Ok 8Wheeler, time to stretch your brain.

[bull]

I finally got an answer to my engine stamping quandary, I just don't know if it's the answer. My '68 has no number stamped on the top rear of the engine like I assumed all '68s were supposed to have starting on Jan. 1, 1968. My car left the factory on Jan. 8 so until recently I assumed my was missed, forgotten, replaced, whatever. Another member of this board told me in another thread (which I'll try to find in a minute) that Chrysler only stamped the 383 HP up to 426 Hemi cars and didn't stamp the 225 up to 383 2bbl cars. Have you ever heard of this?

I'll try to find that thread now...

[bull]

Here's hemigeno's first message:

hemigeno
New Member

Offline

Posts: 49


'69 Charger R/T Hemi 4-speed


  Re: Rarity?
« Reply #85 on: July 31, 2005, 10:40:16 PM  »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: bull on July 29, 2005, 08:58:48 PM
Are the stampings in the same locations?  My very early '68 Charger does not have the sequence stamping on the rear top of the engine and yet they were supposed to start doing that in January 1968. My car left the factory on Jan. 8, 1968 so did the stamper guy miss the memo? The block has a proper casting date and yet no stamp other than the one at the distributor base.


Bull,

If you're talking about your 383/2v car and its stampings, IIRC only the HP motors got the stampings.  I dunno if that meant 383/4v, 440 & 426, or just the 440/426 cars.

Just a foggy recollection here - somebody else probably knows their '68 stuff a lot better than me.

As far as the Galen issue goes, he's the default guru (my term, not meant as derogatory) until someone else displaces him.  That doesn't make him perfect or infallible.  I agree w/ Danny that on specific categories of cars, there are sources that far outshine GG in what they know or can look up.  Since I know where some of those sources are, I wouldn't ever contact Galen about one of them.  However, the average Mopar enthusiast probably doesn't know about their alternatives and goes to Galen because of his unarguable name recognition.  In that case, their ignorance is bliss and they assume they've tapped into the best resource for historical info.  It is not likely that Barry W.,  Dave B., Dave P. or any of the other treasure-troves of info will approach Galen's name recognition status simply because of their narrow field of (extreme) expertise.  Someone is going to have to try and be the Jack-Of-All-Trades that Galen has tried to be in order to compete w/ him.  When that happens, the opportunity for mistakes to be made increases greatly IMHO.  Back where we are with Galen then.

The worst observations I have of Galen revolve around his attempt to take credit for the research/discoveries others have made (the recent Moparts.com thread as the golden example), and his general inapproachability unless the meter is running.   

Incidentally, I do own a couple of his white books.  I hit the '69 Parts Manual first if I'm looking something up, but I do find the books handy - even though I don't consider them as gospel.  Just another resource...

[bull]

And his second:

There were basically two reasons Chrysler stamped anything: Theft prevention/fraud; and for warranty purposes (this last one is why so many things have a date code).  Since the blocks still had a casting date, it would have been possible to identify if an older blown/broken motor was swapped into a newer car to try and scam the warranty.  Almost certainly, the engine/tranny stamping was done to be able to identify an HP drivetrain if it was stolen and showed up for sale somewhere.  I suppose the non-HP motors weren't as subject to theft as much.  Starting '69 though, I think they all got stamped.

[8WHEELER]

Yeah like I have said before I have and have had many 68 440's and the non HP engines have no stamp.
But all the 68 HP engines I have seen and have now have the stamping. Evan my September and
December 67 built 440 HP blocks are stamped, so it really did start some time in 67.

Dan

[8WHEELER]

Here is what the 68 stamp will look like

Dan

[bull]

Nuts. That wasn't even a light workout for you was it? Have you told me this before? If you did I probably just forgot it like I do just about everything else. Well then, that's one less thing to worry about. So when did they start stamping all the engines? Was it in '69 when the numbers went to the right side of the lower engine block?

[8WHEELER]

Yep started in 69 the full vin was on the pass side pan rail.

I sure miss the tech archive that was on the old site     good stuff there.

Dan

[bull]

Yes, the archives was a great place to find all this stuff. Hopefully we'll get it back in some form and find a way to keep it safe. That's one of the biggest things that irritates me about the neglect of the d-c.com site -- all that valuable information that took years to compile just wiped out in a millisecond. 

[DFS68_Charger]

I've got a 68 383 2V Charger as well. Auto Tranny though. No VIN stamping on the block or transmission. The build date on the fender tag is June 12 68.
I currently have a 383 4V motor in the car that I pulled out of a 68 Charger. The block and trans bellhousing flange have the part VIN stamped on them
in the same place as the photo that Dan posted.

DFS

[Charger_Fan]

Yes, the archives was a great place to find all this stuff. Hopefully we'll get it back in some form and find a way to keep it safe. That's one of the biggest things that irritates me about the neglect of the d-c.com site -- all that valuable information that took years to compile just wiped out in a millisecond.  

You're forgetting that Troy copied & saved those archives. He's got them tucked away safe & sound and he'll find a way to load them on here when he's damned good & ready.

[hemigeno]

Looks like I remembered something correctly..   

I do think the stamping requirement went more with the 1968 model year than with the 1968 calendar year.  That's why you would see 9/67 and 12/67 HP blocks with the stampings.

Geno

[8WHEELER]

Looks like I remembered something correctly..     

I do think the stamping requirement went more with the 1968 model year than with the 1968 calendar year.   That's why you would see 9/67 and 12/67 HP blocks with the stampings.

Geno

  Exactly, the stamping was for the model 68 year HP engines, for what I have seen over the years
the month of the block makes no difference just the model year.

Dan