1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

[John M.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Steve, I agree anyone buying a BB '67 with an AO Smith Body is uneducated if they think they are getting the real deal! That said, I know of many '65/'66 AO Smith Bodies that show all the signs of being the real deal!! Someone once told me that there is a teltale sign on the door hinges/rivits of a Big Block AO Smith Body. Never was able to verify what they were getting at??

[Joe R.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Only one word describes the above tutorial on identifying an original block in any Corvette!

"Hogwash"


Broach marks are NOT an indicator of an original block!!!!!!! There are thousands of original blocks with NO broach marks. Smooth as a babies behind.

Why! After 40+ years the salt, rust, corrosion take its toll on engine pads.

As for straight or crooked letters. The holders wore out along with the numbers and became loose and crooked/straight or whatever.

So throw out that theory of the crooked letters indicating an original or fake stamp pad.

There is no absolute way to tell if a block is stamped at the factory or stamped in Texas. Take it to the bank!

JR

[Wayne W.]

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

At least 30 years ago we put an add in the paper wanting to buy midyear Corvettes, with no specification on engine size etc. We had 10 responses that we went to look at. Of the 10, 6 were claimed to have the original engines and 4 not. After we went to look at them, it turned out that only one actually had the original engine, and that was one that was stated to not have. Take what you want from the numbers, but the fact is, in that sample, it was 1 in 10 back then.

[Kenneth B.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

At least 30 years ago we put an add in the paper wanting to buy midyear Corvettes, with no specification on engine size etc. We had 10 responses that we went to look at. Of the 10, 6 were claimed to have the original engines and 4 not. After we went to look at them, it turned out that only one actually had the original engine, and that was one that was stated to not have. Take what you want from the numbers, but the fact is, in that sample, it was 1 in 10 back then.

Thanks for agreeing with me. I think people now are so use to seeing #'S matching blocks that they beleave that most are origional. Like the other post there is no way to tell if it is a factory installed block or a restoration one of done right. I have had both. It is neat to have a born with motor Corvette but I don't think the value of one is more than the other unless someone tries to change HP & pass it off as origional. I would never guarentee a block unless I bought it new & I never did.
KEN

[David D.]

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.

John, I am curious what about the casting date on the 3869942 block that is in the car, with that engine assembly date. Any idea what the block casting date is? B 17 6 perhaps? Dave

[John M.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Hi Dave, I believe it is earlier in Feb. Why do you ask?

[David D.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

John, I was just curious, as most of the L72 3869942 block casting dates I have noticed around that engine assembly date, seem to be in the February 16, 17, 18 casting date range. Although, there are some earlier in the month of February, but the majority of those seem to be L-36 427/390 car's. Did you get a chance to get a good picture of the stamp pad? It would be interesting to see what the stamp pad looks like and get some opinion's on the pad and originality of the stampings. Dave

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

David,

The issue we all have 40 years after half these 427's were blown up is not knowing if the motor is original to the car as noted by some of the prior comments in this thread.

In a general sense, I see these grouped too, but how many were stamped that way based upon some other car they saw at a show? One thing to look at is the credibility of the restorer or seller, when you can find transmissions cast in December and P stamped in November, and claimed to be original to the vehicle out of the factory, it casts doubt about the integrity of the entire restoration.

The probable way to boil this down if for an organization to actively take data for every car that comes up for sale and or is entered into regional and national shows. In 5 - 10 years for a given MY you'd have a good idea what the real status is.

[John M.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Dave, Still working on getting a good photo of the pad. Casting date is (Feb) B-2-6.

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

John,

I kept looking at that date...looked real familiar.

My April 21 assembled engine has the same casting date!


Now the rest of the castings are real close to the actually asy date.

[David D.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Ron, I think you are beginning to see what I was getting at, with your last post about your 942 block casting date. BTW, my personnal 1966 Corvette database is over a span of 20+ years and has over 3300 cars, at the present time. And yes, certain number groups and trends stand out very clearly, in a larger database. But, is still just an educated guess, not to be considered as absolute fact. FWIW. Dave

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Dave, I love to see some of that data...

[Steven S.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Dave, I love to see some of that data...

Me too!

[William P.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

Dave, I love to see some of that data...

Me Too Bill Purdu

[Paul J.]

Re: 1966 427/425 Engine Pad Broach Marks

... I think people now are so use to seeing #'S matching blocks that they beleave that most are origional. Like the other post there is no way to tell if it is a factory installed block or a restoration one of done right. I have had both. It is neat to have a born with motor Corvette but I don't think the value of one is more than the other unless someone tries to change HP & pass it off as origional. I would never guarentee a block unless I bought it new & I never did.
KEN

Exactly right.