Vin stamp on engine 68'

[ZSmithersCharges]

Is there anywhere else the vin stamp would be on the engine of a 68?  The tranny is stamped and matches the vin but the vin stamp is not across from it on the backside of the engine like I saw on Dans?  The engine was built within 30-60 days of the production of the car so there are no issues there I just cant seem to find a vin stamp on the engine?  Why stamp the tranny and not the engine?  I have read in a couple posts here they didn't stamp all 68 blocks but that's just so lame.  The dirt under the engine and tranny is completely uniform everything about this car screams "So happy together! I can't see me lovin nobody but you for all my liiife!" I just wanted some kind of verification  

[ZSmithersCharges]

Oh well, really not a deal breaker for me as I am never going to sell the car... but its like popping your wife's cherry, you just want the satisfaction of knowing  Ok that was raunchy, but its how I feel, you'll live.

[268RTs4ME]

#s should be stamped on 68 block back by where oil sending unit is, check it out, should match #s of vin and trans.

[ZSmithersCharges]

I checked there, behind it or to the sides? I took it out and checked behind it and nothing was there   That is directly across from where it is stamped on the trans so I figured if it would be anywhere it would be there?  But its not.

[bull]

If it's not an R/T or 383 hp it most likely didn't get stamped, especially if it's an early-year production.

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,38316.0.html

[Troy]

Just so everyone knows, it's a 383 4-bbl car built Sept 28 (fairly early). Have you checked the stamped numbers on the engine to make sure it's a 383 HP block? Perhaps it got swapped out at some point (or replaced)?

Troy

[ZSmithersCharges]

Just so everyone knows, it's a 383 4-bbl car built Sept 28 (fairly early). Have you checked the stamped numbers on the engine to make sure it's a 383 HP block? Perhaps it got swapped out at some point (or replaced)?

Troy

Yep checked that already shes a match 2468130-12 LL

Date Code 7-18-67


For refference VIN is XP29H8B148310

383 Build dates vary anywhere from 60-90 days prior to actual build date so this engine is well within.

I also would like to know what the 12 and LL are for on the engine code?

[69CoronetRT]

Have you checked the stamped numbers on the engine to make sure it's a 383 HP block? Perhaps it got swapped out at some point (or replaced)?

Troy

If this is a 68 Charger, it will not have the HP stamp. If it does have the HP stamp, then the motor's been changed.

-12 refers to the core generation that was used to cast the block.

LL - I don't think there is any significant meaning to the LL cast in the block.

[Troy]

I mean the stamped ones on the pad on the passenger's side partially hidden by the distributor. Those shots are of the casting numbers which only tell when the block was poured. The stamped numbers tell you when it was assembled.

Have you checked the stamped numbers on the engine to make sure it's a 383 HP block? Perhaps it got swapped out at some point (or replaced)?

Troy

If this is a 68 Charger, it will not have the HP stamp. If it does have the HP stamp, then the motor's been changed.

-12 refers to the core generation that was used to cast the block.

LL - I don't think there is any significant meaning to the LL cast in the block.

Whoops! I always mess that up...

Sooooo, would/could the transmission be stamped but not the block? This one seems pretty early to me to have either (but I'm no expert). I thought the engine stamping should be directly across from the trans stamping.

Troy

[69CoronetRT]

Whoops! I always mess that up...

Sooooo, would/could the transmission be stamped but not the block? This one seems pretty early to me to have either (but I'm no expert). I thought the engine stamping should be directly across from the trans stamping.

Troy

Troy, Some plants seem to have them earlier than others. It does seem odd that one would have it but not the other. It may be helpful to know the engine assembly date on the pad.

[ZSmithersCharges]

Troy, Some plants seem to have them earlier than others. It does seem odd that one would have it but not the other. It may be helpful to know the engine assembly date on the pad.

Tried reading the pad all I could get off of it was something that looked liked this

Top down:   383
               
[blocked part?]17

The 17 was blocked by the alternator bracket the only thing I could clearly make out was the 383 that first number may or may not be a 1 but it looked like it.

