C2 LT1 Short Block

[Jim T.]

Re: C2 LT1 Short Block

Incorrect sentence starting with Remember. Should be Remember being told one reaon for taking two weeks for getting the car on the road again was obtaining the correct engine replacement block.

[Terry B.]

Re: C2 LT1 Short Block

I read your previous post when the CE topic was discussed months ago. I found it very interesting with the cast date still being before the delivery of your car due to the immediate failure.

[John H.]

Re: C2 LT1 Short Block

Michael -

The Dealer Service Information Bulletin announcing the "CE" (and "CT" for transmissions) stamping program for 5/50 warranty replacements was dated April 14, 1969; I don't have the complete document, but here is the direct quote from the "CE" announcement section of the bulletin:

"The first letter will designate the GM division which produced the engine; C-Chevrolet L-Oldsmobile K-Cadillac B-Buick P-Pontiac.

The second letter will designate the type of unit, "E" engine or "T" transmission. The number following the letter will designate the model year, i.e. "9" for 1969. The last five digits specify the service replacement unit sequence number. The group of numbers to be used by Chevrolet manufacturing plants are as follows:

Flint motor plant (L-6 engines): 00001 to 19999
Flint V-8 Engine Plant: 20000 to 49999
Tonawanda Motor Plant: 50000 to 79999

Example: Number CE900175 designates Chevrolet engine - 1969 year, and the 175th unit produced for service at the Flint motor plant.

This numbering system applies to service engine assemblies, partial engines, fitted cylinder cases, cylinder cases, transmission assemblies and transmission cases. All Hydra-Matic transmissions are coded "H" regardless of the division for which they are produced."

I remember the internal consternation at Chevrolet when the 5/50 Powertrain claims began to pour in, in FAR greater numbers than had been predicted when the program was "sold" to management; the beanies invented the "CE" and "CT" designation requirement to get a more accurate accounting from the engine plants of the distinction between normal service engines produced vs. those produced specifically for 5/50 warranty replacement. The 5/50 warranty was a disaster, but it DID bring a whole new focus to Engineering on long-term reliability and to Manufacturing on process capability and controls.

[Michael H.]

Re: C2 LT1 Short Block

John,

I thought that CE started in 1969 but wasn't 100% sure. I do remember the "CE" stamp on ONE of my many new warranty 302 short blocks and that would have been some time in late 69 if I remember correctly. (GM kinda sorta sponsored that car in 69, even if the bean counters didn't know it)

I'm still looking for the paperwork on the "CE" but I'm beginning to think it's still up in the frozen north, not here.

I also remember that GM didn't want any part of the 5/50 warranty but Chrysler corp had their 5/50 going a year or two before GM did so GM had no choice but to follow. I remember mostly young guys taking advantage of it with broken drag race or road race car parts (not me) but also a lot of citizens that would bring their cars into the dealer with 49,000 miles and complain of oil consumption, hoping for a fresh new free short block. I rejected a lot of those claims and suggested we replace rings only if an oil consumption test showed the consumption was abnormal.

Was 68 or69 the last year for 5/50? Can't remember.

[Terry M.]

[Michael H.]

Re: CE designation

Terry,

That's interesting. I seem to remember reading something similar to that from one of the NE states also. (Pennsylvania?) However, I don't think GM stamped all the block assy's as I've had several fitted/short blocks built after that time with no stamp at all on the pad. I know exactly where the 2nd short block is today from my 68 Z-28 that I installed in fall of 68 and there was no stamp at all. It was a 69 short block with the new 4 bolt mains and that's why I wanted it. Interesting that the Georgia law states "blocks sent to that state" will be stamped. Could it be that the rest of the nation followed after the GM memo of 1969?

Michael

[Terry M.]

Re: CE designation

Of course anything could have happened back then, and in fact the Georgia law could have been an excuse that they were happy to exploit for other reasons - perhaps the reasons you and John have suggested. We all have stories of the good old days to illustrate events which deviated from the norm.
Unfortunately, I can not add anything to that bulletin. I simply pass it on for what it is worth.

[Michael H.]

Re: CE designation

Terrt,

The only reason I remember, roughly, the time period of the GM paperwork on "CE" is the fact that I worked for GM at that time and I remember the exact office I was in when I got that paperwork. I remember discussing this with a few different people in the office and I can key this time to the events that were taking place with my Camaro at that time. (yea, that same Camaro that GM sponsored but didn't really know it) It had to be some time between fall 68 and spring or summer of 69. I wasn't in that building before or after that time frame. It's also possible that the paperwork came "after" the plant started stamping the CE info on the blocks but couldn't have been much earlier.

Back later, off to the car show. We have at least four of these a week at local drive-in's here in the Tampa area. Lot of fun and no judging, just a fun time with all the other old geezers.

[Clem Z.]

hey terry

i got my "america's sports car" today and you are all thru it. nice going on the NCM 10th. we were signed up to go but mrs clem had to have another artery stint put in that week. we hated to miss it. NCM # 5583

[Terry M.]