When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Please keep us advised, I'd like to know how he dances around on this.
Note he did not say it is the original engine for the car. Only that it came out of a '64 fuelie "originally". That could simply mean that the '64 was the first car it was ever in.
From: I'd like to propose a toast... to internal combustion and wind in the face.
Pictures of the casting number and date code would be nice. Didn't Flint blocks use just one number for the year of the block as in C-23-4 (I just made that number up) with the Tonawanda (did I spell that correctly?) using two numbers for the year as in C-23-64? Please, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
According to Noland Adams, " The Complete Corvette Restoration and Technical Guide - Volume 2 1963 through 1967" , Corvette engine blocks changed very little from 1964 through 1967. That is they had the same casting number (3782870) , and they were assembled at Flint Motor ( engine number prefix "F")."
The following information is from the Third Edition of the NCRS Judging Manual for 1963-64 Corvettes (Page 83):
" A very limited number of engine blocks with casting number 3858180 were cast in Tonawanda, N.Y. and were used in very limited quantities in 1964. This block is not acceptable for 1963. Tonawanda blocks can be identified externally by the absence of the square plug forward of the intake manifold, and by the presence of a two digit year in the casting date. Tonawanda blocks typically will have several embossed and debossed T's located at various locations over the surface of the cylinder case. The use of this block is typically limited to late production 1964's."
I believe that these blocks were machined and assemblied at the Flint Engine Plant, and carry the Flint assembly date code and suffix. However, I am not absolutely certain of this, and the NCRS JM does not provide a clear explanation. So there could be some "T" code 1964 Corvette engines?? Maybe John Z or someone else can clarify??? I also checked and could not find anything in Noland's book about this occurrence.
its got the long water pump crap on the front and a spin on filter too just from a quick glance. my BS meter is pegged and i think this guy is full of bullpuckey...
I believe that these blocks were machined and assemblied at the Flint Engine Plant, and carry the Flint assembly date code and suffix. However, I am not absolutely certain of this, and the NCRS JM does not provide a clear explanation. So there could be some "T" code 1964 Corvette engines?? Maybe John Z or someone else can clarify??? I also checked and could not find anything in Noland's book about this occurrence.
I'll do some additional research.
Larry
Larry,
I did some research on this for my 65 coupe and if you have a 180 block it will have a "F" code on it and not a "T". I'm sure JohnZ can correct me if I'm wrong..
"you are looking at an engine that originally came out of a 64 corvette fuel injected 4 speed. It is a 327 with 375 horsepower
yep, that's right corvette guys, 375 horsepower!
I do not have any original fuel injection parts or heads.
Great engine for restoring that vette with matching numbers from block to crank. The numbers are T03050RX. I have double checked the numbers and I am confident that they are correct for a 64 vette."
Judging from the seller's words, he's not really open to hearing other opinions about what he's selling. However, in my opinion, he is selling a mid-seventies Camaro engine with the factory-stamped suffix CRX.
I sent him a note pointing out politely that it's not a Corvette engine (and why), and his response was "Thank you for the information, my mistake. Thanks again."
I sent him a note pointing out politely that it's not a Corvette engine (and why), and his response was "Thank you for the information, my mistake. Thanks again."
Now we'll have to see whether he points out his mistake on his listing
I sent him a note pointing out politely that it's not a Corvette engine (and why), and his response was "Thank you for the information, my mistake. Thanks again."
John, it was nice of you to tell him politely. Most wouldn't have bothered to tell him at all.
I used to send messages to sellers who posted misleading descriptions. Typically I would get no response (or corrective action) from them. But sometimes the response was "please mind your own business". That's a G-rated translation. The actual language they used was something a wounded pirate might say.
So far (at 2 pm on Saturday, 5/24) the CRX engine auction is still steaming ahead with an unrevised description. Maybe he's going to change it tonight though.
I just reinforced John's message that this does not appear to be from a 64 Vette but probably a Camaro and he should probably change his description if he was not aware. We'll see what happens
I just reinforced John's message that this does not appear to be from a 64 Vette but probably a Camaro and he should probably change his description if he was not aware. We'll see what happens
He still hasn't changed the ad! And he has 100% Positive Feedback!!!???
You guys are doing a lot of worrying for nothing. Still no bids as of while ago. Probably won't be with a start bid of $1500. There's NOTHING that I can see on the outside of that engine that resembles anything to do with a FI '64 Vette. Anybody that would get burned on that piece with the vague wording in the ad and the length of time it's been up without bids deserves to get burned.
From: Holly Springs, Nort Cackalacky / Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted by JohnZ
I sent him a note pointing out politely that it's not a Corvette engine (and why), and his response was "Thank you for the information, my mistake. Thanks again."
But, but, but he clearly has stated "I have double checked the numbers and I am confident that they are correct for a 64 vette".
How is it possible he could be mistaken? Are we saying there are dishonest folk on eBay?