Author Topic: Service Engines (CE coded) (Read 67357 times)

ZLP955 · « **on:** December 05, 2014, 10:09:49 AM »

I have been researching CE blocks (mainly small blocks) for some time now, and have a couple of questions that hopefully Kurt and/or the other CRG researchers can help with:
1. Does CRG have any examples of warranty documentation for a service replacement engine being installed in a 67-69 Camaro, and if so, are there any known examples of the block casting date preceding the build date of the car? (and if so, curious as to how much earlier?)
2. Did the dealer always issue paperwork for the replacement engine recording the new pad stamp number?
3. What was the process for supply and demand of service engines? i.e. were CE blocks produced by the engine assembly plants on demand from the dealership (assuming the zone rep authorised it), or were they machined, assembled (long, short or bare) and stamped 'CE' alongside regular production engines and set aside until required?

From the serial numbers allocated to Flint and Tonawanda for service engines, seems that would've been an excessive number of blocks/fitted engines etc to store and maintain somewhere, but then it would've taken time for the dealer to order the replacement, for the engine plant to machine, assemble and ship the part across the country, then for the dealer to fit it, all while the loyal customer was without their car.....

JohnZ · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2014, 05:19:18 PM »

Quote from: ZLP955 on December 05, 2014, 10:09:49 AM

I have been researching CE blocks (mainly small blocks) for some time now, and have a couple of questions that hopefully Kurt and/or the other CRG researchers can help with:
1. Does CRG have any examples of warranty documentation for a service replacement engine being installed in a 67-69 Camaro, and if so, are there any known examples of the block casting date preceding the build date of the car? (and if so, curious as to how much earlier?)
2. Did the dealer always issue paperwork for the replacement engine recording the new pad stamp number?
3. What was the process for supply and demand of service engines? i.e. were CE blocks produced by the engine assembly plants on demand from the dealership (assuming the zone rep authorised it), or were they machined, assembled (long, short or bare) and stamped 'CE' alongside regular production engines and set aside until required?

From the serial numbers allocated to Flint and Tonawanda for service engines, seems that would've been an excessive number of blocks/fitted engines etc to store and maintain somewhere, but then it would've taken time for the dealer to order the replacement, for the engine plant to machine, assemble and ship the part across the country, then for the dealer to fit it, all while the loyal customer was without their car.....

1. I had a copy of the service order when my Z engine was replaced with a "CE" short block (plus one new 186 cylinder head) in June, 1970, but it's filed away.

2. I doubt if any dealers made any effort to stamp anything on the pad - they made their money by getting the job done below flat rate and getting the car out the door; stamping "numbers" in those days would have seemed pointless.

3. "CE" short blocks were built based on demand, normally on weekend overtime; without intake and exhaust manifolds and cylinder heads, they had to be manhandled off the end of the engine plant assembly line with hoists and forklifts and placed on wooden pallets which later became shipping crates.

"CE" engines weren't "stocked" at regional parts depots - dealer order for an engine went to GMSPO (GM Service Parts Operations), who sent it to Flint V-8 (or Tonawanda, depending on the engine), and the engine plant shipped the engine direct to the dealership. "CE" engines were only supplied as short blocks or "fitted blocks" - not as "long blocks".

ZLP955 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2014, 08:15:17 PM »

Thanks John!
So there is no way a CE block could be cast before the build date of the car it was fitted to?
Just to clarify, in point 2 above, I didn't mean would the dealer stamp the pad, but would the dealer record the pad stamp number by writing it on the warranty paperwork?
I understand that there was little margin (if any) for the dealer here, in fact recently followed a thread (link HERE) questioning if the service blocks were even painted by the dealer. Several guys who were involved in the day said not unless the parts dept supplied the paint, but some mechanics would give them a quick paint job if there was some paint left over in the clean-up area.

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2014, 10:34:00 PM »

Tim, I think it can be close. Of course depending on how fast you blew up your original block. My 70Z has a CE block cast a week after the production date of the car. It has the replacement POP.

bcmiller · « **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2014, 10:57:58 PM »

Tim, there are a lot of factors involved. Why are you curious?

If a car has paperwork on a warranty replacement engine, there is no doubt to it's origin. If someone just has a CE block in their car, there is no way to prove when it was put there without dealer docs showing that.

It could have been put there under warranty or 40 years later. Only docs will prove when it was done.

I am not sure if there was a standard procedure for dealers to follow in regards to whether or not they recorded the CE block number on the paperwork. But they should have recorded what parts were used in the repair.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2014, 12:29:17 AM »

Thanks guys.
Bryon, I'm curious because in several discussions on CE blocks, well-respected members and contributors here and elsewhere have stated that the next best thing to a car's original block is a CE block with documentation, then descending in order from a NOM but correct casting, suffix and date coded block, all the way down to a crate engine as the least preferred.
Therefore I am curious as to what original warranty replacement documentation was provided to the owner by the dealer, and if that documentation did not include the CE stamp number from the pad, how would one go about proving that a car still has the block that GM replaced under warranty?

I'm sure I recall seeing a post (either here or at TC) that suggested it was possible to have a block dated earlier than the car it was fitted to, hence my question on whether blocks were set aside for service replacements, or machined, fitted with rotating assembly (if required) and stamped on demand.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2014, 01:13:56 AM »

Quote from: ZLP955 on December 07, 2014, 12:29:17 AM

I'm sure I recall seeing a post (either here or at TC) that suggested it was possible to have a block dated earlier than the car it was fitted to, hence my question on whether blocks were set aside for service replacements, or machined, fitted with rotating assembly (if required) and stamped on demand.

Found that thread - http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=213236
It was actually Kurt who wrote the reply (#4) that I remembered:
"Any 69-74 SB with CE on the pad could have gone into the car. It could be dated before the car.... "
So surely that means that at least some blocks were held in inventory before machining and stamping?

bcmiller · « **Reply #7 on:** December 07, 2014, 01:57:35 AM »

Tim,

JohnZ would best be able to answer you question on the machining and stamping. Or maybe bergy.

I would think that the blocks used would just be from the normal flow of cast parts. Once they were built, they were stamped. But I could be wrong.

From John's post above...
"CE" short blocks were built based on demand, normally on weekend overtime;

I think it COULD be before the car build date, but that would not be common unless the engine was blown almost immediately. But it is possible.

Bottom line, if you don't have the docs to prove it was replaced under warranty, it is just another NOM.

I think still having the warranty paperwork to prove it after all these years would be rare.

bcmiller · « **Reply #8 on:** December 08, 2014, 11:45:03 PM »

I have several CE big blocks and at least one CE small block.

