Jump to content

BLOCK vs. PROTECT-O-PLATE NUMBERS


Glen

Recommended Posts

Just looking over my SS’s inspection photos and accompanying documentation and found a discrepancy.  The block is stamped “ T I  2 2 2 C R N” but the Protecto-O-Plate shows “ T I 2 2 7 C R N”. 
 

My research and knowledge gleaned from the good people on this forum confirm that CRN is the correct block. But why they don’t match up - yet are so close sequentially - has got me scratching my head.  Perhaps a boo-boo on the assembly line?  Has anybody here heard of something similar?
 

Everything else seems to lineup correctly:  VIN, original owner as stamped on the PP, etc.  Any help deciphering this discovery would be greatly appreciated. Please reference the photos attached (my apologies for the upside down and backwards PP)...

A9F80850-8D32-4964-8329-69542F436628.png

CEA7CF33-0E69-4396-AE63-91136302484A.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jft69z said:

See if this looks better.

protectoplate.png

Lol. Looks A LOT better, thanks!... except that the third number is still “7” and my block shows “2”.  I need additional help solving this mystery it is appreciated. You still get an “A” for the effort, Jft69z. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Canuck said:

I think there’s simply a typing error when the protectoplate was created. That’s my guess.

That is my thought.  If you have any additional paperwork with the car you may be able to verify it is just a mistake from the factory.

rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Canuck said:

I think there’s simply a typing error when the protectoplate was created. That’s my guess.

 

15 minutes ago, Rob Peters said:

That is my thought.  If you have any additional paperwork with the car you may be able to verify it is just a mistake from the factory.

rob

Thanks Gents… That possibility actually never crossed my mind, but it logically makes sense.  Like I mentioned, everything else lines up:  VIN on every document that accompanied the car when it arrived (bills of sale, build sheet, prior vehicle registrations, etc.). 
 

Rest assured I’ll be crawling under her first thing when she comes out of the bubble in spring and checking by the oil filter. 
 

And since I know everyone here loves pictures… In the event that anyone has time to thumb through over 250 photos, I’d be happy to share the dropbox link of all the pictures the inspector took, just private message me with your email and I’ll forward you the file.  The inspector also took a 25 minute video going over the entire car,  complete with the previous owner test driving it while he filmed and critiqued from the passenger seat, but he has since deleted that from his files because it took up too much room 😡
 

thanks again for the educated opinions!
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MC1of80 said:

My understanding is that the Protect-O-Plate was done by the dealer at the time of delivery. 

I agree that it is a typo error. 

I’m diggin’ the consensus... my mind was going in several directions earlier when I first noticed the discrepancy. Can’t let an over active imagination get the best of ya. Thanks again everyone, will update on this issue when she’s out of hibernation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MC1of80 said:

My understanding is that the Protect-O-Plate was done by the dealer at the time of delivery. 

I agree that it is a typo error. 

I am sure you are right about the plastic portion of the protector plate being done by the dealer but I thought the metal portion was done by the manufacturer rather than the dealer, otherwise why would they be made of two different materials. 

rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Peters said:

I am sure you are right about the plastic portion of the protector plate being done by the dealer but I thought the metal portion was done by the manufacturer rather than the dealer, otherwise why would they be made of two different materials. 

rob

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s truth to what both of you are saying. Just guessing here... perhaps someone on the assembly line was tasked with retrieving relevant numbers off the cars and stamping them into the metal part of the plate. Or maybe this person scribbled the numbers down on a piece of paper and handed them off to someone else to stamp the plates?  And then that person thought the 2 was a 7.  Hell, I know I can’t read my own writing sometimes!  And my fat fingers make typing anything a chore (thank God for auto correct/auto spell!). 
 

And it would also make sense that the original owners name and address would be added to the PP by someone at the dealership upon the buyer taking delivery. 
 

Regardless, all of this makes sense and will keep me from overthinking what is in all reality much to do about nuthin’. 
 

Thanks again for the input gentlemen, it’s appreciated as always. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The block stamping "TI222CRN" would have been done at the engine assembly plant, in this case Tonowanda, where all big blocks came from. The protecto plate was made up at the vehicle assembly plant. I would agree, it’s just a typo on the protecto plate.

The VIN stamping following the Tonowanda stamping on the block is far more important. Does it match?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Paul Bell said:

The block stamping "TI222CRN" would have been done at the engine assembly plant, in this case Tonowanda, where all big blocks came from. The protecto plate was made up at the vehicle assembly plant. I would agree, it’s just a typo on the protecto plate.

The VIN stamping following the Tonowanda stamping on the block is far more important. Does it match?

To be honest I haven’t looked at it that closely since I bought the car. My understanding is the sellers mechanic removed the paint in order to make the numbers visible for verification purposes when he listed it for sale. 
 

Would the VIN stamping immediately follow the “T I 2 2 2 CRN”?  Because it’s not visible in the picture I submitted and that’s the only pic the inspector took of it. 
 

Where else can I look for supporting numbers stamped?  Will the one near the oil filter be the same characters or different?

I may be breaking into the bubble before spring now, lol. 
 

Thanks again for all the help guys !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, the VIN is stamped where the CRN code is, it's added at the assembly line when the engine is being prepared to mate with the trans and get mounted in the chassis.

The VIN can be before, after or under the CRN code.

BTW, CRN is a 1972 LS5 454 engine so if it's an a 1970 or 1971 SS Monte, it's not the factory original engine and the VIN on the block won't (or should not) match the body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Paul Bell said:

Glenn, the VIN is stamped where the CRN code is, it's added at the assembly line when the engine is being prepared to mate with the trans and get mounted in the chassis.

