C2:67 Does anyone see any broach marks

[Michael W.]

I misspoke

by inferring that there was a connection between the subjects of broach tool deterioration and the comparison of sibling engines.

I meant to suggest that examination of one individual engine pad (with VIN derivative, engine assembly date and code, and broach marks) in isolation is not sufficient to determine the originality of that engine. Al Grenning 101 in other words.

[John H.]

Re: Could be, Don

Mine's original, V0601HE, and has a "0" (zero) character after the "V", and an "O" (capital "o") character after the "6". Not unusual.

[Jack H.]

Re: C2:67 Does anyone see any broach marks

It happens more often that you think (two different shaped fonts of the same character/digit)... GM did NOT have just one '6' die or one '2' die! Those with extensive libraries of stamping tracings can 'see' when this/that character changed shape (a die broke and was replaced, the gang was dropped and the digits scrambled, Etc.) and such nuissances lead to authenticity 'finger prints'.

I was driving my '71 at the Steamboat National in '95, when Terry McManmon (then '70-72 NTL) walked by, saw the car, and realized it wasn't there to be judged. He asked if I'd pop the hood and let him have a looksee below. Sure! No problem.

He eyeballed the stamp pad and muttered, "Hum, two zero characters, interesting." He asked what I knew about the car (it was my uncle's) and if he could take a pencil lift impression of the stamp pad for his collection. Again, no problem. So, one expert judge has a 'checkpoint' on small block '71 pads now documenting the use of two zero shapes at a given point in time. These are the subtle nuissances the restamp artists can miss when they don't have the real McCoy pad to copy from!

[Rick S.]

Re: Could be, Don

My V0605HT has both zeros ,not O's. Interesting stuff. John, are you bringing your car Sat to Paragon's?
Rick

[Nick Culkowski]

Re: C2:67 Does anyone see any broach marks

The font of the 6 is just a minor subset of the issue. A library needs to be broadbased, free and accessable yet confidential. How do you do that? ie. diminish the effort of restoration assembly/serial stamp practicioners.
A popular restoration expert might mimic series investigation. Do we see examples in the set of all "pads"? I think yes.

[John H.]

Re: Could be, Don

Rick -

Yup, will be there Saturday.

[David Dawdy]

Re: C2:67 Does anyone see any broach marks

Gerald -

Is this engine one of the 67 Corvettes with the restamped passenger car engine? Al Grenning has an article in a past Restorer covering some of these engines stamped 0626. What you refer to as scratches could be grinder marks from the factory when they needed low horsepower engines during a shortage. I have one in my garage from 1967 with the following pad stamp:

7122273
V0626HE

Block is 3892657 with casting date G286. It is a complete eng and trans. The car is probably a '435 now. Good Luck.

David Dawdy
#1624

[Gerard F.]

Re: C2:67 Does anyone see any broach marks

David,

The block number is the same on mine, but the casting date on my block is F227 (June 22, 1967) which fits the 0626 stamping. However, the VIN on yours is the latest I've seen, (224 after mine) and I guess they may have run short on blocks.

What carburetor list and carburetor date code is or was on your engine. I've always suspected that my original carb body was other then a 3810, but can't prove it since I thrashed the carb in 1976 for a double pumper. Have since put on a correctly dated 3810.

In flight testing yesterday at Elk Grove,CA, they did find my broach marks. First time at bat, and I made 2nd Flight.

I'll try to look up that article. I think that there were probably a lot of substitutions late in the production year.

Thanks,

Jerry Fuccillo
#42179