Original engine?

[Bob S.]

I'm looking for opinions as to the odds that my '67 coupe still has the original engine. Rather than starting with a photo of the engine stamp pad, which seems to be at best indeterminate and more often suggesting a restamped NOM, I've started by looking at the date codes on the block, heads, transmission, differential, etc. I understand this will never result in absolute proof, but I hoping for opinions that indicate something like "not very likely" or "possibly" or "yeah, chances are it's original".

GM official production date from NCRS shipping data = 2/20/1967

VIN 194377S111238 I believe indicates February 1967 build

VIN 2.jpg

Trim tag G09 indicates February 9



Engine pad 7111238 V0204HP indicates February 04

Engine casting 3892657 date code A147 indicates January 14, 1967

Heads are both 3890462 date code B87 indicates February 8, 1967 (note this is later than the engine pad date, which doesn't make sense to me)

Differential AK21367 Standard 3.36 February 13, 1967

Transmission 3885010 VIN 7S111238 date code P7B06 indicates February 6, 1967

Any thoughts?

thanks,
Bob

[Bob S.]

Re: Original engine?

I'm looking for opinions as to the odds that my '67 coupe still has the original engine. Rather than starting with a photo of the engine stamp pad, which seems to be at best indeterminate and more often suggesting a restamped NOM, I've started by looking at the date codes on the block, heads, transmission, differential, etc. I understand this will never result in absolute proof, but I hoping for opinions that indicate something like "not very likely" or "possibly" or "yeah, chances are it's original".

GM official production date from NCRS shipping data = 2/20/1967

VIN 194377S111238 I believe indicates February 1967 build

[ATTACH=CONFIG]53483[/ATTACH]

Trim tag G09 indicates February 9

[ATTACH=CONFIG]53482[/ATTACH]

Engine pad 7111238 V0204HP indicates February 04

Engine casting 3892657 date code A147 indicates January 14, 1967

Heads are both 3890462 date code B87 indicates February 8, 1967 (note this is later than the engine pad date, which doesn't make sense to me)

Differential AK21367 Standard 3.36 February 13, 1967

Transmission 3885010 VIN 7S111238 date code P7B06 indicates February 6, 1967

Any thoughts?

thanks,
Bob

I'll try and add the photo of the trim tag again; Trim Tag.jpg

[Edward J.]

Re: Original engine?

Bob I would give a thumbs up. dated seem to all be in line.

[Ara G.]

Re: Original engine?

Bob, it may be my eyes or the angle of the picture, but those rivets on the trim tag look somewhat smaller than TFP. Like I said, it might be the angle of the pic, but you may want to post another pic of the trim tag. ARA

[Rick A.]

Re: Original engine?

Until you look at the stamp pad, what do you have? The components "may be original" to the aforementioned vehicle - nothing more.

[Bob S.]

Re: Original engine?

Bob, it may be my eyes or the angle of the picture, but those rivets on the trim tag look somewhat smaller than TFP. Like I said, it might be the angle of the pic, but you may want to post another pic of the trim tag. ARA

It's been a few years since I did any work in that area but I'm pretty sure that I re-riveted the trim tag as it was pulling out past the rivets that were holding it at the time, so I think I used rivets with a larger head than what was there when I bought the car. But I have no whether the rivets that were holding the tag on when I bought the car were original, but if they were too small for the holes in the trim tag, probably not. I do have a closer shot of the trim tag with about half of the right side rivet included; Trim Closeup.jpg

[Bob S.]

Re: Original engine?

It's been a few years since I did any work in that area but I'm pretty sure that I re-riveted the trim tag as it was pulling out past the rivets that were holding it at the time, so I think I used rivets with a larger head than what was there when I bought the car. But I have no whether the rivets that were holding the tag on when I bought the car were original, but if they were too small for the holes in the trim tag, probably not. I do have a closer shot of the trim tag with about half of the right side rivet included; [ATTACH=CONFIG]53486[/ATTACH]

I also found a photo of the engine stamp pad. I've heard from a regional judge that the broach marks don't look typical so there would be a deduction for that;

pad 1 best photo.jpg

[Bob S.]

