CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 22, 2014, 10:43:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
107678 Posts in 12515 Topics by 4815 Members
Latest Member: NAPA68
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  Decoding/Numbers
| | |-+  Warranty Engines
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Print
Author Topic: Warranty Engines  (Read 13792 times)
KurtS
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 3330


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2007, 11:07:38 AM »

I take the GA law to mean that you couldn't have 20 service engines all stamped T1010EE, they had to be uniquely stamped. And that unique # was then traceable to being installed in xxx VIN car.
Don't quote out of context; "prohibit duplicating serial numbers of like components" is different than "prohibit duplicating serial numbers". Smiley

Federal law already made sure that all factory engines were uniquely stamped - with the VIN. This was only for service
Logged

Kurt S
CRG
ccargo
Member
***
Posts: 236


View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2007, 11:35:54 AM »

Thanks so much for sharing the docs Fran! It really spells out the "why" and "how" of the warranty component program. I'll continue to search out an example of a 68 CE, according to this they must be out there. It also seems to answer the question why the Con VIN was not used on the component at the manufacturing facility. I wonder if the replacement components prior to this system might have been VIN stamped in some fashion prompting the Georgia action? All in all I feel the CE replacement needs to be better understood as it is part of the "program" like it or not.  Nearly 2% of manufacturing product was effected by the program and common sense would dictate that certain performance combinations would be more prone to claims than that of simple transportation type drivetrain GM products. I dont know how well this undeniable fact of GM history is reflected in the post modern restoration "idealism" of our hobby? Most likely not well considering the proliferation of CE blocks on the secondary market when compared directly to the production allocations documented in the warranty program.  
Logged
dab67
Member
***
Posts: 460


67 SS


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2007, 01:05:12 PM »

OK did I miss something in these threads? Could you purchase a CE block, partial block or whatevr over the counter if you blew up your engine racing you neighbor to the corner A&W? Or where they strictly for failed engines within the 5/50K program.

Dave
Logged
bigblknmbrs
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2007, 12:51:09 AM »

I Emailed the memo to Kurt so thank him for posting it. I have nothing else that adds to the subject only reinforces what what you read said.

1) Yes ALL engines had the CE stamping, even and especially over the counter sales. CE engines weren't limited to warrentee claims. Thus don't use THAT as the reason for stamping the engines, it wasn't. It was a way for the police to check a car for a STOLEN engines, as in "where did yiou get that engine". To separate WHERE the engine was built (in the case of V8's) they had 3 series of numbers for Flint, Flint V8 and Tonawanda. Each plant kept records so the corporation could go back and check what the number sequence went back to.

2) ccargo: you get an extra 20 points, you hit the nail EXACTLY on the head!. All of you who are "overthinking" this re-read ccargo's post. Back "in the day" most of the buyers of muscle caras didn't know SQUAT, and many beat the shi* out of the car blowing motors up left and right. And don't think GM covered EVERY busted motor!, they didn't. They replaced MY Corvette motor, because they were having problems with cracked pistons, but when I brought back the transmission a month later the Zone man said "who are you kidding?". No matter, not under warrentee many guys just bought a short block and had someone do an R&R. Which also means don't think for a MINUTE that MOST guys buying a muscle car knew where the spark plugs were!.

One last point, if you were driving a Corvette in the 60's you either had it stolen, or were GOING to have it stolen!. I told this to the NCRS, and told them to double and triple check any car that claimed to have the "original" motor. Anyway, ccargo got it right

And as far as I know the VIN number wasn't re-stamped on any motors. To even attempt that would require a gang stamp holder and the correct size stamps. If someone tells you they did they're most probably a lier. The required stamp sizes for "CE" engines were from .125 - .250, so 1/8th, 3/16ths or 1/4".

Make this note :
        "In addition to these service only assemblies, any current production passenger engine assemblies that are ordered by the Parts and Accessories Department for service usage must have a service identification number".
         I'm going to jump to a conclusion here. If they ordered an engine for a specific application, say an L-34 350hp/396 engine for a 1968 Camaro it would be stamped "T0309XX" and ALSO a "CEx50001" (with X being the year it was ordered in). That's a lot to stamp on that small pad. But that's what the instructions say they have to do to COMPLETE engine assemblies (as opposed to partial assemblies or universels). 

