CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => Decoding/Numbers => Topic started by: Terry69RSZ28 on October 12, 2019, 05:43:05 PM
-
Hi Everyone,
i am trying to determine if this is a real warranty block for a 69 Z28. It is standard bore with forged pistons, solid lift cam and has the 1178 crank. It has about 2000 miles on it. The block number is 3970010 with a date code of K 11 9. Attached are photos of the engine pad. What is the value on this short block? Thanks for your input.
Terry :)
-
Any opinions on this stamp?
-
The CE stamping is probably an original CE stamping (Not sure I've ever seen a 'faked' CE stamp)...? To be certain, you'd need to clean (with solvent) the pad and get a high resolution photo to show the factory broach marks.
From the information you supplied, it is certain possible (to probable?) that the short block you have was supplied as a factory warranty replacement into a '69 Z28, but without paperwork (warranty paperwork showing the replacement), proving it is essentially impossible. If you documented the details of the block (cast nos, cast date, good photo of the stamp), along with the details of the internal parts of the short block (1178 crank, proper rods, factory pistons) all for a 302, then you'd have a 'good story' even without the actual paperwork proof.
Was the engine in a CAR when you found it? Have you information about the CAR itself? VIN, accessories, cowl tag, etc.. heads, intake, carb, etc...
-
Hi Gary,
Thanks for your response. Yes, the CE block was in a 69 Z28. Apparently, the owner located his original, born with engine and removed this block from his car. I don't know the VIN and there isn't any paperwork documenting the warranty exchange. Any idea on the value of this CE short block as it sits right now?
Thanks, Terry
-
CEA006579, looks clear to me. & the Casting date would imply a Year 1970 warranty engine, Esp with the as found internals would seem to indicate you are correct. With that Low of miles would indicate great ready to fluff and use. I would gather there is a fair amount of value there. There are a lot of threads discussing the order of preference when it comes to engine and restoration positioning of blocks, motor and parts. Often times "STORIES" are in fact the true history of these vehicles and it is a matter of gathering as much supporting evidence in corroborating the same.
Back to your question I see a good value for the object in question. Down to HOW much? that is the difficult part. I have seen guys asking 2k for just a bare DZ block Plenty of comp's out there I think.
JIM
-
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your input regarding this CE short block. It is listed at $3025 US.
Is this a high, average or low price for a CE block?
Thanks again.
-
I think it is fair if it is a 302 and complete. The K 11 9 would fit nicely in my Z which has a NOM 302 too late for my car that has no vin.
-
$600 for a crank, $500 for a replacement block, Rods and pistons if the bores are still serviceable about $300. That price is high in my opinion.
There is no way to confirm or deny where that block has been or what it is was originally made for. It is just a block.
-
There will always be anomalies but I question the 5-digit serial number beginning with '0'.
Based on the Chevrolet Dealer Service Bulletin (refer to http://www.camaros.org/engine.shtml#ReplacementEngines), serial numbers for Flint V8 should begin with 2, 3 or 4 and Tonawanda with 5, 6 or 7.
Does the block have a 1/4" square NPT plug in the end of the oil gallery near the top of where the timing cover goes?
-
Yes, it has the 1/4 inch square NPT plug.
-
Since the serial number is 06579, was this CE block produced at the Flint Motor Plant (L6 engines)?
-
No, since it's an 010 V8 block - and with the pipe plug fitting, it was machined at Flint V8; that's why I queried the serial number.
-
Real stamp. You can confirm by looking at starter mount surface. That is where build date will be stamped. Don’t know why it starts with 0 in sequence. No way to prove it started life as a 302, if you only have the owners word. Could have been a 350?
-
Thanks for all the comments regarding this CE block. I am hoping Kurt or anyone else knowledgeable on warranty blocks could provide some further insight on the stamp and why the number starts with a zero.
Regards, Terry :)
-
$600 for a crank, $500 for a replacement block, Rods and pistons if the bores are still serviceable about $300. That price is high in my opinion.
There is no way to confirm or deny where that block has been or what it is was originally made for. It is just a block.
Agreed. Those are pretty much my thoughts. I have several SBC and BBC blocks.
-
... insight on the stamp and why the number starts with a zero.
