Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt S
You don't know from whence you speak. The NCRS got the access through the GM Archives. The Archives could not take it on. There's data on a couple of million Camaros, plus the other models - it was a huge undertaking.
Finally, 50 years later, there is dealer info and production date available.
And you're upset cause one number, that is only used on a couple pieces of documentation in some years, isn't given out. And that data could be easily be use to fake documents. I'd make the same call.
|
I can accept condescending replies if the information provided is complete and accurate.
It was just my opinion that GM Media Archives could also provide these reports, given they already have a very large
Vehicle Invoices service in place. The service is outsourced to
Allied Vaughn I have 30 years of experience in IT, all C++/C# software development and relational databases from when Oracle was v4. Working with a few million records of unstructured data the norm. There is nothing magical about it. The NCRS is not experienced in data management as they wrote in this
post and in the Corvette Restorer v37/4.
The number I am 'upset' and whining about is the order# that is on the shipping report. It is not accurate or complete whence you state that its only on a few documents. For the 1969 Camaro the order# is the body number on the trim tag. I assume its the same for other Fisher body cars.
However the difference is Fisher did not build Corvettte bodies. The NCRS decision to withhold information is all about fake Corvette documents and nothing more. I can appreciate that especially if their tank sticker is commonly available. For the other vehicles like my '69 Camaro build sheets are very rare. Plus we already know the order# without any paperwork. This is not the same situation at all. Including the order# on our NCRS report would match the trim tag to the VIN. At this point in the game I think it would do more good than harm.
