Thoughts on engine #'s
Thread Starter
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 922
Likes: 2
From: Delta BC
Thoughts on engine #'s
I'm just getting ready to send my original block in for rebuilding and with all this talk about restamping I thought I would post a picture of my #'s to see what everyone thinks. Looks good to me and the serial # matches. My car is a 1963 fuelie built on April 23/63. Date code on engine is B 2 63. Opinions?
http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/t...9/CIMG3324.jpg
Bob
http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/t...9/CIMG3324.jpg
Bob
Last edited by Glasshole; Mar 14, 2009 at 04:06 PM.
Team Owner
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 26,118
Likes: 1,874
From: Greenville, Indiana
Looks like a bad pad job to me but I'm not a high paid expert like some here.
Aside from your "cat scratches" not having the "look" I'd expect to see, they also look way too fresh for being 46 years old.
You did want opinions, didn't you?
Aside from your "cat scratches" not having the "look" I'd expect to see, they also look way too fresh for being 46 years old.
You did want opinions, didn't you?
Last edited by MikeM; Mar 14, 2009 at 05:34 PM.
Safety Car
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 239
From: Ocean Township NJ
I'm just getting ready to send my original block in for rebuilding and with all this talk about restamping I thought I would post a picture of my #'s to see what everyone thinks. Looks good to me and the serial # matches. My car is a 1963 fuelie built on April 23/63. Date code on engine is B 2 63. Opinions?
http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/t...9/CIMG3324.jpg
Bob
http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/t...9/CIMG3324.jpg
Bob
The marks you see were added AFTER the numbers were stamped.
I think you should be seated before the heads are pulled.
Last edited by 65tripleblack; Mar 14, 2009 at 06:11 PM.
Thread Starter
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 922
Likes: 2
From: Delta BC
I had pulled the heads and they are the correct dated 2.02 double bump heads. Casting # 3782461. It has the correct 6 qt oil pan, correct oil baffle (that hangs from the main bolts), correct high volume oil pump, solid cam and lifters etc., etc. Guess I'll need to go back and talk with the fellow I bought the car from as he swore that it was the original engine (although he wasn't the original owner). It looked good to me however I am certainly no expert. Maybe I should get a local expert to have a look first though....
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Race Director
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,343
Likes: 668
From: Beverly Hills (Pine Ridge) Florida
I see (what appear to be) overstamps or double stamping on some of the impressions.
Look at the 3 1 1 5 & 6 in particular, and then more "ghosting" on some of the engine code characters as well (look at the lower right leg on the "R".). And I agree with Mike that the striations of the broach marks just don't look "right".
Do you see the broach marks on the exposed dip stick tube portion of the block?
And the 5, 6, & 0 appear to be a slightly larger stamp size than the other numbers (especially the the 2nd "3").
But I won't claim to be an expert!
Plasticman
Look at the 3 1 1 5 & 6 in particular, and then more "ghosting" on some of the engine code characters as well (look at the lower right leg on the "R".). And I agree with Mike that the striations of the broach marks just don't look "right".
Do you see the broach marks on the exposed dip stick tube portion of the block?
And the 5, 6, & 0 appear to be a slightly larger stamp size than the other numbers (especially the the 2nd "3").
But I won't claim to be an expert!
Plasticman
Last edited by Plasticman; Mar 14, 2009 at 10:06 PM.
although thr r looks like a p?
Burning Brakes
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 809
Likes: 1
From: Houston Texas
Here is a stamp from a '62 that looks very honest.
Yours looks really good, and that seems to be my only problem. The texture seems so perfect. I assume the steel wooling didnt help with that problem.
I dont think you would do that to a rare coin so I assume the same would be said for a stamp pad (thats just my opinion).
Generally the good pads I have seen have the lines (broach marks), but not so perfect and more of what I will call a block texture as this '62 has. Yours has the texture, but you see it is so much less visible than the lines (broach marks) are.
The stamping seem weak, but that could be due to a light redecking at one time. What I like is the first 3 is extra heavy, which seem to show up a lot.
I would say it is good enough for any judge, but whether John Z's friend would pass it, only he can tell with his magnifier and his pad history book.
Fantastic photo BTW.
Yours looks really good, and that seems to be my only problem. The texture seems so perfect. I assume the steel wooling didnt help with that problem.
I dont think you would do that to a rare coin so I assume the same would be said for a stamp pad (thats just my opinion).
Generally the good pads I have seen have the lines (broach marks), but not so perfect and more of what I will call a block texture as this '62 has. Yours has the texture, but you see it is so much less visible than the lines (broach marks) are.
The stamping seem weak, but that could be due to a light redecking at one time. What I like is the first 3 is extra heavy, which seem to show up a lot.
I would say it is good enough for any judge, but whether John Z's friend would pass it, only he can tell with his magnifier and his pad history book.
Fantastic photo BTW.
Last edited by philip964; Mar 15, 2009 at 12:20 AM.
Race Director
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,343
Likes: 668
From: Beverly Hills (Pine Ridge) Florida
Phillip964,
Like your pad stamp a lot better!
Interesting that your "0" in the engine code portion is "O" vs "0" in the OP's stamp.
Your stamp has all the characters the same size (for each segment), whereas the OP's stamp has several that are not. And I agree that your "R" looks far better than the OP's "R" (the loop appears too large, with the angled leg added on, and it appears not to be a straight line, as though added by hand).
And the 2 "F"s in the OP's engine code stamp are 2 different sizes (in width).
Too many inconsistencies.
Plasticman
Like your pad stamp a lot better!
Interesting that your "0" in the engine code portion is "O" vs "0" in the OP's stamp.
