64 3858180, again - NCRS Discussion Boards

64 3858180, again

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • travis pembrook

    64 3858180, again

    You may remember my plea for information on a 64 with a 3858180 block, which was this thread:



    I have since researched the car's ownership history back to 1979. The gentleman who owned the car from 1979-1991 was a drag racer of some noterity in Canada. He does aknowledge 'de-tuning' the car with 9:1 pistons and a hydraulic cam, but he insists that the block is the one that came in the car.

    The guy who bought the car from him in 1991 called foul on the casting number and then walked out on the deal. He then phoned his friend who he considers an expert on corvettes, and the guy called him back, and supposedly read him a passage from some book that said the 3858180 block was used in 'executive' cars in 1964, in order to test them for the 1965 model year, but they generally did not release them to the public. Of course, we don't know what book this was. Needless to say, the guy bought the car.

    This raises an interesting question in my mind. I was not into corvettes in the 70's, as I was just a kid, but I know lots of people who were, and they all tell me that restamping of blocks simply did not occur back then, because the parts were still plentiful, and there was nothing to gain from a value perspective.

    I am looking for theories on how or why this block would have been restamped, especially with a F on a tona****a (sp?) block. Any thoughts or further information would be greatly appreciated.
  • William C.
    NCRS Past President
    • May 31, 1975
    • 6037

    #2
    Re: 64 3858180, again

    "Stamped" engines were around in the '70s but maybe were detected less often due to general lack of information about the engine ID system. I don't remember you having posted any pictures of the pad in the previous discussion, If you had some it might be illuminating to post them.
    Bill Clupper #618

    Comment

    • Jack W.
      Very Frequent User
      • August 31, 2000
      • 358

      #3
      Re: 64 3858180, again

      well, as for the "F" on the engine pad, any effort to restamp a Tonawanda block as original to a 64 Corvette would have included replication of the "F" (for Flint) that is found on every other 1964 Corvette engine, all of them being small blocks assembled at Flint. I am no white-haired expert, but have seen more than one Tonawanda small block installed in a C2 and restamped. No offense, but it was sufficient for your examination of the car prior to purchase (as I recall, you looked at the engine stamp pad but not at the block casting number, which, by the way, still puts you ahead of 50% of the average C2 purchsers out there - the guy who I got my 65 from just took it on faith that the car was "numbers matching" because that was what the seller said, and didn't even know where to find the engine stamp pad when I asked him to look.)

      as for the time frame you are looking atfor the restamp to have occurred, consider the fact that the two prior owners you spoke with have nothing to gain from admitting to having commissioned the restamp . . . .
      65 MM Convertible, L76 (365 hp)

      Comment

      • travis pembrook

        #4
        Re: 64 3858180, again

        Pics are at: http://photobucket.com/albums/c391/azbluemach1




        Comment

        • travis pembrook

          #5
          Re: 64 3858180, again

          Yup, you are correct about my examination. I should have caught it and I didn't. Then again, according to my laywer, he shouldn't have signed the piece of paper stating that the car had 40k original miles, especially since I now have physical documentation that the car had 139k miles in 1997. By doing so he broke both state and federal laws, and is now facing both civil and criminal charges - he should get served next week. His desire to milk me for an extra 5k is hopefully going to end up costing him 10s of thousands of dollars, and possibly jail time. Shame that there are so many fakes and frauds out there, but I guess you have to do what you have to do.

          Comment

          • William C.
            NCRS Past President
            • May 31, 1975
            • 6037

            #6
            Re: 64 3858180, again

            Travis, need a picture of the pad "as factory" (unpainted). It looks like the edge of the head is not painted and the pad is? or is it just in the picture. painted pad is not something you generally like to see on a car you are buying.
            Bill Clupper #618

            Comment

            • John H.
              Beyond Control Poster
              • December 1, 1997
              • 16513

              #7
              Re: 64 3858180, again

              The pad appears to have been cut off another block and "stuck" on this one

              Comment

              • Jack W.
                Very Frequent User
                • August 31, 2000
                • 358

                #8
                Re: 64 3858180, again

                lot of effort considering they used a Tonawanda block as the basis of their creation, you'd think they would have gone the extra mile and recreated the correct Flint casting number on there as well, but that's just my "perfect crime" mind at work again . .
                65 MM Convertible, L76 (365 hp)

                Comment

                • travis pembrook

                  #9
                  Re: 64 3858180, again

                  I have hesitated on removing the paint, because the seller told me at one point he was going to take the car back and give me a refund. Now that we have shifted gears and are taking legal action, screw it. I will strip the paint off and take some good pics tonight.

                  Comment

                  • Loren L.
                    Extremely Frequent Poster
                    • April 30, 1976
                    • 4104

                    #10
                    Jack, he WAS conforming to the JG,

                    but didn't know that the JG has been wrong in this regard since 1993 - 3 subsequent editions have failed to correct it.......

                    Comment

                    • travis pembrook

                      #11
                      Re: 64 3858180, again

                      Ok, new pics are in plus a comp with Jack's 64 365hp car - he is the original owner, and his car was built 3 days before mine!!! Many props to him for sharing his picture, and giving me permission to post it for comparison sake.

                      I started a thread over on corvetteforum.com - thier forum tools are easier for me to work with, so here is a link to that:

                      http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...post1553731884

                      Comment

                      Working...

                      Debug Information

                      Searching...Please wait.
                      An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                      Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                      An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                      Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                      An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                      There are no results that meet this criteria.
                      Search Result for "|||"