Topic: 1970 Mach with 351 Cleveland Vin Location

[silverelvis69]

Just going through photos

I just noticed this? could this be it. If so - what a strange place

[J_Speegle]

Just going through photos

I just noticed this? could this be it. If so - what a strange place

No believe that is the assembly date. Have the same on a number of other examples and the pattern looks like the one used for machining (typically on the oil pan milled surface and the assembly date typically applied at the front of the engine or forward side on a few types

[Bossbill]

I have seen VIN stamps on the back of the driver's side cylinder head.

The simplest answer would be that the head with the vin was replaced sometime in its life.
If this was an early dealer repair the casting dates might be close to the engine cast dates.
I didn't see head casting dates listed.

[J_Speegle]

The simplest answer would be that the head with the vin was replaced sometime in its life.
If this was an early dealer repair the casting dates might be close to the engine cast dates.
I didn't see head casting dates listed.

Haven't seen or heard of the head being stamped with the VIN in 1970 on a 351 Cleveland at the Cleveland plant (corrected) any of the car plants. That would be really unusual and a stretch just as it would be IMHO on a 302 Boss or non-Boss. Of which we don't have any evidence to indicate that was the practice on those engines that were built and stamped at the same plant during the same production period

[jwc66k]

Haven't seen or heard of the head being stamped with the VIN in 1970 at the Cleveland plant.

VIN stamps were applied at each Ford plant, car, truck, Ford, Mercury, etc. But I do remember seeing a VIN stamped on the LH head, block unknown, plant unknown, year unknown. It was an "oddity".
Jim

[J_Speegle]

VIN stamps were applied at each Ford plant, car, truck, Ford, Mercury, etc. But I do remember seeing a VIN stamped on the LH head, block unknown, plant unknown, year unknown. It was an "oddity".
Jim

Your comment about car plant is valid and I corrected my earlier post to reflect the oversight. It is an assembly plant detail and since the OP's car was built at San Jose I've yet to see an original VIN stamp on a head or intake


Believe we have examples of heads and even intakes stamped with the VIN on 68 NJ GT500's and 68 CJ/427's at Dearborn stamped on heads also. Seems like they got all of the plants on the same page, pretty much as I still have a 390 NJ 69 example was was on the head, by 1969 production to standardize things better.

[silverelvis69]

Did some more research

Some interesting reading that missing engine no for a 70 was the norm?

https://forum.mustang.org.au/index.php?topic=911.0

[J_Speegle]

Did some more research

Some interesting reading that missing engine no for a 70 was the norm?

https://forum.mustang.org.au/index.php?topic=911.0

I realize that your searching for answers but I think your stretching hope a bit with this one. 

Please understand that it was a Federal requirement in this country to have the engine and transmission stamped on every US sold car in 1970  and the Ozzys may be reflecting on and including in their experience the 351 Cleveland's they had installed in their Australian Ford products. Sure plenty of their Mustangs have had transplanted engines from local source over the years. Don't see anything in that thread other than  one or so opinions from people in a country without allot of cars or opportunities to see allot of 1970 cars,

Notice that some of them are making reference to finding them at the front of the engine. This is the same end of the engines we find our assembly dates on engines built in this country. In another post someone claims that the US didn't require VIN's on all engines until 1970 which is incorrect it was 1968. Thought we had a thread discussing the 1968 law/requirement and when Ford instituted the practice (it was before the law went into affect). If I can't find that thread I'll assemble the references so that it is present here for members and lurkers to read.


In this case IMHO the site and members are not very familiar with US practices nor Federal requirements. A number of our members post on a regular basis on that site also and I check it out ever day or so.