40 Series Registry (1 Viewer)

[Kayaker]

The closeness of the build date of Camino70's April 72 FJ40 and my March 72 FJ40 made me go back and visit the "famous" build chart borrowed from SOR and included in post No. 1 of this thread. In interpreting that chart, I had determined that the vehicle id number in the box under the various months was the last VIN for that month, and therefore units constructed during that month would fall between the VIN for the previous month and up to the number listed for that month. In other words TLCs built in March of 1972 would have VINs greater than 121380 (the number in the 2/72 box) and up to 123137 (the number in the 3/72 box). This is based on my VIN (123012) which was assembled in Mar 72 according to the id plate. Applying the same method to Camino70s April 72 build, the number would have to be between 123137 (3/72 box) and 125303 (the 4/72 box). However, according to his build plate, his April 72 VIN is 126313 which falls between the 4/72 box and the 5/72 box. Consequently, either I've been interpreting the table incorrectly, or it is erroneous. Have I been interpreting it incorrectly? Is it possible that the number in the box is the median VIN for the vehicles constructed during that month? That theory doesn't seem to fly either..... Anybody know how we are supposed to interpret this chart?

 

[1969FJ]

Knowing how assembly lines operated back then, I doubt it was precise enough to have the last VIN number exact to the last day of the month. I simply believe it was more an educated approximation. I also have seen VIN numbers plus or minus around production changes. Example, 3-69 to 9-69 was production changes. A friend has a 1-69 , purchased new, and it has all the changes for 3-69. So, leads me to believe it was not exact.

 

[OverLand Cruisers]

Anyone care to take a stab at production date on this one?

Late '63/ early '64 frame production and assembled in '65? Hmmm...

Thanks!

 

[JohnnyC]

Late 63’ build ... late nov early December most likely

Technically 64’ ... however sold in 65’ ... hence the 65’ tag

It is registered and titled as a 65’ ... correct ?

If you look over the registry early cruisers were sold and registered years past their build ... it’s what they (toyota) did then

 

[JohnnyC]

Anybody know how we are supposed to interpret this chart?

Yes

 

[Kayaker]

Yes

Can you share it? I've been using this for years but it appears that my interpretation doesn't hold up.

 

[JohnnyC]

The easiest answer is that Toyota SUCKED at record keeping.

The list was Marv's from Toyota and is not an exact depiction of build dates if you look at it as "it must be correct"

Early cruisers were very sketchy as the amounts being shipped and sold were not in line and many cruiser were sold as new sometimes years past their build date. This can be seen in the earlier cruisers listed here. Some 25's were even sold like 4 years after build .... they sold off what was on the shipping lots. I had conversations with a port worker and even he said that they sat for years... never seeming to move. So trucks built/shipped/sold is somewhat sketchy in earlier years.


You may have noticed that in the mid 69 time fame the numbers jumped from begin to end starts on the vin

most vins on the list start the vins for the month.... some vins go to last for the month

Mid 69' there was toyota first major recall due to brakes and factories went through an overhaul to inspection improvements as well as factory improvements to the management/control/organization company wide and therefore this was one of those times the numbers flipped and could be a contributing factor possibly

so if you look at it as this is the start vin and this is the end vin.... you'll go crazy

could be soooo many different factors contributing to the off numbers.... however it still points to one thing .... MrT sucked at record keeping.

It's more of an approximation

 

[karp68]

I am continually amazed at @JohnnyC and all his contributions.

Thank you!!

 

[OverLand Cruisers]

Late 63’ build ... late nov early December most likely

Technically 64’ ... however sold in 65’ ... hence the 65’ tag

It is registered and titled as a 65’ ... correct ?

If you look over the registry early cruisers were sold and registered years past their build ... it’s what they (toyota) did then

Spot on, makes good sense.

Yup, registered and titled as a '65.

Thanks!!

 

[Kayaker]

so if you look at it as this is the start vin and this is the end vin.... you'll go crazy

That's exactly what I did - I appreciate your timely intervention.

I've been watching some of the car resto shows on Amazon Prime and Netflix and envying the ability of owners of classic Fords to discover all kinds of cool records for their cars using the VIN and build sheets. Too bad Toyota did such a poor job of record keeping, but it is nice that we have this thread to shed some much needed light on the history of our Cruisers. Now if we can just get everybody who uses the forum to add to the registry, we can get a much clearer picture.

 

[HeadacheManNYC]

Feb 1977 high altitude model
VIN/frame FJ40 243547
Engine: 2F 152478

 

[offrd63]

2FJ40 16629
F173641
1962, registered as a 1963. purchased in 1992 from original owner with 32000 miles. It started life painted white. It had a fj25 transfer case with a fj centered rear diff. The original motor was gone in 1992.

 

[JohnnyC]

updated 535 upto

 

[mickwebster]

still counting ?
here's mine..
FJ40-348547
2F-584662 /engine cast 10929
Year registered 1982
Late 1981 batch afaik.

 

[GeoW5]

I think I have a Frankenstein of sorts. She is a FJ40 that appears to be a January ‘65 VIN, ‘64 body or a late ‘64 on the production line given a ‘65 VIN as she has the 64 style cowl (no vent) and a 64 windscreen with the fresh air vent in it. She also appears to have a 68 engine (based on casting numbers on the left side of block), 3 speed tranny, and transfer case.

 

[Brian/99uzj100]

Plate

• camino70
• Nov 30, 2018

February 1976
FJ40-217766
Original Engine missing
[/QUOTE]

Same month & year

Engine #

Inner passenger fender plate

 

[Brian/99uzj100]

All of the previous owners really heeded the warranty card warning,"DO NOT REMOVE FROM VEHICLE!"
I wish I new what the top # meant, all I know is it's a dealer code. It would be cool to know what dealership first sold the vehicle.

 

[GeoW5]

I think I have a Frankenstein of sorts. She is a FJ40 that appears to be a January ‘65 VIN, ‘64 body or a late ‘64 on the production line given a ‘65 VIN as she has the 64 style cowl (no vent) and a 64 windscreen with the fresh air vent in it. She also appears to have a 68 engine (based on casting numbers on the left side of block), 3 speed tranny, and transfer case. View attachment 2054542View attachment 2054543View attachment 2054544

After talking to Brandon of Classic Cruisers he told me that my engine decoded to January 13th 1965.

 

[David70FJ40]

@Brian/99uzj100 I am not familiar how the CA DMV works but here in NC it was really simple. I called the NCDMV and asked for a history of the FJ40 I purchased and I received full records, copies of sales receipts and old titles from all the previous owners and the original selling dealership as well. Made for interesting reading and the records are part of the vehicle history I am keeping in a binder with build and repair photos and other receipts.

 

[GeoW5]

Where is the tag located on the passenger fender well? is that under the battery tray?