The VIN can be before, after or under the CRN code.

BTW, CRN is a 1972 LS5 454 engine so if it's an a 1970 or 1971 SS Monte, it's not the factory original engine and the VIN on the block won't (or should not) match the body.

It’s a 70 SS according to all the documentation and options, build sheet etc. Prior threads have discussed the CRN stamping / block being correct for this car, so this is indeed conflicting information. Is there literature I can reference to support your claim? 
 

in the event your information is 100% correct (it’s a 1972 motor) how does that ultimately affect value?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Glen said:

It’s a 70 SS according to all the documentation and options, build sheet etc. Prior threads have discussed the CRN stamping / block being correct for this car, so this is indeed conflicting information. Is there literature I can reference to support your claim? 
 

in the event your information is 100% correct (it’s a 1972 motor) how does that ultimately affect value?  

CRN is 70 Monte SS only. 

1972 would be CPD or CRW.

You are good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Paul Bell said:

Glenn, the VIN is stamped where the CRN code is, it's added at the assembly line when the engine is being prepared to mate with the trans and get mounted in the chassis.

The VIN can be before, after or under the CRN code.

BTW, CRN is a 1972 LS5 454 engine so if it's an a 1970 or 1971 SS Monte, it's not the factory original engine and the VIN on the block won't (or should not) match the body.

As I said in my previous comment, I’m gotten conflicting information from literature I’ve read previously and what you are claiming.  Just found a quick reference I have used in the past. This is from a site called chevellestuff.net. By clicking on the “1970” tab it will bring up all power train options available for the year. This source clearly shows that the CRN block was used for the 1970 Monte Carlo SS. They also reference a source called “Chevrolet by the numbers” - I will look at that later after work. More thoughts and comments are appreciated. For now I’ll attach the two screenshots I took supporting this side of the issue:

FB41E8E3-E712-4131-8A45-7F78416D75EA.png

768167A7-6345-4B44-87E4-A2E12CEA7F68.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andy's Auto said:

CRN is 70 Monte SS only. 

1972 would be CPD or CRW.

You are good.

Jeezus, can I ever use a drink!

Thanks guys. Even if it’s ultimately discovered not to be the block originally mated to the car, it’s still good to know that it’s there RIGHT  block.   
 

You all rock, thanks again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Paul Bell said:

Glenn, I went by what's on chevellestuff.net. it shows that code for 1972.

Does the VIN stamped on the block match your car's VIN?

Not sure if I mentioned earlier, but I did not get that deep in to looking at the block past where the paint was removed by the sellers mechanic for photos when he listed it for sale.
 

And the service I paid to inspect the car took a picture of the “TI222CRN” (he was also able to get photos of the trans ID tag Even though he had to do so while the car was on the ground) but nothing else is visible in that picture/from the angle the photo was taken. Looks like I have some homework to do once I get back out to the garage.  I may even open up the cocoon, roll it back, pop the hood and get to hunting on my next day off instead of waiting until spring.  I remember looking at the exposed stamp, but didn’t think past that point to look for a partial VIN stamped after it, under it or nearby. I’ll report back with whatever I find, when I find it - good or bad.
 

Side note:  immediately prior to submitting this comment, I hit Amazon & purchased Chevrolet by the numbers for 1965 through 1970 vehicles.  I’m sure flipping through those pages once the book arrives will have me pulling out what little hair I have left 😬

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that the 6 digits from the vin are not usually as deep of a stamping as the CRN code so they are harder to see. The LS5 suffix codes for Monte Carlo are "CRN" for 1970 and "CPD" for 1971.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Canuck said:

Note that the 6 digits from the vin are not usually as deep of a stamping as the CRN code so they are harder to see. The LS5 suffix codes for Monte Carlo are "CRN" for 1970 and "CPD" for 1971.

I’ll keep that in mind and break out the trusty magnifying glass, wire brush and mineral spirits when I find the time. 
 

This is going to be better than an Easter egg hunt as a kid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I'm home on a real PC and not my tiny screen phone, I'm able to investigate further.

I found the notation in the chevellestuff.net page ( http://www.chevellestuff.net/1970/engines/index.htm  ) saying the 1970 CRN code LS5 engine is in Monte Carlo's ONLY. The same engine in any other Chevelle has a different code.

So Greg, looks like the car has the original LS5 454 engine.

I think it's odd that GM did this, it doesn't look like they did that in 1971 or 1972 cars.

Here's a pic of the page. Can you find the notation? Look closely, it's kinda hard to see....

crn.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paul Bell said:

Now that I'm home on a real PC and not my tiny screen phone, I'm able to investigate further.

I found the notation in the chevellestuff.net page ( http://www.chevellestuff.net/1970/engines/index.htm  ) saying the 1970 CRN code LS5 engine is in Monte Carlo's ONLY. The same engine in any other Chevelle has a different code.

So Greg, looks like the car has the original LS5 454 engine.

I think it's odd that GM did this, it doesn't look like they did that in 1971 or 1972 cars.

Here's a pic of the page. Can you find the notation? Look closely, it's kinda hard to see....

crn.JPG

Thanks for this validation, Paul. I’ll be sure to let “Greg” 😂 know what you found. 
 

All ball busting aside, I appreciate your time, knowledge & contributions towards addressing my concern. I’m sure this won’t be the last issue I dump on you guys as I get to know my Monte more and more intimately.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What assembly plant built your car? It's common for a 1970 built at Van Nuys to have the partial VIN stamped vertically by the oil filter, not near the alternator. 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...