Messages

31

Restoration / Re: Service Order Block

« 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

32

Restoration / Re: Service Order Block

« 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 The only out of
date component is the new CE block.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

33

Restoration / Re: Service Order Block

« 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

34

Originality / Re: 69 z28 rods

« on: March 26, 2007, 01:55:02 AM »

Jerry I tried to draw an arrow to show where this notch is. The gentleman
from tennesse has indicated that pink rods from the  302's were unique in
that the rod cap had this notch (relief) opposite the bearing lock groove.

The arrow is pointing at the notch (relief) in the rod cap.

Maybe you can look at some of your connecting rods at your shop and
see if his comments are correct or not concerning the notch.

69er

35

Originality / Re: 69 z28 rods

« on: March 25, 2007, 09:37:49 PM »

Does your L30 have small or large diameter journals?

69er

36

Originality / Re: 69 z28 rods

« on: March 25, 2007, 05:32:06 PM »

Jerry, so do the 69 z 302 rebuilds you do get converted to pressed pins
from floating pins?

And what do you think about that notch in the rod cap?
Any truth to it?
Maybe you can look at a set of connecting rods.

69er

37

Originality / Re: 69 z28 rods

« on: March 25, 2007, 05:31:20 PM »

Jerry, so do the 69 z 302 rebuilds you do get converted to pressed pins
from floating pins?

And what do you think about that notch in the rod cap?
Any truth to it?
Maybe you can look at a set of connecting rods.

69er

38

Originality / Re: 69 z28 rods

« on: March 25, 2007, 03:39:12 PM »

Is it true that only pink rods had the notches located in the rod cap?

Maybe someone can look at a set of pink rods that have'nt been installed
yet to see if they have the notch, or just an ordinary set of connecting
rods to see if they have the notch.

Jerry would pressed pins be advised on a 1969 z28 302 rebuild?

69er

39

Restoration / Service Order Block

« 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

40

Originality / Re: 69 z28 rods

« on: March 24, 2007, 05:48:24 PM »

I talked to the machine shop owner from tennesse who has the set of pink rods
for sale about the misprint in the chevrolet manual. He had no comments about the
misprint. He seems to recall that in 1969 the z28 could be ordered with the optional
offroad camshaft. And with this option came the full floating pins and stronger valve
springs. He sent me some additional pics of the large journal part of a pink rod.
He explains that in the picture you will see a relief notch in the rod cap next to
the bearing tang slot. He said that this was consistent with pink rods used in 302's,
he also says that he has never seen this notch in other small block connecting rods.

The rods he is selling have a pressed fit pin and have this notch where the bearing
tang lock is located, and have the cast letter 'O' on the bottom of the rod cap.

I have attached the pic for your review.

69er

41

Originality / Re: 69 z28 rods

« on: March 23, 2007, 07:49:32 PM »

these pics from a chevrolet manual indicates that the 302 for 1969
came with interference fit pins for the connecting rod. I'm
confused.

69er

42

Originality / Re: 69 z28 rods

« on: March 23, 2007, 07:48:17 PM »

footnote pic

69er

43

Originality / 69 z28 rods

« on: March 23, 2007, 07:47:17 PM »

I'm not sure if I did this right.

did the 69 z28 come with 'O' rods that were pressed pins?

I'm getting to ready to buy some and the seller showed me the manual
that gives the pressed specifications. I'm not sure if he is right or not.

69er

44

Restoration / 1969 camaro jack assembly

« on: March 16, 2007, 03:48:04 AM »

I saw a jack assembly listed on ebay that was reported as coming from an early camaro. The
ratchet assembly itself looks different than other jack assemblies that I have seen. Especially
where the ratchet attaches to the bumper. I have seen this type of jack one other time
in someones trunk.

Is this ratchet belong to another type of car, or did GM change the ratchet somewhere
during the year?

I have attached some photos.

Thanks 69er

45

Originality / 'O' connecting rods

« on: March 16, 2007, 03:43:28 AM »

Besides the 1969 z28 what other types of engines used the 'O' connecting rods?

Thanks 69er