My 69 Camaro has the original 388 block and a Casting date of L-16-8 and an Assembly date/code of T0430HA. It is without a doubt not a restamp, The motor is unrestored with all of the correcly dated original components. The car was assembled on 06A,is this common or a rare case? Has anyone else seen cast dates and assembly dates that vary this far? Thanks for the help.

Cast November 16th 1968, Assembled April 30th 1969 and put into a car built in June 1969. I would say that for a fairly high production engine (350/300HP SS) that has got to be some kind of a record between the cast date and installation date at about 7 months.

How do you know it's not a restamp?

"L" would be December. It's definately not common for the block to predate the car by that much, but I suppose it "could" be possible. POP would help support it. Any VIN on the engine??

I'm with Mark - for a high-volume casting to sit around at the engine plant for 4-1/2 months before being machined and assembled, then to sit for another six weeks at the assembly plant, I don't think so. Something is a mite fishy here. :rolleyes:

Well I agree with all of you, I still stand by my word that it is not a restamp. The motor has never been rebuilt or decked and the correct in line front to rear machine marks are visible along with years of rust and slight pitting. No there is no VIN stamped on the pad and none visible near the oil filter. The motor is out of the car, I will try to get a photo of the assembly date for you guys. Both heads are early May within a few days and the other components match the car. Who knows? Thanks for the help.

maybe that particular block got lost in a corner of the plant somewhere, and when they found it, they assembled the engine...then the engine got lost in another corner, and it was installed after they found it..

I saw an unrestored L78 (JH code) block, with an Oct cast date, and a May build date. Don't know if it had a VIN at the filter.

Is it conceivable that the block failed some sort of inspection and was set aside for disposition and ultamately got reworked at GM?

Or could it have been a quality control sample that was tested, measured, and placed back into production at a later date?

Six to Nine weeks does not seem that long to have Q/c or Q/a material samples items waiting for disposition in a large production system like GM.

just my thoughts
joe c

If your heads are dated early May and the engine was assembled on April 30th, then there is no way the parts go together. You need the heads, intake, and bellhousing to assemble the engine at the Flint engine plant. Norwood would only add the Carb, Distributor and Exhaust Manifolds before stuffing it into the car.

It has been a hard month for me but I finally got a picture. Also I dont know what I was thinking on the heads but there not may at all. One is A39 and the other A29, just one day appart. The intake is D99 and the distributor is 9C24. I had a hard time getting the picture to download so I will try to send one to Mark. Thanks again.

The pad was stamped shortly after the heads went on; it's highly unlikely that a closely-matched pair of January-cast heads would meet up with a late December-cast block four months later, miraculously find each other, and get assembled on April 30th, in a high-volume engine plant that built 5,000 engines every day. NCRS would buy this combination in Corvette judging, as they allow six months prior to the car's assembly date for dated components (to allow for the occasional/rare "oddball" situation), but it's certainly FAR from being "typical of factory production". I don't know what the Camaro judging organizations allow for full credit.