Author Topic: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE  (Read 8792 times)

z28z11

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2013, 01:18:36 AM »
Opps, can I fix that? I dont see an edit

myty - Don't get me wrong - I wasn't trying to be a S.A. - besides, I just learned you can edit what you post. I have made my share of errors and misspellings (thank goodness for Spell Check !), and thanks, Ed -

Regards,
Steve
1968 Z28 M21/U17 BRG/W
1969 Z28 X77/M20/VE3 LeMans/W
1969 L78 X66/N66 Cortez/BVT
1969 Z11 L48/M35/C60/C06

dutch

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Documented Canadian 1968 Z/28
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #46 on: January 06, 2013, 03:03:52 AM »
Yep - the plants were on "rock & roll" back then.  We were pouring 2500 tons per day at Tonawanda MCP.
That certainly was a lot of metal moving - Can you relate just how the metallurgy changed and/or was tracked during much of the casting in a sense of the quality control of the molten batches when so much is being poured and so quickly?
I've heard where '010' and other notations cast behind the timing chain and bellhousing areas referred to the metallurgy content of pour batches in that more Nickel and maybe Tin were introduced into the composition when pouring certain batches of blocks.
Is this in fact true and if so why and how were any additional alloy amounts introduced and/or monitored?
Also, what if true is the reason to pour such blocks verses any others ie: was there a reason for such blending to be done or needed?
Having worked in and around smelters and assay labs in the nickel industry here in Canada for years, I find such things interesting and my own 302 has some of these casting notations on the block and I always wondered if it was really true that it designed  for  'performance blocks' needing maybe more strength over 'regular' ones..
Thanks - Randy

dutch

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Documented Canadian 1968 Z/28
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2013, 03:06:36 AM »
that should read 'designated' and not 'designed a'..

bergy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #48 on: January 07, 2013, 12:16:25 PM »
It would take a lot of typing to fully answer the metallurgical control question.  Suffice it to say that the primary alloying & adjusting elements were Carbon, Silicon, Manganese, and chrome.  "Base" iron was melted and the alloy composition was adjusted in the hot metal cranes as they were filled from the holding furnaces (in front of the cupolas).  Further adjustments were made at the individual molding lines.  There were only two basic types of iron.  Blocks & drums required a higher chrome for wear and/or tensile (class 30 iron).  Carbon, silicon, and chrome were further adjusted at the mold lines (as the metal was poured into the pouring ladles) for additional strength, and casting feeding requirements.  Gray iron producers were cupola melters back then, so Manganese was used to "tie up" excess sulfur in the iron.  Foundry metallurgy was essentially controlled/analyzed by eutectometers (carbon & silicon analysis via cooling curve) and chill samlpes (carbide tendency).  The full lab with spectrometer, Leco, wet lab, and mechanical testing was located at the forge (next door to the foundry) - connected via pneumatic transport tube.  Believe me - that's the "cliffs notes" version!

JohnZ

  • CRG Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4261
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #49 on: January 07, 2013, 04:18:06 PM »
I've heard where '010' and other notations cast behind the timing chain and bellhousing areas referred to the metallurgy content of pour batches in that more Nickel and maybe Tin were introduced into the composition when pouring certain batches of blocks.

That's a common misconception - the "010/020" cast into that front bulkhead identifies the common core pattern used for two different blocks, not any metalllurgy.
'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG

69Z28-RS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
  • owner since 4-Apr-1976
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #50 on: January 07, 2013, 07:04:11 PM »
John,  Was the metallurgy 'high nickel'?  or not?   I've read that in the car mags since the cars were new .....?

Gary
Gary W / 09C 69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood tint
69 Corvette convertible, silver/black 350 hp,
60 Corvette white/red, 72 Corvette coupe, '70 Mach I 
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55-'56-'57 Nomads, '55-'57 B/A Sedan

bergy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #51 on: January 07, 2013, 07:37:55 PM »
At Tonawanda we never alloyed production castings with nickel.

MO

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #52 on: January 08, 2013, 03:16:49 AM »
At Tonawanda we never alloyed production castings with nickel.

How about non production? Maybe some went out to racers?

69Z28-RS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
  • owner since 4-Apr-1976
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2013, 05:59:56 AM »
The Z blocks weren't cast at Tonawanda..    but instead all HP, and SHP small block engines were cast and built at Flint., I think....  waiting on JohnZ to respond re the 'high nickel' question on 302 blocks..

Gary
Gary W / 09C 69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood tint
69 Corvette convertible, silver/black 350 hp,
60 Corvette white/red, 72 Corvette coupe, '70 Mach I 
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55-'56-'57 Nomads, '55-'57 B/A Sedan

bergy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #54 on: January 08, 2013, 11:25:08 AM »
#2 mold line at Tonawanda cast small blocks - they could have (and were at times) shipped to Flint for solid lifter application.  All cylinder iron (both plants) was the same spec.   We did some really unusual alloying for some siamese bore race blocks.  Special alloying just wasn't done in production though - too hard to keep track of with 2,500 tons of iron being poured per day.

69Z28-RS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
  • owner since 4-Apr-1976
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #55 on: January 08, 2013, 05:28:08 PM »
OK.   Thanks Bergy..   
but it sure makes one wonder where the initial information came from (re high nickel content) that has been reported in the auto mags *forever* re the Z28 blocks....????   How does such information get started and propagated for so long in supposedly 'knowledgable magazines'?? 
Gary W / 09C 69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood tint
69 Corvette convertible, silver/black 350 hp,
60 Corvette white/red, 72 Corvette coupe, '70 Mach I 
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55-'56-'57 Nomads, '55-'57 B/A Sedan

maroman

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #56 on: January 08, 2013, 06:11:58 PM »
It just proves we drank the koolaid. I waited from month to month waiting for the next update on the HotRod Camaro SS in '67. I think Vic Edelbrock owns it now? 50 years later I found out it was ALL a lie. HotRod lied about all the stats, even the "396" was really a blueprined 427.
Doug  '67 RS/SS 396 auto I know the car since new

69Z28-RS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
  • owner since 4-Apr-1976
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #57 on: January 08, 2013, 06:31:00 PM »
Yeah, I've been drinking 'Chevy koolaid' since the early '60's..    still enjoying *most* of it too.. :)
Gary
Gary W / 09C 69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood tint
69 Corvette convertible, silver/black 350 hp,
60 Corvette white/red, 72 Corvette coupe, '70 Mach I 
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55-'56-'57 Nomads, '55-'57 B/A Sedan

JohnZ

  • CRG Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4261
    • View Profile
Re: BLOCK CAST DATE VS PAD STAMP DATE
« Reply #58 on: January 08, 2013, 06:32:44 PM »
John,  Was the metallurgy 'high nickel'?  or not?   I've read that in the car mags since the cars were new .....?

Gary

Nope. I don't know where that "010/020" high-nickel thing started, but it took on a life of its own, like many other misconceptions; I believed it too for a while, until I researched it and a friend of mine who has worked at the Saginaw Foundry (now called Saginaw Metal Casting Operations) for 37 years debunked the story and explained what the numbers mean. Those numbers just identify the core pattern for the front bulkhead.
'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG