What do you think of this pad...is it original?
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/Lintmann/321blockina69.jpg
Thanks.
Greg Linton
#45455
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/Lintmann/321blockina69.jpg
Thanks.
Greg Linton
#45455
-
-
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
You're kidding, right? I can't tell what the original broadcast code was, but I seriously doubt that it was IM.
Steve -
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
You're kidding, right? I can't tell what the original broadcast code was, but I seriously doubt that it was IM.
SteveComment
-
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
First impressions from the photo would leave me to believe that the judges would have a problem buying the machine code. Without the ability on the computer I am on right now to enlarge the photo for better viewing, the VIN and pad surface might pass. If only the machine code is a deduction, the point hit is only 25Dick WhittingtonComment
-
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
First impressions from the photo would leave me to believe that the judges would have a problem buying the machine code. Without the ability on the computer I am on right now to enlarge the photo for better viewing, the VIN and pad surface might pass. If only the machine code is a deduction, the point hit is only 25Dick WhittingtonComment
-
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
Hmmm no I wasn't kidding actually. I have heard of factory grind-outs and was wondering if this might be one. Sorry for the stupid question.
This is the car in question.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevrolet-Corvette-1969-Chevrolet-Corvette-Roadster-427-Tri-Power-4-Speed_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ6168QQihZ009QQite mZ190202288978QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
If it was legit it would make a nice driver with a fresh coat of paint...not if it's bogus though for that price...Comment
-
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
Hmmm no I wasn't kidding actually. I have heard of factory grind-outs and was wondering if this might be one. Sorry for the stupid question.
This is the car in question.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevrolet-Corvette-1969-Chevrolet-Corvette-Roadster-427-Tri-Power-4-Speed_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ6168QQihZ009QQite mZ190202288978QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
If it was legit it would make a nice driver with a fresh coat of paint...not if it's bogus though for that price...Comment
-
Sorry for my tone, Greg
You are right about oddball stamps that ultimately prove correct. I apologize for what I said.
The tank sticker shows 390 hp, which is not a tri-power car, I thought the 400 HP cars had an add-on at the bottom of the tank sticker. "IM" isn't an engine code in '69, (LM should be the right one for a 390/mt), and it conceivably could be a factory correction, with a 1 for the L...but my reading of the the engine assembly date is January (T 01 11), which is after the car would have been built with that VIN.
It does appear that the VIN derivative and that part of the pad are OK.
SteveComment
-
Sorry for my tone, Greg
You are right about oddball stamps that ultimately prove correct. I apologize for what I said.
The tank sticker shows 390 hp, which is not a tri-power car, I thought the 400 HP cars had an add-on at the bottom of the tank sticker. "IM" isn't an engine code in '69, (LM should be the right one for a 390/mt), and it conceivably could be a factory correction, with a 1 for the L...but my reading of the the engine assembly date is January (T 01 11), which is after the car would have been built with that VIN.
It does appear that the VIN derivative and that part of the pad are OK.
SteveComment
-
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
I can just make out the 400hp upgrade on the tank sticker, so the IM/LM code is wrong anyway, should be LQ...if the tank sticker copy goes with this car, the copy is too poor to see if there are any remnants of the handwritten VIN derivative common in '69.
Looks like it might be an early '68 400hp motor (IM)if the engine plant stamping is correct, then the VIN would be a restamp...too much wrong for me to think that this is the original engine, although the seller is careful to use the nebulous terms of numbers-matching and "correct".
SteveComment
-
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
I can just make out the 400hp upgrade on the tank sticker, so the IM/LM code is wrong anyway, should be LQ...if the tank sticker copy goes with this car, the copy is too poor to see if there are any remnants of the handwritten VIN derivative common in '69.
Looks like it might be an early '68 400hp motor (IM)if the engine plant stamping is correct, then the VIN would be a restamp...too much wrong for me to think that this is the original engine, although the seller is careful to use the nebulous terms of numbers-matching and "correct".
SteveComment
-
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
No need to apologize Steve...I've asked dumber questions...trust me. No heart feelings.
I wasn't sure what to think of it because it's a 321 68 block with a ground out and re-stamped 68 suffix in a very early 69 going by the VIN. My thought was that GM might have used some left over 321 blocks into 69 and when the suffix was ground out they mistakenly used a 68 code because it's a 68 block. Remember, all this stamping was done at Tonawanda and the VIN never got stamped untill it was in the chassis. This block could also have been destined for a late 68 and then was pulled or set aside for unknown reasons only to turn up in a early 69 with a 69 VIN...just a thought. I think you're right though in that there is too much wrong for it to be accepted as the original engine...whether it is or isn't
I thought it was odd too that there isn't a hand written number on the tank sticker...
Can any one else comment on this pad or is it a pretty much cut and dried fake?Comment
-
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
No need to apologize Steve...I've asked dumber questions...trust me. No heart feelings.
I wasn't sure what to think of it because it's a 321 68 block with a ground out and re-stamped 68 suffix in a very early 69 going by the VIN. My thought was that GM might have used some left over 321 blocks into 69 and when the suffix was ground out they mistakenly used a 68 code because it's a 68 block. Remember, all this stamping was done at Tonawanda and the VIN never got stamped untill it was in the chassis. This block could also have been destined for a late 68 and then was pulled or set aside for unknown reasons only to turn up in a early 69 with a 69 VIN...just a thought. I think you're right though in that there is too much wrong for it to be accepted as the original engine...whether it is or isn't
I thought it was odd too that there isn't a hand written number on the tank sticker...
Can any one else comment on this pad or is it a pretty much cut and dried fake?Comment
-
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
My first question is what is the casting date for the block? To my knowledge, 321 blocks were early 68 blocks. I have one in my basement with an Oct 67 casting date. I may be wrong. My guess the block is worth $2,500 minimum to the right buyer with a 68 435 car missing its motor assuming said block is afour bolt main. Correct early 69 400 motors are a little easier to find I believe.
I would be worried about the documentation first. If the docs are legit then, at worst, you have a 400 vert with the wrong motor. Is that worth $25k? Who knowsComment
-
Re: 321 block in a early 69 (see pad pic)
My first question is what is the casting date for the block? To my knowledge, 321 blocks were early 68 blocks. I have one in my basement with an Oct 67 casting date. I may be wrong. My guess the block is worth $2,500 minimum to the right buyer with a 68 435 car missing its motor assuming said block is afour bolt main. Correct early 69 400 motors are a little easier to find I believe.
I would be worried about the documentation first. If the docs are legit then, at worst, you have a 400 vert with the wrong motor. Is that worth $25k? Who knowsComment
Comment