C2 1967 engine pad

[Nick C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Dick, good eyes... I never saw subtle bounce hit on the V untill you mentioned it. Quite possibly TFP.

I was more concerned with the two and T observation and how they change... also possibly TFP.

[Dick C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Also noticed the "2 " and the "T" and they both look out of character when I look at some other pictures I have.
Up close and personal is always better.

[Nick C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Both assembly stamps discussed on this thread may have merit in spite of their obvious difference. Thinking in the positive realm, might they both be fp?

[Ian H.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Both assembly stamps discussed on this thread may have merit in spite of their obvious difference. Thinking in the positive realm, might they both be fp?

<Also this quote.....>

Dick, good eyes... I never saw subtle bounce hit on the V untill you mentioned it. Quite possibly TFP.

I was more concerned with the two and T observation and how they change... also possibly TFP.

Nick;
I've never seen the the acronyms "TFP" or "fp" . Can you tell me what they mean please?

Thanks,
Ian

[Dick W.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

tfp=typical factory production
tp=typical production

[William G.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Jim, I wouldn't give up on your engine pad just yet. I recently purchased a 66 roadster that had all the makings of having the original block. The stampings looked good, and the rest of the driveline was all original. With the help of two NCRS members on this board I was advised to clean the pad of all the imbedded oil, etc. My pad looked a lot like yours. I used a cleaner like Simple Green and a scotch brite pad as well as some lacquer thinner. I was afraid that any remnants of broach marks would be abraded off but much to my surprise the broach marks appeared after cleaning the pad. You will be surprised at how much imbedded junk can be on top of the pad. However,ifthe pad is simply rusted away that's another story but I couldn't tell by looking at your photo.

[Nick C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

I have seen cases of nervous owners who "try to clean up" their pads, and end up destroying surfaces and patina. Even worse; owners who have restamped perfectly legitimate pads to satisfy an erroneous "judging comment"

There are many posts in the archives on how to clean and preserve the fragile surface. I would NOT use a scotchbrite pad or anything more than a soft toothbrush. Abrasion is the enemy!

Other than seeing it "up close and personal" like Dick said, I don't feel Jimmy's pad needs anything other than a light coat of oil to preserve it as is.

[Chuck S.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

I thought I would share this with you. My car does have the tank sticker and protecto plate. It also come factory equipped with pb and ac (C60) (NO power steering). What are your thoughts on the pad stamp?

You guys can see "broach marks" there?...I can't see'em; just looks rusty to me.

As others have pointed out, the "T" is obviously hand struck. A rare combination of options would be no excuse for the engine guy missing the stamp configuration...unless he had severe head space...yeah, I suppose it could happen. Not knowing what the practice was on restrikes during the 67 model year, I would have to do more research on the hand struck "T"...this one would be a good candidate for an Al Grenning consultation IMO.

There are a couple of other issues with the machine stamp that would make me uncomfortable purchasing the car. All of the comments below are regarding the machine stamp or engine date stamp, and not the VIN derivative stamp. First off...big blocks were made at Flint?...shows you how much I know; read on or not.

My first comment on the machine stamp is that the V0 seems to start on one line more less square with the head and pad, but the 223HT portion of the machine stamp seems to angle down on another line. This would be impossible with a gang stamp...with a gang stamp, all the characters are forced to be on the same line, not bending in the middle. Maybe Al could explain if that characteristic has been seen on other known original pads, and venture a theory on how it could happen. Further, the two "2"s seem to have different fonts, but this may be explained by different fonts being mixed together in the stamp storage bins. This exact same variation is seen in another pad example given in this thread, and could be completely oriignal. Another item to take up with Al.

All of these features may be perfect examples of typical factory stamps, and it's my pad stamp knowledge that has holes in it...but there are a few issues that would have to be explained to me. Sorry, Jimmy, just calling it like I sees it...for whatever that's worth.