KurtS · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2014, 04:29:03 AM »

John's info that they were not held in inventory is a surprise to me. It could be different during the production year.
A given short/fitted block could service a multitude of applications, so it wasn't like stocking a white elephant. I recall some mechanics saying they were delivered from the zone warehouse, but nothing absolute.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2014, 07:15:12 AM »

Thanks for the further comments. I'm intrigued by this subject, as there must've been literally tens of thousands of CE blocks issued annually, yet not much is understood about them.
For example, I recently spoke with the owner of a 3959512 Flint block with casting date K 29 8 with this pad stamp CE946309 (not keen on the funky paint color though....... must've been a 70's customisation thing). So it was cast in 1968 for the 1969 model year. But being the ~26,309th Flint service block stamped, if it was machined and stamped soon after casting (on 29th November 1968) then that'd mean a bunch of Chevy engines needed to be replaced relatively early in the new model year, even considering all the Chevy models. Especially as the Service Bulletin detailing the CE format to be used was dated September 19, 1968. 26,000+ blocks replaced under warranty in a little over 2 months seems a lot, and doesn't include Tonawanda figures.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 09, 2014, 09:31:21 AM »

Quote from: KurtS on December 09, 2014, 04:29:03 AM

John's info that they were not held in inventory is a surprise to me.

Yes, that's what I had thought based on this reply:
"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."
From http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=1635.0;all
Maybe things had changed by 1975 and GM maintained a stock of them?

ZLP955 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 09, 2014, 11:20:29 AM »

Such a confusing subject; I found THIS thread over at TC, in which a different John ('Vintage 68') stated that CE long blocks were available under Warranty:

Quote

CE units were supplied in three (3) levels;
1.) "Assembly" = what we would normally term a 'Long-Block'. (less; I & E manifolds, flywheels/flexplate, distributor, carb., oil filter assemblies, fuel pump, pulleys or fan, starter, bracket assemblies & etc...) - needed District approval to order. These 'assemblies' were normally available only for standard performance claim work - Special HP engines under warranty required Zone approval and were usually* serviced with only 'partial' and 'fitted' parts.
2.) "Partial" = what we would call a 'Short-Block'. (included; block, crank, rods, pistons, cam & timing assembly) - needed Zone approval.
3.) "Fitted" = a block casting with fitted pistons, rings and a matched bearing set. needed Zone approval.

He also wrote in the same reply that:

Quote

Warranty Service parts were ordered AFTER the need arrose - not 'Stocked' or Warehoused beforehand.
Dealers entered warranty service parts requests for CE or CT needs through the Zone Representative for their area and they were shipped direct from supply plant to the dealer.

hubleyman · « **Reply #13 on:** December 09, 2014, 05:03:28 PM »

If you are gathering CE block data here's a couple for your list:

The block in my '67 Corvette (390hp) is 3999289, cast F 21 72, CE264155. Based on the previous owner who purchased this car in '73, this was installed in the Corvette in '72 and has not been out of the car since.

The block in my '69 Camaro is 3932386, cast J 22 8 (might not be 22 - hard to see in the car), CE936524.

Charlie

bcmiller · « **Reply #14 on:** December 09, 2014, 06:28:29 PM »

Thanks Charlie. I do keep track of some of the CE blocks. If you have time, send me some pics of your engine pads with the stamped numbers.

bcmiller · « **Reply #15 on:** December 09, 2014, 06:41:38 PM »

Ah, it is a 512 small block, not a big block 427. I see now. Disregard my previous post.

I was thinking a 512 block 427.

bcmiller · « **Reply #16 on:** December 09, 2014, 07:05:30 PM »

Tim, one thing to remember is that these CE assemblies were for the whole Chevrolet line, including trucks.

You may have seen some of my posts in those threads you mentioned too. I have been looking at these CE blocks for a while too.

Here is how I would value things relative to what engine is a in car...
1. Original born with engine with a partial VIN that matches the car.
2. CE with original paperwork.
3. Original engine, with original stampings, same engine as what the car had, but different partial VIN.
4. Period correct CE engine - no paperwork.
5. Period correct NOM with different original stamped code and partial VIN, but same displacement.
6. Any other NOM.

But 4, 5 and 6 are pretty close to each other in my mind. But this is just my opinion.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 09, 2014, 08:47:11 PM »

Thanks Bryon.
I realise that the CE blocks were used across all models, not just Camaros or even passenger cars. Based on the stamp number of the 512 block I posted a pic of above, by early December 1968, almost all of the 30,000 sequential numbers assigned to Flint V8 had been used. So it seems likely that the theory that the numbers were rest back to 20000 with the addition of an 'A' prefix (CE9A), then on to 'B' (CE9B) when that run of 30,000 was used up, is a valid one. But that's a lot of warranty replacements.......
I'm not at all interested in the value question of having a CE 302 in my car, it lost the original DZ so it'll never be a numbers car. But I'm curious about whatever documentation is referred to, and how anyone with a CE could determine if it was the one the dealer fitted to their car.

Bryon are you interested in compiling data on these blocks from members contributing their dates and stampings like Charlie did?

bcmiller · « **Reply #18 on:** December 09, 2014, 10:25:24 PM »

Tim, yes I have been trying to compile data on CE engines and CT transmissions for a while.

If you or anyone else would like to share data, it would be AWESOME and greatly appreciated. We need as many data points as we can get.

What would be best is
1. Picture of the stamped information on the pad.
2. Block casting number
3. Block casting date

Thanks!

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #19 on:** December 09, 2014, 11:22:48 PM »

I have a '69 Corvette which has a dealer installed *(under warranty)* CE engine.

Body Build date M07 7 Aug 1969 (from body plate)
Original engine V0725HX (assembled 25Aug1969 - from my Protecto Plate)
Muncie P9H27 ; differential AM0722W
Intake and heads dated consistently (G229)
Car sold new by Royal Chevrolet on 30 Aug 1969 (from Protecto plate)
The original owner told me he street raced practically every night for 2 or 3 weeks, then had engine problems. Took it back to the dealer for service, and ended up 'trading it for a 427 Corvette'; the service manager replaced the engine under warranty and ended up purchasing the car and owned it for 18 yrs.

The replacement engine installed by Royal Chevrolet Service Department (Huntsville, AL): CE9B442 9 6 this engine cast date: I 18 9 (Sept 18, 1969).

bcmiller · « **Reply #20 on:** December 09, 2014, 11:39:10 PM »

Gary, very interesting. And nice car!

So you have the paperwork for the warranty work? Did they note the CE number on the paperwork?

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #21 on:** December 10, 2014, 04:27:20 AM »

Nope, no documentation, but I'm sure from what the original and prior owner told me that it is the engine installed for the service work when the car was only a few weeks old. I was very interested in them finding the protecto-plate, but I never thought to ask the couple I bought it from if they had any of the service paperwork. The car has only a bit over 40K miles on it. It's all original except for the CE engine and 2 repaints (both in lacquer - one by the prior owner in the 80's and the last by me in 99). Original leather seats, many factory options with the 350 hp 4sp and I retrieved the factory build sheet from the gas tank to verify it all.

I got the Protecto plate, owners manual and protective sleeve several years later when the prior owners found it and brought it to me.. (like a Christmas day in July)..

bcmiller · « **Reply #22 on:** December 11, 2014, 08:58:08 PM »

Gary, and that is a very short history you had to check back on. And still the paperwork is not there. I believe what you have been told is right. The time from when the engine was blown and the replacement block was cast seems like only about a week or less.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 14, 2014, 11:16:54 AM »

Bryon, here's some data that I've been collecting, it's still very much a work in progress which I will add to.

