57 block casting

[Ken A.]

Our 57 is #411, which from what I have been able to determine was assembled about Oct 20, 56. The block in the car is wrong, but I have found a correct block with a casting date of Oct 4, 56. One NCRS friend who is also a judge felt that this would be acceptable even though it may be close. Would that be agreed by other judges? Or, should we keep looking?
Ken

[Rob Dame]

Re: 57 block casting

Ken, I'm not a judge but i'd say that block is just about perfect for your car. My 56 was assembled the end of Feb first of March. The engine cast date is B206 and the heads were cast B226. Rob

[John H.]

Re: 57 block casting

I'd call that a "keeper" - #411 was built on October 23rd (give or take a couple of days), and an October 4th-cast block won't be an issue.

[Mike M.]

Re: 57 block casting

agree with rob and john. what's stamped on the pad? mike

[Ken A.]

Re: 57 block casting

Mike, supposedly this guy can deck the block and then stamp anything on it you want and make all the machine marks and stamps look original. I've been told that a 5 day difference between the casting date and engine assembly date would be good and that would still leave enough time to get the engine to the assembly line in time for the cars assembly date.
Ken

[Mike M.]

Re: 57 block casting

haven't seen anybody's broach marks that are identical to the generals, in spite of their claims. mike

[Ken A.]

Re: 57 block casting

Thanks Mike, I'll keep that in mind. Ken

[Ken A.]

Re: 57 block casting

Mike, I guess my question would be, how exact is necessary. I know that the typical machine shop marks are circular, and I have heard that with a belt sander (I think) they can put in straight horizontal marks. I understand that NCRS accepts restamped blocks, and I am not trying to call this an original block, but at what point would the judges call it bad vs. 'looks like' original. For example, there is a big question about paint, lacquer vs 2 stage, and from what I was told at the Regional in Berkeley (my first NCRS event), that if it LOOKS original, that is the goal, even if it is not lacquer. So, how far do I have to go to make it LOOK original. Even if the marks are not identical to the factory, is the fact that they are straight and horizontal enough? To take this a step further, I am sure that there are reproduction parts that are acceptable, with correct numbers or marks, but set side by side one could tell the difference between the repro and original. Agreed, the block is a much bigger deal than say, the master brake cylinder, but don't the same rules apply? I'm new to NCRS and it's judging, so I am trying to figure out what I can and cannot do. I greatly appreciate your help.
Ken

[Dick W.]

Re: 57 block casting

Ken, to help you understand the NCRS judging process, you should purchase the Judging Reference Manual available at the online store.

Engine judging is broken down into parts. Block casting numbers and date. Machine code. VIN derivative. Pad surface. It seems that you are concerned with the "broach" marks. This is a 38 point item. It is judged all or none. IF the marks appear as original there is no deduct. IF they do not appear typical it is a 38 point deduct. This is an oversimplification, but covers the basics.

Judging is an imprecise science. Everytime I look at a car I learn something. Reproduction parts vary in quality, from totally undetectable to totally incorrect. It takes time and experience to know all/some of this.

I, like the good Doc McCagh, have never seen anyones broach marks that are an exact copy of what Flint/Tonawanda did. Some pretty good attempts, but detectable.

[Ken A.]

Re: 57 block casting

Dick, So are you saying that you would deduct the 38 pts if the marks were similar and not exact copy of originals? In other words, you would deduct the full amount on all that you have seen? If that is the case, why bother trying to make it look original? Couldn't the same be said for much of the restorations? Am I missing something here? Ken

[Kevin M.]

Re: 57 block casting

Ken,

You recieve less duductions with an original pad and incorrect stamps. And if this is the guy on ebay recently your wasting your money. His stamps look like ****, they look like there punched one at a time. Stay away from paying extra for a restamped block. I'll try and look up the most recent posts on this subject to get the exact judging for pads, pads don't carry as much weight as you might think.

Kevin

[Ken A.]

Re: 57 block casting

Now I'm really confused!!!! OK, the block in our car is as CD block which I was told is a 57 265, 3spd w/OD, and a casting date of Dec 20, and our car has an assembly date of about Oct 22/23. So, I assume I would get really hit with this block. So, if I were to get this block which has a casting date of Oct 4 and leave whatever is stamped, even though it maybe for a single 4 bbl where my car has 2x4's, I would get less deductions than if I had it cleaned up and stamped to match the car.? (I don't know the guy with the block, he is a friend of a friend, so I can't vouch for the quality personally.) I have the 56/57 judging manual, but I haven't studied it that much. Maybe I'd better, but you guy's input is more than likely much easier to understand!
Ken

[Garry Barnes]

Re: 57 block casting

Ken, I would suggest that you find out what is actually stamped on the pad of the block you have found, and let us know what the casting number is as well. I don't believe that you have listed that yet. I would then submit your information and maybe the group can provide more clarity and direction for your project.

[Garry Barnes]

Re: 57 block casting

Ken, one thought on the broach marks. I once heard them described as "chatter" marks because if magnified you will see that they are not smooth, grooved lines, but rather marks that were made by a very large cutter that vibrated radically as the blocks were making their way down the line. The vibration and sporatic shaking produced markes that are better defined as chatter marks and that is why you don't see realistic broach marks being reproduced. I don't profess to be an expert on broach marks by any stretch, but these broken yet straight lines are what I look for when looking at a pad.

[Dick W.]

Re: 57 block casting

Ken, the key word is "appear as original"