[ZSmithersCharges]

Okay I guess I'll have to take off the head to get the rest cause the 17 is only signifying the order the engine was built mine being the 17th?  I think I'll take the heads off and get the rest sometime when im doing maintanence cause otherwhise I know this thing is all original, the title is from the original owner.  Just wanted some kind of vin stamping on the engine to tell me so.

[268RTs4ME]

I have 3 68 Coronet RTs Two with matching vins which are stamped on the top Rail behind  and left of oil sending unit where motor meets trans with build date of car 1 being Aug 11,67 casting Date on block is 7/15/67 with EIC still D440 HP. second car build date being dec 23,67 casting date on block 9/20/67. both are stamped with vin where stated.

[ZSmithersCharges]

I have 3 68 Coronet RTs Two with matching vins which are stamped on the top Rail behind  and left of oil sending unit where motor meets trans with build date of car 1 being Aug 11,67 casting Date on block is 7/15/67 with EIC still D440 HP. second car build date being dec 23,67 casting date on block 9/20/67. both are stamped with vin where stated.

Well mines not   I mean it could be as there is rust and dirt but I went at it with a wire brush to no avail.  There is no alterations to the block, infact I dont think its been cleaned under the hood since it came from the dealership.  I havent scrubbed TOO hard with the wire brush because its a weird angle and I dont want to scrape it off if it is there because the metal at this point seems rather flakey in that area... It is odd however that they would stamp the trans but not the engine... Maybe they figured it didnt matter since they were just stamping it to verify which car the completed assembly was for... or someone was slacking off at their station.  Who knows, ill scratch at it again tomorrow and see if i get lucky.

Also, your cars are R/T 440's I think they took priority in identification and stamping over a plain jane 383 HP or not.

[268RTs4ME]

If you have 17 stamped under the 383 on your EIC pad the you have a Jan 67 motor (Build Date) does it read C383, then under that 1 7

[ZSmithersCharges]

If you have 17 stamped under the 383 on your EIC pad the you have a Jan 67 motor (Build Date) does it read C383, then under that 1 7

Thats not possible as the block was cast in july of 67.  I'll go look again its getting late though so not for too long 

I believe the 17 is the number they are reffering to here which is just the numerical value of the motor as it was built that day. http://www.yearone.com/updatedsinglepages/Id_info/mopar/mopar%20casting%20numbers/castingnumbers3.html

[bull]

Here's a pic of my non-hp block stamping at the dist. pad. I would think yours would have pretty much the same info except mine is somewhat unique in that it's got a late '67 engine in a early '68 car.

IIRC, D383=68 383, 10 30= 1967 engine assembly date and R is of course R big block as opposed to RB which is 400 and larger big block. I have no bellhousing flange stamp on mine either.

[ZSmithersCharges]

The more I look at it the more pissed off I get.  The C or D for the C383 is ghostly in its appearence as if whoever stamped it just tapped it, lightly.  If I passed it with 2000 grit sand paper I gaurantee it would dissapear so I cant read it without the full light of tomorrow.  The 3 8 and 3 are all done half assed so some of the number is not even there for all of them except the 8 so it as a whole is barely recognizeable. With brilliance like this even if stamping the trans AND engine in that specific factory WAS mandatory I wouldn't even for a second be surprised if someone "forgot" to follow procedure.  After all, "its someone elses sh*t, who cares".  Thats the attitude in the auto industry both on the production, repair, and sales side of things.

[ZSmithersCharges]

Here's a pic of my non-hp block stamping at the dist. pad. I would think yours would have pretty much the same info.

IIRC, D383=68 383, 10 30= 1967 engine assembly date and R is of course R big block as opposed to RB which is 400 and larger big block. I have no bellhousing flange stamp on mine either.

Yea I don't believe mine is HP either as it is an original AC car so it should have recieved the non HP engine.  Which I guess they didn't stamp on the bellhousing?  Either way thank you for posting that picture, I guess I will take off the heads tomorrow... I didnt buy this 80 gal compressor for nothing  

[bull]

The more I look at it the more pissed off I get.  The C or D for the C383 is ghostly in its appearence as if whoever stamped it just tapped it, lightly.  If I passed it with 2000 grit sand paper I gaurantee it would dissapear so I cant read it without the full light of tomorrow.  The 3 8 and 3 are all done half assed so some of the number is not even there for all of them except the 8 so it as a whole is barely recognizeable. With brilliance like this even if stamping the trans AND engine in that specific factory WAS mandatory I wouldn't even for a second be surprised if someone "forgot" to follow procedure.  After all, "its someone elses sh*t, who cares".  Thats the attitude in the auto industry both on the production, repair, and sales side of things.