There, that's the CE story from start to finish. Don't try and read more into it. General Motors required all service engines, sub assemblies and transmissions be stamped starting with the 1968 model year. And any records that were made at Tonawanda are long gone, I know, I searched all over for them.
Logged
ccargo
Member
***
Posts: 236


View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2007, 08:11:33 AM »

Just a couple interesting notes I'll add in conclusion. I've found that the CE assembly stamp on both Flint and Tonawanda blocks seems to be located at the starter flange and carries a plant/month/year code without the suffix code included (only when applicable of course) Sad On my May of 69 L34 CE I discovered it was assembled with a forged steel crank instead of the nod cast iron. It would seem to indicate that the manufacturer knew "Houston we have a problem". I know the CE is kind of a bastard topic but I'll try and keep updates on the interesting aspects as I come across them for those who care Smiley

Sincerely
Jepedo
Logged
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4163


View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2007, 03:59:05 PM »

         I'm going to jump to a conclusion here. If they ordered an engine for a specific application, say an L-34 350hp/396 engine for a 1968 Camaro it would be stamped "T0309XX" and ALSO a "CEx50001" (with X being the year it was ordered in). That's a lot to stamp on that small pad. But that's what the instructions say they have to do to COMPLETE engine assemblies (as opposed to partial assemblies or universels). 

"CE" blocks only had the "CEXXXXXX" stamp on the pad - there was no typical plant/date/suffix stamp on the pad. The only stamping was the "CE", year produced digit, and the sequence number assigned in blocks of 20,000 to the Flint Motor L-6 plant, and in blocks of 30,000 each to Flint V-8 and Tonawanda. The "CE" stamping program didn't start at Chevrolet until mid-April, 1969, and the stamping format frequently deviated from the published format as the plants decided to revise it for their own reasons later in 1969.
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
Z71
Member
***
Posts: 80


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2007, 04:29:23 PM »

I agree those letters are interesting but who is to say they followed that procedure to the letter and did not adopt some modification in the future.  Not arguing about it I know where I worked for over 30 yrs (M-DOT) nothing stayed the same for very long.  A new manager/supervisor takes over and things changed.   
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 04:32:54 PM by Z71 » Logged

Mike
Owned new (and still have stashed away) LOL
1966 Impala SS396
1970 Chevelle SS454
1972 El Camino SS350
1973 Chevelle SS350
2002 Trans Am WS6 Ram Air
bigblknmbrs
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2007, 06:02:04 PM »

Z71 :Good for you, but at General Motors if the higher ups said "do this" they did this, and they did it the way they were TOLD to do it. And no, they didn't start this in 1969, they started it in the fall of 1967 of 1967 for the start of the 1968  model year. And I THOUGHT I quoted EXACTLY what they were TOLD to do as far as complet CURRENT year engines were concerned. To say when a "new manager takes over" and applying to to GM is plain stupid.


John Z : I'm not saying you don't know what your talking about, but you don't. The serial sequence was:
1) Flint Motor Plant                  00001 - 19999
2) Flint V8 Engine plant            20000 - 49999
3) Tonawanda Motor plant        50000 - 69999

Now this is from a memo that states "unless advised to the contrary, we will prresume these arrangements are satisfactory and you will proceed accordingly"   (signed)

                                                              FACILITIES & PRODUCTION PLANNING DEPARTMENT

                                                              J.K. Cummingham

                                                              Supervisor Planning section

CC: (20 names) and all Assembly Plant Managers

Now in none of the memos I have pertaining to this does it say "plant managers can do something else if they want", and if the memo came down to the plant floor and a supervisor said "this is bullshit" he wouldn't be a supervisor very long. Tell a supervisor to tell a plant manager NO!, and see what the supervisor says. Now wherever the hell it is you work maybe you can go against what a higher up says, try it at a GM plant and they'll hand you your ass on a platter, trust me on this.

I have a series of Inter-Organization Letters between the Central Office and the Engineering Center dated August 1st, August 3rd and August 14th 1967 which cover EXPLICITLY why and how the assembly plants  are to proceed with the "CE" identification system. But hey, what do I know, I only worked at a plant that did it.

I don't know where someone got the idea that this system was put in place to track warrentee claims when they went to the 5/50,000 warrentee. That is actually completely ridiculous, it's so not right that makes me laugh. Chevrolet had a dozen different ways to track warrentee claims. The ONLY reason to stamp CE on an engine was to watch for parts departments and/or dealers trying to pull a fast one and do a warrentee claim to get a free engine. This was of course fraud and the company could go after the dealership. Example, ABC Chevrolet puts in a claim for a replacement engine under warrentee. Somehow they bypass the Zone Field Representitive whose SUPPOSED to look at every major claim. At some point the Zone man DOES look at the car, talks to the owner, looks at the stamp pad and either sees or doesn't see the CE code on the pad. That's all hypothetical, and for the most part bullshit, but many is the time they "totaled" an engine, replaced it under warrentee then amazingly the engine fixed itself. Parts departments did "warrentee jobs", or so I'm told. But if they got caught?. Hey, do you think Chevrolet and thier zone rep's were STUPID?. Trust me, dummies didn't get those jobs!. And they didn't do complete or partial engines with out someone USUALLY double checking.

Anyway, to say the CE program went into effect to track warrentee claims is wrong, 90% of all CE engines or engine sub assemblies went other places, parts departments, customer sales, a 1/2 dozen or more places.   

