CRG Discussion Forum

Camaro Research Group Discussion => Restoration => Topic started by: 69er on March 25, 2007, 12:05:35 AM

Title: Service Order Block
Post by: 69er on March 25, 2007, 12:05:35 AM
I went to the following web site
http://www.guinns-engineering.com/Technical%20Articles.htm

and saw this article on the 302 and a picture showing stampings
on the bottom of an engine block by the oil pan rail.

The picture had these quotes below it.
"This close-up shows the “SO” alpha-numerical stamped
on the oil pan rail, denoting this as a Service Order block"

What do these numbers mean?

What does Service Order block mean ?

Is Service Order block the same as CE counter exchange?

Would CE blocks have this SO stamping on the oil pan rail?

What do these numbers mean on the oil pan rail
from a 010 block?

69er
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: JohnZ on March 25, 2007, 08:39:45 PM
Pat Railsback has noted similar stampings on the starter pad on several "CE" blocks, and has done some research on it; if he sees this thread, he'll probably chime in.
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: 68Zproject on March 26, 2007, 02:31:26 PM
My CE block has "stuff" like that on it too.
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: ccargo on March 26, 2007, 07:29:00 PM
With all due respect to the author of the article I think he might have pulled the "SO" service order thing out of the air. It appears to me that the sequence reads 80936653 and what it might mean I'd only be quessing without more data on the block. The other photo thats posted shows an assembly code 08 9 (month year) and the engine plant code V=Flint sometimes found on CE component blocks depending on the "type". Are these two photos from the same block?

Pat
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: 69er on March 26, 2007, 11:31:15 PM
Hi pat,

These two photos are not the same block. The first picture was from
an article that was found on the "www.guinns-engineering.com" web
site. The link to the picture and the article is found at
http://www.yearone.com/enthusiast/restoarchives/spring98/sp98engineassembly/engass2.htm
There is additional information regarding a 302 build up as well.

The second picture was from a friend who recently pulled his engine out of
his 69 z28. It is a 010 casting block with 4 bolt mains. It looks like there may
be a sleve in one of the cylinders and there is no stampings on the left hand
engine pad (probablly been decked).

He was wondering if the stampings have significance in identifying the block
origins.Do the numbers 08 9 V by the starter pad indicate that it is a CE block?

69er
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: ccargo on March 27, 2007, 02:23:50 AM
Yes that's an indication of a CE block. Check the casting date and see if its Aug of 69 or slightly before that. It's not all that uncommon to see a CE block in a solid lifter application if it was used for anything other than driving Miss Daisy :) How does the date line up with the cars build? If its prior to the body build it's not the block replaced for the warranty POP holder of the car. I guess if one thinks about it awhile a CE is better off if it doesn't belong to the car and is date correct  ??? Just kinda of a saga living with the scarlet letters  ;)
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: 68Zproject on March 27, 2007, 03:15:52 AM
Would a CE block be date coded to a car's build date?  If the engine blew up on a 68 in 1970, wouldn't they replace it with a 1970 CE block?
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: JohnZ on March 27, 2007, 02:22:27 PM
Would a CE block be date coded to a car's build date?  If the engine blew up on a 68 in 1970, wouldn't they replace it with a 1970 CE block?

There wouldn't be any correlation between the car's build date and the casting date of a "CE" block; the casting date on the "CE" block would relate more to the time frame during which it was ordered by the dealer.
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: 69er on March 27, 2007, 08:39:55 PM
Pat,

So, the block is a 3970010, the casting date is H 26 9, the vehicle build date is
10D (early 69 z28). So the block's casting date is not prior to the build date of the car.
He also gave me some additional build dates, the close ratio 4 speed muncie is dated P9M31
(august 31), water pump dated H 27 8 (August 27,  1968), cylinder heads I188
(september 18, 1968) and I208 (september 20, 1968), alternator 8 J 28 (September 28, 1968).

