CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => Decoding/Numbers => Topic started by: Z71 on February 11, 2007, 12:50:17 PM
-
I was talking with a guy I have known since the 1970's, he was just starting parts when I ordered my 1970 SS 454. Today he is the dept mgr and part owner in the full line dealership. We were discussing old parts and things and I asked him what he recalled about CE coded engines. He seems to think they warranty engines and not really the same as what they would have sold over the counter. He does not recall selling a lot of crate engines as most all engine problems could be solved with a short block, be it a local rebuild that was cheaper or thru GM parts. He says he recalls junking a few old engines back in the 80's when the shop changed hands. The parts that were too old to send back to GM for credit, were thrown out. He recalls one of his guys looking for codes to id the engines but never found anything. Since they had little time to clean shop, it went to the junk dealer as salvage. I know, it was a shame but their jobs were more important that stealing old parts at the time. If he had it to do over, he would have offered to buy the stuff but with the boss looking over thier shoulders, they had to toss it in the dumpster.
So, JohnZ or ?, are CE code engines strictly warranty or not? Or were they sold to anyone who came in and said, I want a complete 396 engine?
-
The "CE" coding was invented in 1969 for short blocks that were replacements under the 5/50 Powertrain Warranty program that was in effect from 1967-1970, so the finance guys could segregate those replacements from the normal out-of-warranty and over-the-counter replacement engines, so they could determine the true cost of the 5/50 program. Generally speaking, out-of-warranty replacement and over-the-counter short blocks (called "partial engines" in those days) had blank pads, and only complete engines had stamped pads.
When the liability for replacement of 5/50 warranty engines expired in 1975, I'm sure there were a lot of "CE" short blocks in inventory, and those went into the parts system as out-of-warranty and over-the-counter short blocks. "CE" blocks were only available as short blocks (block, crank, rods, pistons) or as "fitted blocks" (block with ringed pistons fitted, no crank or rods).
-
Thank you JohnZ, that clears it up for me.
-
The CE designation came into affect in 1968 because of a federal edict. They wanted a way to identify replacement engines. CE engines were "partial" engines not complete in most cases, they would replace the block and keep all the other parts from the same engines. In SOME cases if the engine was being replaced under warrentee they would put in an identical engine from the next model year, keep word here is IDENTICAL, I know I had a 1966 Corvette engine replaced in 1967 with a "complete". This is within 15 miles of the Tonawanda engine plant, took a month.
The CE stood for Chevrolet Engine, a Pontiac would be PE and so on. This pertained to service engines, partial engines, fitted engines and transmissions. The CE code was read:
C= Chevrolet
E= Engine
Next number= calender year
Numbers after that were a serial number assigned to each engine plant
This was done beginning with 1968 to fulfil "legal" requirements. I believe that was to satisfy governmental requires to identify parts found on cars that weren't original, in any event it was what it was.
This comes directly from Inter Office memo's sent to all plants involed, in this case Tonawanda.
PS: Don't ask, no records were kept as to what each serial number went to, I searched all over when I was doing historical work at the Tonawanda plant in the late 80's, nada.
-
The CE designation came into affect in 1968 because of a federal edict.
There was no Federal edict that required creating the "CE" designation; the "CE" program was begun as I posted above, by the Corporate Finance people, to be able to segregate the true cost of the financially-disastrous 5/50 powertrain warranty program, which was generating costs FAR beyond the projections made when the program was approved.
-
Your wrong, it was put into place for "legal reasons". It wasn't just Chevrolet it was across the board, all GM brands. And it didn't just cover engines, it covered transmissions too. Exactly :
"The attached letter from F.J. Welsh outlines the basic requirements to be fullfilled by the source plants supplying engines or transmissions assemblies and/or components for serive which must be identified to comply with legal requirements". End quote.