BB/SB Block Casting   Casting Date   Pad Stamp   Oil Pan Flange Stamp   Note(s)
Cast 1967
BB    3916323       F 6 7      CE850140    T087
BB    3916323       J 8 7      CE853643    T0107
================================================================================
Cast 1968
SB    3914678       D 16 8      CE922528
SB    3959512       J 10 8      CE089910
SB    3959512       K 29 8      CE946309
================================================================================
Cast 1969
SB    3956618       A 9 9      CE9A24288
SB    3956618       A 30 9      CE9A32634
SB    3970010       E 12 9      CE9A98666
BB    3969854       F 11 9      CE973962
BB    3969854       H 30 9      CE070400    T099    Also first stamped T0916KE
BB    3969854       J 14 9      CE075672
SB    3970010       L 8 9      C15408U                 (anomoly; possibly non-factory stamp?)
================================================================================
Cast 1970
SB    3970010       C 28 0      CE0A48264
SB    3970010       E 23 0      CE0B00122
SB    3970010       I 2 0      CE1A94176
SB    3970010       L 29 0      CEA129749              (no typo, A before 1, photo available)
================================================================================
Cast 1972
SB    3970010       A 10 2      CE221365
BB    3999290       J 23 72      CE361351
================================================================================
Cast 1974
SB    3970010       F 20 4      CE431334

Table formatting is a bit misaligned, but other members please feel free to add your data to it, by hitting 'quote' and then inserting in the appropriate date order. Thanks!

jvb6648 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 15, 2014, 03:00:45 AM »

Purchased my CE bare block in 4/74. 3970010, B 12 4, CE3A973 96. Stamp isn't the best. Tried to upload photo but file is to big or something, it just won't take it.

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #25 on:** December 15, 2014, 04:38:22 AM »

Quote from: ZLP955 on December 14, 2014, 11:16:54 AM

Bryon, here's some data that I've been collecting, it's still very much a work in progress which I will add to.

BB/SB Block Casting   Casting Date   Pad Stamp   Oil Pan Flange Stamp   Note(s)
Cast 1967
BB    3916323       F 6 7      CE850140    T087
BB    3916323       J 8 7      CE853643    T0107
================================================================================
Cast 1968
SB    3914678       D 16 8      CE922528
SB    3959512       J 10 8      CE089910
SB    3959512       K 29 8      CE946309
================================================================================
Cast 1969
SB    3956618       A 9 9      CE9A24288
SB    3956618       A 30 9      CE9A32634
SB    3970010       E 12 9      CE9A98666
BB    3969854       F 11 9      CE973962
BB    3969854       H 30 9      CE070400    T099    Also first stamped T0916KE
SB    3970010 I 18 9    CE9B442 9 6 warranty repl. for V0725HX orig eng.
BB    3969854       J 14 9      CE075672
SB    3970010       L 8 9      C15408U                 (anomoly; possibly non-factory stamp?)
================================================================================
Cast 1970
SB    3970010       C 28 0      CE0A48264
SB    3970010       E 23 0      CE0B00122
SB    3970010       I 2 0      CE1A94176
SB    3970010       L 29 0      CEA129749              (no typo, A before 1, photo available)
================================================================================
Cast 1972
SB    3970010       A 10 2      CE221365
BB    3999290       J 23 72      CE361351
================================================================================
Cast 1974
SB    3970010       F 20 4      CE431334

Table formatting is a bit misaligned, but other members please feel free to add your data to it, by hitting 'quote' and then inserting in the appropriate date order. Thanks!

ZLP955 · « **Reply #26 on:** December 15, 2014, 07:40:43 AM »

Updated:
BB/SB Block Casting   Casting Date   Pad Stamp   Oil Pan Flange Stamp   Note(s)
Cast 1967
BB    3916323       F 6 7      CE850140    T087
BB 3916323 F 6 7 CE850154 T087
BB    3916323       J 8 7      CE853643    T0107
================================================================================
Cast 1968
SB    3914678       D 16 8      CE922528
SB    3959512       J 10 8      CE089910
SB 3932386 J 22 8 CE936524
SB    3959512       K 29 8      CE946309
================================================================================
Cast 1969
SB    3956618       A 9 9      CE9A24288
SB    3956618       A 30 9      CE9A32634
SB    3970010       E 12 9      CE9A98666
BB    3969854       F 11 9      CE973962
BB    3969854       H 30 9      CE070400    T099    Also first stamped T0916KE
SB 3970010 I 18 9 CE9B44296 warranty repl. for V0725HX orig eng.
BB    3969854       J 14 9      CE075672
SB    3970010       L 8 9      C15408U                 (anomoly; possibly non-factory stamp?)
================================================================================
Cast 1970
SB    3970010       C 28 0      CE0A48264
SB    3970010       E 23 0      CE0B00122
SB    3970010       I 2 0       CE1A94176
SB    3970010       L 29 0      CEA129749              (no typo, A before 1, photo available)
================================================================================
Cast 1972
SB    3970010       A 10 2      CE221365
BB 3999289 F 21 72 CE264155
BB    3999290       J 23 72      CE361351
================================================================================
Cast 1974
SB 3970010 B 12 4 CE3A97396 (cast 74 but stamped for 73 MY?)
SB    3970010       F 20 4      CE431334

Table formatting is a bit misaligned, but other members please feel free to add your data to it, by hitting 'quote' and then inserting in the appropriate date order. Thanks!

ZLP955 · « **Reply #27 on:** December 15, 2014, 07:47:29 AM »

PS anyone with HTML skills who knows how to format a table and would like to help, please do so; post displays very differently between editing and when displayed on screen.......

bcmiller · « **Reply #28 on:** December 15, 2014, 06:44:37 PM »

Thanks for posting that Tim. On my browser it looks fine. I will look it all over and put into a spreadsheet. Pics would be great if you could send to my email.

Jim you can send it to my email if you want.

bcm66@cox.net

cook_dw · « **Reply #29 on:** December 15, 2014, 07:34:21 PM »

I have it copied over in a spreadsheet if that will help you.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #30 on:** December 15, 2014, 08:54:16 PM »

Thanks Darrell!
Just one thing, could you merge columns F and G to read 'oil pan flange stamp' or whatever makes sense to members please? Some (maybe all?) CE blocks have an assembly date stamped down there on the gasket surface.

cook_dw · « **Reply #31 on:** December 15, 2014, 09:12:36 PM »

Done.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #32 on:** December 16, 2014, 02:19:37 AM »

Thank you Sir!

red69 · « **Reply #33 on:** December 17, 2014, 12:46:35 AM »

I have a 1969 302 that I acquired in 1975. CE# was decked off years ago, this thread got me interested so I checked it out today. The pad under the starter is stamped 01 9V, block was cast A179. I noticed up front on the right side lower pad in front of the fuel pump it is stamped Z and 5 in what appears to be the same font as under the block., not together they in different spots. Probably not anything, but I thought it was strange.

bcmiller · « **Reply #34 on:** December 17, 2014, 12:54:39 AM »

01 9V is likely January of 1969, Flint - based on the casting date of January 17, 1969.

What is the casting number?

red69 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 18, 2014, 01:05:24 AM »

Quote from: bcmiller on December 17, 2014, 12:54:39 AM

01 9V is likely January of 1969, Flint - based on the casting date of January 17, 1969.

