engine and drivetrain Need some help identifying a 2002

[ray_]

2666271 would be a June-Dec 1970 1600

 

The rear bumper does indeed appear to be one for a later car.

 

The 6 fuse block is definitely an early car.

 

Cheers,

[Slavs]

The rear bumper is from a 72-73 2002.

 

And the presence of the side reflectors excludes this car from being an early 69 since at some point in 69 the US cars were fitted withe side reflectors.

 

The reservoir on the brake master cylinder is indicative of a 77-83 320i brake master with the single circuit brakes. The 02s used single circuit brakes up to mid 69, so this seems to contradict what the side reflectors are telling us.

 

Your brakes and rear end (differential) along with the driveshaft will tell us whether it is an early 69, unless someone replaced all of those along with the rear subframe.

 

Does your car have the single circuit or dual circuit brakes ? (single circuit brakes have only one brake line per caliper at the front, while dual circuit brakes have two brake lines per caliper.

 

Is your car equipped with the more common short neck diff or the early long neck diff and accompanying telescopic and much shorter driveshaft. There is a very noticable difference between the diffs (take a look at a manual).

[Slavs]

Additional observations:

 

Your talights are from a very early car (pre-mid 69) since they have the red centers.

 

The piece of trim between the tailights with the broken-up sections (painted black like) appears to be from a very early BMW 1600 (1966-early 67.

 

Somebody was just throwing parts on to your car.

 

I'd leave those tail lights, fill in the side rflector holes (they ere primarily added to just US cars), ditch the 72 rear bumper and install the correct early bumper, install period correct interior, leave the 5 speed overdrive, and you will have a clean / vintage looking period correct car with "upgraded" gearing to make things a bit more relaxed on the highways.  

 

Slavs

 

 

[Conserv]

...Your talights are from a very early car (pre-mid 69) since they have the red centers....

I beg to disagree on this item: 1668093 (manufactured September 8, 1969), an early U.S. '70 model, came from the factory with red-center tail lights. The lights are dated August 18, 1969. I swapped them for amber center tail lights in order to "modernize" the car. I totaled the car in 1974 but still have the red-center tail lights, which I'm saving for a future early 2002!

Regards,

Steve

Edited November 26, 2015 by Conserv

[jgerock]

Here is another close VIN 69 2002 that was at the Vintage 2014 NC show.

 

Your 69 is only 2 cars from mine, so unless a PO really botched it up:

 

Red tail light centers

Dual circuit brakes 

3-piece dashboard with ribbed horizontal shelf

"Spaghetti" seat belts 

Short neck differential with std. inner and outer CV joints

NO fuel expansion tank below rear package tray (I note your filler neck has the hard line vented to the trunk floor like mine).

[Slavs]

OK ! they changed from Red to Orange at some point in late 69 to early 70. I also have an early 70 with the oragne center tailights. Lets just say, by the time late 70 and early 71 rolled around, there were no red center tailights, but People have also been known to switch them. By this period, the cars had twin circuit brakes with the more familiar dual piston calipers.  long neck diffs along with the shorter, telescopic and servicable u-joints were done away with in favor of the less robust, but cheaper short neck and accompanying longer and less impressive drive shaft.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the underside of the car should be examined. Unless there was some major juggling, this will tell the true age of this car. The trim is just something that people easily throw on. At least one of the trim pieces on this car looks as it's from a 66-very early 67 1600 ?? But I can tell with absolute certainty that this is not a 66-68 1600.

 

Slavs

[Conserv]

OK ! they changed from Red to Orange at some point in late 69 to early 70. I also have an early 70 with the oragne center tailights. Lets just say, by the time late 70 and early 71 rolled around, there were no red center tailights, but People have also been known to switch them. By this period, the cars had twin circuit brakes with the more familiar dual piston calipers. long neck diffs along with the shorter, telescopic and servicable u-joints were done away with in favor of the less robust, but cheaper short neck and accompanying longer and less impressive drive shaft.

As I mentioned earlier, the underside of the car should be examined. Unless there was some major juggling, this will tell the true age of this car. The trim is just something that people easily throw on. At least one of the trim pieces on this car looks as it's from a 66-very early 67 1600 ?? But I can tell with absolute certainty that this is not a 66-68 1600.

Slavs

Agreed, Slavs,

BMW Archives mis-copied the VIN: it's 1666271, not 2666271. I believe Jim, in posting #10, has the manufacturing date virtually nailed: his 1666269 was manufactured May 30, 1969. This could have the same date.

Regards,

Steve

Edited January 27, 2015 by Conserv

[John Southerland]

Wow, this is a tremendous help. I can see now why I had trouble placing it by trying to match images online. I need to sit down and note every detail Slav pointed out. I bet the previous owner upgraded just about every part. I'll take a few more detailed pictures under the car and see if that helps in identifying. I will try and get those this weekend.

[saaron]

You wonder if they put in a 5 speed if they would have changed the diff and all to be the later parts.  

 

Scott

[Conserv]

John,

Well...

We're waiting for the results of BMW Archives's report on VIN 1666271...

Best,

Steve

[John Southerland]

Ah, sorry about that delay, the week got busy, here is the "birth certificate":

This VIN belongs to a BMW 2002 US built on June 4th, 1969 and delivered on June 12th, 1969 to the BMW importer Hoffman Motors Corp. in New York City. The original colour was Nevada, paint code 001.

 

Love those paint color names, I'm left with no clue as to the actual color. Not sure what was wrong with "White" as a descriptive for the car buying public of 1969?

[Conserv]

John,

Nevada is definitely not white -- because Chamonix is white! Nevada is a light brownish-tan color with a hint of gray (and/or green?) in it. It's a very sought-after color. Go back to Jim Gerock's first post, Post #10 in this thread, for a view of Nevada, albeit faded, somewhat hazed over (no offense intended, Jim!)

As I pointed out previously, in Post #11, Nevada paint is visible on your car around the VIN plate on the inner fender.

All good!

Regards,

Steve

Edited November 26, 2015 by Conserv

[PaulTWinterton]

for 2002 colors:

http://www.dagsites.com/2002colors.htm

click on bullet to change car color.

[John Southerland]

Steve,

I had to go look at Jim's car again. I guess I have no eye for color. To me, that Nevada is one of a thousand shades of "white". I'll probably never be an artist, my scale of colors is a sad depiction on discrete solids, rather than the full range of shaded tones. For instance, I keep telling people the car is "Blue" but I think it is Fjord, which to me is a deep channel near shore or some such thing.

Thanks, John

Edited January 30, 2015 by JohnSouth

[John Southerland]

Thanks Paul! great site, I do now see that Jim's paint has matured into a lighter shade of the original brown. He may want to get some wax on that and see if it pops back a bit (/sarcasm). Fun stuff!