From J. Semenik to various at engine plants dated August 3rd, 1967
Specifically :
" This has reference to placing identification numbers on passenger 1968 and later model replacement engines, partial engines, fitted cylinder cases, transmission assemblies and transmission cases to comply with State of Georgia law which becomes effective with the start of the 1968 model year'.
this was an inter office memo from F.J. Welsh, Central Office to Mr. J. Semenik, Engineering Center dated August 1st, 1968
I don't know where you got your information, mine comes from inter-office memo's between Chevrolet engineering and the Tonawanda engine plant. I don't think I'm right, I know I'm right according to the paperwork I have in my hands. And I only wrote a small portion of what these memo's say. I said it was federal, I rememered it was a law, forgot it was State of georgia. I believe this was required by other states if not the feds further down the road.
Of course because they HAD to do it, and keep records those records could also have been used for other purposes. But the identifying code went on everything, not just warrentee parts.
[Underlining fixed by Kurt]
-
I only meant to underline "passenger 1968 and later model" but screwed it up.
-
I'm a little lost, are you saying CE blocks started in August of 1968 which would have been the start of the 1969 production year or are you saying the CE was started in August of 1967 which would have been the start of the 1968 production year? I have been tracking Tonawanda CE's for awhile and have yet to find a CE sequence # on a block cast prior to August of 1968 with a year designation in the sequence prior to "9" for the 1969 production year. This is not to say that the model year of the vehicle the CE was ordered for could not have been a 67 or 68. This is the earlyist CE I've been able to document so far.
CE950332 on a 440 block dated G98 with the Tonawanda sequence starting at 50000 making this the 332nd CE block of the 69 production year. This block also carries the assembly code at the starter flange of T088 that I believe is month/year decoding as August 1968. Even though this block carries the "9" year digit I believe this designates the "production year" currently active not the "model year" of the vehicle receiving the CE warranty component. In short this block was very likely for a 1967 or 1968 vehicle and not a very early 1969 vehicle that went sour.
-
BIGBLK:
I think you need to post the whole memo so we can see exactly what it stated. Saying it was a Federal Law but opening sentences of the memo referencesthe State of Georgia are two entirely different issues. There has to be some reason in the memo for why the state of Georgia was requesting this.
dab67
Dave
-
I remember this GA state law. It's shown up in some other docs, IIRC. Seems like there was some efforts to comply with it, but it didn't go far.
It's hard to draw conclusions without seeing the context of those quotes.
Unfortunately, I don't think Fran has the capabilities of scanning documents and I don't live near enough to help. :)
-
Could they be faxed to you Kurt?
-
I said I was mistaken when I refered to it being a federal law, it was a Georgia law that GM said they had to comply with. I also may have said 68 as the date of the memo's but it was August of 1967 FOR the start of the 1968 MODEL year. Yes there were a sequence of numbers for after that year number like you say. In another post I gave how it would look, or was supposed to look according to their instructions:
CE850388. The first number after the "E" is always the date of the year.
I would guess GM put this system in place for Georgia figuring other states or the feds would require the same thing. satisfy Georgia and any others would be taken care of too (Use the same system).
-
Fran was able to scan the docs to me (Yeah!) and here they are. I linked them since I left them a little large to be clearly legible.
http://www.camaros.org/kurt/68_letter_CE_engines.jpg
http://www.camaros.org/kurt/68_letter_CE_engines_ton.jpg
Thank you for sharing these docs with us Fran!
And I don't think any other government ever required this, hence why it faded away and the traceability between the CE engine and VIN was not maintained (or if it was, it wasn't a priority).
-
Nice job Kurt!!!!!!!!
Great info Fran!!!!!!!
I agree, it does not appear this was a mandated law. Georgia law was simply stating ( my opinion) a automotive company and maybe other companies also, could not duplicate the original serial number assigned to engines, transmissions etc on replacement parts.
At first, I thought maybe this may have had something to do with the "Lemon Laws" states adapted in the early 60's. Was it GM's way of keeping track of costs for replacement parts? I would think it was part of the reason for doing this.
dab67
Dave
-
thanks for posting the letters. I am one of the nuts who like reading this stuff.
It looks like the Georgia law was made to "prohibit duplicating serial numbers"
I could be wrong but this law could have been made to prevent the stamping of a blank pad of a replacement engine with engine codes and vin serial numbers.
I heard from some machanics who said they would at one time stamp replacement engines at the dealership.
The Georgia complaint may have led GM to use the CExxxx code stamped at the plant so this number can be used in the warentee info instead of having a blank pad where someone can stamp a duplicate number?
