64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

Michael,
I would like to know for sure and am not in disagreement BUT
My block has late 67 early 68 casting #'s, I have to check again but I think it is a D ?? 8 block.

Also once and for all CE ? some say chevrolet engine and some say counter exchange. It isn't that important as they are of the same, but the last argument/ discussion I read here (maybe I haven't read all) said it was counter exchange.
I don't care, but wonder why they would have to tell you that it was a chevrolet engine?

DOM
I have one and I think I will have to refer to it as a CE from now on. It seems that

Dom,

I think there have been reports of some blocks cast during the 1968 calendar year that have the CE stamp on the pad. I think I still have the letter that was sent to dealers in 1969 that described the addition of the new Cexxxxx information but I think the letter was dated some time in 69. I suppose the actual stamping may have started months before the letters were sent. Either way, it was new around that time. Prior to that, the pads were blank on all blocks except complete engine assy's.

The letter went on to describe the stamp and it's meaning. For a Chevrolet engine, the prefix would be CE. For a Chevrolet transmission, it would be CT. Pontiac engines were stamped PE, and so on.
The remaining characters contain a year and a sequence number. I don't remember exactly how that worked though.

Also, the CExxxxx stamp had nothing to do with the vehicle warranty. It had to do with a warranty on the block assy. There was no such thing as "blocks for warranty" and "blocks for sale to the public".
Many believe that if their car has a CExxxxx block, that the block was replaced under the vehicle warranty but that's not correct.
Imagine how many fitted/partial engine assy's the GM warehouse would have had to have in stock if there were such a thing as different block assy's for both vehicle warranty AND service/sales.

[Domenic T.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

Terry,
Illinoise especially did that with motorcycles if the # on the case was tampered with.
They would confiscate them during a traffic violation or any other reason they viewed an altered #.
I bought a basket case bike in Indiana that had new #s stamped over the old 3s on the engine. I brought it to ????? building in Chicago to determine the legality before I went into restoration with the bike. They sent me to another building where I sat with the case for hours waiting for the dective. He went home they said after I waited 2 hours for him, so I left him a note with my name and address on it saying'' I will handle this my way now and weld over the old #s, mill it and stamp good #s on it''.

Never heard from them. That's what I did except for stamping the #s. 42 years later I finished the bike and had it inspected by California DMV. I had to spoon feed them, they were looking for any thing with a #, shocks, casting, you name it.
I didn't stamp the new #s in and the pad was blank," Replacement block from the 50's I said". She said no here they are. She was looking at the case half ID #s they used after the case was machined as a unit.
That's my new vin # on the title now.
The motor was not stolen, it was a used motor stamped to agree with the bike frame for Indiana requirements back then.

DOM

[Terry M.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

Mike,

There is a Technical Information Bulletin about the CE and CT program dated in 1968. I can get the exact date when I get home, but 1968 is in the bulletin title. I can get the date of publication when I get home.

This bulletin gives a then new state law in Georgia as the reason for the stamps. The purpose of that law was to track parts as a means of deterring theft.

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

Mike,

There is a Technical Information Bulletin about the CE and CT program dated in 1968. I can get the exact date when I get home, but 1968 is in the bulletin title. I can get the date of publication when I get home.

This bulletin gives a then new state law in Georgia as the reason for the stamps. The purpose of that law was to track parts as a means of deterring theft.

Terry,

If my letter is dated 1969, and I think it is, it must then be a second letter that was sent out after the 1968 letter. This wasn't uncommon.
I'll have to see if I can dig it out. I haven't seen it for decades.

[Domenic T.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

Michael,
My block and heads are matching so if I understand what you say, it was a complete block.
AS for replacing complete blocks:
I worked warrantee (starter position) as a line mechanic in 1970 and we would get a long block replacement, short block replacement, and bare block replacements, (under warrantee). We took the parts off the affected engine and put them on the replacement depending on how bad the engine was.
It was cheaper for the factory to replace than repair in some cases.
I replaced block only on ones that had porous castings where the oil bled thru the block.
Also I have a complete 4 speed munci that a customer (must have been a regular) insisted be replaced during warrantee. The dealer must have waranteed that because it was not destroyed. The work order was not a customer pay, it was a warrantee.
All in all I changed many blocks, partial to complete and all were warrantee.

