Engine stamp: question for the experts - NCRS Discussion Boards

Engine stamp: question for the experts

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Craig S.
    Expired
    • February 9, 2011
    • 31

    #16
    Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

    Originally posted by John Hinckley (29964)
    Craig -

    On your NCRS Shipping Data Report, what's the date the car was produced/shipped?
    John, the official production date was 12/11/1964 . Thanks

    Comment

    • Craig S.
      Expired
      • February 9, 2011
      • 31

      #17
      Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

      Originally posted by Michael Ward (29001)
      Although pictures are never as good as seeing something with your own eyes, that doesn't look like a typical untouched factory-original pad to me, particularly the pad surface and character spacing of the Flint applied stamp.
      Michael, I'm far from an expert when it comes to vettes. With that said, i've been around heavy equipment,tractors, grinders etc. It looks like the first part of the vin has been touched with a grinder or something. Not too much to remove it but enough to clean off the old paint and rust possibly. Just a guess.

      Comment

      • James G.
        Extremely Frequent Poster
        • May 31, 1976
        • 1556

        #18
        Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

        Looks to me like an original dealer invoice. The ''HL'' is transistor ignition. The ''HH'' is standard ignition. See if there are mounting holes for the TI up in front of the radiator, passanger side, next to the horn. That might help to answer its birth. I like the re-stamp, if it is one.
        Over 80 Corvettes of fun ! Love Rochester Fuel Injection 57-65 cars. Love CORVETTE RACE CARS
        Co-Founder REGISTRY OF CORVETTE RACE CARS.COM

        Comment

        • Pat M.
          Extremely Frequent Poster
          • April 1, 2006
          • 1575

          #19
          Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

          Originally posted by James Gessner (943)
          Looks to me like an original dealer invoice.

          It sure looks like my 70s original dealer invoice as well, including the different sized punch holes to the left.

          Comment

          • Jim D.
            Extremely Frequent Poster
            • June 30, 1985
            • 2882

            #20
            Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

            Originally posted by Michael Ward (29001)
            Although pictures are never as good as seeing something with your own eyes, that doesn't look like a typical untouched factory-original pad to me, particularly the pad surface and character spacing of the Flint applied stamp.
            I agree. It looks different than my 65 pad.

            Comment

            • Kenneth H.
              Expired
              • October 27, 2008
              • 500

              #21
              Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

              Craig,

              It looks just like my invoice, as well. Mine also has the two different sized holes, but my invoice does not list the ID code from the stamping (I wish that they had).

              Thanks.

              Comment

              • Kenneth B.
                Extremely Frequent Poster
                • August 31, 1984
                • 2084

                #22
                Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

                Could the wrong engine have been put in the Corvette at the factory since it dose have TI? Assuming it is the original motor.
                KEN
                65 350 TI CONV 67 J56 435 CONV,67,390/AIR CONV,70 454/air CONV,
                What A MAN WON'T SPEND TO GIVE HIS ASS A RIDE

                Comment

                • Michael W.
                  Expired
                  • April 1, 1997
                  • 4290

                  #23
                  Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

                  If so- where did the selling dealer get the other info written on the invoice? Was the car delivered to the dealer without K66 but was retrofitted prior to delivery?

                  My guess is that the car and it's paperwork were separated for many decades and something happened to the engine stamp pad in the interim, no one ever expecting paperwork to surface and be reunited with the car 48 years later.

                  Comment

                  • Kenneth H.
                    Expired
                    • October 27, 2008
                    • 500

                    #24
                    Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

                    Mike, I think you hit it on the head. I was thinking the same thing. Maybe the pad was partially decked (take a close look at the bottom right on the pad) and the restamper took a guess at the date and suffix code, not realizing that 365hp engines required a different suffix code when equipped with TI. Since there was no attempt to deceive anyone with engine type (see sales invoice) it was probably just an honest mistake. Also, if you look closely at the pad, I think a very faint "2" is visible under the "2" in the engine ID code stamp indicating that maybe there was another stamp there at one time.

                    Thanks.

                    Comment

                    • Craig S.
                      Expired
                      • February 9, 2011
                      • 31

                      #25
                      Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

                      Originally posted by James Gessner (943)
                      Looks to me like an original dealer invoice. The ''HL'' is transistor ignition. The ''HH'' is standard ignition. See if there are mounting holes for the TI up in front of the radiator, passanger side, next to the horn. That might help to answer its birth. I like the re-stamp, if it is one.
                      James, the cat has transistor ignition on it now.
                      Craig

                      Comment

                      • Craig S.
                        Expired
                        • February 9, 2011
                        • 31

                        #26
                        Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

                        Originally posted by Kenneth Hoffman (49631)
                        Mike, I think you hit it on the head. I was thinking the same thing. Maybe the pad was partially decked (take a close look at the bottom right on the pad) and the restamper took a guess at the date and suffix code, not realizing that 365hp engines required a different suffix code when equipped with TI. Since there was no attempt to deceive anyone with engine type (see sales invoice) it was probably just an honest mistake. Also, if you look closely at the pad, I think a very faint "2" is visible under the "2" in the engine ID code stamp indicating that maybe there was another stamp there at one time.



                        Thanks.
                        Ken, I'll probably never know the truth of the matter. The fact that after 40 plus years the car and invoice are reunited is a slim chance of luck. At least with the invoice I know the original color, wheels etc. I even had the opportunity to talk to the original owner who verified that the 4:11 rear end was for auto cross. The owner I got the invoice from also auto crossed the car in the 70's. He gave me the invoice for free at his cost for courior so you know he wasn't doing it for a profit.

                        Comment

                        • John H.
                          Beyond Control Poster
                          • December 1, 1997
                          • 16513

                          #27
                          Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

                          Originally posted by Craig Stephens (52898)
                          John, the official production date was 12/11/1964 . Thanks
                          Craig -

                          I asked that question because the engine in the car now was assembled on December 9th (based on the pad stamp) and, although not impossible, it's extremely unlikely that an engine assembled on Wednesday the 9th at Flint V-8 could be rail-shipped and installed in a Corvette at St. Louis on Thursday the 10th or Friday the 11th. However, the engine assembly date shown on the dealer invoice is Friday, December 4th, which is typical for a December 10th or 11th date at St. Louis. There's something not entirely kosher about that pad stamp.

                          Comment

                          • Craig S.
                            Expired
                            • February 9, 2011
                            • 31

                            #28
                            Re: Engine stamp: question for the experts

                            Originally posted by John Hinckley (29964)
                            Craig -

                            I asked that question because the engine in the car now was assembled on December 9th (based on the pad stamp) and, although not impossible, it's extremely unlikely that an engine assembled on Wednesday the 9th at Flint V-8 could be rail-shipped and installed in a Corvette at St. Louis on Thursday the 10th or Friday the 11th. However, the engine assembly date shown on the dealer invoice is Friday, December 4th, which is typical for a December 10th or 11th date at St. Louis. There's something not entirely kosher about that pad stamp.
                            John, this is why I asked for the experts opinion. I knew someone like yourself would know the finer points on these dates such as the logistics of getting an engine from A to B and installed within a certain time frame. As I said to another gentleman earlier, I may never know the facts of this issue but I know a lot more now because of the dealer invoice I received recently. I originally bought the car undocumented and to drive it. That's what i'll continue to do. It had a body on restoration before I bought it and it goes like stink so I'm pretty happy. Thanks for your input, it is greatly appreciated.

                            Craig

                            Comment

                            Working...

                            Debug Information

                            Searching...Please wait.
                            An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                            Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                            An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                            Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                            An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                            There are no results that meet this criteria.
                            Search Result for "|||"