GM #14016379 - Joe Lucia

[R N.]

Joe,

June 27th you responded to a post I made regarding an engine block with a casting # of 14016379 used in an '70 LT-1 application. I checked the block and it does not have the "Hecho En Mexico" cast on the block.

Since that post, I have learned more and have spoken to a GM dealership service technician, now service manager who has done work on the car since 1973. He confirmed to me that the original block had already been replaced back in 1973 with a 327. The current owner drove it that way for years. Then the block was replaced +/-15 years ago with a correct GM short block for the 1970 LT-1.

This block was ordered at the same GM dealership and install by him. He said this block was a correct replacement block, including 11:1 domed pistons, steel crank, 4-block mains, mech. lifter cam, pink rods, etc. Then the original heads, intakes etc, got put back on.

My question to you Joe, could a block with this casting # of been used for such an application?

As ussual, thank you very much for your advise.

Regards,
Kurt

[Joe L.]

Re: GM #14016379 - Joe Lucia

Kurt-----

Yes, that's very possible. When GM builds a SERVICE short block assembly, they build it from a block casting being manufactured at the time that the assembly is produced. "Originality" as far as casting numbers go is a 100% NON-ISSUE as far as they are concerned; completely irrelative.

As I mentioned previously, while the 14016379 block assembly was not used for PRODUCTION applications after about 1979, it continued to be used for SERVICE engine requirements. The 14016379 was a "dual dipstick" block; it could be machined into either a left or right side dipstick application which made it a perfect candidate for SERVICE applications. I don't know why it was not used after 1979 for PRODUCTION, though. I can't see any reason why it couldn't have been so-used.

The 1970 LT-1 partial engine assembly (i.e. short block) was released to SERVICE in 1970 as GM #3966921. It continued to be available in SERVICE until June, 1992, when the last assembly manufactured went out the warehouse door and the "discontinued" sign went up. However, these assemblies were being continuously produced over most of the 1970 to 1992 period; it's NOT as if they made a "batch" of them in 1970 and, then, sold them until the supply ran out.

As I recall, your block had a 1985 date on it. That "fits" perfectly. The GM #3970010 block, which had been used for all LT-1s as well as most other 350 engines beginning in late 1969, went out of production in 1979. So, in order to produce an LT-1 partial engine assembly in 1985, some other block casting had to be used. The 14016379 was a perfect candidate. As a matter of fact, further research reveals that the 14016379 was used for some Corvettes; those Corvettes were later 1979 Corvettes, both with L-48 AND L-82. That CONFIRMS that the 14016379 WAS produced with 4 bolt mains since the late 1979 L-82s with 14016379 blocks would have had them. However, as I mentioned previously, even if EVERY PRODUCTION example of the block had been 2 bolt, there is no reason why Flint could not have used this block for SERVICE 4 bolt main applications; most any 350 block can be configured either with 2 or 4 bolt mains.

The 14016379 may have been the last block casting with left side dipstick capability manufactured by GM. So, that's likely why it was kept in production for SERVICE engine assemblies for pre-1980 applications. It's "dual dipstick" capability would make it a very versatile casting as far as SERVICE requirements go.

So, I'd say that "all the pieces pretty well fit together here" and the engine is very likley a 1985-era SERVICE LT-1 partial engine assembly. Combined with the original heads, it's a fully functional LT-1 as it was originally delivered. Of course, the block casting and date are "incorrect" for a 1970 LT-1, but that takes nothing away from LT-1 functionality.

[R N.]

Re: GM #14016379 - Joe Lucia

Hello Joe,

Thank you for your wealth of knowledge and for sharing it with everyone on this board. You amaze me with the amount of facts and data you know. WOW!

I appriciate your time to reseach this topic for me, thanks Joe.

Best regards,

Kurt