GM must have seen this as a problem that the other states would complain about in addition to Georgia law.
-
I take the GA law to mean that you couldn't have 20 service engines all stamped T1010EE, they had to be uniquely stamped. And that unique # was then traceable to being installed in xxx VIN car.
Don't quote out of context; "prohibit duplicating serial numbers of like components" is different than "prohibit duplicating serial numbers". :)
Federal law already made sure that all factory engines were uniquely stamped - with the VIN. This was only for service
-
Thanks so much for sharing the docs Fran! It really spells out the "why" and "how" of the warranty component program. I'll continue to search out an example of a 68 CE, according to this they must be out there. It also seems to answer the question why the Con VIN was not used on the component at the manufacturing facility. I wonder if the replacement components prior to this system might have been VIN stamped in some fashion prompting the Georgia action? All in all I feel the CE replacement needs to be better understood as it is part of the "program" like it or not. Nearly 2% of manufacturing product was effected by the program and common sense would dictate that certain performance combinations would be more prone to claims than that of simple transportation type drivetrain GM products. I dont know how well this undeniable fact of GM history is reflected in the post modern restoration "idealism" of our hobby? Most likely not well considering the proliferation of CE blocks on the secondary market when compared directly to the production allocations documented in the warranty program.
-
OK did I miss something in these threads? Could you purchase a CE block, partial block or whatevr over the counter if you blew up your engine racing you neighbor to the corner A&W? Or where they strictly for failed engines within the 5/50K program.
Dave
-
I Emailed the memo to Kurt so thank him for posting it. I have nothing else that adds to the subject only reinforces what what you read said.
1) Yes ALL engines had the CE stamping, even and especially over the counter sales. CE engines weren't limited to warrentee claims. Thus don't use THAT as the reason for stamping the engines, it wasn't. It was a way for the police to check a car for a STOLEN engines, as in "where did yiou get that engine". To separate WHERE the engine was built (in the case of V8's) they had 3 series of numbers for Flint, Flint V8 and Tonawanda. Each plant kept records so the corporation could go back and check what the number sequence went back to.
2) ccargo: you get an extra 20 points, you hit the nail EXACTLY on the head!. All of you who are "overthinking" this re-read ccargo's post. Back "in the day" most of the buyers of muscle caras didn't know SQUAT, and many beat the shi* out of the car blowing motors up left and right. And don't think GM covered EVERY busted motor!, they didn't. They replaced MY Corvette motor, because they were having problems with cracked pistons, but when I brought back the transmission a month later the Zone man said "who are you kidding?". No matter, not under warrentee many guys just bought a short block and had someone do an R&R. Which also means don't think for a MINUTE that MOST guys buying a muscle car knew where the spark plugs were!.
One last point, if you were driving a Corvette in the 60's you either had it stolen, or were GOING to have it stolen!. I told this to the NCRS, and told them to double and triple check any car that claimed to have the "original" motor. Anyway, ccargo got it right
And as far as I know the VIN number wasn't re-stamped on any motors. To even attempt that would require a gang stamp holder and the correct size stamps. If someone tells you they did they're most probably a lier. The required stamp sizes for "CE" engines were from .125 - .250, so 1/8th, 3/16ths or 1/4".
Make this note :
"In addition to these service only assemblies, any current production passenger engine assemblies that are ordered by the Parts and Accessories Department for service usage must have a service identification number".
I'm going to jump to a conclusion here. If they ordered an engine for a specific application, say an L-34 350hp/396 engine for a 1968 Camaro it would be stamped "T0309XX" and ALSO a "CEx50001" (with X being the year it was ordered in). That's a lot to stamp on that small pad. But that's what the instructions say they have to do to COMPLETE engine assemblies (as opposed to partial assemblies or universels).
There, that's the CE story from start to finish. Don't try and read more into it. General Motors required all service engines, sub assemblies and transmissions be stamped starting with the 1968 model year. And any records that were made at Tonawanda are long gone, I know, I searched all over for them.