Regards, Terry :)
As stated in an earlier post , it started with 0 because it is a 1970 engine. The data in the link in an earlier post pertains to the 1969 model year only. The block was made early in the 1970 model year. I have a 70 CE engine and that 1st number is always the the last digit of the year made pertaining to 1st gens.
-
Bentley,
Thanks for the clarification regarding the serial number.
Very much appreciated, Terry :)
-
I think this has become confusing.
As I see it -
The stamp is CE0A06759.
CE= Chevrolet Engine
0= 1970 MY issued
A= refer to other threads and posts relating to what this is believed to mean.
06759= serial number for this particular block.
The serial number beginning with 'zero' for a Flint-assembled V8 is what I wonder about, not the previous zero that means the block was assembled in the 1970 model year. According to the Service Bulletin (see link posted previously), the block of serial numbers assigned to Flint V8 didn't begin with zero, that was to be used by Flint L6.
May well be genuine, but I queried it because Terry is considering buying this block (and it's pretty expensive as noted), so in all fairness I think it needs to be discussed.
Bentley - are you saying that the blocks of serial numbers assigned to Tonawanda, Flint V8 and Flint L6 changed from the 1969 MY to differ in the 1970 MY (and possibly beyond)?
-
OK so I went back through all the CE data that I have compiled to date, and found one more data point that has a similar stamping:
3970010 block, cast date E 23 0, pad stamp CE0B00122. Not sure if it was machined at Flint or Tonawanda, but regardless, it is another serial number that doesn't appear to conform to the numbers assigned to each engine plant.
Trying to find who contributed that data to see if there was a photo of the pad stamp to compare with.
-
The A and B were used when the initial block of assigned serial sequence numbers was exhausted.
There is also some thought that there may have been some difference in the way that complete short blocks and bare blocks were stamped starting in 1969. Further study is needed in this area.
-
Kurt posted a document a little while ago that he found that related to the A, B etc but thought it best to avoid focussing on that, since it was just the serial number that was unusual, at least in my mind.
Agree about the need for more research, especially since all of the photobucket images posted in the big thread I started about CE blocks are pretty much worthless now, due to PB deliberately blurring the images for non-premium paying accounts......
-
I think this has become confusing.
...Bentley - are you saying that the blocks of serial numbers assigned to Tonawanda, Flint V8 and Flint L6 changed from the 1969 MY to differ in the 1970 MY (and possibly beyond)?
Perhaps I’m premature in my assessment ? Tim I usually defer to you as I highly regard your analysis of this and about anything you reply to. I don’t know if that was a yearly rule of thumb to how blocks were numbered? I was making a supposition and giving a plausible reason, as to how or why this block was stamped the way it was. Ian not an authority. I’d say William would have the most insight to answer or interpret the stamp.
I ,also , said, in a previous post, to look at the build date stamp by the starter on the mating surface. I doubt that would be stamped if the stamp on the pad was bogus?
-
Personally I think it's a genuine stamp, but based on my understanding of the Service Bulletin, seemed to be an anomaly in the serial number. I may have misunderstood your post Bentley?
Problem with trying to understand CE blocks is that there are so few data points available, it seems that past 1969, practices did not always follow the Bulletin formats, and I'm still yet to find any documentation that an owner received upon having a bare block or partial/fitted engine put in under the 5/50 warranty.
Still learning, but always enjoying!
-
I posted years ago what I thought about value of CE blocks. For years they have tended to end up in my possession whenever one comes up for sale locally.
Block values for a car in my opinion in descending order.
1. Of course the original block for the car.
2. A CE block with paperwork - noting replaced under warranty. (rare to find)
3. Correct original suffix block with wrong VIN for the car.
4. CE block with no docs.
5. Any other block.
The CE blocks in general are not worth much more than any other block, yet are kinda cool. But anyone can piece together an engine and come up with a story.
The CE stamp in question is probably original, but overpriced in my opinion. Of course other opinions may vary.
-
CE0A06579. Pretty standard CE block. I've seen other 70 service blocks that begin with 0. They seemed to be running thru the numbers too fast and changed the stamping rules because of that.
-
Thanks Kurt!
-
Much appreciated, Kurt!