Mystery surrounding my engine and chassis serial numbers

[SVO2SCJ]

SO much going on with this car !! There are many ways I could go at this!

ONE you have to research and CONFIRM other NJ stamped motors of that time frame. (NOT 72/73 info) Because looking at the stamps OTHERS posted "that is not a #1" I have seen . (granted I know Dearborn cars) This will also allow for car built in NJ around that time frame and the first couple numbers. IF it was a Dearborn car from that time frame you would expect it to be in the 135-136 range. You probably know that.

TWO (as someone else said) What does the OTHER APRON show for the VIN? While the #4 is wrong is there a #1 on the other side?

It really is goofy - the combo of errors that is! The assembly day seems correct for the casting.

Look at the OTHER SIDE OF THE MOTOR (at the pad area of the stamped VIN). It is smooth or "all peened up" like under the stamp?? Can figure if that is rust or attempt to mask prior number. SEEING THE & at the end almost questions if that was missed?

Mark

P.S. If this was a $1200 buy in 1980 I doubt any if of any issue............what is the "rest of the story" on date of purchase, price and how it was represented by seller? (Dealer?/Restorer? someone that sells lots of cars or just a guy)

 

[tony-muscle]

Hate to ask but is the block cracked from freezing right beside the oil pan rail? Sure looks like it in the picture.

David, where are you seeing the crack? On the exterior or interior? By any of the bolts? I can't seem to see any.

 

[tony-muscle]

SO much going on with this car !!  There are many ways I could go at this!

ONE you have to research and CONFIRM other NJ stamped motors of that time frame.  (NOT 72/73 info) Because looking at the stamps OTHERS posted "that is not a #1" I have seen .  (granted I know Dearborn cars) This will also allow for car built in NJ around that time frame and the first couple numbers.    IF it was a Dearborn car from that time frame you would expect it to be in the 135-136 range.    You probably know that.

TWO (as someone else said)  What does the OTHER APRON show for the VIN?   While the #4 is wrong is there a #1 on the other side?  

It really is goofy - the combo of errors that is!    The assembly day seems correct for the casting.  

Look at the OTHER SIDE OF THE MOTOR (at the pad area of the stamped VIN).   It is smooth or "all peened up" like under the stamp??   Can figure if that is rust or attempt to mask prior number.   SEEING THE & at the end almost questions if that was missed?

Mark

P.S.   If this was a $1200 buy in 1980 I doubt any if of any issue............what is the "rest of the story" on date of purchase, price and how it was represented by seller?  (Dealer?/Restorer? someone that sells lots of cars or just a guy)

What you are seeing as "peened up" under the stamp is leftover gasket. I have not cleaned it. The other side of the pan rail looks smooth with the same leftover gasket.

The number here has nothing to do with the number stamped on the rear of the engine. This number kind of matches the assembly date as suggested so that could be an option or just a coincidence.

I didn't buy this car as a numbers matching so that's not my concern. I am just trying to make sense of all. As of now I know the block and heads are period correct. The transmission has no number stamped on it so I assume it was a replacement, which doesn't matter because it is being replaced with a TKO600.

I have not taken the other side's fender to check.

 

[SVO2SCJ]

SO much going on with this car !!  There are many ways I could go at this!

ONE you have to research and CONFIRM other NJ stamped motors of that time frame.  (NOT 72/73 info) Because looking at the stamps OTHERS posted "that is not a #1" I have seen .  (granted I know Dearborn cars) This will also allow for car built in NJ around that time frame and the first couple numbers.    IF it was a Dearborn car from that time frame you would expect it to be in the 135-136 range.    You probably know that.

TWO (as someone else said)  What does the OTHER APRON show for the VIN?   While the #4 is wrong is there a #1 on the other side?  

It really is goofy - the combo of errors that is!    The assembly day seems correct for the casting.  

Look at the OTHER SIDE OF THE MOTOR (at the pad area of the stamped VIN).   It is smooth or "all peened up" like under the stamp??   Can figure if that is rust or attempt to mask prior number.   SEEING THE & at the end almost questions if that was missed?

Mark

P.S.   If this was a $1200 buy in 1980 I doubt any if of any issue............what is the "rest of the story" on date of purchase, price and how it was represented by seller?  (Dealer?/Restorer? someone that sells lots of cars or just a guy)

What you are seeing as "peened up" under the stamp is leftover gasket. I have not cleaned it. The other side of the pan rail looks smooth with the same leftover gasket.

The number here has nothing to do with the number stamped on the rear of the engine. This number kind of matches the assembly date as suggested so that could be an option or just a coincidence.

