I have a 1965 corvette with an L76 327/365hp motor. I would like to get opinions on the stamp. Original?, restamp?, factory grind out?
-
-
Re: 1965 engine pad help
IMHO that is a factory original that has been changed to an HH by grinding out the U and changing to an H. Have a friend that had an HH ground out and changed to a U because the 65 had AC.
Seems as if in 65 when soooo many optional motors became available mistakes were on the rise and resulted in many factory grind outs.
There are a couple of people that check out the stamps closely and have more experience and when they chime in you can rest assured they will give this one the nod!
JR -
Re: 1965 engine pad help
Yes, 1965 was the worst -- 18 different small block variations beginning with H_ .
In several cases, didn't Flint just leave the last H blank on those rare combos, knowing that St.Louis would stamp the appropriate letter, according to how the motor was "dressed" ? Otherwise, the engine inventory at final assembly would be huge, just to cover 1% or less of the cars built.
Curious to hear opinions.Comment
-
Re: 1965 engine pad help
In retrospect, Wayne's suggestion would seem to have merit - but there were too many camshaft and ignition options to be delineated - Flint had to make sure that St Louis KNEW what was inside. Remember also that the engine room was NOT first in/first out; it is also the waning months of production of the 3782870 casting and it would appear that this car is somewhere in the 22XXX production zone. HK, HL & HM codes are all potential 365 HP donors if there was no HH in the room. I am aware of a long ago column in (?) by Noland where he encountered a potential factory "hackover" for a 23XXX 365 AC/TI car and called it "likely".
Finally though, the question is: "Would the 2014 restamper REALLY go with this method?". I think not.Comment
-
Re: 1965 engine pad help
Guys I owned for years a 365HP A/C TI convertible built the next to last day of production. It was originally a 375 FI engine ground out and changed to a 365 Carb engine. It did happen, usually as Loren indicated when there were like internals.Comment
-
Re: 1965 engine pad help
Just curious would that have been at Flint or St. Louis?
Mark,
Welcome to the TDB! Looks like a nice clean engine. I like the way the paint isn't layered on real thick. I believe the pad should be free of paint inside the number, no big deal there! Not sure what was going on under the "F" perhaps someone used the pad to pry on when removing the head at some point.
The engine assembly date is really close to cars birthday. Engine assembled Friday June 25, 1965 for a cars production date Wednesday June 30th. Very close but it could happen I suppose especially if the plant was running tight on L76s. I would look at the block casting date too, the pad isn't everything.
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
If you're buying the car and you're going to have it judged put on your wish list a 3859326 water pump without a bypass bushing or one that's not as obvious. I'm afraid that one might cost you a few points, I've been looking for one myself for a while. I'm just going to have bite the bullet and pay the $325+ for one. I'm pretty sure the one we need should also NOT have a date.
MikeComment
-
Re: 1965 engine pad help
The stampings could have paint in them, they either covered it while painting or wiped it off after painting.JRComment
-
Re: 1965 engine pad help
Did Flint use two types of "6"s? I've seen pads where the tail is straight up with no curve and others with a curve?
MikeComment
-
Re: 1965 engine pad help
Hey Loren -- is it time to introduce the (probably) only '65 3858174 !! block with a "HF" stamp, as you've mentioned to me. Seen on 5S123563, and NO grind-out.Comment
-
Re: 1965 engine pad help
FYI - This is a "Real" undated 3859326 water pump with the 1/2" NPT bypass fitting hole on top(not sleeved) and the original backpate. For $325.00,MVC-023S.JPGMVC-024S.JPG I would be leary of a counterfeit! Bill Mock #93Comment
Comment