It's also possible that your block has been decked and most of that info got erased. The pic of mine above was decked but I told them I wanted the stampings saved so they had to modify their typical procedure to do that. If yours was decked and it was done by someone who didn't really care about the stampings it's quite possible it just got milled off. I seriously doubt you're going to find anything under the head but stranger things have happened.

[69CoronetRT]

I have 3 68 Coronet RTs Two with matching vins which are stamped on the top Rail behind  and left of oil sending unit where motor meets trans with build date of car 1 being Aug 11,67 casting Date on block is 7/15/67 with EIC still D440 HP. second car build date being dec 23,67 casting date on block 9/20/67. both are stamped with vin where stated.

At which plant were yours built? That would help some.

The Charger in question would have been built at the Hamtramck plant.

[69CoronetRT]

Okay I guess I'll have to take off the head to get the rest cause the 17 is only signifying the order the engine was built mine being the 17th?

No it signifies what day your engine was assembled, not the sequential number.

A 148*** VIN puts your scheduled production date at about 9/26 or 9/27. What you want to find in front of the 17 is the number 9 or 8. My Engine assembly date is about 10 days ahead of my SPD. So a 917 engine in a car with an SPD of 9/26 or 27 would not be out of line.

[69CoronetRT]

I have 3 68 Coronet RTs Two with matching vins which are stamped on the top Rail behind  and left of oil sending unit where motor meets trans with build date of car 1 being Aug 11,67 casting Date on block is 7/15/67 with EIC still D440 HP. second car build date being dec 23,67 casting date on block 9/20/67. both are stamped with vin where stated.

Well mines not   I mean it could be as there is rust and dirt but I went at it with a wire brush to no avail.  
Also, your cars are R/T 440's I think they took priority in identification and stamping over a plain jane 383 HP or not.

His cars would have been built at a different plant than yours so what his does or does not have would have little bearing on your car.

There was no priority in stamping engines.

[69CoronetRT]

Here's a pic of my non-hp block stamping at the dist. pad. I would think yours would have pretty much the same info except mine is somewhat unique in that it's got a late '67 engine in a early '68 car.

IIRC, D383=68 383, 10 30= 1967 engine assembly date and R is of course R big block as opposed to RB which is 400 and larger big block. I have no bellhousing flange stamp on mine either.

A late 67 assembled engine would be very common in an early 68 model year car.

Bull, I don't remember. Was this block out of a two bbl car? Since there was no 383 RB as in earlier years, there would be no reason to distinguish between the two in '68. If this is from a 2bbl car, I think it is more likely the R indicates 'Regular fuel'.

[ZSmithersCharges]

The more I look at it the more pissed off I get.  The C or D for the C383 is ghostly in its appearence as if whoever stamped it just tapped it, lightly.  If I passed it with 2000 grit sand paper I gaurantee it would dissapear so I cant read it without the full light of tomorrow.  The 3 8 and 3 are all done half assed so some of the number is not even there for all of them except the 8 so it as a whole is barely recognizeable. With brilliance like this even if stamping the trans AND engine in that specific factory WAS mandatory I wouldn't even for a second be surprised if someone "forgot" to follow procedure.  After all, "its someone elses sh*t, who cares".  Thats the attitude in the auto industry both on the production, repair, and sales side of things.

It's also possible that your block has been decked and most of that info got erased. The pic of mine above was decked but I told them I wanted the stampings saved so they had to modify their typical procedure to do that. If yours was decked and it was done by someone who didn't really care about the stampings it's quite possible it just got milled off. I seriously doubt you're going to find anything under the head but stranger things have happened.

Well even from your picture I can not see that far back on my stamp it is coved by the alt bracket.  Also highly doubt decking.  The engine is not the prettiest as it is so I can't see someone paying to have it machined. Its hard to tell yet. but the 1 for the 17 is half covered by the alt bracket itself so I dont doubt the rest being covered.