Block for 1967 Z28

[mgreenz]

Hi CRG,
I'm a long time 1st Gen owner and have relatively recently acquired my first Z28. The car came with a 68 MO bock in it and my intent is to build a 67 302 for it.
I've located a 3892657 block with a casting date of E177 which I believe to be appropriate for a 06E NOR car although there seems to be a wide range in block casting dates used, with perhaps some months omitted, for Z28s produced at this time.
I'm trying to determine if this block has been decked or if this block could be a warrantee replacement or over the counter block with a blank pad.
All comments are appreciated!

[fiveforty]

Do you have a pic of the deck with the #s for the MO block?

[69Z28-RS]

mgreenz:   

those are NOT broach marks on the unstamped block deck...  looks more like sanding marks.. that could be from attempting to hide rotary mill marks..?

[bcmiller]

CE stampings on blocks started around August/September so your block is probably too early to have been stamped that way.

But yes it does not appear that the deck stamping you posted is original.

[firstgenaddict]

I see some actual real broach marks on the deck - however someone has done a lot of damage to that pad through their use of an abrasive or scraper tool to remove the paint...
Whatever is done in the future should be with paint remover or acetone etc.

[bcmiller]

Are there any numbers or letters stamped on the oil pan mounting surface? Especially near the oil filter mounting area.

[mgreenz]

[author=fiveforty]
Do you have a pic of the deck with the #s for the MO block?



I've posted the MO block information in 1968 Orphans.
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=19253.0

[mgreenz]

Thank you All for your comments.
The block is not mine. I'll need to contact the owner for more information. The pad is indeed scratched up but there does seem to be an underlying pattern. It will be interesting to see if there are numbers or letters stamped in the oil pan/filter mounting area.

[/size]
[/size]

[mgreenz]

The block has been assembled as a "custom built" 302 long block. The pan is installed so I could only get pics of the oil filter and started mounting surfaces. Plenty of paint so not much to see although there are a few characters at the starter location.


I'm still considering this engine and would appreciate opinions on whether or not an E177 casting dated blank pad block, if factory assembled as a warranty engine, could have found its way into a 1967 06E car.


I'm also interested to know how relevant a stamped assembly date on a warranty block is since couldn't the engines have been assembled either before or after a car's build date?

[MO]

That probably could have happened, but how likely. The block could have been replaced under warranty until roughly July of 68. The sooner it was replaced, the earlier date the replacement would probably have.

Why does that even matter? Sounds like you have a 67 Z without the original engine. If it were me, I'd use the 68 MO that you have (providing that car cannot be located) instead of trying to replicate a CE engine. To me, even a DZ would be better. They're verified 302's and I think that trumps a CE.

[KurtS]

I'm still considering this engine and would appreciate opinions on whether or not an E177 casting dated blank pad block, if factory assembled as a warranty engine, could have found its way into a 1967 06E car.

I'm also interested to know how relevant a stamped assembly date on a warranty block is since couldn't the engines have been assembled either before or after a car's build date?

With a blank pad - can't see how that could have happened. It would have been a CE block.
Yes, the failure could have happened up to 5 years later. So a wide range of CE blocks would work. I agree, run the 68 MO.

[bcmiller]

Even on blocks that were designated for warranty purposes prior to the CE8 stampings (which seemed to start in September 1967 or possibly late August 1967), there will probably be an approximate assembly date (two digit month and one digit year followed by a letter) on the pan rail.

If your original 1967 Z28 engine is MIA, unless you can prove with paperwork that it was replaced under warranty, I wouldn’t worry about it. Run whatever you want. Lots of guys don’t have the original engine for their car.

[mgreenz]

Thanks very much for your perspectives. I will thoroughly consider what you’re saying.
“Why does it matter?”
Only because my intent is to “restore” the cars 1967 identity following the recommendations in the CHP report. The engine is one of a few 1968 items that previous ownership incorporated into their build while omitting some 1967 details.



The car received a 68 MO block, Wide Tread GT’s and rear spoiler. Omitted were pinstripes and RS lower trim.


The 68 influence is a good and very popular look, I just prefer the factory details for this car.
The photo is current with RS trim installed now.


As for the engine, I do like that it is a 68 MO but it’s the differences that I want to consider. Internally the 68 is probably a better engine, externally they are not quite the same. The thing that interests me about a blank pad is just that.....no vin on it. Of course, a reasonably dated 67 MO would also be of great interest but I know that they rarely become available.
In the short term, I’ll continue to work my way through the Page 2 items of the CHP report while considering options for the engine.

[x66 714]

I don't know if you know it or not, but no 1967 Camaros had spoilers....Joe

[mgreenz]

Yes, thanks Joe. That’s one of the items on the list to change. I did find a nicely dated 67 trunk lid that hasn’t been drilled for a spoiler.
I’d imagine that the challenge will be matching the paint.