Your stamp has all the characters the same size (for each segment), whereas the OP's stamp has several that are not. And I agree that your "R" looks far better than the OP's "R" (the loop appears too large, with the angled leg added on, and it appears not to be a straight line, as though added by hand).
And the 2 "F"s in the OP's engine code stamp are 2 different sizes (in width).
Too many inconsistencies.
Plasticman
Race Director
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,142
Likes: 54
From: Taylor Michigan
I dont believe a HV oil pump is OE for any 63 engine, it wasn`t necessary for a new engine of any HP. However many aftermarket engine re builder kits often incorporate that pump in there rebuilds, incorrectly thinking its a safety valve item to use one.
Also the build window from the casting date is much longer than I would expect as approximately 1 out of 8 were FI engine builds. And when you add the 340 engine to the mix nearly every other engine was a 11-1 high performance engine. Part of the problem with to much emphasis on the numbers game that has emerged over the years....
Also the build window from the casting date is much longer than I would expect as approximately 1 out of 8 were FI engine builds. And when you add the 340 engine to the mix nearly every other engine was a 11-1 high performance engine. Part of the problem with to much emphasis on the numbers game that has emerged over the years....
Safety Car
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,359
Likes: 116
From: AUSTIN Tx
I had pulled the heads and they are the correct dated 2.02 double bump heads. Casting # 3782461. It has the correct 6 qt oil pan, correct oil baffle (that hangs from the main bolts), correct high volume oil pump, solid cam and lifters etc., etc. Guess I'll need to go back and talk with the fellow I bought the car from as he swore that it was the original engine (although he wasn't the original owner). It looked good to me however I am certainly no expert. Maybe I should get a local expert to have a look first though....
Regards, John McGraw
Last edited by John McGraw; Mar 15, 2009 at 02:14 PM.
Drifting
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,658
Likes: 25
From: Rochester Minnesota
I'm no expert on pad numbers, but I'll share a couple of thoughts.
1. The broaches used to deck the blocks would normally be cycled between being used, being sharpened, and then being re-used again. I suspect the marks left by the broach would vary depending on its degree of sharpness.
2. Speaking of sharpness, I wonder how much the steel wooling and perhaps higher pixel rating of the camera could be affecting the picture?
1. The broaches used to deck the blocks would normally be cycled between being used, being sharpened, and then being re-used again. I suspect the marks left by the broach would vary depending on its degree of sharpness.
2. Speaking of sharpness, I wonder how much the steel wooling and perhaps higher pixel rating of the camera could be affecting the picture?
Team Owner
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 38,897
Likes: 1,926
From: Washington Michigan
I'm not a pad expert and don't have any photos of other RF's stamped the same day to compare it to, but I don't have a problem with it. It shows the expected chatter marks and aging inconsistencies, and the broach marks don't go through the stamp impressions. Just my opinion. 
Team Owner
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 31,497
Likes: 1,313
From: Huntsville AL
I dont believe a HV oil pump is OE for any 63 engine, it wasn`t necessary for a new engine of any HP. However many aftermarket engine re builder kits often incorporate that pump in there rebuilds, incorrectly thinking its a safety valve item to use one.
Also the build window from the casting date is much longer than I would expect as approximately 1 out of 8 were FI engine builds. And when you add the 340 engine to the mix nearly every other engine was a 11-1 high performance engine. Part of the problem with to much emphasis on the numbers game that has emerged over the years....
Also the build window from the casting date is much longer than I would expect as approximately 1 out of 8 were FI engine builds. And when you add the 340 engine to the mix nearly every other engine was a 11-1 high performance engine. Part of the problem with to much emphasis on the numbers game that has emerged over the years....
Instructor
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 153
Likes: 1
From: bay city mi
I think what 65Tripleblack was talking about when pulling the heads, was that the broach marks should continue for the entire length of the block, and not just the pad. If these marks do not continue unbroken down the entire length of the block. then you can assume that it is a restamp. Even the little pad where the dipstick goes in should show the same marks. The machine that broached the block would have left parallel marks the entire length of the block, and the lines should be pretty much unbroken. I would guess that it is probably a restamp as well. the broach marks look too pronounced and everything looks just too sharp and clean to be original. the broach marks appear too uniform and evenly spaced to me. I would guess that some sort of uniform abrasive would be responsible for such a pattern, and not the random nicks on the broach blades that normally leave the grooves. It does not look like a typical factory pad to me.
Regards, John McGraw
Regards, John McGraw
I agree. In addition, by the time the block got to the end of the broach tunnel, the finishing teeth tended to be wider and flatter, leaving less of a bar-coded effect. Also, I would expect more lumps and bumps from 40+ years of surface corosion.
Andy
Thread Starter
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 922
Likes: 2
From: Delta BC
Yes, the casting date #'s are fairly evenly spaced so it could very well be B 26 3. Didn't know if they used one or two digits to indicate the year. At any rate I'm going to carry on with the rebuild. I certainly didn't pay premium dollars for the car so I'm not too upset that this could possibly be a restamped block. Guess next time I'll check all this out ahead of time. Thanks for the opinions........
Bob
Bob
Instructor
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 153
Likes: 1
From: bay city mi
Yes, the casting date #'s are fairly evenly spaced so it could very well be B 26 3. Didn't know if they used one or two digits to indicate the year. At any rate I'm going to carry on with the rebuild. I certainly didn't pay premium dollars for the car so I'm not too upset that this could possibly be a restamped block. Guess next time I'll check all this out ahead of time. Thanks for the opinions........
Bob
Bob
Sounds correct. I think Flint engines had a single digit denoting year, while Tonawanda had double digits for year (from "Corvette by the numbers").
Andy
Last edited by ahphares; Mar 15, 2009 at 03:01 PM.