Wow, so I can really see what may of happend. The original owner blows up the engine takes it
to the dealer, the dealer installs a replacement CE short block (guessing of course). The orignial
components get reinstalled and all are dated around the build date of the car. The only out of
date component is the new CE block.

Continuing, the original owner then takes possession of the car again blows up the engine again,
but this time he fixes it. That's why the engine pad has no numbers, they were removed during the
rebuild process. But, the numbers by the starter pad as you say points to a CE block. Gee,
does that sound plausible.

Pat, another quick follow up question. If the above is correct then original engines do not have
any stampings by the starter pad because the tracing numbers were either at the engine pad
or oil filter housing.

And would the replacement CE blocks for 302 still use the problematic full floating writst pins
or would chevrolet have decided to use pressed pins to avoid future engine failures.

69er
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: 68Zproject on March 27, 2007, 09:40:30 PM
That's what I thought John Z, I didn't make sense to date a CE block to the engine it replaced.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: ccargo on March 28, 2007, 07:46:29 PM
Yes 69er, that is the most likely scenario behind the history of the car in question and you have a good grasp of how the process worked.  GM issued a warranty component short block for the owner hence the assembly date at the starter flange and I do believe this is the only situation where the code was placed in that location. The motor at some point in time was rebuilt again removing the CE sequence # from the block pad through decking. The CE components shortfall is that it lacks the ability to identify the "build" charactersitics of the original application and it is difficult if not impossible to match the component back to the vehicle it was ordered for unless it is accompanied with original service records. Some examples of partial VIN stamps on CE blocks have been noted, however, these markings lack consistancy in appearance and location and it is highly likely, if done, it was at the servicing dealership and not the engine plant. Given these factors the CE block while certainly a legitimate part of the history of GM production is not very well received by modern enthusiasts and collectors who have developed a criteria of expectation i.e "matching numbers". I sometimes find it ironic that we hold the warranty POP information in such high regard but give little consideration to the information contained in it. From a value standpoint the CE certainly is discounted more than a block conversion done by a Supercar dealer :)

Change can only come from research, education and understanding. Its fairly obvious that the CE is not as well represented as it was common, inparticular in certain HP applications. Common sense might dictate that performance models certainly took their share of the engine plant warranty allocation. The availability of "loose" CE blocks on the secondary market seems to point to a lack of understanding and its associatied undesireability. From an historical point of view sometimes being a conformist skews reality.  If nothing else I have hope that those with CE warranty components will keep them with the car after "restoration" units have been installed. I've seen some engine block coffee tables that look just dynamite! These blocks do have characteristics that individualize them via the sequence number.  Although an unlikely event we dont know what the future might hold for rediscovered production or service records.

Some of the points of interest that might come from CE research are as follows:

1. Tracking cast and assembly dates along with CE sequence numbers should give warranty production figures per manufacturing year and the current owner a "time frame" of when the failure and replacement occured for historical reference. Were the sequence numbers reset at the begining of each production year or did they continue to the last number of the sequence regardless of model year production?

2. Documenting internal build characteristics of CE replacements might point out warranty addressed engineering flaws of certain configurations  i.e cast vs steel cranks, piston failure etc. 

3. Documenting stamp characteristics other than the sequence number found on CE blocks might help identify the type of component authorized i.e. short, fitted, bare etc.  Could the type of replacement issued be influenced by the amount of time between the "in service" date and the failure?
 
It might just be a dog chasing his tail but if anyone would like to contribute CE information I'd be happy to have it :)  Just click on my screen name and drop me a private message.

Clear as mud,
Pat



 
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: 69er on March 29, 2007, 12:26:13 AM
Pat,

Thanks for the information. I'm happy to hear that you feel that my scenario concerning
what may have happened to the original engine appears plausible.

So, I noted your comments about the questions that still stand open regarding what
GM may have delivered as part of CE short block. I started another thread regarding
full floating wrist pins in factory 69 z28.

So, is it possible that if GM delivered a replacement CE short block for a 1969 z28, that
it may have come with pressed pins due to the problems they were having with the full
floating pins (engines blowing up)?

