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.
Pulled this out of my '64 last summer and currently storing it (built a 383 with another block). Lots of 365hp parts on the engine ,so it either started out that way or someone built it that way. How does the pass pad? My untrained eye sees circular marks which would indicate decking and restamping.
Pulled this out of my '64 last summer and currently storing it (built a 383 with another block). Lots of 365hp parts on the engine ,so it either started out that way or someone built it that way. How does the pass pad? My untrained eye sees circular marks which would indicate decking and restamping.
In MOST cases I have given up trying to make a call on these pads due to angle and lighting. I think there are too many "laptop experts" that are too quick to pass judgement on someones car from pictures like this.
What's the casting date? If it falls in the expected range, I may be in the minority here, but will say it looks like possibly an original stamp that was lightly machined over when the deck was cleaned up during a rebuild.
What's the casting date? If it falls in the expected range, I may be in the minority here, but will say it looks like possibly an original stamp that was lightly machined over when the deck was cleaned up during a rebuild.
Not an expert but I agree. The 1 and 9 are re-stamped over what looks original (straight). The original vin derivative is a straight line on mine and others I've seen. With the restamp, it looks like a roller coaster, with the straight underneath.
On the other number, it looks all straight except the last digit which I think is typical.
What's the casting date? If it falls in the expected range, I may be in the minority here, but will say it looks like possibly an original stamp that was lightly machined over when the deck was cleaned up during a rebuild.
I agree with this. I've seen several original pads where some or all of the original features were removed by decking or sanding during a routine rebuild.
If a block is decked about .020", pretty much none of the original makings will be left. However, if the block only received a "clean-up" decking of .005 to .010, the original numbers will typically still be legible, but the original broach marks will be gone.
If the deck was only sanded, there will sometimes be a mix of original broach marks and sanding marks.
Note that in NCRS judging, the two stampings are judged separately and assigned 25 points each. The broach marks are judged separately from the stampings, and assigned 38 points.
For the broach marks, the NCRS only requires "evidence" of the expected broach marks. Even if the pad surface has rusted, been sanded, or decked, these are ignored and the judges simply look for some remaining evidence of the original broach marks.
In my experience, if the judges are convinced the stampings are original and the owner simply has the misfortune of having a rusted, decked, or sanded pad surface, the judges will try very hard to find some shred of "evidence" of the original broach marks so that the owner can get those 38 points.
Regarding the specific pad referenced by the OP, I think the first question is whether the block's casting number and casting date seem appropriate for the car's build date.
If they do, then the stampings on the pad should be carefully evaluated to see if they appear original. If they do (and it appears to me that they may be original), the final frontier will be determining whether there is any remaining "evidence" of the original broach marks.
Based on the photos provided by the OP, it looks to me that whatever process was used to clean up the deck surface (decking or sanding), the amount of material removed was a very thin layer. Careful analysis may reveal some evidence of the original broach marks.
I agree with this. I've seen several original pads where some or all of the original features were removed by decking or sanding during a routine rebuild.
If a block is decked about .020", pretty much none of the original makings will be left. However, if the block only received a "clean-up" decking of .005 to .010, the original numbers will typically still be legible, but the original broach marks will be gone.
If the deck was only sanded, there will sometimes be a mix of original broach marks and sanding marks.
Note that in NCRS judging, the two stampings are judged separately and assigned 25 points each. The broach marks are judged separately from the stampings, and assigned 38 points.
For the broach marks, the NCRS only requires "evidence" of the expected broach marks. Even if the pad surface has rusted, been sanded, or decked, these are ignored and the judges simply look for some remaining evidence of the original broach marks.
In my experience, if the judges are convinced the stampings are original and the owner simply has the misfortune of having a rusted, decked, or sanded pad surface, the judges will try very hard to find some shred of "evidence" of the original broach marks so that the owner can get those 38 points.
Regarding the specific pad referenced by the OP, I think the first question is whether the block's casting number and casting date seem appropriate for the car's build date.
If they do, then the stampings on the pad should be carefully evaluated to see if they appear original. If they do (and it appears to me that they may be original), the final frontier will be determining whether there is any remaining "evidence" of the original broach marks.
Based on the photos provided by the OP, it looks to me that whatever process was used to clean up the deck surface (decking or sanding), the amount of material removed was a very thin layer. Careful analysis may reveal some evidence of the original broach marks.
as well. What I see in the pictures are both broach marks AND sanding marks
Well this is turning out to be more fun than I expected. Kind of like a mystery slowly unfolding. When my dad and I bought the car 2 years ago, I was more concerned about its condition, the engine it had, and the color combo. The seller of course claimed "matching numbers", but I took that with a huge grain of salt and didn't care enough to check all numbers and date codes. So anything I discover now is just for fun and will aid me if I ever get it judged. I plan to have the car stay in the family for a long long time .
Ok, here are some relevant pics. I haven't decoded anything yet. Let me know if pictures off anything else would help. Sorry if they come out sideways.
Ok, started decoding and here is what I think I have:
G12 - March 12th, 1964 body build date
B294 - Feb 29th, 1964 block casting date
4B3 - Feb 3rd, 1964 distributor date
Did I decode these right?
Also, for some reason I thought "RT" at the end of the engine pad was for a 365HP TI ignition engine. I'm confirming the 365HP, but am not finding a reference for the TI anymore. Not sure where I got that info from, but can't find it now.
Casting date February 29 '64, assembly date March 3. So far so good. G12 on the trim tag is March 12 for St. Louis bodied car, if I'm not mistaken, also good. I'd be surprised if this wasn't the original born with engine case.
Edit - I see you've done your own research
RT suffix is indeed 365 hp/TI/manual trans. per the Black Book.
Get Al Grenning to sign off on it and you are good as gold
im not the T was added unless the gang holder was broken/ and trust me it wasn't
I think I have read elsewhere that at the Flint engine plant when things were busy, they sometimes stamped the engine assembly stamping with a gang holder that had only the assembly date and possibly the first character of the engine code. Then, once the specific engine code was determined, they later added one or both of the engine code letters by hand.
I have no direct knowledge of whether this is true or not, but I think I read it from a trustworthy source. Presumably, an experienced NCRS judge would be familiar with this practice if, in fact, it did occur.
I think I have read elsewhere that at the Flint engine plant when things were busy, they sometimes stamped the engine assembly stamping with a gang holder that had only the assembly date and possibly the first character of the engine code. Then, once the specific engine code was determined, they later added one or both of the engine code letters by hand.
I have no direct knowledge of whether this is true or not, but I think I read it from a trustworthy source. Presumably, an experienced NCRS judge would be familiar with this practice if, in fact, it did occur.
Never heard that. And I looked a lot of Flint stampings and the suffix codes where always aligned. I asked a question on the NCRS TDB about it. The suffix code R was used on 64 passenger car 327 engines. So it would be easy for someone to locate a block dated in the cars date range with that code. Stamp the vin and the second suffix code letter.
Never heard that. And I looked a lot of Flint stampings and the suffix codes where always aligned. I asked a question on the NCRS TDB about it. The suffix code R was used on 64 passenger car 327 engines. So it would be easy for someone to locate a block dated in the cars date range with that code. Stamp the vin and the second suffix code letter.
TI cars are very rare in '64, only 552 built, the letter after the "R" was many times looking like an add-on, as in the "RX" stamp on a fuelie TI, like these:
02-23-2018, 02:33 PM
How does my pad look?
as well. What I see in the pictures are both broach marks AND sanding marks
