Messages

1

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Warranty Engines

« on: March 09, 2007, 11:02:04 PM »

Z71 :Good for you, but at General Motors if the higher ups said "do this" they did this, and they did it the way they were TOLD to do it. And no, they didn't start this in 1969, they started it in the fall of 1967 of 1967 for the start of the 1968  model year. And I THOUGHT I quoted EXACTLY what they were TOLD to do as far as complet CURRENT year engines were concerned. To say when a "new manager takes over" and applying to to GM is plain stupid.


John Z : I'm not saying you don't know what your talking about, but you don't. The serial sequence was:
1) Flint Motor Plant                  00001 - 19999
2) Flint V8 Engine plant            20000 - 49999
3) Tonawanda Motor plant        50000 - 69999

Now this is from a memo that states "unless advised to the contrary, we will prresume these arrangements are satisfactory and you will proceed accordingly"   (signed)

                                                              FACILITIES & PRODUCTION PLANNING DEPARTMENT

                                                              J.K. Cummingham

                                                              Supervisor Planning section

CC: (20 names) and all Assembly Plant Managers

Now in none of the memos I have pertaining to this does it say "plant managers can do something else if they want", and if the memo came down to the plant floor and a supervisor said "this is bullshit" he wouldn't be a supervisor very long. Tell a supervisor to tell a plant manager NO!, and see what the supervisor says. Now wherever the hell it is you work maybe you can go against what a higher up says, try it at a GM plant and they'll hand you your ass on a platter, trust me on this.

I have a series of Inter-Organization Letters between the Central Office and the Engineering Center dated August 1st, August 3rd and August 14th 1967 which cover EXPLICITLY why and how the assembly plants  are to proceed with the "CE" identification system. But hey, what do I know, I only worked at a plant that did it.

I don't know where someone got the idea that this system was put in place to track warrentee claims when they went to the 5/50,000 warrentee. That is actually completely ridiculous, it's so not right that makes me laugh. Chevrolet had a dozen different ways to track warrentee claims. The ONLY reason to stamp CE on an engine was to watch for parts departments and/or dealers trying to pull a fast one and do a warrentee claim to get a free engine. This was of course fraud and the company could go after the dealership. Example, ABC Chevrolet puts in a claim for a replacement engine under warrentee. Somehow they bypass the Zone Field Representitive whose SUPPOSED to look at every major claim. At some point the Zone man DOES look at the car, talks to the owner, looks at the stamp pad and either sees or doesn't see the CE code on the pad. That's all hypothetical, and for the most part bullshit, but many is the time they "totaled" an engine, replaced it under warrentee then amazingly the engine fixed itself. Parts departments did "warrentee jobs", or so I'm told. But if they got caught?. Hey, do you think Chevrolet and thier zone rep's were STUPID?. Trust me, dummies didn't get those jobs!. And they didn't do complete or partial engines with out someone USUALLY double checking.

Anyway, to say the CE program went into effect to track warrentee claims is wrong, 90% of all CE engines or engine sub assemblies went other places, parts departments, customer sales, a 1/2 dozen or more places.   

As far as the forged crank is concerned it didn't anything to do with "Houston we have a problem". The partial engine assembly serviced 1967-68 L-34 engines (3930854) and they changed from forged to cast cranks at some point in the 1967 model year. So, because this is how Chevrolet worked, they could and did UPGRADE a component, in this case a forged crank was better than a cast crank, they simply made all service engines that serviced both 67 and 68 the same, with forged cranks. That way if your 1968 came with a cast crank and they replaced it with a forged one YOU WIN!. If your 1967 came with a forged crank you got a forged crank YOU DON'T LOSE!. In any event, if they ran out of a part on the line they could use the same part if it was BETTER (any part) but they couldn't substitute a lesser quality part, EVER!. Anyway, the number of partial engines was so small Chevy didn't care.

PS If you think they didn't implement this program until April 1969 clue me/us in what they did from September 1967 until then?. Or did they just not follow orders?.

2

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Warranty Engines

« on: March 09, 2007, 05:51:09 AM »

I Emailed the memo to Kurt so thank him for posting it. I have nothing else that adds to the subject only reinforces what what you read said.

