Re: Engine identification
The silver one would have had a guy I know pounding his head.
The silver one would have had a guy I know pounding his head.
-
-
Re: Engine identification
Why Mark?Comment
-
Re: Engine identification
My mistake on the oil pump casting number. I thought it looked like 3880376, which would have been a later issue pump, but it must be 3860376, which would be correct for 65-66. The 3880xxx series is just about exactly right for all of the new release L88 parts in Oct/Nov of 65 for the 66 MY. I give up. Probably something very obvious that we're missing.Comment
-
Re: Engine identification
An opportunity to buy it last spring and passed.Comment
-
Re: Engine identification
Mike,
Actually, you have missed nothing. The reality is you are dead on with every observation you have made. Nice job. I am truly impressed with your knowledge with this and many other posts you have made. I am going to share the surprise shortly.
Jim JordanComment
-
Re: Engine identification
I made the first mistake in thinking the front main should be two bolt, but of course, it should be 4 bolt.
After that, it appears a short windage tray, lots of lead, lots of varnish, etc.
I don't see a pump pickup but then it could just be the angle of the pictures.
April car, so it is early, but not the first by any means.
Typical big block, nearly as much oil outside as inside. I remember back in the sixties, we used to stop for gas and oil with a '65 396 Impala.
Battery cable on driver's side, like it should be.Comment
-
Re: Engine identification
I have a feeling we're all going to learn something here. My incorrect observation of the casting number threw me off and that's why I assumed it was 66-67, not 65, but the left side battery cable should have been my clue. Thanks Jim.Comment
-
Re: Engine identification
Alright enough suspense. Next response will have an image that will have you all doing some real thinking!!Comment
-
Re: Engine identification
What we have hear is a 961 FOUR BOLT THICKWALL BLOCK. A first and perhaps the only. It is a real car. Bloomington Survivor in 01. I just had the honor to be the first to remove the factory assembled oil pan. Thaks for your "Good Sportsmanship".
Jim Jordan
Comment
-
Re: Engine identification
3855961 4-bolt L-78s have been documented in late 1966 Chevelles, also. Never say never.Comment
-
Re: Engine identification
What is the theory behind this? Maybe the guy changing the casting number digits in the mould was not doing his job?Comment
-
Re: Engine identification
Jim,
Although I've never personally inspected any 961 blocks in a 65 Corvette, I've heard of a few over the years that seemed to be authentic. I believe it's possible, and likely, that there were some. Would be interesting to hear from some of the other 396 guys. Supposedly, it's the block that WAS supposed to be a 427 but was later used for 396 with the smaller bore dia.Comment
-
Re: Engine identification
Mike,
I have not heard of others, however, it may be to the NCRS' best interest to note this block for reference. I am happy to share this info and photos with any interested parties. Additionally if there is any photography that is order here the car is available to be further evaluated. I hope this can help future owners who may encounter this situation. At this time, who is responsible for the 65 judging manual? Should they be made aware that these blocks may exist or is not worth noting?
Thanks again to all who participated.
Jim JordanComment
-
Re: Engine identification
Thanks for the pictures Jim. Excellent information. If indeed this a correct factory block for a 65, I'm sure the pic's and info will be very helpful to anyone involved with these 396 cars.
By the way, would this car happen to be from near Joliet, the suburb 20 miles west of Chicago?Comment
-
Re: Engine identification
Jim,
Would you happen to have a good pic of the block casting date?Comment
Comment