DOM

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

Michael,
My block and heads are matching so if I understand what you say, it was a complete block.
AS for replacing complete blocks:
I worked warrantee (starter position) as a line mechanic in 1970 and we would get a long block replacement, short block replacement, and bare block replacements, (under warrantee).
DOM

Engine assy's (block assy with heads) were extremely rare as warranty replacement. GM did not usually replace an entire assembly. Even if one cyl head was damaged along with the short block, they would authorize a block assy and one head. I was the guy that did the paperwork on warranty in 1970.
GM policy on part replacement almost never included assemblies. (other than, as mentioned, a partial engine/short block)

On a complaint basis, they would ok a complete assembly replacement but that was extremely rare. That usually required zone approval and the warehouse didn't normally stock engine assy's. That would mean several extra days to complete the warranty repair.

In my years with GM, I've never seen a complete 4-speed transmission replaced under warranty.

What dealer did you work for?

[Paul J.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

Terry,

Any law would have to be ambiguous, because it could affect the entire reproduction parts business, including parts produced under license. When I first read the Iowa law I agreed that you could'nt restamp parts under that law, but if you look at it more closely, you can. That law was either written by an idiot or by someone trying specifically to be ambiguous.

I was hoping that you could give me a starting place so I could give my Ass't DA son-in-law something to do, but maybe I'll spend some time on this as my New Year's resolution. This topic always brings a lot of interest on this Board, and it would be nice to have a definitive answer.

Paul

[Domenic T.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

Michael,
Bill barnett Chevrolet in Compton California.

AS far as the complete 4 speed munci. I mentioned that the Dealer, not the factory waranteed the trans. Probably for a good regular customer they didn't want to loose.
As far as doing the paper work for GM, there was a lot of hanky panky paper work that you might have had to sign.

As you know there was a field rep that authorized warrantee and inspected the work orders and parts then attempt to damage the parts with a hammer so they would not come thru the system again, or let SOMEONE ELSE DO IT for him, (damage didn't always happen)

Was he an honest man? Did his pocket get stuffed on occasion?

You got his paper work and the parts were junked at local junk yards where they they could be picked up and handed in as a new claim.

The service writers would ask for favors then pay you with a warantee part and work order to fit that part as payment.

I am aware of the codes on lifters, color codes inside gaskets and so forth.
The dealer could push most anything thru with the right influince.

The dealer may have spent the money on the warrantee for the munci or simply working a deal with the GM rep.

I tuned the truck for the junk yard owner and had priviledge to warrantee junked parts that I took home and fixed. Some were not damaged, some were.

DOM

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

Michael,
AS far as the complete 4 speed munci. I mentioned that the Dealer, not the factory waranteed the trans. Probably for a good regular customer they didn't want to loose.
As far as doing the paper work for GM, there was a lot of hanky panky paper work that you might have had to sign.

DOM

Those are VERY familiar stories. I know that went on at just about every Chev dealer all across the country in the 60's and 70's. Mechanics would work with the parts man and charge "extra parts" on warranty claims, which would build up store credit for the mechanic. (usually at 50%)

I remember the "parts recycle program" too. Mechanics collected used parts from non warranty jobs but turned them in on fake warranty claims. They not only got paid to install the new parts but also got to keep the parts. It was a great system. One of the first recycle programs ever, even if GM didn't exactly approve it.
I know old GM mechanics that STILL have boxes of new parts from that program.
GM knew what was going on but they couldn't stop all of it.

Later, a really funny story about warranty parts that had to be turned in.....

[Dick W.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

That had to be '87 or '88. Right after I had to do some fine and fancy footwork to prove ownership of my car. It was sitting in a shop in IL with a frame with no VIN stamps (had been replaced after an accident) and a block with no numbers (yet). My attorney had a little work to do.

[Duke W.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

In my years with GM, I've never seen a complete 4-speed transmission replaced under warranty.

In 1977 when the Borg Warner T-50 five-speed seized up in my Cosworth Vega at 70 MPH on the San Diego freeway, I had a real interesting battle with GM.