-
Just a couple interesting notes I'll add in conclusion. I've found that the CE assembly stamp on both Flint and Tonawanda blocks seems to be located at the starter flange and carries a plant/month/year code without the suffix code included (only when applicable of course) :( On my May of 69 L34 CE I discovered it was assembled with a forged steel crank instead of the nod cast iron. It would seem to indicate that the manufacturer knew "Houston we have a problem". I know the CE is kind of a bastard topic but I'll try and keep updates on the interesting aspects as I come across them for those who care :)
Sincerely
Jepedo
-
I'm going to jump to a conclusion here. If they ordered an engine for a specific application, say an L-34 350hp/396 engine for a 1968 Camaro it would be stamped "T0309XX" and ALSO a "CEx50001" (with X being the year it was ordered in). That's a lot to stamp on that small pad. But that's what the instructions say they have to do to COMPLETE engine assemblies (as opposed to partial assemblies or universels).
"CE" blocks only had the "CEXXXXXX" stamp on the pad - there was no typical plant/date/suffix stamp on the pad. The only stamping was the "CE", year produced digit, and the sequence number assigned in blocks of 20,000 to the Flint Motor L-6 plant, and in blocks of 30,000 each to Flint V-8 and Tonawanda. The "CE" stamping program didn't start at Chevrolet until mid-April, 1969, and the stamping format frequently deviated from the published format as the plants decided to revise it for their own reasons later in 1969.
-
I agree those letters are interesting but who is to say they followed that procedure to the letter and did not adopt some modification in the future. Not arguing about it I know where I worked for over 30 yrs (M-DOT) nothing stayed the same for very long. A new manager/supervisor takes over and things changed.
-
Z71 :Good for you, but at General Motors if the higher ups said "do this" they did this, and they did it the way they were TOLD to do it. And no, they didn't start this in 1969, they started it in the fall of 1967 of 1967 for the start of the 1968 model year. And I THOUGHT I quoted EXACTLY what they were TOLD to do as far as complet CURRENT year engines were concerned. To say when a "new manager takes over" and applying to to GM is plain stupid.
John Z : I'm not saying you don't know what your talking about, but you don't. The serial sequence was:
1) Flint Motor Plant 00001 - 19999
2) Flint V8 Engine plant 20000 - 49999
3) Tonawanda Motor plant 50000 - 69999
Now this is from a memo that states "unless advised to the contrary, we will prresume these arrangements are satisfactory and you will proceed accordingly" (signed)
FACILITIES & PRODUCTION PLANNING DEPARTMENT
J.K. Cummingham
Supervisor Planning section
CC: (20 names) and all Assembly Plant Managers
Now in none of the memos I have pertaining to this does it say "plant managers can do something else if they want", and if the memo came down to the plant floor and a supervisor said "this is bullshit" he wouldn't be a supervisor very long. Tell a supervisor to tell a plant manager NO!, and see what the supervisor says. Now wherever the hell it is you work maybe you can go against what a higher up says, try it at a GM plant and they'll hand you your ass on a platter, trust me on this.
I have a series of Inter-Organization Letters between the Central Office and the Engineering Center dated August 1st, August 3rd and August 14th 1967 which cover EXPLICITLY why and how the assembly plants are to proceed with the "CE" identification system. But hey, what do I know, I only worked at a plant that did it.
I don't know where someone got the idea that this system was put in place to track warrentee claims when they went to the 5/50,000 warrentee. That is actually completely ridiculous, it's so not right that makes me laugh. Chevrolet had a dozen different ways to track warrentee claims. The ONLY reason to stamp CE on an engine was to watch for parts departments and/or dealers trying to pull a fast one and do a warrentee claim to get a free engine. This was of course fraud and the company could go after the dealership. Example, ABC Chevrolet puts in a claim for a replacement engine under warrentee. Somehow they bypass the Zone Field Representitive whose SUPPOSED to look at every major claim. At some point the Zone man DOES look at the car, talks to the owner, looks at the stamp pad and either sees or doesn't see the CE code on the pad. That's all hypothetical, and for the most part bullshit, but many is the time they "totaled" an engine, replaced it under warrentee then amazingly the engine fixed itself. Parts departments did "warrentee jobs", or so I'm told. But if they got caught?. Hey, do you think Chevrolet and thier zone rep's were STUPID?. Trust me, dummies didn't get those jobs!. And they didn't do complete or partial engines with out someone USUALLY double checking.