What is the casting number?3956618

Kelley W King · « **Reply #36 on:** January 20, 2015, 07:03:48 PM »

If you are still keeping up mine is
CE974183 cast F 11 69 block 3969854 car is a 12A

1968RSZ28 · « **Reply #37 on:** June 11, 2015, 07:40:55 PM »

Quote from: bcmiller on December 09, 2014, 10:25:24 PM

If you or anyone else would like to share data, it would be AWESOME and greatly appreciated. We need as many data points as we can get.

What would be best is
1. Picture of the stamped information on the pad.
2. Block casting number
3. Block casting date

Thanks!

1. CE9B36978

2. 3970010
3. H 7 9

Paul

1968RSZ28 · « **Reply #38 on:** June 14, 2015, 04:37:38 AM »

Quote from: bcmiller on December 09, 2014, 10:25:24 PM

If you or anyone else would like to share data, it would be AWESOME and greatly appreciated. We need as many data points as we can get.

What would be best is
1. Picture of the stamped information on the pad.
2. Block casting number
3. Block casting date

Thanks!

1. CE831140 (photo below)
2. 3914678
3. I 25 7

Paul

1968RSZ28 · « **Reply #39 on:** June 14, 2015, 04:43:00 AM »

Quote from: bcmiller on December 09, 2014, 10:25:24 PM

If you or anyone else would like to share data, it would be AWESOME and greatly appreciated. We need as many data points as we can get.

What would be best is
1. Picture of the stamped information on the pad.
2. Block casting number
3. Block casting date

Thanks!

1. CE9A43523 (photo below)
2. 3956618
3. B 20 9

Paul

BSMIT59 · « **Reply #40 on:** June 15, 2015, 12:44:29 AM »

Quote from: bcmiller on December 09, 2014, 10:25:24 PM

If you or anyone else would like to share data, it would be AWESOME and greatly appreciated. We need as many data points as we can get.

What would be best is:
1. Picture of the stamped information on the pad.
2. Block casting number
3. Block casting date

I have a 3892657 casting engine code CE8 235 12 date stamp H 187. Above the oil filter it is stamped 3 groups of numbers. Top tp bottom 944 657 76N.
I believe it is a 350 replacement for 67 SS but have no way to verify.

Thanks!

bcmiller · « **Reply #41 on:** June 16, 2015, 06:01:40 PM »

Sorry, I have not been keeping up. Thanks everyone for posting data!

1968RSZ28 · « **Reply #42 on:** June 30, 2015, 07:00:01 AM »

Quote from: bcmiller on December 09, 2014, 10:25:24 PM

If you or anyone else would like to share data, it would be AWESOME and greatly appreciated. We need as many data points as we can get.

What would be best is
1. Picture of the stamped information on the pad.
2. Block casting number
3. Block casting date

Thanks!

1. CE922510 (photo below)
2. 3914678
3. G 11 8

Paul

Fred Mertz · « **Reply #43 on:** June 30, 2015, 09:15:38 PM »

It's been stated on this forum that '68 Z/28 engines were all 2 bolt mains. In '71 I bought a '68 Z/28 that had a replacement "CE" motor. In '73 I rebuilt that "CE" motor. It was indeed a 302 Z/28 motor. It had the correct crank , pistons, rods and damper. The damper did not have an offset keyway.It was also a 4 bolt main block. The block was a 3970010 casting. If the engine was replaced during the '69 model year would this explain the 4 bolt mains?
Does this make sense?

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #44 on:** July 01, 2015, 01:59:10 AM »

Makes sense to me Fred... it would have to be a 69 or later block for an 010 casting.

Daytona Z · « **Reply #45 on:** November 08, 2016, 09:44:57 PM »

Here's an interesting NOS fitted CE block with Pistons I was looking at. 6618 Block cast D19 and stamped CE8 555 19

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #46 on:** November 09, 2016, 03:57:52 AM »

which pistons was it fitted wtih? 302 or 350 pistons? (I suppose it's even possible for it to have 327 pistons??)...

Gary

Daytona Z · « **Reply #47 on:** November 09, 2016, 08:37:28 AM »

They look a little crusty in these pictures but the block is fit with 302 Pistons. There's a partial part number seen on the underside.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #48 on:** November 09, 2016, 08:55:47 AM »

To me that makes no sense, unless the gang stamp was incorrectly loaded with an '8' instead of a '9'.
BTW with a pad stamp serial number in the 50000 range, that would make it a Tonawanda-machined block, so presumably (originally) a hydraulic-lifter engine?

Daytona Z · « **Reply #49 on:** November 10, 2016, 12:17:21 AM »

I'm only supplying pics for reference of another CE block that's out there and will leave you to draw your own conclusion of how or why it was stamped or how it was issued. I can't tell you much more about it as I didn't buy it but do know who has it now.

KurtS · « **Reply #50 on:** November 10, 2016, 03:04:20 AM »

Strange. Clearly cast in April of 69, but CE dated for 68 model year. I'd be curious what the stamped date is on the oil pan rail.

JKZ27 · « **Reply #51 on:** November 10, 2016, 11:20:19 AM »

Was the stamp pad pic taken before the block was painted?

bcmiller · « **Reply #52 on:** November 10, 2016, 01:54:11 PM »

I would like to see a better pic of the CE stamping on the pad with the area carefully cleaned first. What I see so far is not typical.

67rs/ss396 · « **Reply #53 on:** November 21, 2016, 08:01:25 PM »

A 1968 L88 CE engine

Block: Casting- 3916321 Date Code- L 18 7 Pad Stamp- CE862626

Crank: Forging number 7115

Rods- Dimple with 3/8 bolts

Pistons- Std Bore Forged GM 3906648

67rs/ss396 · « **Reply #54 on:** November 21, 2016, 08:32:36 PM »

A 1969 4 bolt main CE engine

Block: Casting- 3969854 Date Code- unreadable Pad Stamp- CE 974200

Crank-Rods- Pistons- Engine is still together unable to see bottom end.
Engine does have large hole above oil filter and an 8 in balancer. The tops
of the pistons are covered with carbon.

ban617 · « **Reply #55 on:** November 24, 2016, 06:09:17 PM »

A friend of mine has a 68 Z/28 with a CE engine & the casting date was 73 or 74 also had something stamped on the deck but can't recall , it was a series of numbers...

red69 · « **Reply #56 on:** November 25, 2016, 06:04:51 PM »

Why are CE block stampings so irregular (spacing and letter height)? As compared to production engines. The examples pictured in this thread seem to be somewhat helter skelter in there line up.

Daytona Z · « **Reply #57 on:** November 25, 2016, 11:45:55 PM »

Here's a perfect example of an original CE warranty short block issued in 1971 for a 69 Z/28 warranty claim. I found this particular block unmolested with original GM bearings still in it and it's never been apart. Low mile with an original 1178 crank, pink rods, original standard bores, factory 3927172 TRW forged pistons with correct hi volume pump, correct 2482 caps, windage tray and original pan. Block is 3970010 cast G-2-0 and deck stamp is CE1236 62. Lots of paint still on the crank and the rods.

