Service Order Block

[69er]

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

[JohnZ]

Pat Railsback has noted similar stampings on the starter pad on several "CE" blocks, and has done some research on it; if he sees this thread, he'll probably chime in.

[68Zproject]

My CE block has "stuff" like that on it too.

[ccargo]

With all due respect to the author of the article I think he might have pulled the "SO" service order thing out of the air. It appears to me that the sequence reads 80936653 and what it might mean I'd only be quessing without more data on the block. The other photo thats posted shows an assembly code 08 9 (month year) and the engine plant code V=Flint sometimes found on CE component blocks depending on the "type". Are these two photos from the same block?

Pat

[69er]

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

[ccargo]

Yes that's an indication of a CE block. Check the casting date and see if its Aug of 69 or slightly before that. It's not all that uncommon to see a CE block in a solid lifter application if it was used for anything other than driving Miss Daisy How does the date line up with the cars build? If its prior to the body build it's not the block replaced for the warranty POP holder of the car. I guess if one thinks about it awhile a CE is better off if it doesn't belong to the car and is date correct  Just kinda of a saga living with the scarlet letters 

[68Zproject]

Would a CE block be date coded to a car's build date?  If the engine blew up on a 68 in 1970, wouldn't they replace it with a 1970 CE block?

[JohnZ]

Would a CE block be date coded to a car's build date?  If the engine blew up on a 68 in 1970, wouldn't they replace it with a 1970 CE block?

There wouldn't be any correlation between the car's build date and the casting date of a "CE" block; the casting date on the "CE" block would relate more to the time frame during which it was ordered by the dealer.

[69er]

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

[68Zproject]

That's what I thought John Z, I didn't make sense to date a CE block to the engine it replaced.  Thanks.

[ccargo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear as mud,
Pat



 

[69er]

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

[ccargo]

I dont have enough information at this time to suggest that upgrades were included in warranty replacement components. I can tell you from my personal experience with my 69 L34 CE that I was somewhat surprised to find a steel crank in place of an expected cast iron crank during its rebuild. FYI the car is an 03D build and has a May 69 cast CE with an 05 9 assembly date. According to the original POP it's "in service" date was May 13th 69. It appears to have had issues right out of the box so to speak.

[68Zproject]

ccargo, I PM'd you with some info on my CE block.  FYI

[zdld17]

Good Morning to All,  Just signed on here after viewing much discussion concerning replacement engines.    I have a 69Z purchased new , 12A car, no X codes.    I purchased this during my employment with a South Texas dearlership in early 60's where I started as counter parts person.  Thru the years i went to part mgr, service writer, warranty clerk and service mgr before my departure to BOP line of Gm dealerships.   

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

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

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

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

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