Anyway, to say the CE program went into effect to track warrentee claims is wrong, 90% of all CE engines or engine sub assemblies went other places, parts departments, customer sales, a 1/2 dozen or more places.
As far as the forged crank is concerned it didn't anything to do with "Houston we have a problem". The partial engine assembly serviced 1967-68 L-34 engines (3930854) and they changed from forged to cast cranks at some point in the 1967 model year. So, because this is how Chevrolet worked, they could and did UPGRADE a component, in this case a forged crank was better than a cast crank, they simply made all service engines that serviced both 67 and 68 the same, with forged cranks. That way if your 1968 came with a cast crank and they replaced it with a forged one YOU WIN!. If your 1967 came with a forged crank you got a forged crank YOU DON'T LOSE!. In any event, if they ran out of a part on the line they could use the same part if it was BETTER (any part) but they couldn't substitute a lesser quality part, EVER!. Anyway, the number of partial engines was so small Chevy didn't care.
PS If you think they didn't implement this program until April 1969 clue me/us in what they did from September 1967 until then?. Or did they just not follow orders?.
-
Thank you for the insults.
-
to bigblknmbrs:
I'm very curious. What is your background in the automotive world?
-
I have a NOS J207 dated, CE859944 coded short block assembly in my 1967 Z28. Came with a forged tuftrided crank, forged pistons and stage 3 small journal rods. Its a 657 block, with a small journal crank.
-
If GM didn't abide by the Georgia State Law in 1968 they at least planned to. I picked up a 1968 Chevrolet dealer service bulletin binder a couple of years ago, and one of the service bulletins dated Sept. 25, 1967 describes the Georgia State Law. Briefly it states, "the Georgia State Law also requires that all engine and transmission assemblies*, including replacement parts, to be numbered after the start of the 1968 model run."
" *This numbering system applies to service engine assemblies, partial engines, fitted cylinder cases, cylinder cases, transmission assemblies and transmission cases." Hope this helps, RonM.
-
i worked at a chevy dealership back in 72 and they used to have a big o'le sledge hammer at the back of the shop to break the blocks and other items while the chevy rep watched. no chance to reuse them. we had a big pile of blocks for sure...some heads and trans cases also.
-
Fran,
Please eliminate the insults from your posts. We welcome your knowledge and information here, but just because everyone doesn't immediately agree does not mean we need a war of words.
This is a discussion board that holds itself to a higher standard. Stick to the facts and you will make you point much more effectively.
I have never seen a CE stamp and a production stamp (T1012xx) on the same block, but that's not to say it couldn't happen on a service block.
I've seen several CE8xxxx blocks, confiming it was implemented for 68 model year.
But, the data shows that they modified the CE stamp procedure.
Examples:
CE blocks have CE9B46015, CE0A965 0 9, and CE72 502 stamped on them. Those do not follow the procedure that is outlined.
Here's a pic of that last stamp: http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b217/RamAirDave/YellowRSZ/100_3247.jpg
-
Make this note :
"In addition to these service only assemblies, any current production passenger engine assemblies that are ordered by the Parts and Accessories Department for service usage must have a service identification number".
I'm going to jump to a conclusion here. If they ordered an engine for a specific application, say an L-34 350hp/396 engine for a 1968 Camaro it would be stamped "T0309XX" and ALSO a "CEx50001" (with X being the year it was ordered in). That's a lot to stamp on that small pad. But that's what the instructions say they have to do to COMPLETE engine assemblies (as opposed to partial assemblies or universels).
After doing some more research and talking to Al Grenning (Corvette engine guru), I believe that complete engine assemblies that were used for service were only stamped with the CE code. Fran's supposition had a solid premise, but no CE blocks have ever been found that have an engine assembly stamp on them, either in a Camaro, Corvette, or out of a car.
Which means the engine plant would have known that those assemblies were destined for service and did not stamp an assembly code on them.
That also means there's no easy way to distinguish between a CE short block and a CE engine assembly. Heads and other components would be dated for the block, if those components are still on the block.