They don't get much nicer than this, and before you ask...no there isn't any paperwork from the dealership or from GM. Just a real nice CE short that has never been touched.

bcmiller · « **Reply #58 on:** November 27, 2016, 12:44:23 AM »

Quote from: red69 on November 25, 2016, 06:04:51 PM

Why are CE block stampings so irregular (spacing and letter height)? As compared to production engines. The examples pictured in this thread seem to be somewhat helter skelter in there line up.

We generally don't discuss details like this.

KurtS · « **Reply #59 on:** November 27, 2016, 01:37:02 AM »

The stamping procedure was different than production engines.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #60 on:** December 10, 2016, 12:22:54 PM »

From another thread here, a member sent me the pictures below, of a CE block with the following dates:
Pad Stamp: CE9A24283
Casting Number: 3932386
Casting Date: J 12 8

This was very interesting for me, because the assembly stamp is only 5 numbers earlier than a CE block that I have, with the following numbers:
Assembly Stamp: CE9A24288
Casting Number: 3956618
Casting Date: A 9 9

So comparing the numbers, there is approximately 3 months between casting dates (October 12, 1968 to January 9, 1969), yet the Flint assembly sequence numbers stamped on the pads are only 5 units apart.
Previous thread contributors have confirmed they have seen CE9, CE9A, CE9B and CE9C prefixes for Flint V8 assembly. Based on the block of sequential numbers allocated to that plant, this equates to over 90,000 CE blocks for the 1969 model year. With this number of service blocks, there can't have actually been a 3-month gap between 5 sequential units being machined and assembled. One possibility is that the 618 block was machined shortly after casting and the 386 casting remained on the rack until January of '69 before it was pulled out and machined just prior to the 618, but another possibility is that a quantity of raw castings was routinely set aside for CE applications, and perhaps both of these pictured were assembled some time after casting.
It would be great to get some more data points if anyone else has another block with a reasonably close assembly number.

ko-lek-tor · « **Reply #61 on:** December 10, 2016, 01:58:54 PM »

I am hesitant to contribute to this as I am as limited, as most on the site, on warranty knowledge & understanding. I hate to not be factual and rely on hearsay, but I was told many years ago that over the counter and warranty engines were engines that did not pass test firing off the line and were set aside for further repair. I was told that repaired engines were used in warranty. Left over unrepaired engines/short blocks were sold as over the counter engines. The guy that told me this was like a big brother to me and I looked up to him. He still has his SS 454 Chevelle he bought new and a couple of crate LS7s he bought in 73. It was while going through one of those 454s right out of the crate that my friend showed me that it had 3 broken rings! This led to my understanding that there must be some truth to what he said.

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #62 on:** December 10, 2016, 02:34:28 PM »

That's interesting Bentley, as my engine builder told me the same thing. The CE engine in my 70Z is currently being redone, and according to my engine guy, there are several things out of spec. I do have the replacement Protect-O-Plate with it.
Buddy

ZLP955 · « **Reply #63 on:** December 10, 2016, 02:53:34 PM »

Buddy do you have a P-o-P that reflects your car being fitted with a CE under warranty?

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #64 on:** December 10, 2016, 04:09:06 PM »

It is an all aluminum blank, no tape. It has the original owners info, but since the short block was changed, no info about thestampings of the drivetrain.

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #65 on:** December 10, 2016, 06:18:17 PM »

Quote from: x77-69z28 on December 10, 2016, 04:09:06 PM

It is an all aluminum blank, no tape. It has the original owners info, but since the short block was changed, no info about thestampings of the drivetrain.

I don't understand why a dealership would do that.. provide a 'blank' protecto-plate in the event of a warranty replacement engine? the VIN information and trans and rear etc information would still be correct for warranty purposes... The CE information on the replacement block would even allow warranty service on that engine within the warranty period... Buddy: that doesn't sound right....??

I have a '69 Corvette for which I know it's entire history from day 1. The original owner blew the engine within 2 weeks (street racing), and took it in for service which required a new warranty short block (350/350 engine).. the CE engine casting is dated within a few days of when the original engine was blown up. All of this happened within a month of production and delivery of the car. I have the original protecto-plate with ALL of the original information (including the original owners data and the original car/drivetrain into - obviously the engine info was outdated by the CE replacement). This situation would verify that there would be no reason to 'replace the P-t-P', and also verifies that the replacement engine was 'cast/built' extremely close - within days- of the Need for Replacement ...

Of course, like anything else... there are sure to be exceptions..

bcmiller · « **Reply #66 on:** December 10, 2016, 11:30:56 PM »

I believe replacement POPs were normally issued by dealers when a car was sold to another person, but still covered by warranty. The complete drivetrain information was not stamped (since not done at the factory) and the book itself did not get the VIN holes in the book. That's as far as I know.

CE engines were built on weekends or on overtime, as far as I know. bergy or others may be able to confirm.

I can't confirm or deny that they were built from engines that failed inspection or were set aside.

Go back to the second post in this thread, to see what JohnZ said.

bcmiller · « **Reply #67 on:** December 10, 2016, 11:40:56 PM »

I have a 1974 - 327 CE shortblock, casting number 3959512, with large journal forged crank and has provisions for road draft tube. It's all standard bore, standard rods and mains.

My November 68 dated L72 shortblock (3963512 casting) with dimple rods and 6223 crank is bored 0.040 but I don't think it's all original. Rods and mains are standard.

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #68 on:** December 10, 2016, 11:57:21 PM »

I will take a picture of it, if someone wants to post it.

KurtS · « **Reply #69 on:** December 11, 2016, 04:33:55 AM »

CE blocks were scheduled, just like other block builds. They would switch over to the various part #'s as required.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #70 on:** December 11, 2016, 09:18:17 AM »

Kurt, do you mean they were scheduled on demand, or scheduled in batches for inventory? I recall a much older thread where JohnZ (IIRC) said that CE assemblies were scheduled on weekends because they couldn't be handled in the same way as fully dressed production line engines, but he also mentioned that they were assembled according to GM forecast requirements.

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #71 on:** December 11, 2016, 04:12:35 PM »

THAT would explain why some seemed to be built per need, and yet some had a delay between build and usage...

bcmiller · « **Reply #72 on:** December 11, 2016, 05:35:00 PM »

Here is the one I mentioned. Can't remember if I ever posted this one before. Cast in September 1973. 3959512 casting number, which was commonly used for warranty/service blocks.

KurtS · « **Reply #73 on:** December 12, 2016, 06:07:31 AM »

Scheduled means it was a planned for event. They weren't using rejects (those were either repaired or scrapped) or partial production blocks....
I can't fathom that they wouldn't have some of the more common blocks in inventory somewhere. When your customer's block fails, you can't wait for them to build and ship a new one....

ZLP955 · « **Reply #74 on:** December 17, 2016, 01:14:42 PM »

The owner of the block with the CE9A24283 stamp above sent me some additional pictures shown below - thanks Kevin!
Still has the inspection and assembly marks on it, and looks to be a 302 based on the 1178 crank, pink 'O' rods, 2482 main caps and windage tray studs.

Does anyone know how to decode the numbers stamped near the gasket surface by the starter motor? I assume it's a date code of sorts, and that the 'V' denotes Flint engine assembly; however is it in the format month-year-plant, or day-month-plant? And is the plant code a suffix (rather than the usual pad stamp prefix), or is the stamp mirror reversed ('01 9 V' or 'V 9 10')?
What about the stamped out numbers underneath? Correction on the assembly date? Re-work?

bcmiller · « **Reply #75 on:** December 17, 2016, 03:03:36 PM »

I am not sure Tim. Probably Jan 69 Flint. (01 9 V). What the casting date?