And if GM did include the new updated/revised connecting rods, then a owner of a 1969 z28 that
has a documented CE block may have pressed pins. And if they were pressed pins, then they
were pressed pins in an engine that GM built for warranty purposes. And for me I would think
very legitimate and stock.

Any additional thoughts?

69er





Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: ccargo on March 29, 2007, 01:51:29 AM
I dont have enough information at this time to suggest that upgrades were included in warranty replacement components. I can tell you from my personal experience with my 69 L34 CE that I was somewhat surprised to find a steel crank in place of an expected cast iron crank during its rebuild. FYI the car is an 03D build and has a May 69 cast CE with an 05 9 assembly date. According to the original POP it's "in service" date was May 13th 69. It appears to have had issues right out of the box so to speak.
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: 68Zproject on March 29, 2007, 04:11:06 AM
ccargo, I PM'd you with some info on my CE block.  FYI
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: zdld17 on May 07, 2007, 12:05:59 PM
Good Morning to All,  Just signed on here after viewing much discussion concerning replacement engines.    I have a 69Z purchased new , 12A car, no X codes.    I purchased this during my employment with a South Texas dearlership in early 60's where I started as counter parts person.  Thru the years i went to part mgr, service writer, warranty clerk and service mgr before my departure to BOP line of Gm dealerships.   

Before I left my z was refitted with the second engine replacement in form of a fitted block.    The first orginal motor let go when a rod broke just above the big end.  Crank was unhurt but cly wall was hit. Cause was determined that the wrist pin locked down.  These were full floating pins.      The replacment short block was installed and had ring seating problems which was later re-ringed (chrome rings).     After many attempts to seat rings even the old fashion way of poring diluted AT fluid with Bon Ami cleanser ( does not scratch walls) thru the carb,  the second block was ordered and I installed it as I was on the way out of this dealership into another Gm dealer.   I had very good contacts with Houston zone reps so they allowed this as exception to rule.   

What led me to this site was the fact that the members here speak of much knowledge concerning factory ordering and policies.       I would comment that when service replacements were needed at my dealership, orders were always placed thru the car inoperative ordering method if we did not have these CE replacements in stock.   

Reading members comments let me to observe my block coding which appears to be a CE 0629 with a cast # of F290.    I would presume that this block was built in 1970?    Block was replaced late 1970.   It was a 302 fitted block.   I recall some of members reports of some service order # stamping on starter pad? of which I do not find.   Am I understanding these stamps correctly?   

I was just posting this information and courious to find my spot in early engine history.   You have some members that appear to be very knowledgable and much of the discussion is very correct to me. 

Thank you for the post, I will be monitoring this site.   I normally sit on the porch at Team Camaro.   Again, thank you for allowing me to post. 

Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: ccargo on May 07, 2007, 02:39:57 PM
This is great info Don, great to hear from someone with direct knowledge of the process as both the owner and service writer. Could you give a little more detail about the "inoperative ordering method"?  Included in a forward from Harvard, he mentioned something about a "dedicated order" that included a factory partial VIN stamp? If this was done do you know the location? I'd sure appreciate any photos of the block stamps you might be able to get for the data I'm collecting. The assembly stamp location is on the flat milled surface at the starter mount and is not visable with the starter in place. It would be interesting to find out if a "fitted" block would have that stamp?

Pat
patjillr@gmail.com
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: zdld17 on May 07, 2007, 03:54:33 PM
Pat, the the car inoperative order was a pink sheet manually printed and submitted via mail.  That was the quickest way of ordering from GMPD.   We usually made manual comments to the side such at warranty or tourist tie up etc.  Dealer got their normal pricing here but if we called in the order, we got a grouchy parts order desk person and I can't recall his name, good guy but we just learned to live with him.     The other sheet was a black and white it was something other than dealer reg order. Regular order pad got an additional discount and had select preferred mail in time schedules. My guess was batch shipping mode where all dealer orders going to south Texas were on the Missouri Pacific truck on certain dates.     

As for the dedicated stamping, this was done in the dealership and it may have been due to some Georgia laws?   Texas required some of this information on titles and most dealership complied but outside dealership or over counter was very lax.  If I am able to get photos , I will post later or send to you. 
As for my date stamping, do you think that the pad numbers are actually the block cast numbers?
 Thank you for your reply. 
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: JohnZ on May 07, 2007, 04:07:44 PM
Reading members comments let me to observe my block coding which appears to be a CE 0629 with a cast # of F290.    I would presume that this block was built in 1970?    Block was replaced late 1970.   It was a 302 fitted block.   I recall some of members reports of some service order # stamping on starter pad? of which I do not find.   Am I understanding these stamps correctly?

F 29 0 says the block was cast on June 29, 1970. Is CE 0629 the entire pad stamping? Usually there's a number digit after the "CE" (for the year), followed by five numbers (between 20,000 and 50,000 for Flint V-8, or between 50,000 and 80,000 for Tonawanda); yours is from Flint. Ccargo (Pat) has been tracking numbers stamped on the starter pad.
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: ccargo on May 07, 2007, 04:13:55 PM
Thanks for the response Don, great first hand information. I noticed that the CE sequential numbers on your block are very close to that of the block casting date? This could be coincedence or some other sequence variation used for the type of component you were issued? I would like a photo of the stamp for that reason. I would have expected the code to read CE 0##### and this # sequence being between 20000 and 49999 but this is the reason I'm trying to establish a base.
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: zdld17 on May 07, 2007, 05:19:47 PM
Maybe I listed the number wrong but it was all together, CE0629 and I am reading it seperate from CE.   So it could be CE0 629 . I will again look at the cast # F 290, which makes me think F= June , 29 = day and 0 = 1970?  .   I am aware of the large number sequence but its not there.  Will post photo when I find a roundtoit.   Odd that the casting and stamp are the same?  Yes, its a Flint  block and a 010/020 hi tin nickel  block.  . 
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: 69er on May 10, 2007, 12:40:07 AM
Mr. zdld17.

When you received the warranty replacement engine. Do you know if it came with full floating piston pins?
I am just wondering if GM changed the connecting rods to press fit due to the problems that were
being encountered with the full floating piston pins.

69er

Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: zdld17 on May 10, 2007, 01:09:12 AM
Good to see your response.   The absence of floating pin  may have been cause of the first loss as pin appeared to be locked into piston.   Upon dismantling motor, this was something we thought was odd as the 302 was or had always been known to have full floating pins on rods and pistons.  The second CE motor did have the pink rods and full floats.  This motor developed oil consumption problem with the chrome rings.    We could never seat these GM rings.    Last effort after I left the Chevy house, my zone rep issued me a fitted block and I transferred all over to this case.   Again, that motor had floating pins on rods. 
To this date, nothing was ever mentioned about the pressed on rods on a 302 nor was it ever suspected.   One rod broke iin mid section and took lower half of case out.   All of this happened as I was behind the parts counter so I never got to see total tear down, just broken pieces.     The second motor , I was warranty clerk and got to witness that tear down, and write the claim with zone approval. 
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: 69er on May 10, 2007, 02:36:05 AM
Mr. zdld17,

Are you saying that the first warranty block did not have full floating piston pins?

69er
Title: Re: Service Order Block
Post by: zdld17 on May 10, 2007, 11:19:43 AM
As I said before,  I was behind the counter so I did not see this but it was brought up.  Total tear down was  not done.   All that was found was 1 piston that was slipped out of cly hole with half rod and that rod was locked into rod and piston.     
Some one on this site was mentioning this or made comment to,  thats the first thing that went thru my mind.   That there were some 302 motor that got pressed in pistons??    Have  you ever heard of this?   Now , I could be wrong as all rods in my motor being non full floating,  it was just one that was found.  The other 7 could have been floated and only one locked  up causing momentairlily siezure at hi rpm?