CE block price de-valuation

[Tom S.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

If someone says they have a matching numbers engine some would assume that it is original. That is not what was stated. Now if someone says I have an original engine numbers matching engine and it is not that is fraud. Most adds you see that state #'s matching engine do not say original.Big differance. Tom

[Joe L.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

1969/1970 GM engines used a nylon toothed timing gear & the teeth would break off & all hell would break loose. My brothers 70 Judge let go at 80 miles a hour.
KEN

Ken-----


As far as Chevrolets go, it was not just 69-70 engines using the nylon toothed, aluminum cam sprockets. All 1966 to at least 1975 small blocks used them (I think this went on to at least 1982, but I'm not 100% sure of that).

Also, all 1965-74 big blocks used the nylon-toothed cam sprockets, too.

As far as other GM engines, I cannot say.

[William M.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

Many years ago my understanding was that "CE" stood for "Chevrolet Engine" and was initiated by GM from pressure by the state of Georgia in the mid-1960's to identify a replacement engine. As I recall before that many replacement engines had a blank pad. If the vehicle was still under warranty the new car dealer was to stamp the pad of the replacement block with the numbers that were on the original engine. The new new car dealer was issued a set of stamps to do this.
Your comments.
Bill MOck #93

[Michael H.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

Many years ago my understanding was that "CE" stood for "Chevrolet Engine" and was initiated by GM from pressure by the state of Georgia in the mid-1960's to identify a replacement engine. As I recall before that many replacement engines had a blank pad. If the vehicle was still under warranty the new car dealer was to stamp the pad of the replacement block with the numbers that were on the original engine. The new new car dealer was issued a set of stamps to do this.
Your comments.
Bill MOck #93

That's mostly correct. In addition to gov pressure, GM also wanted to be able to track replaced engines so the warranty on the new engine could continue. Some cars received a 2nd (and 3rd) replacement partial engine under warranty and not all of those blocks were the actual blocks that GM installed under warranty.
I could tell some funny stories about "switched warranty partial engine assy's" and I'm sure you can figure out what was going on.

Yes, the service dept/mechanic was instructed to transfer the information (stamp characters) from the replaced block to the new block if the block was replaced under warranty.
This procedure was required in the mid/late 60's but I don't think it carried over to the 70's. I think I still have the GM paperwork on this, somewhere.

I've seen a few of these "warranty restamps" and the characters are hammered into the pad one by one. (no gang stamp) Wasn't pretty.

[Jim T.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

Here's a possible scenario as to 'why'. Lets say NCRS changes it's policy towards CE engines giving them three quarter credit. Casting dates/numbers up to five years after car build date are now OK to align with the 5 year/50K mile GM warranty. The average buyer puts great credibility in NCRS Flight Certificate and if the NCRS says no deduct, it's 'real'. The market value of CE cars increases as a result.

My crystal ball can see great line ups at the scrap yards looking to pull real CE blocks out of every dump truck, family sedan and station wagon built five years or less after the Corvette.

My other ball sees the restampers tooling up to make good looking CE pads out of engines that by virtue of casting number or date would not have previously gotten any credit under the 'old' NCRS rules.

Al Grenning would have to clone himself several times over trying to keep up with the sudden flood of supposed real CE pads.

If there was a consistant, positive way to link a CE engine to a given car things would be different.

1970 was the last year for the 5 year 50,000 mile warranty. I don't remember what it changed to for the 1971 Corvette warranty but being told about the change in August of 1970 it was one factor in my buying a 1970 until waiting for the 1971 models to be available.

[John H.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

Yes, the service dept/mechanic was instructed to transfer the information (stamp characters) from the replaced block to the new block if the block was replaced under warranty.
This procedure was required in the mid/late 60's but I don't think it carried over to the 70's.

The dealers were also hammered on incessantly almost to the level of threats to stamp the retail delivery date on the VIN plate on all car lines when the "DD" VIN plate started in 1964, and virtually none of them did so. This "war" went on for years, and Central Office finally gave up and stopped writing the nasty Zone letters.

I've probably seen 40 genuine "CE" blocks over the years, and only two of them had anything stamped on them by the dealer (and yes, they were ugly).

[Steven B.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

The dealers were also hammered on incessantly almost to the level of threats to stamp the retail delivery date on the VIN plate on all car lines when the "DD" VIN plate started in 1964, and virtually none of them did so. This "war" went on for years, and Central Office finally gave up and stopped writing the nasty Zone letters.