I didn't buy this car as a numbers matching so that's not my concern. I am just trying to make sense of all. As of now I know the block and heads are period correct. The transmission has no number stamped on it so I assume it was a replacement, which doesn't matter because it is being replaced with a TKO600.

I have not taken the other side's fender to check.

Hi tony 

I wasn't talking about the pan rail (date stamp) rather the look of this https://ibb.co/gJZ0ow  I would look that the other side of the block to see if it is smooth and not peened to mask other stamps.  (Which is why the errant 7 seems MISSED in the attempt.    

My guess was you did buy as "matching numbers advertised" .......as it seems that was the attempt by someone.  As stated the #1 isn't consistent with Ford stamp sets used in production areas.  

Probably all moot - as you said you are modding car, not looking to sell to someone else and will just drive it no matter what you find.   THOUGH I would ba pulling that other fender PDQ !  I don't even understand the T let alone the 4T on the passenger side.

Mark

 

[rackerm]

SO much going on with this car !!  There are many ways I could go at this!

ONE you have to research and CONFIRM other NJ stamped motors of that time frame.  (NOT 72/73 info) Because looking at the stamps OTHERS posted "that is not a #1" I have seen .  (granted I know Dearborn cars) This will also allow for car built in NJ around that time frame and the first couple numbers.    IF it was a Dearborn car from that time frame you would expect it to be in the 135-136 range.    You probably know that.

TWO (as someone else said)  What does the OTHER APRON show for the VIN?   While the #4 is wrong is there a #1 on the other side?  

It really is goofy - the combo of errors that is!    The assembly day seems correct for the casting.  

Look at the OTHER SIDE OF THE MOTOR (at the pad area of the stamped VIN).   It is smooth or "all peened up" like under the stamp??   Can figure if that is rust or attempt to mask prior number.   SEEING THE & at the end almost questions if that was missed?

Mark

P.S.   If this was a $1200 buy in 1980 I doubt any if of any issue............what is the "rest of the story" on date of purchase, price and how it was represented by seller?  (Dealer?/Restorer? someone that sells lots of cars or just a guy)

What you are seeing as "peened up" under the stamp is leftover gasket. I have not cleaned it. The other side of the pan rail looks smooth with the same leftover gasket.

The number here has nothing to do with the number stamped on the rear of the engine. This number kind of matches the assembly date as suggested so that could be an option or just a coincidence.

I didn't buy this car as a numbers matching so that's not my concern. I am just trying to make sense of all. As of now I know the block and heads are period correct. The transmission has no number stamped on it so I assume it was a replacement, which doesn't matter because it is being replaced with a TKO600.

I have not taken the other side's fender to check.

Hi tony 

I wasn't talking about the pan rail (date stamp) rather the look of this https://ibb.co/gJZ0ow  I would look that the other side of the block to see if it is smooth and not peened to mask other stamps.  (Which is why the errant 7 seems MISSED in the attempt.    

My guess was you did buy as "matching numbers advertised" .......as it seems that was the attempt by someone.  As stated the #1 isn't consistent with Ford stamp sets used in production areas.  

Probably all moot - as you said you are modding car, not looking to sell to someone else and will just drive it no matter what you find.   THOUGH I would ba pulling that other fender PDQ !  I don't even understand the T let alone the 4T on the passenger side.

Mark

+ Block serial number aside, I compared the shock tower stamping from Tony's car to my other cars. Aside from the fact that the Shock tower VIN strangely starts with "4" instead of "3", the letters and numbers stamped appear consistent with my two 1973 Dearborn cars.

 

[tony-muscle]

As a follow up to this old thread of mine. A few weeks ago is when I finally removed the driver's side fender. The VIN stamping is in the same location and looks identical to the "4T....." on the passenger's side. This confirms that this is the only 1971 Mach 1 manufactured in 1974. lollerz lollerz

 

[mjlan]

We aren't talking about building rockets, at least the two aprons are consistent!

What probably happened is they ran out of '1' stamping inserts (they were all damaged or lost) so every car that ran down the line with multiple '1' digits in the consec. unit # got a '4' or some other digit in its place.

Maybe there's a Mustang or Cougar built the same day with the same problem!

On a similar assembly plant WTF story- my car has about 10-15 lower body side molding retaining studs randomly stuck to the outside of the PS cowl side. I'm guessing the line stopped next to the guy who's job it was to stick these on (for cars calling bright lower body side trim) and he was bored, or the tool was out of whack and the line supervisor used my car to verify that the tool was functional again.