[William G.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Nick, a month ago I would have agreed with you. But with all due respect that philosophy will not always work to our best advantage. My 66 327 pad looked pretty decent but no broach marks were present. I was working on helping another NCRS member locate a previous owner of his car and I happened to ask his opinion of my engine pad. He contacted another member who suggested that I needed to clean the pad better. I started with a q-tip and light oil,then lacquer thinner, and it took a little bit of oil and grease off. Then I went to a VERY FINE scotch brite pad and gently scrubbed until the black stopped coming out of the pores. I was very mindful that abrasion can be the enemy. After a few minutes I was surprised to see beautiful broach marks suddenly appear as if by magic. I have very detailed before and after photos taken in various lighting conditions if you will send me your email address if you care to see them. I agree that there might be times that someone could destroy a pad but done carefully my results prove that many an engine pad might be hiding perfectly good broach marks under 40 years of baked in grime. Cast iron is actually a very hard material. What I did to my pad required patience and careful thought which is what I have learned must be used on almost everything I do to my Vette. I have been a Corvette owner for over 30 years and although I was very much surprised at the results I am not surprised that I learned something new.

[Nick C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

You guys can see "broach marks" there?...I can't see'em; just looks rusty to me.

As others have pointed out, the "T" is obviously hand struck. A rare combinations of options would be no excuse for the engine guy missing the stamp configuration...unless he had severe head space. Yeah, I suppose it could happen. Not knowing what the practice was on restrikes during the 67 model year, I would have to do more research on the hand struck "T"...this one would be a good candidate for an Al Grenning consultation IMO.

There are a couple of other issues with the machine stamp that would make me uncomfortable purchasing the car. First off...big blocks were made at Flint?...shows you how much I know; read on or not.

The "V0" seems to start on one line more less square with the head and pad, but the 223HT seems to angle down on another line. This would be impossible with a gang stamp...something hinky happened for that to be like that. Further, the two 2s seem to have different fonts, but this may be explained by different fonts being mixed together in the stamp storage bins. Another item to take up with Al.

Perhaps all of these features are perfect examples of typical factory stamps, but there are a few issues that would have to be explained here in my opinion. Sorry, Jimmy, just calling it like I sees it...for whatever that's worth.

To the first point and respectfully submitted;

Perhaps there may be visible broachmarks...

[Dick C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Also noticed the "2 " and the "T" and they both look out of character when I look at some other pictures I have.
Up close and personal is always better.

Pictures are great for discussion and for asking for advise/opinions.
Having it inspected by a judge in person would be the best way to resolve any issues a pad may have.

[Chuck S.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

To the first point and respectfully submitted;

Perhaps there may be visible broachmarks...

And, respectfully received...I can't see any broach marks with my naked eye near the head, but that wouldn't be my only criterion for originality anyway. To see broach marks on this pad, these old eyes would definitely be helped by the "broach buster".

The bigger picture (literally) from the shot you're showing above is one of the most interesting of the group. At the angle it's shot at, you can barely make out the stamped numbers, but it does show distributed pitting and areas of brighter cast iron, plus something there that actually looks like the granular structure of the cast iron. Perhaps it's just the rust; maybe it's an optical illusion for me.

[Dick W.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

To the first point and respectfully submitted;

Perhaps there may be visible broachmarks...

I saw that also Nick. I enlarged the photo about 250% and believe that I can see a few broaches

[Daniel Y.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

I agree with Joe - need to be cleened up and better picture to zoom in

[Joe R.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

I thought I would share this with you. My car does have the tank sticker and protecto plate. It also come factory equipped with pb and ac (C60) (NO power steering). What are your thoughts on the pad stamp?

Hi Jimmy:

I see that your car has an L79 with A/C but no power steering. I'm very interested to know what pulleys you have on the crank and water pump.

The standard L79 used the "deep groove" pulley set, but based on my research, it appears that when the L79 was equipped with A/C and power steering, it used the base engine "shallow groove" pulleys.

I have a theory that when the L79 was equipped with A/C but not power steering, it used the same deep groove pulley set as the the standard L79 without A/C. Hopefully you can tell me which pulley set is on your car.

The attached photo shows the deep groove water pump pulley on the left, and the shallow groove pulley on the right. They are easy to tell apart because of the narrow neck on the shallow groove pulley.

If you are interested in actual measurements, the diameters of the pulleys are quite different, as follows:

Deep groove: water pump = 7-1/8 inches, crank = 6-3/4 inches
Shallow groove: water pump = 6-3/8 inches, crank = 7-1/4 inches

I would be most interested to know what pulley set you have on your car. If you have the deep groove set, it would help explain the need for the separate "HP" engine code that was only for the L79 with A/C and power steering. The reason would be a different water pump hub spacing for that configuration of the L79.