SCARA451

I recently purchased another Corvette, a 1971, 454 w/4speed and A/C. The vin # on the Protecto-Plate, window pillar, engine id pad, and trans all match. Body build date is E23 (DEC 23) Engine assembly date info: T1210 (DEC 10). carb, intake, dist. all correct and match time frame. Block Cast # 3963512 is correct. Here's the problem: Cast date
is J 31 9 (OCT 31 1969). The engine id pad, after very close observation does not seem to have been tampered with or restamped. QUESTION: Is it possible that after a 67 day strike starting on or about Sept. 17, 1970, GM ran short on engines and looked back for anything that was laying around to install in cars to fulfill all the orders,....or am I just reaching here. Car has low miles, has many original and correct dated parts and accessories, seems to be no hit, and was maintained very well. Thanks in advance for any help...Doug

dmayhew

I was not aware that the pad had a year indicated.

Maybe a big block is different from a 350

I have a 71 w/ 350

Block was cast August 14 70 H 14 0

Motor assembled August 19 pad reads V0819 no year indicated.

The car was assembled 1st working day of December. FActory closed on Sundays as I have been told by an old employee that worked there in 1971. Great Guy , works for Just Corvetts in St . Louis MO.

I can not recall his name , but usually answers the phone.


I told me recently that he drove one of the 1969 ZL-1's during its assembly. It was just another Corvette when he saw it.

Boy , if he only knew then what we all know now.


David

SCARA451

The pad does not have a stamped date, the cast date is at the opposite end of the block near where the trans bolts up.

SCARA451

The cast date is on the passenger side rear. If the cast date is J310 and not J319, then the block would without a doubt be correct for the car. But here's the thing , J310 translates to OCTOBER 31 1970...wasn't GM on strike then, if so, how could the block be cast ???

stingr69

Doug,
you left out the suffix. That is another part of the picture that would provide us with more info.

Long time between casting and engine assembly PLUS too long of a time from engine assembly to installation in the car. I have a problem with a block being cast and not assembled for well over a month. Where was it all that time? They did not just sit around in a warehouse waiting to be assembled. While it is not uncommon for an assembled engine to sit around a while, the blocks were generic until they were assembled and they do not have much time (a few days for travel time) between casting and final engine assembly. The blocks were cast and put on the engine build line very quickly. There was no place to store the raw blocks and the foundry was running all the time.

Wrong production year as well - the suffix would help here.

This is going to take a lot more investigation to figure out what this is. Probably will need to have someone look it over in person.

-Mark.

Patrick73

J310 vs. J319; It is very easy to misread casting numbers on blocks, intake manifolds, etc. It happens alot. Seems like there is always at least one number or letter that is difficult to read. I have mistaken 9's for 0's, B's for 8's, etc.

SCARA451

The engine suffix is CPH. the complete stamping reads: T1210CPH, and then of course followed by the correct vin #. I can understand having a hard time misreading a 0 for a 9, if it was a 0 that would make the cast date J31 0 (OCT .31 1970).....This is the problem..GM was on strike then, starting Sept 14 th. and lasting for 67 days..so who could have made the block ? This is why I was curious if they could have looked around for anything that was laying around to fulfill the orders

Ravine Speed

This is very interesting to me too. I have a 1969 with an L71 (car build date of September 1968) that doesn't have any VIN stamped on the engine pad at all, but the engine build date stamp shows a May engine build and the cast date shows May, but my inspector (a NCRS guy) said it was cast in May 1969 ("9" on cast date), and he assumed it was a "CE" warranty engine that the original buyer had replaced several months after he bought the car (although there is no "CE" anywhere on the pad). But in reading your question, the same mystery holds true; if mine was cast in May 1969, that would have been during the 1969 strike (it went from April 10-June 9, 1969) so my block could not have been cast in May of 1969. I need to take a good look at that block casting date, because it may be an "8", not a "9" and he just didn't look carefully enough. If it is an "8", it is likely that this is a very early 427/435 for 1969 model year (and perhaps the original engine) that just didn't get a VIN stamp on it, things like that happened.

If it truly is a "9" on my casting date, then I'm in the same boat as you, who the heck cast the block and built an engine in the middle of a strike?

17 4ever

it seems that there is a lot of question of when the strike occurred, does anyone know for certain? was the engine plant on strike at the same time?