Fran,
Are the totals for engine production by engine assembly part # or by application code? Do any of the sheets indicate where the assemblies were destined (i.e. assembly plant or service)?
Thanks!
-
That also means there's no easy way to distinguish between a CE short block and a CE engine assembly. Heads and other components would be dated for the block, if those components are still on the block.
Not sure if it matters much, but the odd "CEN" stamped engine above had 492 angle plug heads on it, dated E 23 3. Also had roller rocker arms (not roller cam), so who knows when the heads were installed, whether it be at the "possible" exchange time or later on down the road. I have no idea if it would have been possible for them to use the later heads on one.
Everything inside was correct. 010 4bolt block, 302 crank, forged rods, pop-up pistons. The timing cover, HB, intake, pulleys, alt, dist are #'d and/or dated correct for the car. Aside from the peculiar stamp, all signs point to it being a CE.
-
Pat (ccargo) & Kurt -
I don't know if this helps with your research, but there is a CE warranty engine ('69 302) listed on Ebay now.
Engine pad is stamped: CE9A321
Starter flange is stamped: 01 9 V
Block casting number: 3956618
Block casting date: A 20 9
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-Camaro-DZ-Warranty-CE-engine-Jan-28-1969_W0QQitemZ200111818120QQihZ010QQcategoryZ140682QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Paul
-
Any ideas as to why the 33 on the end of the pad stamping is so out of place on the E-Bay CE block referred to by Paul?
Pat
-
Mine's like that too on my CE engine, only it's a 22.
-
Probably because they only incremented the main gang stamp every 100 parts. The last 2 digits were then added by hand.
-
Pat (ccargo) & Kurt -
I don't know if this helps with your research, but there is a CE warranty engine ('69 302) listed on Ebay now.
Engine pad is stamped: CE9A321
Starter flange is stamped: 01 9 V
Block casting number: 3956618
Block casting date: A 20 9
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-Camaro-DZ-Warranty-CE-engine-Jan-28-1969_W0QQitemZ200111818120QQihZ010QQcategoryZ140682QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Paul
The above engine was sold on 5-23-07. :)
Sale price: $2950.00
Engine pad is stamped: CE9A32133 (revised)
Seller id: tyrfryrtom
Seller location: Lexington, SC
Buyer id: ??? (kept private)
Paul
-
thanks to Fran and all for sharing the info... it is still a good read.
I have a CE 87xxxx block at the shop now. It has T078 by the starter flange bottom part of the block. From what I have been seeing on the CE blocks it appears that the first number, the year the engine was replaced or assembled in this case, as stated, is 8 for 1968 and I suspect the next number was a month code. I have no proof of this other than looking at a hundred or more CE blocks. I also think the stamp numbers on the starter flange would be T = Tonawanda plant, 07= July and 8 = 1968 matching the pad CE stamp. There are also inspector stamps on the block too.
If I understand this correctly, the year number, CE87xxxx in this case, does not represent the cars model year but rather the manufacturing year aka production year when the CE block/engine was replaced and or assembled. In ccargo's example CE950332 on a 440 block dated G98 casting date Aug.09, 1968 for 1969 production got stamp T0808, again assembled Aug 1968 at Tonawanda and I agree was likely for a 67 or 68 car. but I think was replaced in May 1989. Also with Kurt's examples:
CE9B46015, CE9 = 1969, B= Feb and
CE0A965 0 9, CE0 = 1970 A = Jan
CEN72 502 = CE72 = either 1977, Feb or 1972 without a month,... Could the N be a engine code or for Norwood Camaro???
I might be completely wrong here but I hope my 2 cents of research helps. I also suspect that the block casting number would be the block number you had until they ran out and then would be upgraded to the next better block but this is shear speculation. Can anyone confirm any of this? Thanks everyone, GI Joe
-
The A and B are either because they run thru the #'s and started a new series or it indicates the type of block (fitted, short block, etc).
Remember they were just building spare parts. They didn't care what car it went in, when it got used, or what block it replaced.
Kurt
-
Thanks Kurt...
I just found a BB CE06870 3 with a starter flan stamp of T099 ...it appears GM waited to issue/assemble the block in June of 70, i.e. if my speculation is correct...
