302 dz

[lbnaz]

not mine just saw it.

https://reno.craigslist.org/pts/d/so...119824291.html

[Lynn]

1. The tag from the car that came out of could not have indicated "... late December 69."
Production ended in Nov. That is a mid August car. Trans would be correct for that vin.

2. That block was out of use (except for one or two very rare exceptions) after April 69, so HIGHLY UNLIKELY it matches that trans.

3. No pic of the pad stamp. In fact, no mention of the assembly date.

4. No pic or mention of the partial vin down by the oil filter.

5. No pic or mention of the casting date. I would bet prior to May 1, 1969.

Other than that, it is a smoking deal.... if you own the car it goes to. But apparently that is not for sale.

Buyer beware.

[COPO]

There are a few pictures of the pad stamp in the ad, but hard to make out the information.

Agree, dreaming at that price.

[PeteLeathersac]

'

Trans stamp Vin 124379N674664

~ Pete

.

[Lynn]

Did he add some pics. I looked yesterday and did not see any of the pad stamp. Now I see them.

Partial on the block looks like 19N524056. If that is correct, it is an Oct. 68 build, way to early for an X code (ad says it is an X33 car).

Block looks to have been decked. Could have left part of the numbers, but all I can make out on the assy stamp is: VXX03DZ.

The block and trans certainly did not come from the same vehicle.

[Kurt S]

I don't like the trans stamp.

[the427king]

Agree on trans.

[70 copo]

Is it the font, the slight alignment issue, the spacing, or all of the aforementioned?

[HawkX66]

Aug 21st or 22nd for the final assembly.