Re: Original engine?

Until you look at the stamp pad, what do you have? The components "may be original" to the aforementioned vehicle - nothing more.

Very true, but from past comments about other stamp pads, it's perhaps easier to re-stamp a pad than to locate an engine with component date codes that seem to fit the assembly date of the car. Also, just for general background, this is not a high dollar car, not a car that would have been offered at any major auction and from the invoices I have going back to the late '80s, has not seen any major work, though lots of maintenance replacements. In fact, the most major work done to the car is something that would clearly reduce its value, repainting an original black car in Goodwood Green, the most common color in 1967 so it would seem inconsistent from its past history for someone to try and increase its value by searching out a replacement engine with consistent date codes. Just an opinion, of course, and I'm interested in the experience of others.

[Timothy B.]

Re: Original engine?

Bob, Looks fine to me, the engine broach is from a previous rebuild where the block surface was trued up.

[Patrick B.]

Re: Original engine?

Bob, Looks fine to me, the engine broach is from a previous rebuild where the block surface was trued up.

The grain in the photo does look like rotary milling grain as Timothy said rather than just clean up scratches. However, there appears to be raised up metal around the stamp impressions. If any milling had taken place there would not be any raised up metal from a pre-existing stamping. This suggests a stamping after the milling. This is a lot of guessing from a single photo but it gives Bob some context in looking harder at the stamping.

If it does turn out that this is a fresh stamp over machine shop milling marks, I can offer further speculation how it got there. Restorers in the last 20 years know about grain and would not stamp over rotary milling marks without making at least an attempt to establish a fore-aft grain direction. However, most machine shops do not appreciate factory grain. If a shop decked an orginal block without the owner's knowledge, they would most likely try to molify the angry owner by offering to restamp the block - over the grain of their own milling.

[John H.]

Re: Original engine?

Bob -

The block has been decked and restamped, although the block may well be the original - no way to tell for sure, and the heads aren't original to that engine IF the February 4th pad stamp date is correct. Everything else lines up nicely. AO Smith used 3/16" pop-rivets on the trim tag (as did St. Louis), and those in the trim tag photo aren't typical. Photo below shows a typical AO Smith trim tag and rivets.


67AVert8224.jpg

[Wayne M.]

Re: Original engine?

And here's the ones that were typical enough to make the cover of the RESTORER, back in 1994.





c

[Bob S.]

Re: Original engine?

Bob -

The block has been decked and restamped, although the block may well be the original - no way to tell for sure, and the heads aren't original to that engine IF the February 4th pad stamp date is correct. Everything else lines up nicely. AO Smith used 3/16" pop-rivets on the trim tag (as did St. Louis), and those in the trim tag photo aren't typical. Photo below shows a typical AO Smith trim tag and rivets.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]53490[/ATTACH]

I also wondered about heads with a date code four days later than the stamp pad, seemed odd. But the rivets I know are not original since I'm responsible for them :-(

When I bought the car there was no claim that it was an original engine, and if/when I sell it, I'll do the same. Thanks to all of you who took the time to review the dates and photos and offer your much more educated opinions than my own.

-Bob

[Joe L.]

Re: Original engine?

I also wondered about heads with a date code four days later than the stamp pad, seemed odd. But the rivets I know are not original since I'm responsible for them :-(

When I bought the car there was no claim that it was an original engine, and if/when I sell it, I'll do the same. Thanks to all of you who took the time to review the dates and photos and offer your much more educated opinions than my own.

-Bob

Bob------


I agree with John. There's no way that those heads could be original to the engine. It's essentially impossible to have an engine with heads that were CAST after the engine ASSEMBLY date. The only way that could happen is if an engine went into repair at the engine plant and had both heads replaced as part of the repair. The chances of that occurring would be near zilch.