[Peje]

Thews,it`s not a question about opinions.People here are talking about FACTS.And I don`t understand how difficult it could be.If your V.I.N# on the block doesn`t match the # on the car then you don`t have matching#,very simple.Please let it rest and accept it.Fire up your engine,do a long burnout and enjoy life.

[Held for Ransom]

Originally Posted by Bertone

thews, In post number 10, you state a car that has the drivetrain that came with the car is a "born with" term.

So why don't you just state you have a "non born with numbers matching" car. That way you don't lead people the wrong way with your "numbers matching" opinion.

Correct. He has a NOM with a replacement numbers matching engine.

[wovenweb]

Originally Posted by Held for Ransom

Correct. He has a NOM with a replacement numbers matching engine.

Except the numbers don't match, the codes are appropriate and correct for his car.

[johnta1]

One of the best things about a Pontiac is they have a lot of data on their production.
With PHS one can find out what a car is, unlike chevy (and possibly other brands) where any chevelle malibu can become an SS 454 and no one can disprove it.

The same goes for the engines.
Pontiac used the engine unit numbers along with the partial VIN on the blocks (68 and newer mostly before 64 also).

The chevy crowd has accepted grinding the original id stampings and restamp them to make it 'original'.
(they claim the block was decked wiping out the id's)

Also many of the higher performance engines had their own block cast codes from the run of the mill engines.
(not in this case on the 350 HO)

So with a 68 and newer Pontiac, the engine will have a partial VIN that matches the VIN of the car.
If another engine is put in even if it has the correct engine code (like WN), that partial VIN on the engine will not match the car's VIN.
(won't be 'born with engine')

The engine will be engine code correct but not correct/original to the car.
The date codes would also have to be in the correct time period to be used in the car.
(so if the partial VIN is ground off and restamped, the date code may be off and can be debunked)

Then there is the EUN, if that number doesn't match also, it is not the original engine.

So many ways to prove or disprove a 'numbers matching' engine.
(let alone for all the other components/parts)

I would say if you want your opinion of the definition of numbers matching, you would have to have a chevy.
Easy to forge or misrepresent it in their circles.

[Bertone]

I have learned at least 3 things from this thread:

1. "Numbers matching" means different things to different people. A good reason to not really even use the term anymore. One should say I have or do not have, the actual born with drivetrain, to this car.

2. From this thread most believe "numbers matching" means "born with". If one believes different from that (a good reason they should not use that term) then they have to realize that the others might think that their car is at a higher caliber of worth when it is not. At this point THEWS need to define what the numbers matching term means when he uses this term in his casual conversations and bring his car off what might be assumed a higher level. If he still wants to use the numbers matching term he can say, I have a numbers matching car but the transmission is not the born with part or something similar to what I said in post # 80. That way everyone knows what level of car you have and your not misleading someone.

3. Everyone has tried to define "numbers matching" to THEWS and he is not satisifed with a unison definition. So it is a foreign lanaguage. What does it mean if no one can be happy with the definition? Another reason not to use it.

As a result of this thread I guess I have to ask everyone that tells me they have a "numbers matching" car, what part(s) on this car was not born to this car at the factory? And I still may not get the truth. Good reason to do homework if your thinking about purchasing a car.

[The Boss]

thews does not have the "born with" block for his car but says "in his opinion" it's numbers matching. He does not provide any clinical proof that his opinion is anything but, but decides instead to use the straw man argument to tell everyone who disagrees they are wrong.

I for one, do not agree with his opinion and find his tone not only insulting but abusive.