ZLP955 · « **Reply #76 on:** December 17, 2016, 10:31:02 PM »

Quote from: bcmiller on December 17, 2016, 03:03:36 PM

I am not sure Tim. Probably Jan 69 Flint. (01 9 V). What the casting date?

J 12 8, October 12, 1968. Seems the block must have sat for some time before being machined.
I'll have to have another close look on the oil pan rail on my CE block to see if there's a similar number there to compare this one with.

KurtS · « **Reply #77 on:** December 19, 2016, 05:52:39 AM »

Asked John about CE blocks.
He confirmed they needed extra handling to remove them from the line (no heads or intake). They also had to crate all these blocks.
>"CE" engines weren't "stocked" at regional parts depots
The CE blocks were inventoried, but John means at the engine plants. I wonder if that practice continued in later years....

Bryan302 · « **Reply #78 on:** January 29, 2017, 03:31:46 AM »

Quote from: jvb6648 on December 15, 2014, 03:00:45 AM

Purchased my CE bare block in 4/74. 3970010, B 12 4, CE3A973 96. Stamp isn't the best. Tried to upload photo but file is to big or something, it just won't take it.

Several months ago, I acquired a CE block, brought it home and stashed it in the corner. Today, I went over the block to see what I had. I was very surprised to find that the assembly date was before the casting date. After comparing dates and stamps of the chart on this thread, I said, I be damn.

My new block is casting 3970010 and casting date of B.12.4. The stamping is CE3A980 75. I cleaned and searched the oil pan rails and found no dates. There was numerous letters stamped at random all along the rail and webs.

jvb6648's block 3970010, B.12.4, CE3A973 96
Bryan302's block 3970010, B.12.4, CE3A980 75

So, either the worker was drinking, or there is something to learn here!

Bryan

lynnbilodeau · « **Reply #79 on:** February 01, 2017, 01:37:32 AM »

Block is cast Feb 11, 1970. 3970010 Flint block.

bcmiller · « **Reply #80 on:** February 01, 2017, 02:03:28 AM »

Thanks Lynn.

It is unknown why some blocks have all digits aligned and others don't.

The hypothesis is that some workers changed the last few digits for every stamp, but one or more different people would leave the stamp setup without the last two numbers, then stamp the last two slightly later. Someone might have thought it was a time-saving procedure. I don't know if it really was or not. This seems to be observed more often with Flint CE blocks than Tonawanda CE blocks.

hihorse · « **Reply #81 on:** February 06, 2017, 01:40:50 PM »

CE968968, 3955272, J168, 2bolt
3931063, C49 and B269

ds1 · « **Reply #82 on:** February 06, 2017, 02:39:01 PM »

I have a CE 302 for my 68 Z28. CE8874. Casting number 3914678. I have pics, but to large to load

bcmiller · « **Reply #83 on:** February 06, 2017, 03:34:05 PM »

You can either resize the pics or send them to me if you want me to post them.

hihorse · « **Reply #84 on:** February 07, 2017, 11:15:28 PM »

CE069394, 3963512, E79, 4 bolt
3964291, F109/F49
in a 1969 L71 Vette (sold in Canada 194379S7340XX)

ZLP955 · « **Reply #85 on:** February 08, 2017, 12:08:09 PM »

This thread update reminded me that I did previously say that I'd check the oil pan rail of my own CE block, which I did do; I found some stamped numbers - but overlooked posting them. So here goes, this is what I found (picture quality not the greatest, taken on iphone rather than proper camera).
My 3956618 block, cast A 9 9, has the exact same stamp on the oil pan rail as the 3932386 block, cast J 12 8, with only five digits separating the Flint 'CE' sequence numbers (CE9A24288 versus CE9A24283).
I'm interested in the fact that both blocks also have what looks like '01 13' stamped out, underneath the '0I 9 V', plus mine also has an angled 'F' beneath this, and a misaligned '12 2' stamped over by the oil filter. Any ideas?
Near the starter motor:

Near the oil filter:

bcmiller · « **Reply #86 on:** February 08, 2017, 04:12:51 PM »

Thoughts, pretty sure the 01 9 V is January 1969 - Flint. This is based on other examples.

01 13 F could be the actual day of assembly, Jan 13 and an inspectors or assemblers mark/letter designation.

No idea on 12 2.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #87 on:** February 09, 2017, 03:26:21 AM »

That's plausible Bryon, although John stated previously that CEs were done on weekends due to different handling requirements on the engine line, and Jan 13 1969 was a Monday.
Nevertheless, I don't quite understand Kurt's description above about CE blocks being inventoried at the engine plants, but based on the casting dates and presumed assembly dates of these particular two small blocks, would that mean that some bare castings were set aside from regular production, and then machined/fitted as assemblies in scheduled batches?

ko-lek-tor · « **Reply #88 on:** February 09, 2017, 03:49:32 AM »

Quote from: ZLP955 on February 09, 2017, 03:26:21 AM

..... John stated previously that CEs were done on weekends...and Jan 13 1969 was a Monday...

A weekend shift, on second shift, could run into early Monday morn???

ZLP955 · « **Reply #89 on:** February 09, 2017, 07:22:05 AM »

Could be Bentley, I just assumed that the date stamps would roll over after midnight, but maybe it was at the shift change from night to day. Anyone know if Flint Engine assembly ran 7 days, night and day?

bcmiller · « **Reply #90 on:** February 09, 2017, 01:55:53 PM »

Assembled second shift on the 12th, inspected the next day by the F inspector?

Speculation only...

Would need more examples. I will try to look at a couple that I have over the weekend.

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #91 on:** February 09, 2017, 02:15:09 PM »

You fellas are saying that CE engine *assembly* was done on weekends? The CE engine in my '69 Corvette was cast on 18 September 69 (a Thursday).. no idea what day it was assembled.

Ps. The cast date for the Corvette CE engine being 18 Sep, coincidentally happens to be the same day as my Camaro rolled off the assembly line at Norwood...

ko-lek-tor · « **Reply #92 on:** February 09, 2017, 04:10:24 PM »

Quote from: 69Z28-RS on February 09, 2017, 02:15:09 PM

You fellas are saying that CE engine *assembly* was done on weekends? The CE engine in my '69 Corvette was cast on 18 September 69 (a Thursday).. no idea what day it was assembled.

Ps. The cast date for the Corvette CE engine being 18 Sep, coincidentally happens to be the same day as my Camaro rolled off the assembly line at Norwood...

Gary, the assembly date is on the surface the starter bolts to.

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #93 on:** February 09, 2017, 11:23:14 PM »

Quote from: ko-lek-tor on February 09, 2017, 04:10:24 PM

Quote from: 69Z28-RS on February 09, 2017, 02:15:09 PM
You fellas are saying that CE engine *assembly* was done on weekends? The CE engine in my '69 Corvette was cast on 18 September 69 (a Thursday).. no idea what day it was assembled.

