CRG Discussion Forum

Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: 69Z28 on July 10, 2023, 12:13:23 AM

Title: Question on this.
Post by: 69Z28 on July 10, 2023, 12:13:23 AM

Hello everyone. Been a while. Helping a guy out with this. What do y'all think? If that supposed to be a BLH that would be a 1990 305, but not with that casting number. Unless of course that casting number has been modified, which I have read is happening.

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: 69Z28 on July 10, 2023, 12:23:54 AM

Casting number. Waiting to see the casting date.

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: 69Z28-RS on July 10, 2023, 12:03:50 PM

It's much more likely that the stamping was modified than the casting no modified.

3956618       68-79       302/327/350       2 & 4-Bolt

If the stamping was modified it appears to me that this engine suffix was originally 'EH' .. but someone overstamped the B (or 3) over the E...  producing a BH which I don't have in my reference.

Of course the engine deck/pad has also been milled (or otherwise modified) so it doesn't show the original machine marks, so it could also be a complete RESTAMP, but I'm leaning towards an overstamp as above...

The EH suffix was used in '68 on 250hp/327 ci engines in Chevelles...as well as some earlier occurrences...

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: cook_dw on July 10, 2023, 01:26:27 PM

If I had to guess I'd say the H & B are flipped in the gang.  That would fall in line with a L48 w/ auto.  What is the casting date?

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: bertfam on July 10, 2023, 01:47:13 PM

Any three digit suffix code that starts with a number (in this case the number "8") is for commercial, agricultural, marine, etc... Things like pumps and generators.

Ed

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: Stingr69 on July 10, 2023, 01:51:09 PM

The pad shape is right for a '69 and the casting number is right for a '69.  The Flint plant assembly stamp is not right for a car.  The implied assembly date of March 26th, 1969 would line up with the short time period this casting was used but the rest of the assembly stamp has too many digits as the "8" does not belong there and the 2 letter suffix does not match up with any typical car application.  Casting date has not been shown yet but I would expect it to be around March something of '69.  If there is a VIN derivative on the pad by the oil filter we might be able to pin it down but without that info, we are just spitballing in the dark.

If there is no VIN derivative there, this blocks original configuration will never be determined.  No reason to worry about it.  It would be just another engine block.

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: 69Z28-RS on July 10, 2023, 01:54:05 PM

Ed,  Do you have a reference for the Commercial, AGri, etc.. stampings??

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: bertfam on July 10, 2023, 01:56:28 PM

No, sorry. However, I remember John stating at one time very many years ago these types of engines were typically rated around 200 to 250HP depending on their use.

Ed

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: cook_dw on July 10, 2023, 03:10:19 PM

Quote from: cook_dw on July 10, 2023, 01:26:27 PM

If I had to guess I'd say the H & B are flipped in the gang.  That would fall in line with a L48 w/ auto.  What is the casting date?

Ha!  I totally missed the 5 (03268) digits..   ::) :P

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: 69Z28 on July 10, 2023, 03:48:57 PM

Casting date.

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: 69Z28 on July 10, 2023, 04:03:14 PM

Crank

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: Stingr69 on July 10, 2023, 04:22:52 PM

Large journal 327.  That crank flange looks like a 3.25" stroke and the block is a 4" bore.

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: bcmiller on July 10, 2023, 05:06:26 PM

As Ed stated, it is a marine/industrial/agricultural use engine. My bet would be marine.

Title: Re: Question on this.
Post by: 69Z28 on July 10, 2023, 05:29:08 PM

Thanks all for the back and forth. I'm sure the owner will be satisfied with this info.