Notwithstanding the fact that such a failure can cause an accident that could potentially result in major injury or death I was able to guide the car off the traffic lanes ending up somewhat sideways on the shoulder.

Chevrolet's first attempt was to replace a bunch of parts, and I refused stating that unless they Magnafluxed every ferrous part and Zygloed every non-ferrous part, I wanted an entire new transmission and asked to speak to the zone service rep.

By that time we were already on a first name basis, and when he saw me walking across to lot to meet him a few days later he waved his arms high and said" "Don't worry, Duke, we're going to get you a whole new transmission.

A few days later I picked up the car and realized upon driving the car off the lot that the transmission was wrong - the wrong ratio set and speedometer gearing.

So I go back and talk to ther service manager, and he takes me to the parts guy, who said he ordered the transmission for the biggest engine - the 262. I pointed out that the Cosworth was the smallest engine - 122 CID. He slapped his head on his forehead and said: "We'll order a new transmission". Duuuuuuuh!

Of the 815 '76 Cosworth Vegas with five-speed transmissions, probably half seized up in the first 20K miles. I was so furious I wrote NHTSA and got NO RESPONSE from the government a-holes. Today, no doubt there would be a recall and all would get new transmissions.

The replacement five-speed has served well including at least 5000 miles of race track hot lapping.

The failure was a result of first gear seizing to the mainshaft, and it usually occurred at freeway speed. It wasn't a problem on other engines, which were all much lower revving.

The CV was the last car I purchased from GM, but I do still own it, and after spending at least a decade engineering solutions to all the problems, it's been a great car.

Duke

[Domenic T.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

Those are VERY familiar stories. I know that went on at just about every Chev dealer all across the country in the 60's and 70's. Mechanics would work with the parts man and charge "extra parts" on warranty claims, which would build up store credit for the mechanic. (usually at 50%)

I remember the "parts recycle program" too. Mechanics collected used parts from non warranty jobs but turned them in on fake warranty claims. They not only got paid to install the new parts but also got to keep the parts. It was a great system. One of the first recycle programs ever, even if GM didn't exactly approve it.
I know old GM mechanics that STILL have boxes of new parts from that program.
GM knew what was going on but they couldn't stop all of it.

Later, a really funny story about warranty parts that had to be turned in.....

Michael,
I think we were both there back then.

I took a look at my 67 block that has the CE #s and it was an August 1967 block, not a April 1968 as I mentioned in my earlier post. My heads are april 1968. My car is a May 1967 vette.

Don't forget the story.

DOM

[Terry M.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

Mike,

The Service Information Bulletin (blue pages) I referred to is 68-I-1, and is dated September 25, 1967. It has several pages about the CE and CT program with the numbers assigned to each assembly plant and cites Georgia State Engine and Transmission Identification as the reason for it (page 7 of 31). There is a re-issue to the bulletin dated September 11, 1968, but there is no change to the CE and CT program that I could find. I have not identified the reason for the revision except for the sentence: "This bulleting is being re-issued to include identification information on the engines, axles and vehicle models introduced since the start of the model year." With the re-issue also being 31 pages I am not too keen on spending a lot of time to find why the re-issue. I wish Gm did it like the military and highlighted the changes, but that is life.

A while back I keyboarded in a lot of the text for the paragraphs about the Georgia State law, so it is in the archives.

[Michael F.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

...dumb thing to do nothwithstanding the fact that the 340 HP engine was not a 1964 configuration, and most guys don't know enough of the details to convert a 300 HP to a 1964 365 HP without missing a lot, and getting it right would be very expensive.

If he wants "more power" in a package that will pass NCRS Flight Judging and a PV look at the Special 300 HP configuration written up in the most recent issue of The Corvette Restorer.

Duke

Great article Duke. I considered that myself. But at the end of the article you considered the experiment a failure. Do you still recommend those cam profiles? I read the article in increments. I must have missed something.

[Michael F.]

Re: 64 conversion from 300 HP to 340 HP car

I think converting this car is a very bad idea. I would rather have a legit 300 HP car rather than a faked 365 HP (assuming 365 since there is no such thing as a '64 340). If the owner really wants a 365 HP car then why not just trade it in for a legit 365 HP?

Maybe he likes his car. Nothing wrong with wanting more HP.