my 67 bb has a chev replacement engine with replacement # and the matching vin # of the original motor on the pad, probably a warranty replacement block casting date is h 10 7 car was assembled oct 66 would the ncrs judges see this as an incorrect motor and take a maximum deduct or would there be a different deduct for a GM warranty replacement?
-
-
Re: replacement block
This would be considered an incorrect engine block, and receive the maximum deduction. This is unfortunate, since this engine is really a service replacement engine, and should be treated as such.
Many of us have, as of this point, been unable to convince NCRS that there is some value in trying to preserve warranty replaced engines as a part of that Corvette's history.
You would get more points by using a correctly dated engine, even though it is "less original". -
Re: replacement block
In this case, if the casting number is correct, but the date is wrong, the deduction would be 175 points.
Comment
-
Re: replacement block
Vinnie's response is correct. Cylinder case receives partial deduct and is treated as what it is -- a service replacement. Service replacement parts fall in the judge's discretion range of -10% off originality, min, and -90% off originality max. Here, there is a special proceedure called out by the Judging Ref Manual (and score sheets) that results in the 175 point deduct Vinnie outlined -- a 'happy' median of the range for the 350 points allowed for cylinder case.
I agree with you there's merit for preserving genuine service spare parts from the era. But, how far do we go as an organization in this area when there is/are visible and detectable differences between the factory orig and service replacement part?
My 396 has a service replacement 3124 carb on it. The factory orig inspector's ink stamps are still present on the air horn. I could have re-done this part (acorn bowls and date on air horn), but I decided, as you say, there's merit in preserving original service spare items from the era so I left it AS IS.
Yep, I took deductions that ranged from 10-70% depending on the whim of the particular judging team I encountered, but that was my call. Guess, it's not an issue of whether we should recognize these 'special cases' since WE DO! The real issue is how much partial credit does each case merit, and Roy Sinor's been working hard to standardize this discretion area using the FDICC evaluation platform pioneered by NCCB/Bloomington.Comment
-
Re: replacement block
The issue here is a bit more involved. What Gil did not tell you in his post is that he has an early 67 car with a late 67 engine in it. The block casting number is for a late 67 427. So, his block casting number, his block casting date, and his front pad are all incorrect. That woould result in a full deduction for the engine block, even though this engine appears to have been replaced by the dealer under warranty.
He would get more points by locating a "correct" block (with correct date code), then just machining the front pad so that nothing is left. And this seems just a bit ridiculous to me.
The engine is his car now (assuming it is a warranty replacement engine) is, in my opinion, a part of that car's history. And we should try to protect that car's history. I believe that a CE engine (note that I am using the term "CE" as a generic term to mean a factory replacement engine) that is dated within the warranty period for the model year in question should receive a standardized, minimum point cost, service replacement deduction. Something on the order of 50 points out of the 350 allowed for the engine block.
I, and others, just can't seem to convince NCRS that there is value in also preserving the warranty replacement history of these cars.Comment
-
Re: replacement block
These are significant facts you bring up that were not disclosed (casting number changed during replacement period). I better understand your position/advice now, Ed. Guy's caught in a special Catch-22 situation where there's merit. Intent of current cylinder case rules is to allow partial credit for 'correct' service replacement blocks and this is a situation of letter of the law vs. intent....
Certainly an issue worthy of discussion. Where would you have Roy draw the line?
(1) Service replacement motor with different casting done within then
current warranty period? (2) Service replacement motor with different casting done outside then
current warranty period? (3) Service replacement motor with different casting done 30 years later?
Why not make a case and address it to Roy (and the Nat'l Team Leaders) in a letter. I don't really think folks are so hard nosed that they don't want to consider legitimate and reasonable rule changes. But, things take time to change. We've changed a lot and will probably change more.
In the meantime, I'd agree with your advice to keep the service engine and take the deduct vs. putting a wholeblood replacement block in. Just depends on what wants to happen when....
I also got lost on the original discussion of "numbers". A crate motor (CM) installed by dealer under warranty isn't going to have VIN derrivative stamped on pad, but one swapped in on the line as a replacement will have VIN derrivative wacked against what could be a 'suspiciously' late engine plant build date/casting date repetorie. So, thanks for the update on what's what and don't give up on efforts to make reasonable change to the system. Remember NCRS is "us" not "them"....Comment
-
Re: replacement block
I am shocked at the permissiveness of the self proclaimed "keeper of the keys", the NCRS.
I have always understood the restoration of any mass produced, assembly line vehicle (as opposed to some historically significant vehicle like a period race car, for example, being restored to it's most famous or infamous configuration) to be be an "end of the assembly line" process. Meaning the *exact* configuration it was in (for whatever reason) when it hit the end of the line.
This, IMHO, does not allow for warranty replacements. What of the owner who doesn't know enough to have the engine replaced under warranty and has the local garage swap engines within the warranty period or decides to take the opportunity to upgrade HP or CI or both (these were performance cars,remember)? Or the myriad fuel injection units removed by dealers during the warranty period?
I see folks, on this page, advising others to scrap their original parts simply because repros are available and easier to deal with than restoring their original parts.
As an oldimer/outsider I think that advertisements depicting "all new Al Knoch interior" as a positive aspect rather than an apology are extremely misguided, no matter how high Al has raised the bar.
My feeling is that if full points are awarded for repro interiors, tags, stickers and emblems, then you might just as well give full points for 348s in 58s and wheel flares done by the original owner.
But whether you do or not you are headed (like Model As) for the time when you won't need anything but a title (from a non-title state, at that) and a list of repro vendors to have an "original" car.
FWIW,
JPComment
-
Re: replacement block
Jack makes some good points here; perhaps it is time to revisit this issue with NCRS. I'll try a post to the discussion group first to see about getting some kind of consensus.
With regard to this particular engine, I suspect that the dealer stamped the VIN derivative and assembly date/suffix code on this engine as part of the warranty replacement. I have heard of this being done by dealers in the past. It is also possible that some fool decided to make a "matching number" engine out of this replacement engine, and just did not worry about the fact that a CE stamp was already on the front pad.Comment
-
Re: The attitude to an end
As far as the Model A club goes...They are a rapidly dying organization. Most A's are now rods. And there top award (the mark I believe) Is far far more dificult to attain then any top flite or PV award. No repro parts are allowed! to include belts, hoses ect. Whould you like having a car with 68 year old rubber products on it? If the NCRS was like the Model A clubs, the future of the club would be bleak at best. Im glad to see the NCRS is trying to encourage new memberships, new classes for most everyone, and the reality that they (we) are not perfect and they (we) dont know everything. Repro parts have allowed many Vettes a second or third chance at ownership and enjoyment.
DennisComment
Comment