Topic: No Vin stamp on block

[tmahle]

I don't have Vin stamp in the normal location for my Metchen block ?

[jwc66k]

I don't have Vin stamp in the normal location for my Metchen block but I do have an outline number 2.  Does anyone else have this and what could it mean if anything? 

I'm fairly confident the block is original for I did find a date stamp 8E8U.   Build date of car is 5-24-68.  I have no idea what the "U" means in my research other than it might be an inspector code but just guessing.

The "U" has been determined to be the engines' assembler/inspector code. As a 68 block, Ford was supposed to stamp a partial VIN on the left rear of the block.
Jim

[J_Speegle]

How do you know this?   I believe the engine is indeed correct and the last of  the 289 with markings for a 302.  Block poured and molded on 3-8-68 and stamped in 5-8-68 and placed in car on 5-24-68.  My research shows the Windsor plant was known for not stamping VIN's on blocks.   

Sorry for the my confusion. Mind was set on 65-66 cars obviously since I moved it to the 65-66 section. Just finished responding to four questions from that period and it didn't click over to 68 when I read your first post for the very first time.

So start over again on my part

I don't have Vin stamp in the normal location for my Metchen block but I do have an outline number 2.  Does anyone else have this and what could it mean if anything? 

First engine plants didn't stamp the engines, cars or transmissions. All of that was done at the car plants since the engine plant a month or more before hand would never have had an idea of what car the engine was planned for. It was just another C code automatic engine to them.

Where have you looked for the VIN?  On the pad behind the intake manifold on the block?

Did you check the back side of the heads? They may have been removed and reversed if the engine has even been rebuilt.  NJ is well know for stamping VIN's in a number of different locations on big blocks and its possible that one of those same workers got lazy and stamped a small block in similar fashion though you would have thought by as late as your car is, they would have all been on the same page that late in the year. Here is an example of what Ford wanted and did get done on other 68 NJ small blocks. This being a March 68 example

Given the new federal regulation the inspectors were likely looking to confirm that the stamping did take place at least some place and likely reminding workers that adjustments (if needed) needed to be made. According to Ford there was an inspector for every 9 or 10 workers so its not like they didn't have enough assigned to every group of stations or processes.




Again my apologies 

[Coralsnake]

Granted the block could have been lying around for a number of years and put in at a later date but being it is kind of unique I would lean to unlikely.

Ford did not leave things "lying around" , I don't particularly care for the "lazy worker theory", more often than not it comes down to the person trying to do the identification as having an agenda. I'm not saying that's the case here.

The block you have is dated May of 1968. It went into a 1968 vehicle.

The Marti report is not going to be helpful.

If you tell us more information about the car, we can probably tell you more....but an 8E8 assembly date for the block is perfectly appropriate for a May 24th built car.

[Coralsnake]

The casting “302” is common to many of the late 289 blocks. It is not unusual or rare.

Since the blocks are the same you need to look at other components like connecting rods and crankshaft.

[J_Speegle]

The casting stamp on the block is C8AE-6015-B  date 8E2  along with a hand stamp stamp date 8E8U.  Granted the block could have been lying around for a number of years and put in at a later date but being it is kind of unique I would lean to unlikely.    Assembly was 5/24/1968.

That idea doesn't work with an assembly date such as you posted. Plus the engine plant was to get engine built not be a storage facility for long term inventory

Block casting says 302 but based on VIN says is suppose to be a 289.  I'm leaning towards 289 based on research but I'm guessing only way to know for sure is to open it up.  .................

Ford was not unaccustomed to reusing other casting molds to make newer engines at time. Big blocks are well know for this and it can confuse allot of people. One easy example is all the big blocks that were cast with 427 side oiler rear casting molds though they were 428's

Would the Marti report give me more information? I'm stuck on which to purchase.  Does Elite give any more information than Deluxe or is Elite just a fancy frame to post on the wall like a hockey Jersey?

Never purchased an Elite but you will find that having the real completion date for your car helpful in many endeavours related to restoring a car