I noticed today that my Karmann chasis number (2539509) differs, ever so slightly, from the trunk stamp (2559509).

I wonder, why?!

Possibilities:

1. Factory error in stamping - either the door plate or the trunk was stamped incorrectly (easy to mix up a 3 and 5?). This seems improbable.

2. Trunk was repaired by a PO using a panel from the car that was also the 9th car of the day, two days after mine on the assembly line (June 17 vs. June 19, 1970). This seems very improbable.

3. Trunk repair panel (or Karmann plate) was fraudulently stamped by a PO. In my mind, this seems most likely, but does this ever happen? The trunk shows no signs of repair to me, but I have little experience to judge this.

What's your most likely guess?

Other ideas?

Photos to judge.

Might be a case TMB (too many beers), TGIF(thank goodness it's Friday) or it's Monday. Probably as simple as the numbers go transposed. Errors are being found everyday. The Karmann factory was cranking them out as fast as they could.

Hans was drunk. It was after lunch on Friday and he and Franz had just drank beer and partook of the herb...

My guess would be Beer + Hashish

On our 73 the last two digits were reversed, and a PCA judge said that there must have been alcohol involved

Well, now you have the obligation of standing on your head in the passenger footwell and finding the third copy of the # handwritten on the underside of the dash above the radio. This # in crayon is the official production # for the car, and recorded in the factory records. Usually it matches the other two, but not always.

I agree it is most probably somebody on the assembly line popped open a Grolsch a little eary and dialed in the wrong number.

As to restamping a trunk repair panel... Yes, it happens and I wouldn't say it is fraudulent. I did it when I repaired the rear section on my trunk. My feeling is that the trunk repair replaced what, 2% of the chassis? So why would the chassis number suddenly change when replacing that relatively small panel that happens to contain the stamp, but not when you replace something like a fender?

IMO, restamping a trunk patch is more honestly reflecting the cars overall chassis #. Of course I don't try to hide the fact that it was done so others are free to draw their own opinions. I don't think it is at all the same as a VIN swap that attempts to change the identity of the whole chassis.

Factory Line error... known to happen.

Do as DaveP suggests.

In my case, as Dave did Kardex research on my car, my under dash number matched his Kardex build info about the vehicle but that didn't match the Karman door post chassis ID. My Karman door post tag paint color clearly matches the original Alaska Blue Metallic original paint so I have no reason to believe the door post tag is not original. My trunk chassis number is buried under 1/16" of spay on bed liner from DPO. Maybe some day I'll excavate that.

Lots of anomalies are possible with the manual record keeping to say nothing of the usual antics that occur in assembly plants. Especially so back in the early 70's when there was more than just a little pot smoking going on. I wouldn't sweat it too much if they don't match.

To me restamping the numbers in the trunk after replacing the trunk floor is part of a complete restoration of the car (i.e, putting it back to the way it was when it was new).

I didn't know that the number under the dash is actually the official chassis number of the car; very interesting. In my car, the chassis numbers match everywhere except under the dash, where the last digit differed by 4 (stampings on chassis end in 1 and writing under dash ends in 5, IIRC).

@bbrock

You're in the clear. There has been way more than that done in the past. Remember the Ferrari that was split in half and the resold. Put the VIN on jack stands and then replaced the car under it! Money solves problems.

https://bgr.com/2016/02/07/a-ferrari-enzo-t...r-1-75-million/

Yes, I had been reading some of your prior posts and knew that looking under the dash was something I would want to do.

And, so, the mystery deepens...as the number (as best I can see it with twisted, contorted body, the number hiding behind the dash lip, even after the radio was removed) is completely different than the #s on the door tag and trunk stamp:

Door tag: 2539509
Trunk stamp: 2559509
Dash crayon (yellow): 0649553

So, now I'm wondering, is the dash original (or not?) to the car!

I noted that the dashboard has blue paint on it (the typical, small amounts I've seen in other dash photos), but the car paint code is Tangerine (L21E) and there is no indication of the car ever having been repainted or bodyworked.

I am the 3rd registered owner (who bought it from a well-known 914world member) and have detailed records from new, and there is nothing about an accident or repaint...

But, I have read posts indicating that the dash colors were often not the same as the body paint, that the assembly workers would just grab whatever dash was on the pile next and put it onto the car. So, maybe the blue vs. tangerine paint means nothing.

On the other hand, the chassis number indicates a completely different date of assembly. And yet, dave also indicates that these numbers often do not match.

Three different chassis numbers and lots of possible, interesting reasons of what they might indicate about this vehicle...


Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Okay, so I am quite certain that is not the original dash, but it can be proved if you purchase a report from me.
Please describe your dash. Does it have a central vent in the middle of the dash top that defrosts the windshield? Does it have vents on both ends of the dash to defrost the door windows? It is possible that the dash was updated to have later features. Photos would be useful here also. Do you have any original documents on the car? Does it have a Compliance decal on the drivers door latch post?

VIN # on compliance decal, windshield tab, and frunk all match correctly.

Dash top is early type with top center vent and no side end vents. Car lived most of its 50 years (1970-2008) in California. So, the dash top has some cracks, but not as badly sun-worn as the vinyl tops of the door panel and seats, so maybe the dash top was also replaced? Notably, the dash face vinyl is missing altogether.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the most likely explanation for the chassis # discrepancy is that the dash was replaced at some point.

But then, I want to know why? Accident damage? Are there reasons why the metal dash is ever replaced?

Dave, I'm guessing that your report would search known chassis #s in the VIN database so that the number in crayon on the dash could be linked to a donor vehicle? Can you say more about what your report includes, and cost?

Click to view attachment

I believe the center vent in the dash was only during 1971 model year. So it appears that the dash came from a 1971 car as an "upgrade". This was probably done in the first two years. I say this because it was not updated to the later version with the two end vents which were an even better upgrade. The only way to do either upgrade is to replace the dash frame unless you want to start cutting; but why bother since you need the whole package either way.

My '70 /4 had the dash center vent ...

center dash vent was 70 and 71 four cylinder ONLY

Okay, I am not an expert on the 70 & 71 914 since very few made it to Canada. I did own a late 71 for a while, and believe it may have been among the first imported into Canada for the 72 model year intro.
Also, forgive me for asking, but there seems little documentation on this feature, so owners of 70 & 71 should chime in.
Further, it seems we have conflicting info here already, and I have this technical bulletin that adds further conflict.

My '70 /4 was pretty late in the production so maybe that's why?

4702912181 - 3329543

wrong factory info. Sixes had such a potent fan that they did not need the center vent and no six ever had one only 70 and 71 four cylinders

Andy, yes it could have been a mid year introduction, but now we need more data to establish when.
George, yes, it would not be the first time. But we do need documentation to "prove" it.