asc mclaren door decal

[BAILEY]

Anyone know if there is anymore wording at the end of the statement (vehicle safety and bumper standards in effect in...........)

[TurboRegal84]

Mine is Blank as well!

[X Ray]

The month and year it was actually build (example 9/87) was to be printed in that area……it appears the plant neglected its duties in several if not all the vehicles. Regards Rick

[BAILEY]

So in my case then should the decal read 10-87 in the middle and 10-87 at the very end?

[X Ray]

Originally Posted by BAILEY

So in my case then should the decal read 10-87 in the middle and 10-87 at the very end?

Yes you a correct ....but attached is a picture how most of them probably looked (with only one of the dates).

[BAILEY]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Wes 88 SS]

[GNXRegistry]

Originally Posted by X Ray

Yes you a correct ....but attached is a picture how most of them probably looked (with only one of the dates).

I recognize that sticker in your picture, Rick-- it's from 033, right? Very similar to 281 above but not exactly the same.

There were a number of variations in the ASC door stickers over the run. They seem to be loosely correlated with production order (e.g. date) but not always so.

For example, we have documented original stickers that are centered, with ASC McLaren in line with the text below. Others are a hanging indent, with ASC left justified and the text below centered. A third variation (which is on my late car) doesn't even say McLaren-- just ASC with the Sun and the text appears in all caps. Even has a part number. Sticker stock (surface) is different as well. Within these groups are slight variations (including size and whether the corners were square or radiused, and the degree of radius), but you get the general idea.

However, in no case have we ever seen an original sticker with a second date or more wording after the word "in." So, just as Rick said above, perhaps it was intended to be so originally, but for whatever reason (poor proofreading, production pressures, or "who really reads these anyway?" attitude) they were simply not date-printed that way.

So the best information we have says that putting a second date in would be incorrect if you are restoring to "as original" state. Nothing more after the "in."

Hope this helps!