Engine pad assembly date judging question

[Steve G.]

In comparing dates on an old Corvette engine, I've always gone by the "6 month rule," regarding maximum time between casting date and build date, much like everyone else.

However, in recent years I've paid more attention to issues like broach marks, fonts and other relevant details. One item I picked up was the fact that I was told and I believed that there should not be more than 2 weeks between the casting date and the engine pad assembly date.

Page 47, 1958-60 NCRS JG, states "The engine block casting date must precede the engine identification stamping date: generally by no more than 2 weeks."

In another public forum I referenced this recently and received the reaction that no one has ever heard of this but me. A very well-respected person who probably has forgotten more than I know, stated that the JG I used "must be an older edition, as there is no such guidance in NCRS block judging."

I went to the NCRS site and found the yellow cover, 2001 4th Edition I have is the one still offered by NCRS.

Can anyone shed some light on what I'm missing? Is this an old "rule" no longer used? Was it only for solid axle cars?

[Terry M.]

Re: Engine pad assembly date judging question

The six-month rule is to allow for the exception. The two-week time is more typical. I have seen some original engines at more than six months and I know of one that is right at a year. Again, just more exceptions.

Spend more time hanging out here and less on that other forum. Trust us, we have seen enough real cars to have a good handle on dates.

[Tony S.]

Re: Engine pad assembly date judging question

Steve, from my experience, typically the engine assembly date will be 1 to 10 days from the casting date. Exceptions will occur, but they are exceptions. The longer time period will be the time between the engine's casting date and the car's build date. That time spread could be as much as 8 weeks from engine casting. This is from my experience looking at original cars since the 1970's.

Hope this helps.
Tony

[Steve G.]

Re: Engine pad assembly date judging question

The six-month rule is to allow for the exception. The two-week time is more typical. I have seen some original engines at more than six months and I know of one that is right at a year. Again, just more exceptions.

Spend more time hanging out here and less on that other forum. Trust us, we have seen enough real cars to have a good handle on dates.

You don't have to sell me, Terry, I agree. I'm one of those old-time NCRS defenders. My question here, however, is not comparing the 6 month rule, which measures the time between the casting date and the build date, vs. the "2 week rule" (for lack of a better descriptor), which measures the time from the casting date to the engine assembly date.

My question is, WITHIN the 6 month total period, the current NCRS JG specifically states there should not be more that 2 weeks from engine cast to assembly. I have gone by this guideline for years. Today, it appears that not only does it seem no one else heard of this, no one even acknowledges that its in the JG and is not considered in judging. This baffles me. Has this been removed or fallen out of favor?

I fully understand the concept of everything not being hard and fast, I've heard Al Grennings's positions on the exceptions out there, and I'm familiar with the fact that most engine sequences, cast to build are usually much, much tighter.

This question specifically addresses what's in the 58-60 JG, and wonders about the validity, current use or non-use, and whether NCRS has specifically chosen to change their perspective on it in judging.

[Steve G.]

Re: Engine pad assembly date judging question

Steve, from my experience, typically the engine assembly date will be 1 to 10 days from the casting date. Exceptions will occur, but they are exceptions. The longer time period will be the time between the engine's casting date and the car's build date. That time spread could be as much as 8 weeks from engine casting. This is from my experience looking at original cars since the 1970's.

Hope this helps.
Tony

Thanks, Tony, and I agree the spans you describe are most typical. My question relates to what is in the 58-60 JG these days and wonders if its just not considered in judging now?

[Harmon C.]

Re: Engine pad assembly date judging question

Think about the fresh cast blocks that were made just before a two month strike and you know a two week rule is not correct 100% of the time.

[David L.]

Re: Engine pad assembly date judging question

Guess I have one of the exceptions ... '58 739 block cast K17 November 1, 1957 with a build date of April 4, 1958.
I purchased the block from the original owner in the mid 70's. It would appear there needs to be room for the exception in judging these wonderful cars.

David

[William C.]

Re: Engine pad assembly date judging question

I would suggest you address this question with the Team Leader of the 58-60 Judging Team, as No other judging guide that I am aware of has this wording, and it was not in the original second edition 1960 manual that I own.

[Michael W.]

Re: Engine pad assembly date judging question

Again this seems to be a matter of varying interpretation by the reader. I take the phrase to mean that a typical time lag is 2 weeks, and the mention of this is simply one of many informational tidbits to be found in any of the manuals. I would not interpret it as a hard and fast judging rule.

If anything, it might be nice to commonise all these bits and pieces in the various manuals and add to the ones that are lacking, not take away.

Yes I know, back to reality.

[Dick W.]

Re: Engine pad assembly date judging question

It would be Roy Sinor's call, but I do believe the NCRS Judging Reference Guide takes precedence over the Judging Guides.

[Jack H.]

Re: Engine pad assembly date judging question

I agree with Dick! The NCRS Judging Reference Manual is just what it's title reads...a MANUAL. The various Judging Guides are called 'Guides' for a reason, they are NOT hard and fast rule material.

Plus, when a JG gives 'guidance' it's just that...guidance to the judges and not hard/fast rules.

Last, note the text of the guidance in question contains the disclaimer 'generally'. So, from the git go, the subject of this thread is NOT a hard and fast rule...