-
Those stamps would occur within minutes of each other on the assembly line, so it would appear that's now how to decode it.
This is a hard topic to research cause the only real known is the casting date. Application and assembly date are unknowns.
-
I have a NOS J207 dated, CE859944 coded short block assembly in my 1967 Z28. Came with a forged tuftrided crank, forged pistons and stage 3 small journal rods. Its a 657 block, with a small journal crank.
I Noticed the number stamped on this 657 block and it appears to be from Tonawanda?
-
I have a NOS J207 dated, CE859944 coded short block assembly in my 1967 Z28. Came with a forged tuftrided crank, forged pistons and stage 3 small journal rods. Its a 657 block, with a small journal crank.
I Noticed the number stamped on this 657 block and it appears to be from Tonawanda?
That is correct. CE8 means it was a 1968 model year assembly and the rest of the number (59944) falls in the assigned number range for Tonawanda engines. Seems odd to me that a 302 would have been done there. I wonder if it may have been assembled from parts outside of the engine plant?
Just FYI. I have been collecting CE blocks (mostly 396 and 427/454) and pics of the stamps for a while. The earliest I own is a CE8xxxxxx (I can't remember the exact number at the moment) that was assembled in either September or October of 1967.
-
I just found a BB CE06870 3 with a starter flan stamp of T099 ...it appears GM waited to issue/assemble the block in June of 70, i.e. if my speculation is correct...
The correct decode on this engine is that it is a CE engine from the 1970 model year (CE0).
The T099 by the starter area means it was machined and sent out of assembly plant in the 9th month of 1969 (September of 1969 - so this is part of the 1970 model year).
-
Thought only 302s came from Flint?
-
I *think* you meant that '.. 302's ONLY come from Flint'... but Flint did build other engines than 302's.. :)
PS. I suspect the engine discussed (a *supposed* 302 CE engine built in Tonawanda) was NOT really assembled in Tonawanda 'as a 302', but instead someone found a compatible CE block (ie. a 327 ?) from Tonawanda and *built* the 302 from it for their Z28... (purely speculation, but it's the only way I can think of for the facts to be as presented)...
-
I *think* you meant that '.. 302's ONLY come from Flint'... but Flint did build other engines than 302's.. :)
PS. I suspect the engine discussed (a *supposed* 302 CE engine built in Tonawanda) was NOT really assembled in Tonawanda 'as a 302', but instead someone found a compatible CE block (ie. a 327 ?) from Tonawanda and *built* the 302 from it for their Z28... (purely speculation, but it's the only way I can think of for the facts to be as presented)...
Yep.
-
Exactly what I said and meant that 302s came from Flint.......simply wondering how a supposed NOS CE302 with the correct parts has a Tonawanda number and you have a good theory as to why! If someone bought just the block over the counter to build could it have come from Tonawanda? Thanks..........
-
This is a really confusing issue. I have a 2657 casting with a CE stamped pad. The # is CE823512 Nothing else stamped on the pad. I bought it to put in my 1967 4P car. It has the forged crank and popup pistons, but I haven't really done anything with it yet. Any thoughts on what it might be.
-
Exactly what I said and meant that 302s came from Flint.......simply wondering how a supposed NOS CE302 with the correct parts has a Tonawanda number and you have a good theory as to why! If someone bought just the block over the counter to build could it have come from Tonawanda? Thanks..........
Easy now. Your wording was a bit confusing, at least to me. 302s were only produced at Flint, but Flint did produce other engines.
And the answer to your question, I believe is "YES".
-
This is a really confusing issue. I have a 2657 casting with a CE stamped pad. The # is CE823512 Nothing else stamped on the pad. I bought it to put in my 1967 4P car. It has the forged crank and popup pistons, but I haven't really done anything with it yet. Any thoughts on what it might be.
No way to tell for sure what it is or was just based on the CE number. Does it have forged 302 crankshaft and forged 302 GM pistons?
-
I'll try to do some more research looking for crank casting and piston stamps this weekend. If i remeber right back when the pan was off, it's a 2690 crank.
-
If the number on the crank is 2690, that is a 3.48 inch long stroke crank, so it's a 350.