Patrick73

As stated in the first posting, the strike was for only 67 days. It began on Sept. 14, 1970.

It was a strike or walkout by UAW workers only--It was a strike against GM only. The GM assembly plants in 16 states were the ones closed--the GM parts suppliers, steel workers and plants, all continued to work. Also, the UAW allowed 72,000 workers in 28 GM plants to continue to work and supply parts . However, numerous GM part suppliers had to temporarily lay off workers, or slow down their production, because the assembly lines were not producing cars.

17 4ever

why were there no cars produced in may of 69?

Ravine Speed

Patrick73--I was responding that I have the same issue as the first entry, but for the '69 strike vs. the '70 strike. My block cast date number indicates that it was cast on May 28, 1969 (E 28 9). This seems to me to be impossible because the '69 strike began on April 10 and lasted until June 9. This is a fact, as shown in several news articles from the period. Weren't the foundry workers also UAW members? They were in Towanda, they had to be GM/UAW workers, no?

And yes, 17 forever, there were no Corvettes produced during the strike of '69 (April 10-June 9, so none rolled off any line in May of '69). What we'd all like to know here is whether anyone knows if all workers were affected by the strikes or just the assembly folks. Basically, were the foundry workers still melting and pouring iron in May '69 despite the fact that GM was on strike. A very key question for anyone with a casting date which indicates their engine was made during a strike.

Wise former GM employees, you have to be out there, let us know!

Patrick73

"What we'd all like to know here is whether anyone knows if all workers were affected by the strikes or just the assembly folks. Basically, were the foundry workers still melting and pouring iron in May '69 despite the fact that GM was on strike?"

I think the answer is Yes.

I am not an authority on this subject, but all news articles indicate that it was only the GM assembly line workers that walked out in 1970. The UAW specfically ordered 28,000 workers at various GM subsiderary plants to continue to work becaause they also supplied parts for companies other than GM--and GM was whom the strike was against. Articles at the time specifically state that UAW steel workers remained on the job and continued to work during the 67 day strike in 1970. I will bet that the 1969 labor dispute was similar to the 1970 dispute; and that blocks were being produced in May 1969 by the foundry workers. I see no reason to believe that your casting date is not correct.

SCARA451

In regard to my original post, is it possible that a block with a cast date of J31 9, could have been in stock somewhere and was needed for assembly in an early '71 ?? As I stated, the engine id pad looks to be original and not tampered with or restamped, and if it was, someone did a very good job!! Also, if that "9" was a "0" making it J31 0 (October 31, 1970) , when did GM start using double digets to designate the cast year,..wasn't it 1970 ?

archtech

I've run across a similar situation as well on a 1971 LS5 Corvette, and have heard about others... Original matching numbers car... stamping on tranny and engine looked identical...broach marks, stamping style looked original, car had about 65k miles and looked it too. Build date of car was mid-August 1970, engine was correct casting number, correct stampings (vin and engine), but casting date was mid-december 1969. Kinda far apart for build of car and casting of block. I remember reading somewhere that the engines did pile up somewhere due to the strike which threw off some coorelation of dates...(was it first block in, first block out, or was it last block in, first block out? or was it just get the darn engine in so they could try to catch up on orders?) I think NCRS addressed it too with wider date gap allowance. When things started up, it must have been a mess...so who knows what happened back then. Considering the turmoil happening at GM during 1969 and 1970, (not to mention the war) considering the reasons for low production of 1970 vettes and the needs for a few of them to have 3963512 block with the late 1969 dates, I wouldnt be surprised if your block was original, so dont give up yet! Chrome valve covers were considered unoriginal for your car and lots of people threw them away, only to discover that early '71's actually came with them!

7T1vette

GM assembly plants were on strike then...but I'm not sure that the foundries were also out during the same time period. Someone with better info would have to speak to that. Have an "old" block in the system may not be so unusual. If the supply line from the foundries were interrupted, the engine plants would go looking for some 'old stock' in order to complete whatever build requirements they had. Not surprising that some 'lost' block castings may have been laying around somewhere in the bowels of a parts stacker.

bucharli

Is it possible that my 69, built on Dec 19 1969, could have had 70 parts in it? My entire wiper vacuum system is 70 parts.

Easy Mike

Asked and answered in your other post.