70 LS5 restamp or real?
Thread Starter
Cruising
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
70 LS5 restamp or real?
I know, yet another engine stamp thread. Please don't flame me to death.
Here's a few not-so-great pics of a 1970 LS5 I'm considering. Thoughts on the stamp?
[IMG]
[/IMG]
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Thanks.
Here's a few not-so-great pics of a 1970 LS5 I'm considering. Thoughts on the stamp?
[IMG]
[IMG]
Thanks.
Instructor
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 107
Likes: 38
From: Raleigh North Carolina
If it's any consolation, my numbers (1970 LS5 here as well) look very similar to yours in that all the letters and numbers look deeply stamped except for the number "9" which looks like it barely shows up. Could be coincidence, could be that "re-stampers" are really that good. I don't know, just a thought.
Chad
Chad
Le Mans Master
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 8,805
Likes: 1,945
From: LONG ISLAND
2025 C3 ('68-'73) of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
2024 C3 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
2023 C3 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
From what I can see, it LQQS like the real deal to me..........
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
Team Owner
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,419
Likes: 22
From: In limbo
St. Jude Donor '13-'15, '17 thru '22
Comments:
1. The font, size, and location of the stamps look correct to me.
2. The surface of the pad looks relatively smooth. This is not necessarily bad, as it would be relatively smooth if the knives in the broaching machine had been recently changed. I don't see any swirl marks, which would be typical of a block that had been decked at the local machine shop. This is all good.
3. In the first picture, it looks like there are some marks going from top to bottom. The second picture is less clear, and looks like there could be some side to side marks. This is why an in-person inspection is needed, it's hard to tell the exact texture of the pad from pictures.
4. What transmission is in the car? The "CZU" suffix indicated a 4 spd transmission. Given how the VIN derivative stamp looks, light 9, relatively heavy 7 at the beginning and 5 at the end, it will really help if the car still has its original transmission. The VIN derivative stamp on the block and the trans used the same gang stamp, so alignment anomolies should be consistent between the two. Keep in mind that the stamp on the trans will probably be deeper and look a little different due to the metal being different, but you should still be able to detect those anomolies.
1. The font, size, and location of the stamps look correct to me.
2. The surface of the pad looks relatively smooth. This is not necessarily bad, as it would be relatively smooth if the knives in the broaching machine had been recently changed. I don't see any swirl marks, which would be typical of a block that had been decked at the local machine shop. This is all good.
3. In the first picture, it looks like there are some marks going from top to bottom. The second picture is less clear, and looks like there could be some side to side marks. This is why an in-person inspection is needed, it's hard to tell the exact texture of the pad from pictures.
4. What transmission is in the car? The "CZU" suffix indicated a 4 spd transmission. Given how the VIN derivative stamp looks, light 9, relatively heavy 7 at the beginning and 5 at the end, it will really help if the car still has its original transmission. The VIN derivative stamp on the block and the trans used the same gang stamp, so alignment anomolies should be consistent between the two. Keep in mind that the stamp on the trans will probably be deeper and look a little different due to the metal being different, but you should still be able to detect those anomolies.
Safety Car
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,458
Likes: 331
From: Indy Indiana
given the rarity of a '70 LS5 convertible 4 speed ( maybe around 1300), there is very high motivation to fake it.
go into the transaction skeptical. few '70 LS5's have their original engine as they were run hard and blown up early in their life.
look for condition of the car. the rarity of this car would warrant one to take a specialist along with you to inspect it.
that car is just a couple of days older than mine...
now for the bad news.. that car is in the c3 registry with a picture of the block casting date of dec 18, 1969. that block is too old. it should have been cast in early march 1970... do not pay original engine money for this car. there was a work stoppage in the spring of '70 which would explain the nearly 2 months from the engine build to the car build date. but a block cast date 3 months earlier is just too much.
looks like a project.. convertible with a luggage rack, but the dates don't line up.
run forrest run...
go into the transaction skeptical. few '70 LS5's have their original engine as they were run hard and blown up early in their life.
look for condition of the car. the rarity of this car would warrant one to take a specialist along with you to inspect it.
that car is just a couple of days older than mine...
now for the bad news.. that car is in the c3 registry with a picture of the block casting date of dec 18, 1969. that block is too old. it should have been cast in early march 1970... do not pay original engine money for this car. there was a work stoppage in the spring of '70 which would explain the nearly 2 months from the engine build to the car build date. but a block cast date 3 months earlier is just too much.
looks like a project.. convertible with a luggage rack, but the dates don't line up.
run forrest run...
CF Community Team
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,330
Likes: 359
From: Delaware
St. Jude Donor '25
given the rarity of a '70 LS5 convertible 4 speed ( maybe around 1300), there is very high motivation to fake it.
go into the transaction skeptical. few '70 LS5's have their original engine as they were run hard and blown up early in their life.
look for condition of the car. the rarity of this car would warrant one to take a specialist along with you to inspect it.
that car is just a couple of days older than mine...
now for the bad news.. that car is in the c3 registry with a picture of the block casting date of dec 18, 1969. that block is too old. it should have been cast in early march 1970... do not pay original engine money for this car. there was a work stoppage in the spring of '70 which would explain the nearly 2 months from the engine build to the car build date. but a block cast date 3 months earlier is just too much.
looks like a project.. convertible with a luggage rack, but the dates don't line up.
run forrest run...
go into the transaction skeptical. few '70 LS5's have their original engine as they were run hard and blown up early in their life.
look for condition of the car. the rarity of this car would warrant one to take a specialist along with you to inspect it.
that car is just a couple of days older than mine...
now for the bad news.. that car is in the c3 registry with a picture of the block casting date of dec 18, 1969. that block is too old. it should have been cast in early march 1970... do not pay original engine money for this car. there was a work stoppage in the spring of '70 which would explain the nearly 2 months from the engine build to the car build date. but a block cast date 3 months earlier is just too much.
looks like a project.. convertible with a luggage rack, but the dates don't line up.
run forrest run...
