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.
One more thing I did for you. According to Noland Adam's Book on C2 Corvettes, for 1966 model year, the 327 engine cars built with 27xxx serial numbers all had #657 blocks installed. Page 378 in his book for the survey car information and results.
Larry
Last edited by Powershift; 06-02-2016 at 11:22 PM.
One more thing I did for you. According to Noland Adam's Book on C2 Corvettes, for 1966 model year, the 327 engine cars built with 27xxx serial numbers all had #657 blocks installed. Page 378 in his book for the survey car information and results.
Larry
I agree, likewise based on my reading of that same info in Noland's book - but with a minor clarification.
As I read it the first indication of a 657 block in a '66 Corvette in his survey showed up in VIN 26371. - over 1000 units before the OPs 27392.
This thread has been difficult to stay on point with, since the original question was about the ECL and the transmission. The info on the block did not show up until post #46.
This thread has been difficult to stay on point with, since the original question was about the ECL and the transmission. The info on the block did not show up until post #46.
That's the fun of being a old corvette detective and evaluating the car. You can't just look at one part. The whole car must be gone over to determine what's been altered in the past either for looks or for value.
That's the fun of being a old corvette detective and evaluating the car. You can't just look at one part. The whole car must be gone over to determine what's been altered in the past either for looks or for value.
Yup. That's easy to do if one is inspecting a car in person; a little tougher when the info comes out in bits and pieces!
I agree, likewise based on my reading of that same info in Noland's book - but with a minor clarification.
As I read it the first indication of a 657 block in a '66 Corvette in his survey showed up in VIN 26371. - over 1000 units before the OPs 27392.
This thread has been difficult to stay on point with, since the original question was about the ECL and the transmission. The info on the block did not show up until post #46.
Tux:
Your eyes are too sharp.
I purposely didn't include that VIN number in my reply. Maybe I should have, but to me the major point was by 27,xxx all the small block cars reporting had the #657 blocks. That pretty much said it all.
Yes, a bit earlier the #657 small block casting was being phased in.
Keep me honest...................although it may be a big job for you.
Larry
Last edited by Powershift; 06-03-2016 at 01:13 PM.
The M35 3.36 std. rear had the "AK" code, but an L79 M20, 3.36 car had the "AM" code on the rearend, as the car I'm talking about does.
I'll try to get the engine code pad stripped off soon.
Doug:
That is incorrect. The standard 3.36 non-posi rear AK was the default gear for most small block engines in 1966...........whether auto trans, manual trans, 300 HP or 350 HP. The exception was the 327/350 HP engine with a close ratio 4-speed transmission which got a 370 ratio non-posi rear AS.
Then you could add posi to this 3.36 ratio if desired for extra $$. This was the AM rear. You could also get a different ratios as a option as well depending on the engine/trans combination.
A 327/300 HP with auto trans could pay extra $$ and get the AM posi rear. Same for the 327/350 HP wide ratio 4-speed car. The 327/350 HP close ratio 4-speed with 3.70 rear ratio with posi was AO.
Posi rears were standard for all big blocks. Various ratios were available, again depending on engine HP and transmission.
We can and will continue to provide help as you continue your evaluation on this car. However, if you need to talk over the phone versus typing all these questions and answers, PM me and I will give you my phone number. That is up to you.
I agree wrong tranny should have main case casting # 3885010 , tail shaft casting # 3857584 and side cover # 3884685. The bell housing is incorrect should be casting # 3858403.
That is incorrect. The standard 3.36 non-posi rear AK was the default gear for most small block engines in 1966...........whether auto trans, manual trans, 300 HP or 350 HP. The exception was the 327/350 HP engine with a close ratio 4-speed transmission which got a 370 ratio non-posi rear AS.
Then you could add posi to this 3.36 ratio if desired for extra $$. This was the AM rear. You could also get a different ratios as a option as well depending on the engine/trans combination.
A 327/300 HP with auto trans could pay extra $$ and get the AM posi rear. Same for the 327/350 HP wide ratio 4-speed car. The 327/350 HP close ratio 4-speed with 3.70 rear ratio with posi was AO.
Posi rears were standard for all big blocks. Various ratios were available, again depending on engine HP and transmission.
We can and will continue to provide help as you continue your evaluation on this car. However, if you need to talk over the phone versus typing all these questions and answers, PM me and I will give you my phone number. That is up to you.
Unfortunately, the owner has sent it to get a few paint issues taken care of...and I've been off racing, so I haven't gotten back down there to check out more numbers.
Sorry for the Chinese drip torture of information...it's just been a busy period for me.
Anyway, got the casting "time clock" and Casting Dates off the block. Looks like an 4 O'clock casting and I can really discern if the casting date is a "C" or a "G" but it was on the 8th day of either March or July. Putting it 4.5 months to 2.5 weeks before build date....either way, it looks like the block is checking out good.
Can't really tell if it's a C or a G
Last edited by Doug Harden; 06-14-2016 at 05:13 PM.
For the record, I feel that the block casting date is a G 8 6 date..........or July 8, 1966. That is 4 days before the engine pad stamped build date of July 12, 1966. This is very typical for a Flint small block.
Larry
Last edited by Powershift; 06-14-2016 at 05:39 PM.
I have never seen a casting date stamped like that. all the ones I have seen are embossed just like the casting number
It looks to me that it is cast/embossed, not stamped. I think it is just the lighting/shadow on the one side that creates an optical illusion - it is one of those things that can appear two different ways depending on how you look at it and what you focus on.
It looks to me that it is cast/embossed, not stamped. I think it is just the lighting/shadow on the one side that creates an optical illusion - it is one of those things that can appear two different ways depending on how you look at it and what you focus on.
You know your right. I first looked at on my desk top. Now on my phone and it looks fine. Funny how that change
06-02-2016, 11:14 PM
Yup. That's easy to do if one is inspecting a car in person; a little tougher when the info comes out in bits and pieces! 