Ps. The cast date for the Corvette CE engine being 18 Sep, coincidentally happens to be the same day as my Camaro rolled off the assembly line at Norwood...
Gary, the assembly date is on the surface the starter bolts to.

I understand that's the hypothesis of some of these posts (but this thread is the only time I've ever heard that).. I've never had the engine out of my Corvette so I cannot contribute on that. It would seem to be a good idea to 'prove/disprove' that plus the 'weekend' assembly theory via a table, such as we've done with other discussions. ie. If someone put the table together which included: CE#, cast code (and cast date), 'assembly' date as theorized, and 'day of the week assembled' .. That might begin to tell us some things as we get enough entries...

cook_dw · « **Reply #94 on:** February 11, 2017, 11:07:01 PM »

Another BB.

bcmiller · « **Reply #95 on:** February 15, 2017, 12:12:50 AM »

Quote from: 69Z28-RS on February 09, 2017, 11:23:14 PM

Quote from: ko-lek-tor on February 09, 2017, 04:10:24 PM
Quote from: 69Z28-RS on February 09, 2017, 02:15:09 PM
You fellas are saying that CE engine *assembly* was done on weekends? The CE engine in my '69 Corvette was cast on 18 September 69 (a Thursday).. no idea what day it was assembled.

Ps. The cast date for the Corvette CE engine being 18 Sep, coincidentally happens to be the same day as my Camaro rolled off the assembly line at Norwood...
Gary, the assembly date is on the surface the starter bolts to.

I understand that's the hypothesis of some of these posts (but this thread is the only time I've ever heard that).. I've never had the engine out of my Corvette so I cannot contribute on that. It would seem to be a good idea to 'prove/disprove' that plus the 'weekend' assembly theory via a table, such as we've done with other discussions. ie. If someone put the table together which included: CE#, cast code (and cast date), 'assembly' date as theorized, and 'day of the week assembled' .. That might begin to tell us some things as we get enough entries...

Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not possible.

We need a lot more data points...

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #96 on:** February 15, 2017, 03:40:04 AM »

Quote from: bcmiller on February 15, 2017, 12:12:50 AM

Quote from: 69Z28-RS on February 09, 2017, 11:23:14 PM
Quote from: ko-lek-tor on February 09, 2017, 04:10:24 PM
Quote from: 69Z28-RS on February 09, 2017, 02:15:09 PM
You fellas are saying that CE engine *assembly* was done on weekends? The CE engine in my '69 Corvette was cast on 18 September 69 (a Thursday).. no idea what day it was assembled.

Ps. The cast date for the Corvette CE engine being 18 Sep, coincidentally happens to be the same day as my Camaro rolled off the assembly line at Norwood...
Gary, the assembly date is on the surface the starter bolts to.

I understand that's the hypothesis of some of these posts (but this thread is the only time I've ever heard that).. I've never had the engine out of my Corvette so I cannot contribute on that. It would seem to be a good idea to 'prove/disprove' that plus the 'weekend' assembly theory via a table, such as we've done with other discussions. ie. If someone put the table together which included: CE#, cast code (and cast date), 'assembly' date as theorized, and 'day of the week assembled' .. That might begin to tell us some things as we get enough entries...

Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not possible.

We need a lot more data points...

I agree.. and I think that's what I stated in my post..

bcmiller · « **Reply #97 on:** February 15, 2017, 07:17:29 AM »

Unfortunately due to several factors I wasn't able to check the 69 350 CE block last weekend that I have in storage. Too many other things were going on. But I will check it when I can and report back.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #98 on:** February 15, 2017, 07:19:18 AM »

OK seeing as I started this particular discussion, I will put my hand up to go through this thread and put all the data so far into a spreadsheet. Will aim for this weekend, can't do much outside or in the garage anyway, as it's been so hot; last weekend the mercury went over 110F here and so inside jobs took priority

.

cook_dw · « **Reply #99 on:** February 15, 2017, 12:27:07 PM »

Tim if you cant get to it I can add it all to my spreadsheets I have been keeping over the years. Lmk. I copied all the data at one time over into one spreadsheet and then forgot about the whole thread.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #100 on:** February 16, 2017, 06:18:36 AM »

Thanks Darrell, I'll let you know if something gets in the way.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #101 on:** February 24, 2017, 01:22:39 AM »

Darrell are you able to confirm the pad stamp on the block you posted pics of just above, the one ending '921'?

cook_dw · « **Reply #102 on:** February 24, 2017, 01:28:01 AM »

Ill double check this weekend but 99.99% sure its correct.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #103 on:** February 24, 2017, 06:13:39 AM »

Sorry Darrell, meant I couldn't make out the full pad stamp in your photo.

Here's the data so far; I had to add a zero to the month to make the date code sort sequentially. I don't have a google account, but if anyone has and would be happy to upload the excel version to the cloud, please let me know. May need to scroll across to see the full image.

PS I have to search through other threads on CRG and other forums to pull more data to add in, so that spreadsheet will no doubt grow.

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #104 on:** February 24, 2017, 02:18:14 PM »

Tim! Very nice job!~ and a great start...

cook_dw · « **Reply #105 on:** February 24, 2017, 04:23:01 PM »

Are you saving the photos as well? If not I would suggest you hyperlink them to a cell and have a dedicated folder that you put them. I have a system down now that I do all my spreadsheets with. I also have each column filtered for sorting.

cook_dw · « **Reply #106 on:** February 25, 2017, 11:07:49 PM »

CE866921 from the best that I can tell...

ZLP955 · « **Reply #107 on:** February 26, 2017, 10:05:13 AM »

Thanks Darrell, that's a better picture.
I have kept reference pictures of the pad stamps where the poster included them, but haven't linked to them in the spreadsheet yet, until I figure out how to host and share it. Ideally it would be accessible for members to add their own data, but there would have to be some editing limitations to maintain the data......
There is a filter on each column, you can see the drop-downs in the header row on that screenshot.

bcmiller · « **Reply #108 on:** April 18, 2017, 05:58:38 PM »

Quote from: bcmiller on February 15, 2017, 07:17:29 AM

Unfortunately due to several factors I wasn't able to check the 69 350 CE block last weekend that I have in storage. Too many other things were going on. But I will check it when I can and report back.

Finally had a chance to check,

It's a 3959512 Flint block, cast A 7 9 and stamped CE9A35702, with 02 9 V stamped on the starter mounting area.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #109 on:** April 18, 2017, 10:15:55 PM »

Thanks Byron, I'll add that to the spreadsheet.

BSMIT59 · « **Reply #110 on:** April 19, 2017, 12:54:30 PM »

1967 CE8 235 12 block casting #3892657 Date: H187 Starter pad: 08 7 F

ZLP955 · « **Reply #111 on:** April 19, 2017, 11:04:21 PM »

Quote from: ZLP955 on April 18, 2017, 10:15:55 PM

Thanks Byron, I'll add that to the spreadsheet.

