What do you think....

[Edward M.]

....about this engine pad.

[Jack C.]

Re: What do you think....

I usually don't comment on engine pads, but this one looks real bad.

[Blair K.]

Re: What do you think....

I usually don't comment on engine pads, but this one looks real bad.

I agree with JC.

[Michael G.]

Re: What do you think....

Pass....................on it. No where near typical.

[Edward M.]

Re: What do you think....

I believe that this is a factory grind out. Factory grind outs to change the engine suffix codce have been documented before.

No dounbt this is atypical of factory production.

I "think" what looks like an "E" is actually an "L" with the grind-out marks making what looks like part of the letter.

The car was wrecked about 30 years ago and has sat in a garage since then.

LA is a 427 / 390 hp in a passenger car, LM is a 427 / 390 hp in a Corvette.

The engine assembly date for the "LM" is II26. Apparently the engine assembly date for the "LA" is different.

So, the question... If an engine has the suffix code changed, does the engine assembly date also change.

I know that some parts will change between a passenger car and a Corvette engine. Intake manifold? Exhaust manifolds? Distributor? Carburetor?

Obviously this engine will be questioned the rest of its life, but I suspect that this one is "explainable".

This is a December 69 car (Build date Q03)

[Michael W.]

Re: What do you think....

I like it. One of the most honest factory grinds out to be seen. Nice!

[Kenneth B.]

Re: What do you think....

I had a 1969 435 complete engine that I got 30 years ago at a swap meet. It looked like that but only the SN was ground & restamped. The SN was very early under 200.

[Joe C.]

Re: What do you think....

Ed,

You ought to show this to a paid (professional) verification servicer if you are thinking of spending money to buy the car that owns that engine.

In my non-professional and semi-pseudo expert opinion, this is not a factory grind-out. Typically, factory grind-outs were done with a die grinder which obliterated only the VIN derivative, leaving the broach marks and the engine date/suffix intact. The new VIN derivative was then stamped either above or below the obliterated area.

In my inexperienced opinion, the photo looks like a very shallow resurfacing with a rotary cutter which left the original stamping visible, with a new stamping added afterwards.

[Gene M.]

Re: What do you think....

Ed,

You ought to show this to a paid (professional) verification servicer if you are thinking of spending money to buy the car that owns that engine.

In my non-professional and semi-pseudo expert opinion, this is not a factory grind-out. Typically, factory grind-outs were done with a die grinder which obliterated only the VIN derivative, leaving the broach marks and the engine date/suffix intact. The new VIN derivative was then stamped either above or below the obliterated area.

In my inexperienced opinion, the photo looks like a very shallow resurfacing with a rotary cutter which left the original stamping visible, with a new stamping added afterwards.

Agree, look close at resurfacing with a rotary cutter. Gm didn't do this. GM used heavy grind out like Joe said, and would not leave remnants of previous stamping. Looking at this from originality perspective it is a "no go" in my opinion.

[Michael W.]

Re: What do you think....

Typically, factory grind-outs were done with a die grinder which obliterated only the VIN derivative, leaving the broach marks and the engine date/suffix intact. The new VIN derivative was then stamped either above or below the obliterated area.

This would be true if the engine were removed from one car after VIN stamping (for whatever reason) and later reinstalled in another. In the case with this engine, the grindout and restamp was done before the VIN was applied which infers it was done at Tonawanda, not St. Louis.

The grind out marks I see appear consistent with other blocks known to be real deal.

[Mike M.]

Re: What do you think....

i agree with joe. mike

[Edward M.]

Re: What do you think....

My thinking is that this was originally an LA engine that was repurposed at Tonawanda to the LM engine. I have known this car for 20 plus years, and it has been wrecked and stored in a garage that entire time. It will be showing up on Ebay soon.

The 69 model year ran long, and perhaps Chevrolet needed some additional engines for the Corvette plant.

We will never know for sure, but I think about Al Grennings articles on engine suffix changes for 67 small block engines.

[Bob J.]

Re: What do you think....

This would be true if the engine were removed from one car after VIN stamping (for whatever reason) and later reinstalled in another. In the case with this engine, the grindout and restamp was done before the VIN was applied which infers it was done at Tonawanda, not St. Louis.

The grind out marks I see appear consistent with other blocks known to be real deal.

Mike, I agree.
Its clear the original number was done with the head off as it should.
The second number was done with the head on.....which made the number tilted to clear the head plug.
Bob

[Dick W.]

Re: What do you think....

Uuuugly! I would not spend one dime on this motor without looking at it in person. Unlike any grindout that I have ever seen. I seen what looks like file marks running 90 degrees to what would be broach marks.