[novadude]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Keith Seymore</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More relative to the topic at hand:

I have followed literally tens of thousands of GM vehicles down the line as part of my job responsibilities, and another dozen or so for my own purchase.

Any deviation from a production build is tricky, even with a full staff of attentive personnel who are being paid to manage it. Adding individual unrelated pieces of stand alone content (like a stray trailer hitch, or upgraded engine back in the day) is not too bad but as the interactions go up, like with added related electrical content or controls, the complexity skyrockets.

I can say with authority that assembly plants do not look kindly on engineers who shut the line down due to some unintended consequence of a change (whether real or imagined).

K
</div></div>

Thanks. That's what I was thinking too. People say &quot;well, it was different back then&quot;. Maybe so, but a GM assembly line still wasn't run like a tiny job shop where things could easily be changed at will. An Auto Industry giant like GM likely was head-of-the-class for production scheduling, inventory management, etc back in the 1960s.

In my opinion (and it's only opinion, because I wasn't there), A Tonawanda built 427, isn't going to just accidentally wind up in a Baltimore-built 396 Chevelle simply because a line-worker bought a car and wanted one. Logistically it just doesn't seem possible, unless someone did some sneaky things that let a scheduled &quot;427 car&quot; leave with the 396 planned for that particular 396 Chevelle build sequence under the hood. Even if someone could screw with line sequencing, I'd think it would get caught.

How come you never head stories of people that bought and paid for 427s but the cars were actually built with 396s?