1) Yes ALL engines had the CE stamping, even and especially over the counter sales. CE engines weren't limited to warrentee claims. Thus don't use THAT as the reason for stamping the engines, it wasn't. It was a way for the police to check a car for a STOLEN engines, as in "where did yiou get that engine". To separate WHERE the engine was built (in the case of V8's) they had 3 series of numbers for Flint, Flint V8 and Tonawanda. Each plant kept records so the corporation could go back and check what the number sequence went back to.

2) ccargo: you get an extra 20 points, you hit the nail EXACTLY on the head!. All of you who are "overthinking" this re-read ccargo's post. Back "in the day" most of the buyers of muscle caras didn't know SQUAT, and many beat the shi* out of the car blowing motors up left and right. And don't think GM covered EVERY busted motor!, they didn't. They replaced MY Corvette motor, because they were having problems with cracked pistons, but when I brought back the transmission a month later the Zone man said "who are you kidding?". No matter, not under warrentee many guys just bought a short block and had someone do an R&R. Which also means don't think for a MINUTE that MOST guys buying a muscle car knew where the spark plugs were!.

One last point, if you were driving a Corvette in the 60's you either had it stolen, or were GOING to have it stolen!. I told this to the NCRS, and told them to double and triple check any car that claimed to have the "original" motor. Anyway, ccargo got it right

And as far as I know the VIN number wasn't re-stamped on any motors. To even attempt that would require a gang stamp holder and the correct size stamps. If someone tells you they did they're most probably a lier. The required stamp sizes for "CE" engines were from .125 - .250, so 1/8th, 3/16ths or 1/4".

Make this note :
        "In addition to these service only assemblies, any current production passenger engine assemblies that are ordered by the Parts and Accessories Department for service usage must have a service identification number".
         I'm going to jump to a conclusion here. If they ordered an engine for a specific application, say an L-34 350hp/396 engine for a 1968 Camaro it would be stamped "T0309XX" and ALSO a "CEx50001" (with X being the year it was ordered in). That's a lot to stamp on that small pad. But that's what the instructions say they have to do to COMPLETE engine assemblies (as opposed to partial assemblies or universels). 

There, that's the CE story from start to finish. Don't try and read more into it. General Motors required all service engines, sub assemblies and transmissions be stamped starting with the 1968 model year. And any records that were made at Tonawanda are long gone, I know, I searched all over for them.

3

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Warranty Engines

« on: March 08, 2007, 04:42:13 AM »

I said I was mistaken when I refered to it being a federal law, it was a Georgia law that GM said they had to comply with. I also may have said 68 as the date of the memo's but it was August of 1967 FOR the start of the 1968 MODEL year. Yes there were a sequence of numbers for after that year number like you say. In another post I gave how it would look, or was supposed to look according to their instructions:
CE850388. The first number after the "E" is always the date of the year.

I would guess GM put this system in place for Georgia figuring other states or the feds would require the same thing. satisfy Georgia and any others would be taken care of too (Use the same system).

4

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Warranty Engines

« on: March 07, 2007, 06:20:22 AM »

I only meant to underline "passenger 1968 and later model" but screwed it up.

5

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Warranty Engines

« on: March 07, 2007, 06:15:39 AM »

Your wrong, it was put into place for "legal reasons". It wasn't just Chevrolet it was across the board, all GM brands. And it didn't just cover engines, it covered transmissions too. Exactly :

"The attached letter from F.J. Welsh outlines the basic requirements to be fullfilled by the source plants supplying engines or transmissions assemblies and/or components for serive which must be identified to comply with legal requirements". End quote.
From J. Semenik to various at engine plants dated August 3rd, 1967
Specifically :
" This has reference to placing identification numbers on passenger 1968 and later model replacement engines, partial engines, fitted cylinder cases, transmission assemblies and transmission cases to comply with State of Georgia law which becomes effective with the start of the 1968 model year'.
this was an inter office memo  from  F.J. Welsh, Central Office to Mr. J. Semenik, Engineering Center dated August 1st, 1968

I don't know where you got your information, mine comes from inter-office memo's between Chevrolet engineering and the Tonawanda engine plant. I don't think I'm right, I know I'm right according to the paperwork I have in my hands. And I only wrote a small portion of what these memo's say. I said it was federal, I rememered it was a law, forgot it was State of georgia. I believe this was required by other states if not the feds further down the road. 

