fastimes

Sorry guys, I know there are many posts regarding this, but it's still not clear to me what these codes represent.
Anybody willing to take a stab at my engine stamp and translate what it refers to?
Thanks (and sorry). I'll get it eventually.

derekderek

72 or 76 200 or 180 hp 350. this is the problem with numbers matching cars from this era. It means it's the same sorry *** low po motor it left the factory with.

Easy Mike

V Flint (Michigan) engine assembly plant. All Corvette small blocks were assembled at Flint.
10 October
12 12th day
CKW engine ID suffix code

The second stamp on the pad will be the VIN derivative of the vehicle the engine was installed in.

cv67

x2 I for one sure wouldnt complain if one was freshened up or upgraded. Hate to say but my 73 was the slowest V8 car Ive ever owned.
What puzzles me is if a seller rebuilt it and restamped it how does that make the car worth any less, its the same engine.
Someone posted vid/pics of his rebuild to verify it was the original and was told his car lost value. What a crock of chit. lol

At least he did the build right and decked it

fastimes

Thank you guys!
Yes 1972, original 200hp motor. 56k miles and runs like a top.

BKarol

Glad it runs great

http://www.nastyz28.com/chevy-engine-code-stampings.php

I like this site when looking at engine stamp pads since it lists all cars with that stamp suffix and not just corvettes. Like Mike advised, check the other numbers on the pad for your partial vin # to determine if that block came with the car.

Greg

fastimes,
Sounds like a great car
Don't let anyone be too quick to condemn that base engine horsepower for 1972. A much over-looked aspect regarding the horsepower decrease of this era engine was mainly due to the measuring criteria GM switched to in 1972. Prior to '72 GM (and most other manufacturers) measured "Gross Horsepower" with a pretty much bare engine, no air cleaner to restrict air flow, open, free flowing exhaust, and no accessories bolted to the front of the engine. So it wasn't too difficult to come up with desirable and huge horsepower numbers.
Things change and with the EPA pushing for better quality air controls, insurance agencies screaming over these high horsepower cars and the gas shortage just around the corner a big change to muscle cars was on the horizon.
While 1970 was Corvette's big year for small block HP with the LT-1 listed at 370 with 10.0:1 compression. 1971's LT-1 was a de-tuned version of this with the corresponding drop in HP and a 9.0:1 compression ratio. That said the '71 and '72 small blocks were virtually the same beast. Both base engines had the same comp. ratio at 8.5:1 as did both LT-1's at 9.0:1 They just changed the measuring stick from Gross Horsepower to Net Horsepower. In other words when measured now, the engines included air cleaner, exhaust and a full compliment of accessories bolted to the front of the engine. So instead of the base small block listed at 270 it now read 200. Insurance companies were happy. One hurdle jumped.
A few more years and the HP numbers dropped more, open chamber heads were also a big part of this. But jumping all the way up to 1976 and the 180 base HP engine, it still had 8.5:1 comp. ratio on the base engine and 9.0:1 comp. ratio on the L-82.
A lot of it was just semantics but it worked and holds true even today. As a rule of thumb you can figure the difference between Net HP and Gross HP to be roughly 15% to 25%.
Rather than re-type some good info I have borrowed the following from my Corvette brother SJW over on the C4 forum to re-post here:

A recent edition of Corvette Magazine carried a piece by Karl Ludvigsen in which he listed GM-published HP specs for 1971 Corvette engines in both Gross and Net ratings. I've never seen both numbers published anywhere before for the same engine. Here they are:

1971 Base 350 Corvette engine: Gross = 270HP. Net = 210HP.

1971 LT-1 Corvette engine: Gross = 330HP. Net = 270HP.

1971 LS-5 Corvette engine: Gross = 365HP. Net = 285HP.

1971 LS-6 Corvette engine: Gross = 425HP. Net = 325HP.

There can be no hard and fast rule of thumb about gross vs net output ratings, because there are too many variables involved, but the above numbers suggest that, for engines of that era (early 1970s), Net HP might typically be guessed to be somewhere in the range of 75% to 85% of Gross HP. If you presume that Net HP is approximately 80% (plus or minus a few %) of Gross HP, you'll probably be reasonably close.

This is very good info (thanks again SJW) and if you use this equation on your base 200 HP 1972 350, you'll see that it closely matches the 1971 base engine at 270 HP. I suppose one could loosely use this this info to extrapolate into the very low HP listed years of 1975 & 1976 at 165 HP & 180 HP respectively. While Net horsepower really is a more realistic measurement of true horsepower if one could add 15% to 25% to those numbers (from Net to Gross) that '76 base 180 would read as anywhere from 212 HP to 240 HP. Yes, it's just a numbers game and while the engines of the mid to late 70's are much decreased in performance, if one used the Gross numbers instead of Net, they just wouldn't sound quite so lame.
Best, Greg

fastimes

Thanks Greg, I appreciate you taking the time to explain this.
I'll admit 270 hp does sound better than 200. Honestly, the car is new to me, totally stock and compared to my daily driver (Jeep Wrangler) has enough power to make it an enjoyable pleasure vehicle. The exhaust note sounds great and running through the 4-speed is a blast. I'm a happy camper.