[giles]

FWIW, I would expect the likelihood of engine serial no. (MUN) errors to be low. The Pontiac engine plant only built Pontiac V8s so the MUNs were always in the same location and sequential. The vehicle VIN stamps on the block were added at final assembly just prior to the engine placement in the chassis. At all plants there were a variety of engines and / or chassis (Norwood for example had Pontiac V8s, Chevy 6s, small blocks and big blocks, at VN it was even more varied as they built both A and F cars). The probability for variation in location and misstamps would be much higher at final assembly, as locations varied alot as well as numbering sequence, as cars were not run down the line in exact VIN sequence in those days, like they are today.
As to this vehicle in question, it looks odd that the last two digits were restamped, and very poorly. The "original" stamp looks to be "29N122918". Now if this were the actual original vehicle, the odds that an owner of "20N122912" would later come across the 29122918 block and restamp it (so poorly) are about NIL. Probably an in plant screw up but I have never seen one done so poorly, they are usually restamped with a simple restrike, but I try to never say "never"!

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Originally Posted by 165th

C. If a restamp why would the restamper put the wrong year in, partially gang and mess up the year and last two digits so badly? That part doesn't add up..

The "Fremont/Atlanta" zones are still uncovered. Not known for sure if any evidence is waiting under that paint or not.

One scenario that "could" apply - and usually does on older restamps -
majority of folks have no idea what all the data even means.
They just try to mimic stuff from another block they have seen. Usually that block is of different vintage or of different plant. etc
Have seen some wackies at swap meets and on internets.

Maybe they found access to a 7 place gang stamp - then goofedly tried to do the last 2 digits by hand. Too much specualtion to list all possibles or even try to explain this mess. Its on the verge of retardation its so screwed up.
I cant work within that aura of confine.

And the fact that a first day rookie was on the job that day doing VIN stamps is also a chance. But he really went overboard on this example.

I have my own "best chance" theory that involves this beginning as a factory goof with a day 1 clutz who installed the 9 by pure rush / stupidity. With the same rush and stupidity either left out the last 2 digits - or didnt install them right and they fell out before he whacked it. This is IF nothing was found when full face was bare metal. But it really looks to have had more tamperings since it left the factory - perhpaps in another car.

A DMV inspector of the day and time would have red flagged one of this nature if it had gotten involved in a theft related or chop shop scenario.

In the end, one could convince themself this is the born with block if they wanted to - but good luck and best wishes convincing all others when time to resale comes up.

This is a scenario where the block would be more believable if it were actually modern day restamped by a pro - than as it is now.

It does appear to be a genuine 70 WS from some car in 1970. At minimum.
Just a shame it has those defects. Hard Luck Hard Sale

[Brad Pringle]

Here is a pic of an X out VIN like Keith discussed. This is on a 71 455 HO GTO motor tha i pickup in Detroit 25 years ago. I certainly thank 400Guy for putting this out for discussion. I can see the factory screwing this up that bad. A forger would have done a better job! I too see that they struck the new numbers with larger numbers.

By the way if this block belongs to someones 71GTO 455HO, Let me know.

[3tas4me]

I am going to revive this thread because this car has come up for sale again and I am looking at it.

Like the OP posted, the VIN stamping on the block was an immediate red flag for me. I have not looked at the car in person yet, but saw this issue in the photos that the owner sent to me. I found this thread by doing a VIN search on the internet.

In reading through this entire thread, it appears that the majority here feel this is about a 50/50 shot of being the original engine. I have thought this through and came up with some questions that may clarify this a little better.

1) If this is a restamp of the block code, why would someone restamp a block with WS when that code was not used in 1969, especially if the EUN number falls in line for 1970?

2) If this is a restamp of the partial VIN, why would someone stamp it for 1969 when according to 2manyTA's, the block casting date is May of 1970, well past the date of any 1969 production?

3) Can anyone verify if the 1969 VIN would actually match up with a known production of a 1969 Firebird?

I am looking forward to thoughts on these questions, especially with the knowledge that some of the posters on this forum have!

[Formulabruce]

FWIW I have seen MANY 1970 Birds ( from 6 cyl to Ra cars) built from 12C to 04D that have a "9" in the Vin stamped on the firewall , NOT a correct"0"
I believe some of the Engine stamping issues happened due to the fact that Pontiac built engines for the 1970 model year cars many months before 1970 production began.
They were also building "69" engines at same time.
I am pretty sure they had issues with the "0" all over the place.. Broken stamps, missing stamps, not enough stamps.
On THIS car, since its been gone over already, what I would do is drain the oil, let it sit, and SCOPE it . Even with the partial windage tray ( if its on there), you should be able to see if its a 4 bolt.
If it is, Its probably original as rest of numbers seem to indicate It is.
That screw up in stamping looks a but much for a re stamp.
If you have ever seen the last SD built ( yellow car) , that engine stamp(s) is a disgrace and far exceeds this one.
Good luck..

[unruhjonny]

although I don't think it has been mentioned in this thread, I believe that extended 1969 model year cars were being built - at least they were for the Firebird;
I believe the change over happened in January.

I re-read this thread, and had guessed that if nothing else looked out of place, odds are it was a stamping error.

I would wager that no one who was restamping a block would stamp a 1970 model year engine as a "9", and no one stamping an engine for a 1969 vehicle would use a 1970 casting.

[3tas4me]

Originally Posted by unruhjonny

although I don't think it has been mentioned in this thread, I believe that extended 1969 model year cars were being built - at least they were for the Firebird;
I believe the change over happened in January.

I re-read this thread, and had guessed that if nothing else looked out of place, odds are it was a stamping error.

I would wager that no one who was restamping a block would stamp a 1970 model year engine as a "9", and no one stamping an engine for a 1969 vehicle would use a 1970 casting.

Your point is exactly the questions I asked above.

Owner decided that I had too many questions and that he was going to sell to someone else. I am sure the car will resurface again as it is supposedly headed for Nebraska.