Of course because they HAD to do it, and keep records those records could also have been used for other purposes. But the identifying code went on everything, not just warrentee parts.


[Underlining fixed by Kurt]

6

General Discussion / Re: Differences in CE and DZ block

« on: March 07, 2007, 05:44:48 AM »

Your correct, Tonawanda didn't build ANY small blocks with aluminum intakes (eaasiest way to put it). The original 302 block was made one way and the CE (or replacement) block fit many more application. Any differences between the two are inconsequential, they won't affect the function in any way.

Someone ordered a fitted block or short block to an assembly number that corrosponded to a Z-28 302. That assembly was stamped with a CE code.

7

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Warranty Engines

« on: March 05, 2007, 08:35:36 PM »

The CE designation came into affect in 1968 because of a federal edict. They wanted a way to identify replacement engines. CE engines were "partial" engines not complete in most cases, they would replace the block and keep all the other parts from the same engines. In SOME cases if the engine was being replaced under warrentee they would put in an identical engine from the next model year, keep word here is IDENTICAL, I know I had a 1966 Corvette engine replaced in 1967 with a "complete". This is within 15 miles of the Tonawanda engine plant, took a month.

The CE stood for Chevrolet Engine, a Pontiac would be PE and so on. This pertained to service engines, partial engines, fitted engines and transmissions. The CE code was read:
C= Chevrolet
E= Engine
Next number= calender year
Numbers after that were a serial number assigned to each engine plant

This was done beginning with 1968 to fulfil "legal" requirements. I believe that was to satisfy governmental requires to identify parts found on cars that weren't original, in any event it was what it was.

This comes directly from Inter Office memo's sent to all plants involed, in this case Tonawanda.

PS: Don't ask, no records were kept as to what each serial number went to, I searched all over when I was doing historical work at the Tonawanda plant in the late 80's, nada.

8

General Discussion / Re: Engine Assembly Stamps

« on: March 01, 2007, 10:17:57 PM »

Tonawanda had a foundry on site and also worked Saturdays. The engine plant worked MANY Saturday's but there's now way to know now exactly which weeks they worked. Same goes for Flint. Unless someone kept personal records the exact weeks every plant worked overtime are gone. If a stamp said it was built on a Saturday I wouldn't doubt it for a minute.

9

General Discussion / Re: 1968 Yenko COPO Camaro's

« on: March 01, 2007, 10:03:16 PM »

Thanks guys. This is the type of thing I need to know, were they 427's FROM THE FACTORY, or were they ALL converted. I need more to nail this down by Tonawanda records show that we built 375hp 396's to this COPO. I have no reason to believe they were not 396's. There were reasons to have a MV suffix code, and the Protecto plate was one big reason. Thanks again for helping me here.

10

General Discussion / 1968 Yenko COPO Camaro's

« on: February 23, 2007, 06:23:31 AM »

Looking for information on 1968 Yenko 427 Camaro's, particularly COPO's

Brian, we talked at a Camaro convention back in 1998 held on Grand Island and I believe I gave a seminar. I needed to talk to you, Email me.

Anyone knowing how to get in touch with Brian Henderson Email him and tell him I need to talk to him.

Fran Preve, former historian Tonawanda engine plant now retired. Thanx

11

General Discussion / Re: Fish story or not???

« on: February 23, 2007, 06:10:44 AM »

Your friend had TWO ZL-1 Camaro's in his garage that cost $45,000 dollars each (in today's dollars), or $90,000 dollars. Sitting in his garage. Ordering a ZL-1 engine in 1969 was no problem. They cost about $22,500 in todays dollars. The ZL-1 was identical to the L-88 except for the block in 1969.
I'll leave it at that...............................