Re: Strange Body VIN Stamping on 1970 Mustang on E-Bay

Ken... New Jersey car?

New Jersey always seems to have had the least conformity to rules and procedures when compared to Dearborm or Milpitas

Jeff S

-----Original Message-----
From: ken mann <mustangmann@charter.net>
Sent: Mar 10, 2005 9:11 AM
To: John Dettori <jdettori@optonline.net>, speegle@pipeline.com,
ecj <ecj@peoplepc.com>, shelbymustang@carmemories.com
Subject: Re: Strange Body VIN Stamping on 1970 Mustang on E-Bay

John; The Boss that I worked on, had never had any panel replacement, and
my research was supported by actual experiences from some of the members
posting on the Boss 302 forum, www.boss302.com In addition, all of the date
code stampings matched the rest of the car. Strange but true.
Ken

 

I can't say for sure, if it was Jersey, or Dearborn. It is a long story,
but I will try to be short. It is a Lime Boss 302, with a std. interior.
The invoice says Grabber Yellow, black dlx. interior (Dearborn-built). The
owner recently purchased, and is not a "Ford guy". I pulled the front sheet
metal, because there is no evidence of that car ever having one drop of
Yellow paint anywhere. I then found the lack of any v.i.n. # at all. I
removed the dash pad, and found that the rivets on the v.i.n. tag were torn
up. I then went to the rear of the car, and determined that the Lime car
was, in fact a real Boss 302, noting the staggerd shock set up, and the fact
that all of the body date stamps coincided. However, the dates on the Lime
car, were April/May of '70, and the invoice was dated Nov. of '69. The
v.i.n.# on the engine matched the invoice, but looked suspicious. I pulled
the starter, to repair the clutch, and found the casting date on the block,
was May of '70! There is no way that the v.i.n.# on the engine could have
been stamped in Oct./Nov. '69, when the block was not cast until May of '70.
Therefore, the engine was re-stamped. I posted all of this on the Boss
forum, and sent this story directly to Randy Ream, who put it in the
registry, so that some poor, unsuspecting soul does not get stuck with it.
The reason that we think that the Lime car was a Dearborn car, is the fact
that the trans had a v.i.n.# on it, that was very hard to read, but Randy
said it matched a May of '70 built Lime car with std. int. and a close ratio
transmission.
Interesting story, to say the least. Goes to show you that you should look
at every car closely!
Ken Mann
----- Original Message -----
From: <speegle@pipeline.com>
To: "ken mann" <mustangmann@charter.net>; "John Dettori"
<jdettori@optonline.net>; "ecj" <ecj@peoplepc.com>;
<shelbymustang@carmemories.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Strange Body VIN Stamping on 1970 Mustang on E-Bay


> Ken... New Jersey car?
>
> New Jersey always seems to have had the least conformity to rules and
procedures when compared to Dearborm or Milpitas
>
> Jeff S
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ken mann <mustangmann@charter.net>
> Sent: Mar 10, 2005 9:11 AM
> To: John Dettori <jdettori@optonline.net>, speegle@pipeline.com,
> ecj <ecj@peoplepc.com>, shelbymustang@carmemories.com
> Subject: Re: Strange Body VIN Stamping on 1970 Mustang on E-Bay
>
> John; The Boss that I worked on, had never had any panel replacement, and
> my research was supported by actual experiences from some of the members
> posting on the Boss 302 forum, www.boss302.com In addition, all of the
date
> code stampings matched the rest of the car. Strange but true.
> Ken
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
>
>



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/2005