I've probably seen 40 genuine "CE" blocks over the years, and only two of them had anything stamped on them by the dealer (and yes, they were ugly).

Did the stamped characters vary by dealer or did GM distribute common stamps/characters/holders?

Thanks!

Steve

[Michael G.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

I'm getting a new ZR1 on Tuesday. This thing cost a lot of money. After reading this thread I'm gonna have to park it in the garage for good, so i don't accidentally blow it up and reduce the value...

Mike

[Tom L.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

The CE block in my car does have these transferred stamps on them and as others have said, they are ugly. About half of the letters are covered by the cylinder head. Since owniong the car I have suspected that a dealer somewhere did this as a warranty job because all the other casting dates are within 2 weeks of manufacture. The heads were even cast on the same day. If anyone is interested I can try to post a picture. Have fun!!

[Kenneth B.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

Many years ago my understanding was that "CE" stood for "Chevrolet Engine" and was initiated by GM from pressure by the state of Georgia in the mid-1960's to identify a replacement engine. As I recall before that many replacement engines had a blank pad. If the vehicle was still under warranty the new car dealer was to stamp the pad of the replacement block with the numbers that were on the original engine. The new new car dealer was issued a set of stamps to do this.
Your comments.
Bill MOck #93

BILL
You are correct acording to John H. He wrote a thread here or on CF explaining all GM survice replacements engines.
KEN

[Kenneth B.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

I wasn't talking about NCRS and/or BG determining an engine's originality, so I don't need to look it up.

You asked me how one could tell if an engine was original. The answer is an experienced person, like a judge, could use various clues like stamp pads, broach marks, casting dates, clues from the car, etc. to make as good of a determination as is humanly possible whether an engine is original. Unless you're the one and only owner of a car, that's about as good as you can do.

Once that is done, my personal preference would be to have a car with such an engine rather than a car that is KNOWN to have a NOM, as was stated in the beginning of this thread. I don't know why this struck you as such a controversial position, as evidenced by your "WTF" reply.

Sorry I ofended you. That was not my intent. unless you were the original owner you will never know if it is the original motor. My point was that I thought it strange you would except any other non original part & aperantley from the other posts others feel the same way. Anyway sorry for the WTF comment.
KEN

[Jack H.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

Well, as you've seen, you've opened Pandora's Box with this question and MANY different interpretations/opinions have surfaced! That tells you the specific answer to your question (how much less is the car worth) is quite subjective and open to interpretation on a candidate buyer by candidate buyer basis...

There IS a more rational way to approach the answer. The NCRS policy on judging is pretty clear and enummerated in the standard deductions section of the NCRS Judging Reference Manual. First, you look at the block and if it has the correct casting number, correct casting silhouette (Saginaw vs. Tonawanda vs. St. Catherines) AND it's dated within a 0-6 month interval of the car's final assy date, you automatically get 50% credit for it otherwise it's a full deduction (350 points).

There are 4500 possible points in Flight Judging, so a 350 point deduction amounts to 7.7%. Hence, a rational economic approach would be to subtract roughly 8% from the value of a 'perfect' car and that's your price for a Corvette with TOTALLY incorrect block.

The standard deduction then goes on to view the stampings on the engine pad (engine plant AND final assy plant) individually assessing rather minor deduction(s) for their correctness. Last, the surface of the stamp pad is considered (broach marks) for correctness. Each of these three separate considerations has a point value and they're independent of one another. AND, each consideration is LOADED with subjectivity (Who is judging? What is his/her experience profile?)...

BUT, the max you can lose in this secondary area of consideration is 88 points. That equates to roughly 2% of the total available judging points.

So, while there are MANY out there who'll make the engine block (just another part in my opinion...parts is parts) a 'sacred' entity, that's not really the NCRS judging policy! In my mind, why penalize the car (an inanimate object) for the sins of its past owners?

Yep, it lost its factory original motor...could be for any number of reasons. Out motto is restoration/preservation. So, why use politically charged words like 'fake' and 'fraud' here? That tends to deviate from our mission (restoration/preservation) and make it appear that cars who lost their factory original motors for whatever reason are simply 'junk' and should be CRUSHED immediately as they don't deserve our merit/consideration. To me that's silly!

