# So why do they really call it numbers matching?



## Oldsmobileman (Dec 8, 2008)

If you have a 1968 or older car isn't it really just date correct? VIN matching doesn't seem to appear until after 1968. Am I correct in this? Just curious, I see many 67' GTO's advertised as numbers matching, and it just kind of sounds like a commercial more than reality. Wouldn't date code correct be a little more truthful? Any and all input welcome. Thanks again.
Howard


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

You are correct, but that's the terminology they use.


----------



## 05GTO (Oct 6, 2004)

67 had an engine unit number stamped under the letter code on the engine block that is also recorded on the PHS billing history. In my opinion if the 389 block on 64-66 is the correct letter code, head codes, casting number, date code and matches the PHS documents I consider it to be numbers matching.

Just my 2 cents,


----------



## 68greengoat (Sep 15, 2005)

05GTO said:


> 67 had an engine unit number stamped under the letter code on the engine block that is also recorded on the PHS billing history. In my opinion if the 389 block on 64-66 is the correct letter code, head codes, casting number, date code and matches the PHS documents I consider it to be numbers matching.
> 
> Just my 2 cents,


:agree

V.I.N. matching started in '67.


----------



## wytnyt (May 17, 2008)

68greengoat said:


> :agree
> 
> V.I.N. matching started in '67.


the latter part of '67


----------



## 68greengoat (Sep 15, 2005)

You would be correct.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

The original WS block in my '65 was grenaded in the mid-late 1970's, before I got the car. I found and rebuilt a 1965 WT motor for it in 1981. I WISH it was a WS block, but it still wouldn't "match": I have the original protect-o-plate and booklet that shows the original engine number! So, I guess i could make my car "code correct" if I felt the need by sticking in a WS block, but as long as I have the Protect-o-Plate, it still would not be numbers correct. My take is that, pre late '67, date codes and application codes are good enough: the right engine, trans, rear, carb, manifolds, etc. for that car and at that time. A LOT of that stuff went into the dumpster in the 70's and '80's to be replaced with "upgraded" components.


----------



## Too Many Projects (Nov 15, 2008)

The "numbers matching" statement has evolved to now include "date/code" correct cars without VIN stamps on the drivetrain components. As Jeff states, the PHS docs do show whether a particular engine is the original to the car. Nowadays a "born with" description seems to be the ultimate way to advertise an original drivetrain car.
I agree that "numbers matching" should only be used for original drivetrain description, but that would eliminate many of the professionally restored *for profit* cars that have been assembled during the "investment grade" period of this "hobby", be they Pontiacs, Chevs and lately the Chrysler group. One really needs to closely investigate any car advertised as numbers matching for documentation to support any claims of "original" components before dropping a ton of cash. At least Pontiac had the good sense to keep a separate VIN sequence and documentation of their performance cars, which makes authenticating easier and helps deter fraud. Chevrolet could've learned a good lesson from them by doing the same.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Yeah, I feel for the Chevy, Ford, Mopar, and other makes people who are undertaking restorations on incomplete/modified cars. A lot of sleuthing!!


----------



## partman (Jan 3, 2009)

each year car does have number specific parts based on year built, for instance a rim on a 66 has a different part number then a 67 rim, thats what I beleive they mean when they say numbers matching.The right part numbers on the parts for the year of the car the parts are on.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

geeteeohguy said:


> The original WS block in my '65 was grenaded in the mid-late 1970's, before I got the car. I found and rebuilt a 1965 WT motor for it in 1981. I WISH it was a WS block, but it still wouldn't "match": I have the original protect-o-plate and booklet that shows the original engine number! So, I guess i could make my car "code correct" if I felt the need by sticking in a WS block, but as long as I have the Protect-o-Plate, it still would not be numbers correct. My take is that, pre late '67, date codes and application codes are good enough: the right engine, trans, rear, carb, manifolds, etc. for that car and at that time. A LOT of that stuff went into the dumpster in the 70's and '80's to be replaced with "upgraded" components.


The way it was explained to me...
In `65 if the original Tri-Power block(WS) was blown up under warranty, they were replaced from the dealer with 4bbl(WT) blocks. So a WT block in a `65 Tri-Power car could be considered correct.


----------



## wytnyt (May 17, 2008)

my 67 was built in may 4th
the engine i got was the same wt built in may 3rd
with no serial number on it but i still dont think they built them that fast for correct date:lol:


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Rukee, I heard the wame thing, way back when. It's true. Pontiac was not concerned over block codes when replacing blown up blocks. (They replaced a few of them!). The WT code is correct enough for me, but it ain't the WS she was born with......sigh.....


----------