I have a one owner, never been out of the car, needs a restoration 69 with a block cast the end of April of 69. Engine build date on the pad is 7/22 and build date for the car is 8/09. In this case, there was a strike in the Spring of 69...also, a change over to the 010 block.
Are you saying that there is no way this could be the correct block simply because of the 3 month cast date lag?
Having said all that, I have been following this post. My initial thought from looking at the pictures were the stampings appeared too crisp, deep, and new to me. My initial thought was restamp. I could change that if seen in person, maybe it's just the picture.
Safety Car
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,458
Likes: 331
From: Indy Indiana
the corvette ***** out here know exactly what the date spread should be for all cars given specific strikes, work stopages, inventory stockpiles, transportation woes, etc...
I can't begin to make absolute statements regarding what they know. But I do know that I would not pay original engine money for a car with a 5+ month old engine in it. it would just come back to bite me when I tried to sell to someone in the future with the same concerns. Johns example above of a 3 1/2 month old engine is easier to convince me, but not 5 months.
everybody looks at the stamps, and hardly anyone looks at the casting dates.
if one is paying original engine money for a car, he needs to look at many many things and not just the stamp. tach redline, sway bar thickness, spring rate, emission stickers, u joint caps, radiator support, the rest of the drive train, just to name a few.
not saying for sure it is not original, but I would not buy it on that premise.
but hey.. it is a 70 bb 4 speed convertible. I sold almost the same car 4 years ago in much worse shape ( rusted out basket case NOM) for 15K. people start to drool and their eyes glaze over when they see a BB convertible.
I can't begin to make absolute statements regarding what they know. But I do know that I would not pay original engine money for a car with a 5+ month old engine in it. it would just come back to bite me when I tried to sell to someone in the future with the same concerns. Johns example above of a 3 1/2 month old engine is easier to convince me, but not 5 months.
everybody looks at the stamps, and hardly anyone looks at the casting dates.
if one is paying original engine money for a car, he needs to look at many many things and not just the stamp. tach redline, sway bar thickness, spring rate, emission stickers, u joint caps, radiator support, the rest of the drive train, just to name a few.
not saying for sure it is not original, but I would not buy it on that premise.
but hey.. it is a 70 bb 4 speed convertible. I sold almost the same car 4 years ago in much worse shape ( rusted out basket case NOM) for 15K. people start to drool and their eyes glaze over when they see a BB convertible.
Last edited by joewill; Jan 27, 2012 at 03:51 PM.
Race Director
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,892
Likes: 42
Could you give me the names or email addresses of these so-called n*zis that know everything?
Thread Starter
Cruising
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
good catch
given the rarity of a '70 LS5 convertible 4 speed ( maybe around 1300), there is very high motivation to fake it.
go into the transaction skeptical. few '70 LS5's have their original engine as they were run hard and blown up early in their life.
look for condition of the car. the rarity of this car would warrant one to take a specialist along with you to inspect it.
that car is just a couple of days older than mine...
now for the bad news.. that car is in the c3 registry with a picture of the block casting date of dec 18, 1969. that block is too old. it should have been cast in early march 1970... do not pay original engine money for this car. there was a work stoppage in the spring of '70 which would explain the nearly 2 months from the engine build to the car build date. but a block cast date 3 months earlier is just too much.
looks like a project.. convertible with a luggage rack, but the dates don't line up.
run forrest run...
go into the transaction skeptical. few '70 LS5's have their original engine as they were run hard and blown up early in their life.
look for condition of the car. the rarity of this car would warrant one to take a specialist along with you to inspect it.
that car is just a couple of days older than mine...
now for the bad news.. that car is in the c3 registry with a picture of the block casting date of dec 18, 1969. that block is too old. it should have been cast in early march 1970... do not pay original engine money for this car. there was a work stoppage in the spring of '70 which would explain the nearly 2 months from the engine build to the car build date. but a block cast date 3 months earlier is just too much.
looks like a project.. convertible with a luggage rack, but the dates don't line up.
run forrest run...
Is there any chance this is the right motor for the car, or is there simply NO WAY a motor casted in mid-December is going to end up in a car built in May?
BTW, the car as gone through a full restoration since those pics were posted on the C3 registry. Asking price is $42k. I guess that would be a very good price for a newer than new 1970 LS5 convertible?
Team Owner
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 38,923
Likes: 1,482
From: Southbound
Cruise-In II Veteran
Yes.
Never say never. The December casting date and May build date still meet the NCRS six month rule.
I agree with Mike. There is enough here to have an expert look the car over prior to purchase.
...or is there simply NO WAY a motor casted in mid-December is going to end up in a car built in May?...
I agree with Mike. There is enough here to have an expert look the car over prior to purchase.