First i would like to ask the experts here if the 657 was a one year block(67)? if so could one have a mid july 66 casting date? could it be a research engine and was stamped as such for testing and inventory puposes? i have one with a really bad stamping that is clearly RE and uses F not V it does not appear to have ever been decked based on what i see are the factory striations, if that is the right term. when did the switch from F to V for Flint? bill
-
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
Bill: I'm not certain exactly what you have. The NCRS Pocket Spec Guide shows that a #657 block was (possibly) used for very late 1966 model cars as well as for 1967 model cars.
However, the RE suffix you mentioned shows up as 1963-64 cars with #870 block and 340/365 HP. Are you sure the RE is not an HE???
Not exactly certain what month in 1966 the switch between F and V assembly stampings occurred.
Larry -
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
there is no question it is RE. it is a really bad stamp job. have this block on ebay. this is not an attempt to sell it, it is clearly stamped F0911RE with ser #3100142 right on the edge the 2 was dbbl stamped. i really do not think it is a restamp based on what i have learned here over the last 2 yrs. the cast date is G 11 66. this has resulted in a rather extensive "forum" on ebay with tons or views. i really just want to know what you guys think. i tried to get answers here a while back and only got questions. i now have the heads off and pan down and can answer more questions. i really think there is a story to this block that is unique.Comment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
Bill:
The VIN derivative stamped on the engine pad indicates 1963 Corvette VIN#142. According to the Corvette Birthday Book, this car was built on/around September 19, 1962. This date goes well with the 0911 or September 11 (1962) build date for the engine. And RE is an accepted code for a 1963 327/340 HP engine.
However, the block casting number for 1963 engines was #3782870. The casting date for this particular engine block should typically be around June to early September 1962 (F12 to I72)
However, you state that you have a #3892657 casting with a casting date of G 11 66 or July 11 1966.
The only way these two can be reconciled is either 1) GM cast this block with the incorrect casting number and casting date (four years earlier than typical production), or 2) the engine is a later (1966-67) casting that has been restamped with 1963 codes.
I wish I had a better scenario for you.
LarryComment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
i am thinking it may have been an over the counter block and stamped for the first time and used in this application. what was the comp ratio of the 340 hp and did it use 202 valves? do you think that early a casting date is unusual for a 657? i read the pad the same as you. i assume they were using F in 62.Comment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
The 340 HP engine had a compression ratio of 11.25 to 1. The valve size(s) was 1.94 intake and 1.50 exhaust. They were changed/increased in 1964.
LarryComment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
would you mind looking at the one i have and tell me what you think? this has nagged me for 3 years what it was and then when i pulled it apart and was really intrigued. i always heard the paint marks on the crank did not last long and and there does not seem to be much chamber left after the piston meets the heads i had on it, 461 202's. it had a 6 quart pan. the cam had a really nice idle and lope to it @ around 850-900 rpm. this was put in my car around 72 to replace the blown L72 accourding to the owner that did it.Comment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
Got a photo of the stamp pad? There's no way a July, 1966-cast block ever went into a '63. The "F" prefix at Flint V-8 changed to "V" for the 1967 model year, and the "G 11 66" casting date pegs it as a Tonawanda engine anyway.Comment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
i never thought it could have been a possibility i assummed right from the srart when i bought the car 3 yrs ago it was a restamp but when i looked close and pulled the heads i started thinking it was not decked. the unkown history on this is short as i have good owner history back to 71. i do have pictures on my listing because it came up so much. i just wanted to rule out that RE could not mean anything else there for the stamp was intented to replicate a 327/340 hp engine. did judging ever just take into account the pad and not the block casting. would seem foolish to bother unless some one was tring to scam not have it judged.Comment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
William,
I think the judging starts at the block casting and cast date. If correct then it moves to the stamp pad surface. If the block casting is not correct it's full deduct and stops there for the block so I see no gain in what someone did.
I would try to identify all the other parts because you may have some good parts to start a new assembly with.
Comment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
Could be something as simple as a New stamp on a blank pad. To obviously increase the cars value. Got a 63 block no stamp. Stamp it. with 67 info. Drop in existing 67 car. Hope the prospective buyer fails to know or look at the casting numbers.Comment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
would an over the counter block be stamped with CE or did the dealer do this (CE)?. one person felt it was really supposed to be ER for 67 chevelle 327/325 hp and implied that it was not uncommon to have a suffix reversed as he worked in the division that did stamping. but one post here implied the ser# lined up with the 327/340 hp re or new stamp theory. billComment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
I have a 67 SS 396 Chevelle ragtop.(13867) I bought it from org. owner. He purchased a 396 "69" Block over the counter in Nov. 1968 to build up for racing. Squirreled the org. block away (thank goodness.) The Block has No numbers on it or Suffix info etc. Strickley a performance upgrade. So not uncommon back in the day. My gut says your block suffix pad was bare over the counter. Someone may have tried to guise it as an org. 327/340HP L-76 engine nos. match. But when both the date code and casting are discovered. Well... again only my thoughts.Comment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
P.S. Been awhile since I looked at the 67 SS 396 Pad. IT Does have date and suffix. 11/30 JC, So stand corrected. BUT No Vin. stamped. Or CE. Was an over the counter Dealer purchase.Comment
-
Re: 1967 L79 657 block.
sold it last night on ebay. thought it went a little cheap given the 6 quart pan broght the same ($500) but it was just taking up room. i was hoping some one needing a very early L79 block would grab it. maybe they did. i will have to ask.Comment
Comment