Yes grasshopper, you are learning, but you also see how complex the 'original engine' stuff can be.

 

Hi,
I was just trying to make a little joke.
Seems like a person would need to see the casting date and the stamp pad to make a determination at this point.
Seeing the 2 sets of Judging Sheets would give some insight into what 2 Mechanical Judges, and maybe a Team Leader, (in the event of a total deduct), thought about the engine block on 2 different days.
Regards,
Alan

 

I don't know how anybody can say the engine is original with absolute certainty unless they're the original owner. The term numbers matching is widely used to imply the engine is original. Restampers could say this and still be truthful.

With some NCRS judging sheets which seem to lend some credibility to this block being recycled, I wouldn't be so sure some buyer wouldn't accept this, pay the going price for an original engine. I'm not so sure they'll pay the price being asked, seems awfully high.

 

To be clear, there's no judging sheets on display. There's a scanned letter from Terry M. dated 1991 giving his opinion of what might explain things. This apparently predates any judging.

1991 was uhhhh, carry the two ummm, 12 years ago. many things can happen between then and now

 

12 years ago?

 

Yes, indeed it is so complex!!!!!!!!

In all seriousness I really liked Alan71's comment about how there are cars out there for sale that don't have all these excuses. That is what I want. No excuses!!!!!!!!!

 

Sure. It's July 2003 now, so minus twelve makes it 1991. Right?

 

2 to 6 weeks is typical for the gap between casting date and car build.. the engine should be cast, built, shipped to the plant to put in a car in the 2 to six weeks.. I usually see the engine build closer to the car build. a CZU stamped engine code engine should be shipped out quicker to the plant from the OPs example above.

 

Did you read the letter signed by Terry M?

 

Probably for a couple of reasons:

1. They are not the original owner and cannot be certain what was done to the car by previous caretakers

2. There are people who will file a lawsuit if they think something can be gained by doing so

How about the ad stating "believed to be original engine" and advising any and all prospective buyers to exercise their own due diligence in making such a determination? If the car does not speak for itself, as in having all the correct indicators, factory documentation and provenance, then the risk of being duped rises dramatically.

 

My understanding is that the labor dispute started in May of 1969 and the strike itself caused the 1969 Corvette production to be extended 4 months, thereby cutting the 1970 Corvette production short.

There were over 38,762 1969 Corvette's produced and 17,316 1970's produced.

There is information about a Fisher Body strike from September '69 to February '70, then another thing about GM Final Assembly Plant strike from September '70 to November '70.

As I said, it was my understanding that the particular impact to the Corvette was an extension of the 1969 model year.

Of course, I have a January 30th 1970 car, so that doesn't completely jive with the February 6, 1970 resolution at the Fisher Body plant.

It'd take more digging to get a better story. Just wanted to share the perspective in case it made this engine information more plausible.

 

Did Fisher Body have any involvement in production of the Corvette body, C3? It's been my impression all body assembly was done in St Louis, birdcage included. If this is true, I'd think a strike at Fisher Body wouldn't have much effect?

 

None.

 

Ahh.. ok now I see, thanks.. previously the OP stated may 8th build, but the letter ( using my limited skills of reading a blown up blurry letter ) states june 8th..
I rescind my double bogey statement..

thanks..

 

I've not heard of that one, but Fisher Body was over in the other building at St. Louis and assembled Impalas. Same union. Disputes at Fisher Body usually migrated to the Corvette Building.

I know about that one. It affected 1971 model year production.

BBCorv70: It is my understanding Corvette rally wheels were actually painted over at the Fisher Body building for at least part of C3 production and ferried over to the Corvette building. That was pretty much the extent of Fisher Body's involvement with Corvette.

 

You can read the NCRS letter clearly as follows: Pull up the dealer website. Scroll to picture 40. Click on the picture to fully display it. RIGHT click on the picture, then click on "zoom in".

 

Thanks, all other methods of enlarging the photo didn't work for me. Now I can read it.

It appears the author is saying the engine was fully assembled, assembly date and suffix stamped onto the block, then a defect was found? Out of curiousity, when were these defects found? Were the engines fired up prior to installation on a chassis or after? I see mention of a partial '6' appearing over the VIN derivative area suggesting the engine had been installed on a chassis, partial VIN stamped, before the defect was found. Strikes me as a bit late in the process to be testing the engine for the first time, imagine it would create headaches for the crew on the assembly line to have to remove the engine, install another. Anyone out there know what the process was? If an engine was deemed defective, would it be caught prior to installation on a chassis? Or were the defects not found until the car was fully assembled, started up for the first time?

 

Process has been discussed at length many times.

Bare engines were first fired using natural gas at the engine plant, just long enough to make sure there was oil pressure and to set timing. Engine was dressed, installed and fired on gasoline for the first time at the car assembly plant.

Terry M's theory is that something went wrong at the car assembly plant, the engine returned to Tonawanda for heavy repair and they took there own sweet time fixing it.

Not unheard of. I know an original owner of a '66 427/390 whose car has an almost identical history. NCRS Duntov and Bowtie award winner.

 

Meh. Don't know if it is helpful at all, but this is the type of statement I see over and over:

From a random Corvette web site: A UAW strike forced a two-month extension of 1969 production, which gave Chevy the time it needed to make the 1970 a better-built Corvette, and was doubtless a factor in 1969's record volume. But the strike also delayed the 1970s from reaching dealer showrooms until February, which pushed Corvette sales to its lowest point since 1962 -- a mere 17,316 units.

From "The Complete Book of Corvette": "...John DeLorean allowed the 1969 model year to run over into December after a strike had delayed production for two months earlier in the year. This extension in turn then took a bite out of the [1970] model run..."

From Wikipedia: "...longer model year extended to December, 1969 due to delay in introduction of 1970 model..."

It seems there was some type of strike...Fisher or otherwise...involving the UAW that heavily impacted retooling for approximately 2 months. Interesting that the actual production numbers were strong...we're just talking about a delay in the 1970 release because of production line changes. Apparently the 1970 changes (fender flares and other things) were generally delayed those 2 month, so Mr. DeLorean just continued to build "1969" cars until everything was set for the 1970 release. This delay may have been UNIQUE to the Corvette since it has numerous very distinctive changes for the model year.

Not trying to dig at anything, promise. Mr. Ward rocks. Just wanted to correct a slightly erroneous statement made previously and to, perhaps, take 2 months out of the apparent 10 months of 'vacuum' that is represented in the engine-to-car production dates.

If you combine that with the thought of some unfortunate set of circumstances that forced re-work of the engine after it was forged but before it was stamped, you could start to talk yourself into it being legit.

And this is the exact type of story that Mr. BBCorv70 and Mr. Ward continues to ponder. I'd buy it, if someone told it to me with enough certainty.

 

New engines could fail at the engine assembly plant. If so, they were not shipped. At some point at the engine assembly plant, the dead ones were disassembled and all useable parts were recycled.

Engines which tested fine at the engine facility and which were shipped to St. Louis could fail at start up time on the assembly line. When this occurred, the dead one was pulled and another taken out of existing stock on hand at St. Louis. If the dead engine could not be repaired at St. Louis (Heavy Repair section), they were collected and eventually sent back to the engine plants.

A third scenario is also possible. The new engine tested fine at the engine plant, ran fine on the assembly line, ran fine for a while after being delivered to the new owner, then died. Warranty replacement (CE blocks).

See if you can scare up the Corvette Enthusiast magazine archives. John Hinckly did a couple of articles for them concerning small block manufacturing at Flint. Good reading.