1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

John,
How close to 0421?

[Kenneth B.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Hi Ronald,

My stamping also has an "I" for a "1".

Yours is correct! I was used for one"s
KEN

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Oh I know it is very original all around, just curious how long that trend lasted?

And..well when did the restampers find out? We evaluated on this summer past that was real bad, 65 heads, badly hit and poorly repaired, and there was one or two lamenting on this forum on how fast it sold (for a day) until the facts were on the table and the buyer went back to the west coast. LOL.

[William P.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

I beg to differ. I think Al will only say that it is factory correct. NO ONE can certify that it is a factory stamped pad. The good restampers are so good that no one can tell. Trust me some have almost as many pictures of pads as he dose. If it passes NCRS & BG what is the big deal. If you are not the original owner you have no clue if it is the original block & 75% of the HP motors 25 years ago were not. Why are there a lot of 396,425. & 435 cars certified NCRS& BG today. Al will tell you all sorts of things happened when blocks were stamped. Don't drink the coolaid. I think good paperwork is your best bet if you want to know what engine was original to the Corvette. Al can tell any repo POP or tank sticker. I have sent him alot & others have over the years including Terry @ Proteam. He has GM paperwork that only he has on ELC #'S KEN

Hi Ken, Where did you get the 75% figure you stated and how many 396,425. & 435 cars have been certified by NCRS & BG ?
Regards Bill

[John M.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Ron, My pad # reads T030I IP. The first I almost apears to have double verticle lines. I will do my best to post a picture as soon as I can.

[Dick W.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Another what? Original or restamp? I am not an expert on engine pads. Dave

Compare the broach marks with the other photos

[John M.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Hi Ron, TO30I IP

John,
How close to 0421?

[Steve B.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

I did a little math and for appox. ten years there were 10 67s certified and then 30 for the next twenty six years at Bloomington. That equals 880 cars which is a fraction of 435 production plus not all of those cars certified were 435s (I know it seems like they all are) and how many have received multilple awards? My car has three Golds over the last 25 years so I think that 75% is way over stated. I still think that there are a few really talented people who can make the determination if a pad is original or not. It also helps having a traceable ownership history back to new.

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Hi John, real close in production terms, 7 weeks. thanks for the info. Ron

[Joel F.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Since we are talking 66 427 stamp pads, has anyone seen the "1" in the date stamped as a "I"?

Ronald, if you are talking about the engine assembly date, an I is probably the most common, but I have seen a number of original pads that contained a 1, and a few that had both I and 1.

If you are talking about the VIN derivative, I have not seen an I instead of 1 ever, but I have not seen them all.

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Joe, just the Tonawanda date, thanks!

[Kenneth B.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

I did a little math and for appox. ten years there were 10 67s certified and then 30 for the next twenty six years at Bloomington. That equals 880 cars which is a fraction of 435 production plus not all of those cars certified were 435s (I know it seems like they all are) and how many have received multilple awards? My car has three Golds over the last 25 years so I think that 75% is way over stated. I still think that there are a few really talented people who can make the determination if a pad is original or not. It also helps having a traceable ownership history back to new.

We have had this discussion before. I have looked at alto of Corvettes for the last 35 years. Most of the HP cars did not have the original motor & maybe 50% of the low HP cars did. In the day it was less expensive & quicker to put a new motor in a car than rebuild the old one. You ask anyone that has been around for a long time & they will tell you the same thing. I am not saying your Corvette or anyone Else's is a re stamp but allot are. You are wrong though when you say someone can tell if it is a original motor only the original owner while he has the car can say for sure. Even then the miles might not be right. All of us in the day unhooked the trany cable to keep the miles down.
KEN

[Steve B.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

We have had this discussion before. I have looked at alto of Corvettes for the last 35 years. Most of the HP cars did not have the original motor & maybe 50% of the low HP cars did. In the day it was less expensive & quicker to put a new motor in a car than rebuild the old one. You ask anyone that has been around for a long time & they will tell you the same thing. I am not saying your Corvette or anyone Else's is a re stamp but allot are. You are wrong though when you say someone can tell if it is a original motor only the original owner while he has the car can say for sure. Even then the miles might not be right. All of us in the day unhooked the trany cable to keep the miles down.
KEN

Ken, I have looked at a lot of Corvettes too since 1982 when 435 cars were a rare sight. I agree that most are restamps or worse AO smith BBs now but if a person is lucky enough to have a car with complete owner history, it makes things a lot eaiser to make that determination. While most of the 60s BB Corvettes were rode hard and put away wet, there are some that made it through intact. While this is a small percentage, these are the cars that I am referring to.

[John M.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Steve, I have to ask what you meant by your statement "even worse AO Smith BB's. I know AO Smith did not produce Big Block cars for 1967 because they could not get the stinger hood right! But I have seen many AO Smith Bodied '65-'66 BB cars!

[Steve B.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Steve, I have to ask what you meant by your statement "even worse AO Smith BB's. I know AO Smith did not produce Big Block cars for 1967 because they could not get the stinger hood right! But I have seen many AO Smith Bodied '65-'66 BB cars!

John, you are correct in that AO smith did not make BB bodies in 1967. However I have seen many 300/350 hp cars with AO smith bodies turned into BBs and sold off to the uneducated buyer. In fact there was a nice looking maroon 435 with an AO smith tag on ebay a week or so ago. I was told that he was informed about this and was very unhappy to say the least. Buyer beware!