Can anyone of you experts decode this vin please !
Doesn't jive with the decoders I found on the web.
Doesn't jive with the decoders I found on the web.
Last edited:
No, but I can rotate it.Can anyone of you experts decode this vin please !

Yeah, that's an odd duck there. I think I've seen a couple other threads where missing VINs were replaced at the State or Province level "back in the day"Doesn't really matter,it's getting scrapped. Kid said it was a 64, but it has a auto floor shift, I was told that's 65. Kid also said it had a slant but looks like a V8 center link !
It wont be online because it is an 8 digit number. The Vins that are so old that they had to add 2 numbers at the front in order to have it registered. My 65 was that way. That is a perfectly legit tag!Can anyone of you experts decode this vin please !
View attachment 1716375614View attachment 1716375614
Doesn't give with the decoders I found on the web.
It's a created VIN.Can anyone of you experts decode this vin please !
View attachment 1716375614View attachment 1716375614
Doesn't give with the decoders I found on the web.
I see it...Well it really doesn't matter it's going to the scrap yard soon. Was just wondering how to read it. You all do see the faint V8 in front of the number?
Well, that changes everything. That does make it a 65 Barracuda.Well it really doesn't matter it's going to the scrap yard soon. Was just wondering how to read it. You all do see the faint V8 in front of the number?
Did they put "V8" on there though, Mike?Well, that changes everything. That does make it a 65 Barracuda.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5-10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Car Line, 1960-64** | Series | Year | Plant | Identifier |
| 1 - Valiant 2 - Plymouth Six 3- Plymouth 8 4- Dodge 6 5- Dodge V8* 6 - Varies, see* 7 - Varies, see* 8 - Chrysler 9 - Imperial L - Dart V8 | See guide below | Last digit of model year | 1 - Lynch Road (Detroit) 2 - Dodge Main (Hamtramck) 3 - Jefferson Ave (Detroit) 4 - Belvidere (IL) 5 - Los Angeles 6 - Newark (DE) 7 - St. Louis (MO) 8 - Clairpointe (MO) 9 - Windsor (Ontario) | Sequential numbers |
In 65, V is Valiant/Barracuda and 8 is Barracuda (specifically) The 3rd digit is 5 which is 65. 2 is Hamtramck and the last 6 digits are the sequence number.Did they put "V8" on there though, Mike?
Thought it was either just a V or an L
I don't need the vin tag for anything.I see it...
Any of the earlier years that would have been designated by the first character of the VIN , which is why I'm pretty sure it's a replacement from some point in the cars life.
Anomolies like these at really cool though. You're keeping the tag?
Well, that changes everything. That does make it a 65 Barracuda.

Dana , that 3 is actually an 8View attachment 1716375819
I see V352528308
V= Valiant
3 = V-200
5 = 1965
2 = Detroit
SO number = 528308
View attachment 1716375821
Dana , that 3 is actually an 8
you missed the stamped letter and number in front of the embossed numbers typical of pre 67It's on a 65 you say, Al? That's odd with the 5 digit in position 1 and too few numbers.
welded is normal, the holes were for alignment but people think rivets are supposed to go in thereI have a vin tag on a 64 thats welded on . Might as well save it also.
See post 14. That's what I said. Oh, it's not a 3 it's an 8.View attachment 1716375819
I see V352528308
V= Valiant
3 = V-200 (Maybe an 8?)
5 = 1965
2 = Detroit
SO number = 528308
from 65 FSM
View attachment 1716375821
Looks like others here. (I agree the rivets are not factor)
View attachment 1716375822
View attachment 1716375823
View attachment 1716375824
I thought it was an 8 but the FSM did not show an 8 as an option in 65 for Valiant so I thought maybe its a 3?See post 14. That's what I said. Oh, nad it's not a 3 it's an 8.
) shows "2" as Detroit not HamtramckI still think it's been replaced or updatedI thought it was an 8 but the FSM did not show an 8 as an option in 65 for Valiant so I thought maybe its a 3?
View attachment 1716376066
Note: it shows 4 as Barracuda
Also the FSM (which are never wrong) shows "2" as Detroit not Hamtramck
Mike, where are you getting your info?
I'm not arguing so much as trying to understand why the FSM would be incorrect on these points