someone would think it very clever to search high and low for a replacement engine that has an assembly date close to what the original should be and transplant it into the car - it may have happened that way.

I posted in the BaT thread that there is some sort of illegible stamping at the back of the engine, but it didn't look like the stampings I've seen pics of elsewhere. I do not have a picture - the mech and I could barely make it out.

Here is a pic of the transmission stamping on the opposite side from the VIN. Can we determine if this is still a 3-speed TorqueFlight?

[BLK 68 R/T]

Yes, the transmission is a 3 speed torqueflight as evidenced by the VIN saying that it came from a RR 
also to clarify from a way earlier post of mine, the .010 undersize was in reference to the main/rod bearings and not the cylinder bore. Sorry for not clarifying 

[Bill Clay]

Thank you sir! That makes more sense than differences in bores between engines. And I realize that there was only one 3-speed automatic tranny at that time, but I try to keep my deduced assumptions to a minimum. 

[Mytur Binsdirti]

By chance, was the frame pulled or did it have a trailer hitch?

[68pplcharger]

 

[Bill Clay]

We have no history on the car unfortunately - only what we see, what you see is what you get.

I know little about spotting autobody work - what do you see that suggests a frame pull? The elongated holes in the rails?

[mightywing7]

Just watched the auction.  Ended at $37,500 unsold.  Reserve not met.

[Bill Clay]

Yup. Will most likely be listed here and elsewhere soon...

[tan top]

it does have:  

early air cleaner
early steering wheel
early Red/White/Blue interior door emblems (can you post a good clear photo of one?  please!)
early vent pull handles
early deck lid
early tail light panel supports

not sure where BC has gone  
this is the best I can do from the original , picture in the ad !

[Mytur Binsdirti]

Doesn't look like a bad car, but being that it's a non-numbers-matching driver quality car with some paint/bodywork, seat and other detail issues, I'd say that 37 1/2 large is pretty much top dollar that I'd want to pay for the vehicle.

[6bblgt]

looks like a nice early car with most of the differences still intact,
but dare I say - typical flipper - or would that be stating an unfair assumption? or fact?

[tan top]

Doesn't look like a bad car, but being that it's a non-numbers-matching driver quality car with some paint/bodywork, seat and other detail issues, I'd say that 37 1/2 large is pretty much top dollar that I'd want to pay for the vehicle.

  yep agreed


  looks ok ! good !   from a distance ,      yes !  closer you look  has things wrong  , but ! don't look that much of a biggie to put right , should you wish      nice charger  

looks like a nice early car with most of the differences still intact,
but dare I say - typical flipper - or would that be stating an unfair assumption? or fact?

    Agreed      on both accounts    

    think  BC  , just wanted to make sure  , the Charger he was selling, or  was helping to sell  ,  was correct  ,   !!

&  came to the right place  , for charger info ,    

[tan top]

 

XS29L8B124138