Heck, I've seen cars come onto the judging field where owners have gone to HEROIC levels to try and save that factory original block (freeze cracked repairs, etc.) that were 'puking' oil from the front RH valve cover and/or 'weeping' coolant from the water jacket repair area(s). Does such really make that car more 'valuable' than one with a properly 'restored' non-original motor? What if the buyer actually wants to drive/use the car???

No, in my opinion we too often go to ABSURD extremes about this evaluation of what's just another part of a Corvette! To me, it's not the restoration/preservation process that's the issue here, it's the consideration of making something that wasn't that's critical. That means turning VIN XYZ from a base 250 HP car into a fire breathing, highly optioned FI or BB machine...

In this case, since there is documentation to justify the car's factory original, rather rare, L89 configuration, I'd say negotiate a reasonable price and GO FOR IT!

[Michael H.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

Well, as you've seen, you've opened Pandora's Box with this question and MANY different interpretations/opinions have surfaced! !

One thing will never change. The guys with the non original blocks argue that it doesn't matter and the guys with the original blocks argue that it does matter. There will never be an end to this debate, no matter what you or I or NCRS thinks. The debate will continue after we're gone. (and I'm not going to tell you which side I'm on)

[Jack H.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

Hey, that's an AMEN from my side! And, I don't really care what your take is. We're both saying the same bottom line things: (1) this is a subjective area, and (2) there are defined rules for the related judging deduction(s)...

[Kenneth B.]

Re: CE block price de-valuation

Well, as you've seen, you've opened Pandora's Box with this question and MANY different interpretations/opinions have surfaced! That tells you the specific answer to your question (how much less is the car worth) is quite subjective and open to interpretation on a candidate buyer by candidate buyer basis...

There IS a more rational way to approach the answer. The NCRS policy on judging is pretty clear and enummerated in the standard deductions section of the NCRS Judging Reference Manual. First, you look at the block and if it has the correct casting number, correct casting silhouette (Saginaw vs. Tonawanda vs. St. Catherines) AND it's dated within a 0-6 month interval of the car's final assy date, you automatically get 50% credit for it otherwise it's a full deduction (350 points).

There are 4500 possible points in Flight Judging, so a 350 point deduction amounts to 7.7%. Hence, a rational economic approach would be to subtract roughly 8% from the value of a 'perfect' car and that's your price for a Corvette with TOTALLY incorrect block.

The standard deduction then goes on to view the stampings on the engine pad (engine plant AND final assy plant) individually assessing rather minor deduction(s) for their correctness. Last, the surface of the stamp pad is considered (broach marks) for correctness. Each of these three separate considerations has a point value and they're independent of one another. AND, each consideration is LOADED with subjectivity (Who is judging? What is his/her experience profile?)...

BUT, the max you can lose in this secondary area of consideration is 88 points. That equates to roughly 2% of the total available judging points.

So, while there are MANY out there who'll make the engine block (just another part in my opinion...parts is parts) a 'sacred' entity, that's not really the NCRS judging policy! In my mind, why penalize the car (an inanimate object) for the sins of its past owners?

Yep, it lost its factory original motor...could be for any number of reasons. Out motto is restoration/preservation. So, why use politically charged words like 'fake' and 'fraud' here? That tends to deviate from our mission (restoration/preservation) and make it appear that cars who lost their factory original motors for whatever reason are simply 'junk' and should be CRUSHED immediately as they don't deserve our merit/consideration. To me that's silly!

Heck, I've seen cars come onto the judging field where owners have gone to HEROIC levels to try and save that factory original block (freeze cracked repairs, etc.) that were 'puking' oil from the front RH valve cover and/or 'weeping' coolant from the water jacket repair area(s). Does such really make that car more 'valuable' than one with a properly 'restored' non-original motor? What if the buyer actually wants to drive/use the car???

No, in my opinion we too often go to ABSURD extremes about this evaluation of what's just another part of a Corvette! To me, it's not the restoration/preservation process that's the issue here, it's the consideration of making something that wasn't that's critical. That means turning VIN XYZ from a base 250 HP car into a fire breathing, highly optioned FI or BB machine...

In this case, since there is documentation to justify the car's factory original, rather rare, L89 configuration, I'd say negotiate a reasonable price and GO FOR IT!

JACK
Well put. That was my point. For those that get it no explation is needed. For those that don't none is possable.
KEN