As far as the forged crank is concerned it didn't anything to do with "Houston we have a problem". The partial engine assembly serviced 1967-68 L-34 engines (3930854) and they changed from forged to cast cranks at some point in the 1967 model year. So, because this is how Chevrolet worked, they could and did UPGRADE a component, in this case a forged crank was better than a cast crank, they simply made all service engines that serviced both 67 and 68 the same, with forged cranks. That way if your 1968 came with a cast crank and they replaced it with a forged one YOU WIN!. If your 1967 came with a forged crank you got a forged crank YOU DON'T LOSE!. In any event, if they ran out of a part on the line they could use the same part if it was BETTER (any part) but they couldn't substitute a lesser quality part, EVER!. Anyway, the number of partial engines was so small Chevy didn't care.

PS If you think they didn't implement this program until April 1969 clue me/us in what they did from September 1967 until then?. Or did they just not follow orders?.
Logged
Z71
Member
***
Posts: 80


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2007, 06:15:58 PM »

Thank you for the insults.
Logged

Mike
Owned new (and still have stashed away) LOL
1966 Impala SS396
1970 Chevelle SS454
1972 El Camino SS350
1973 Chevelle SS350
2002 Trans Am WS6 Ram Air
rsatz28
Member
***
Posts: 43


View Profile Email
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2007, 08:18:51 PM »

to bigblknmbrs:

I'm very curious.  What is your background in the automotive world?
Logged
KenBoje
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


View Profile Email
« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2007, 01:03:10 AM »

I have a NOS J207 dated, CE859944 coded short block assembly in my 1967 Z28. Came with a forged tuftrided crank, forged pistons and stage 3 small journal rods. Its a 657 block, with a small journal crank.
Logged
RonM
Member
***
Posts: 59


View Profile Email
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2007, 07:51:59 AM »

If GM didn't abide by the Georgia State Law in 1968 they at least planned to. I picked up a 1968 Chevrolet dealer service bulletin binder a couple of years ago, and one of the service bulletins dated Sept. 25, 1967 describes the Georgia State Law. Briefly it states, "the Georgia State Law also requires that all engine and transmission assemblies*, including replacement parts, to be numbered after the start of the 1968 model run."
" *This numbering system applies to service engine assemblies, partial engines, fitted cylinder cases, cylinder cases, transmission assemblies and transmission cases." Hope this helps, RonM.
Logged
zbo2
Newbie
*
Posts: 17


View Profile Email
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2007, 12:07:01 AM »

i worked at a chevy dealership back in 72 and they used to have a big o'le sledge hammer at the back of the shop to break the blocks and other items while the chevy rep watched. no chance to reuse them. we had a big pile of blocks for sure...some heads and trans cases also.
Logged
KurtS
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 3330


View Profile Email
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2007, 01:51:50 AM »

Fran,
Please eliminate the insults from your posts. We welcome your knowledge and information here, but just because everyone doesn't immediately agree does not mean we need a war of words.
This is a discussion board that holds itself to a higher standard. Stick to the facts and you will make you point much more effectively.

I have never seen a CE stamp and a production stamp (T1012xx) on the same block, but that's not to say it couldn't happen on a service block.
I've seen several CE8xxxx blocks, confiming it was implemented for 68 model year.

But, the data shows that they modified the CE stamp procedure.
Examples:
CE blocks have CE9B46015, CE0A965 0 9,  and CE72 502 stamped on them. Those do not follow the procedure that is outlined.

Here's a pic of that last stamp: http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b217/RamAirDave/YellowRSZ/100_3247.jpg
Logged

Kurt S
CRG
KurtS
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 3330


View Profile Email
« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2007, 10:29:05 PM »

Make this note :
        "In addition to these service only assemblies, any current production passenger engine assemblies that are ordered by the Parts and Accessories Department for service usage must have a service identification number".
         I'm going to jump to a conclusion here. If they ordered an engine for a specific application, say an L-34 350hp/396 engine for a 1968 Camaro it would be stamped "T0309XX" and ALSO a "CEx50001" (with X being the year it was ordered in). That's a lot to stamp on that small pad. But that's what the instructions say they have to do to COMPLETE engine assemblies (as opposed to partial assemblies or universels). 

After doing some more research and talking to Al Grenning (Corvette engine guru), I believe that complete engine assemblies that were used for service were only stamped with the CE code. Fran's supposition had a solid premise, but no CE blocks have ever been found that have an engine assembly stamp on them, either in a Camaro, Corvette, or out of a car.
Which means the engine plant would have known that those assemblies were destined for service and did not stamp an assembly code on them.
That also means there's no easy way to distinguish between a CE short block and a CE engine assembly. Heads and other components would be dated for the block, if those components are still on the block.

Fran,
Are the totals for engine production by engine assembly part # or by application code? Do any of the sheets indicate where the assemblies were destined (i.e. assembly plant or service)?

Thanks!
« Last Edit: March 12, 2007, 10:32:23 PM by KurtS » Logged

Kurt S
CRG
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.089 seconds with 17 queries.