conejo110652

FIrst of all then it is correct to have only the suffix of the engine in the right of the stamp ???
Then I will go and look for the date the block was made, tell you later.
Another thing is that this car was brought form the USA to my country, El Salvador, since new. If the first owner changed the block, then I would be super difficult to find it form here. Because I have aprox 8 years of having the car and the last owner had about another 15 years of having it in his farm
Thanks for your help

conejo110652

The right passenger side block mark is "E118"
What this alpha numeric No. means???
Also I saw the distributor Delco Remy Model No. 1110914
It is very emotional if this confirms the originallity of the block
Thanks again for your help

conejo110652

HEY Tripleblack, What are Broach Marks ????
Thaks again

conejo110652

I am confused John Z in Chevymania.com in parts ID and clicking on heads SB 3795896 it says they are for a 283,307,327 from 58 to 72
Are there any other ways to check them???

scopeli

distributor number is correct for a 290hp, fuel injected car, but the date code you have given is what i would expect to see on a 58 corvette: may 11, 1958. what is the date code on the distributor?

scopeli

your car should have the staggered hole valve covers. if you look at the covers that fit on your heads you will see that the holes are straight across. the straight across valve covers were not in use when your car was built, so by just looking at the way the valve covers bolt on the 3795896 heads will tell you they are wrong for your car.

conejo110652

I could not find the date of the Distributor but it says Model 9A9
Also the intake manifold is No. 3927184

conejo110652

Yes I read that some place, but it also said that in some time in the middle of the year
of 1959 they where changed to staggered My heads holes are not staggered. They are straight
Confusing:

scopeli

9A9: 1959, january 9.

scopeli

transition date is between may 5 and may 19, 1959.

62Jeff

Yep, that's all I was trying to say. It's a situation created by the lack of VIN codes on a 59.

I want the OP to understand what it is he will have "confirmed" when this thread runs its course - and it isn't that his engine is the one that came in his car originally, but that - hopefully - his engine block by all appearances is "not wrong" for his car.

65tripleblack

OK, then you are absolutely correct......unless Grenning has photos of stamp pads associated with 1959 engines assembled on the same day/shift as that of the OP.
If the 1959 MY was supposed to have a VIN code, then my argument holds true.

65tripleblack

"Broach" marks are tool marks created when the block's decks were machined. The tool used for this process was like a huge flat file. It's leading edge was set further away from the "work" than the trailing edge, and as it was passed over the "work" it would cut deeper as the back end of the tool was reached, leaving tool marks which are dead parallel to the fore-and-aft axis of the deck. The cutter would be dressed and/or changed from time to time and so the depth and clarity of these marks varies as the sharpness of the cutter. A brand new cutter left marks that are very faint and almost require magnification to see. A dull cutter left deeper and very clear tool marks.

The original broach marks are plainly visible here:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/atta...riginalpad.jpg

conejo110652

Ok, so what we have for sure is that only the right side of the mark "F107CS" is correct for this block that I have, The casting date "E118" is it correct for this block??? Distributor is correct; Heads are correct, as Chevymania says; Also I have the wrong Intake, obviously because the fuel injection system is in a box and it has been transformed to carburated; Not staggered heads are correct. Another thing is that the engine sounds like if it has a especial camshaft and it also runs fast very nice, faster than my other 1963 Corvette. I suppose it is because of the special camshaft and pistons that originally was made.; It has positraction also and special finned brakes; The transmission is the T10-7AWG which is correct; The rear axle is AT217 No. 3743833, which is correct;
I will try to send a picture of the blcok stamp later.
Thanking all of you for you time and knowledge:

scopeli

heads are definitely incorrect and that has already been dicusssed in past posts. you were given a transition date on the staggered bolt pattern on the heads so it should be obvious any head with a straight across bolt pattern is incorrect. the casting date being so early makes me wonder if your pad has been restamped.

conejo110652

Thanks Scopeli; The c1 registry says that the birth date of my car is January 12, 1959
this is a clue in the straight head holes
So I will search about the heads so I get informed. What other clue should I find in the block??? You think 6 months will be too long between the E118 and the birth of the car???

conejo110652

Hey folks, found another strange thing: In the 3795896 heads it appears another alphanumeric number: It is L108 does this means October 1958? If this is correct, then the building of the heads goes with the Jan 12, 1959 birthday of my car?' Am I missing something here??

JohnZ

The E 11 8 block casting date (May 11, 1958) is eight months prior to the engine assembly date (January 7th); although not impossible, it's highly unlikely that the block sat around for that length of time when they were making 5,500 engines per day. It's definitely outside of the six-month window accepted in judging.

The L 10 8 (December 10, 1958) casting date on the heads works with the engine assembly date, but those are the wrong heads; they were only used on Corvettes from '62-'64, and then only on the 250hp low-performance base engine. Your engine should have 550 heads with staggered valve cover bolt holes. The heads you have are from a low-performance passenger car engine.

Do you have a good close-up photo of the front stamp pad?

Panama 58

This is an original stamped 1959 270hp dated April 10 (410). You will see that there is no VIN derivative preceding the date and configuration code (CU). One of the key things to mention is broach marks vary widely in clarity, depth and sharpness. You can easily see the broach marks on this pad, but they are not as clear as the broach marks shown in the earlier photo. John could explain it better, but it makes sense that you would see this variation based on the level of sharpness of the blades and how long they had been in service.

How do these letters and numbers compare with your stamp pad?
Panama 58

conejo110652

Oh no, Panama 58 and folks Sorry, but looking at your photo, that is not the way my stamp is. Mine is first "F107" and a little down "CS" They are not together all the letters and also they are not straight.
Sorry again if I make you loose your time.