Sorry Bryon, auto-correct strikes again with yet another typo.......

bcmiller · « **Reply #112 on:** April 20, 2017, 02:56:57 AM »

No problem Tim.

jvb6648 · « **Reply #113 on:** April 29, 2017, 02:49:25 AM »

I don't think I ever sent you these pics. Purchased my CE bare block in 4/74. 3970010, B 12 4, CE3A973 96. Stamp isn't the best.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #114 on:** April 29, 2017, 04:24:23 AM »

Thanks Jim! Definitely had your data in the spreadsheet, but the photos are a great addition. That really does seem an anomaly, to have 2 blocks cast in 1974 but stamped for the '73 model year..... perhaps assembled same day, and there was an issue with setting up the gang stamp?

JohnZ · « **Reply #115 on:** May 21, 2017, 08:55:55 PM »

Quote from: ZLP955 on February 09, 2017, 07:22:05 AM

Anyone know if Flint Engine assembly ran 7 days, night and day?

Flint V-8 normally ran two 9-hour Assembly shifts, 5 days a week, plus two overtime shifts every other Saturday. Every day Assembly ran two shifts, Machining ran three 8-hour shifts.

In Assembly, Line #1 ran at 170 per hour, and Line #2 ran at 130 per hour; the combined output (300 per hour, one engine every 12 seconds) generated about 2700 engines per day. Flint V-8 didn't operate on Sundays.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #116 on:** May 21, 2017, 10:36:32 PM »

Great info John. Could you please clarify if the 2 shift lines were concurrent, operating on the same start/end times? I guess I just assumed 2 shifts at the engine assembly plant meant a day and a night shift, not 2 day shifts.

KurtS · « **Reply #117 on:** May 22, 2017, 05:45:33 AM »

Both lines operated at the same time.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #118 on:** May 22, 2017, 07:18:48 AM »

Thanks Kurt

ZLP955 · « **Reply #119 on:** May 26, 2017, 12:29:06 PM »

Another small block data point which I'll add to the spreadsheet in the next few days, along with the latest additions above.
Casting Number: 3959512
Casting date: B 4 1
Pad Stamp: CEA135856
Stamp by starter: 02 71 V
Data and following pictures are courtesy of Danny Tarquini from yenko.net - thanks!

bcmiller · « **Reply #120 on:** January 01, 2020, 04:58:08 PM »

Note here from the Chevrolet Dealer Service Information Bulletin dated September 29, 1969. It is the same wording used in the CRG engine section for CE engine coding.

The last five digits specify the service replacement unit sequence number.

There was discussion a while back that this was a "serial number". I did not agree with that wording, and I still don't agree with it.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #121 on:** January 01, 2020, 10:58:39 PM »

The right hand side column header in the extract you posted is 'Serial Sequence', the sequence (range) of serial numbers assigned to each engine plant.

bcmiller · « **Reply #122 on:** January 02, 2020, 12:08:10 AM »

The wording "serial number" to me suggests something is trackable forever. Obviously that is not what happened with these assemblies, or we would have tons of dealer replacement paperwork matching up with these blocks and transmissions.

I have not found any documentation that uses just the two words "serial number" to refer to them.

It is a number. It is serial. But not a serial number.

We may have to agree to disagree.

ZLP955 · « **Reply #123 on:** January 02, 2020, 05:10:02 AM »

Disagree away. But not sure why this seems to be so important to make a distinction. Trackable or not, the bulletin set out a sequence of serial numbers that were part of the CE stamp.

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #124 on:** January 02, 2020, 02:37:37 PM »

Funny! Bryon doesn't think it's a serial number.. even though they were 'built serially', and have a unique number assigned to each part which is a part of that 'series' of numbers. Even the original GM document refers to them as 'serial numbers', noting that the state of Georgia required unique 'serial numbers' for each of these major parts/assemblies.

Trackable? I'm sure that GM 'tracked' the serial numbers during the period it was critical to them (the warrantee period), and perhaps after. Since the purpose of the entire CE/CT documentation and serializing was for 'theft' purposes, it was probably up to the owners of the vehicles to maintain records of warranty replacement parts installed on their cars to be effective for that purpose; at least it's true for that today since we apparently don't have access to the original GM 'trackable' information.

Attached below is a copy of the original GM internal letter creating this system which refers to the identification numbers as 'serial numbers'.

Kelley W King · « **Reply #125 on:** January 02, 2020, 09:03:10 PM »

With all respect to Bryon I would call it a serial number because there should be no two alike even if there is not a way to track them. "part numbers" can represent thousands of the same, but serial numbers should one of one.

BSMIT59 · « **Reply #126 on:** January 03, 2020, 01:55:42 AM »

Has anyone seen a previous year casting style block used as a warranty block for the next model year? My 2657 casting, which was for 1967 model year, is stamped as a CE8XXXXX, with an assembly date stamped on the starter area of 08 7 F...... seems unusual to have been assembled that early for the 68 model year. Did they use whatever castings were leftover?

bcmiller · « **Reply #127 on:** January 03, 2020, 02:59:23 AM »

Barry yours was assembled at Flint in August of 1967, for the 1968 model year. We don’t know when in the month it was assembled. The older castings were probably being used up as the new castings started. There is always some overlap, which varies.

What is the casting date?

66shelby427 · « **Reply #128 on:** May 25, 2021, 12:43:16 AM »

Quote from: ZLP955 on December 15, 2014, 07:40:43 AM

Updated:
BB/SB Block Casting   Casting Date   Pad Stamp   Oil Pan Flange Stamp   Note(s)
Cast 1967
BB     3916323        F 6 7      CE850140     T087
BB 3916323 F 6 7 CE850154 T087
BB     3916323        J 8 7      CE853643     T0107
================================================================================
Cast 1968
SB     3914678        D 16 8      CE922528
SB     3959512        J 10 8      CE089910
SB 3932386 J 22 8 CE936524
SB 3959512 K 21 8 CE944015
SB     3959512        K 29 8      CE946309
================================================================================
Cast 1969
SB     3956618        A 9 9      CE9A24288
SB     3956618        A 30 9      CE9A32634
SB     3970010        E 12 9      CE9A98666
BB     3969854        F 11 9      CE973962
BB     3969854        H 30 9      CE070400     T099     Also first stamped T0916KE
SB 3970010 I 18 9 CE9B44296 warranty repl. for V0725HX orig eng.
BB     3969854        J 14 9      CE075672
SB     3970010        L 8 9      C15408U                 (anomoly; possibly non-factory stamp?)
================================================================================
Cast 1970
SB     3970010        C 28 0      CE0A48264
SB     3970010        E 23 0      CE0B00122
SB     3970010        I 2 0        CE1A94176
SB     3970010        L 29 0      CEA129749              (no typo, A before 1, photo available)
================================================================================
Cast 1972
SB     3970010        A 10 2      CE221365
BB 3999289 F 21 72 CE264155
BB     3999290        J 23 72      CE361351
================================================================================
Cast 1974
SB 3970010 B 12 4 CE3A97396 (cast 74 but stamped for 73 MY?)
SB     3970010        F 20 4      CE431334

Table formatting is a bit misaligned, but other members please feel free to add your data to it, by hitting 'quote' and then inserting in the appropriate date order. Thanks!

hihorse · « **Reply #129 on:** May 29, 2021, 02:50:20 AM »

Quote from: cook_dw on February 25, 2017, 11:07:49 PM

CE866921 from the best that I can tell...

most likely CE966921

News:

Author Topic: Service Engines (CE coded) (Read 67357 times)