Even More:

And More:

Mains:

Filter area:

Front

Design differences and reinforcements on the 1969 block.

In conclusion. Yes I have looked into this just like I did with the two books I wrote on the Norwood Plant. A comment made by the Norwood Superintendent "for those guys"

"Funny that None of us at Norwood can recall anything about what we did in plant yet someone who worked in another GM plant makes a claim and everything he says is gospel on that forum. Yet the extensive research you did which is very factual is usually dismissed out of hand. Jealousy is a bad thing as well as partisanship".

So with that said gentlemen lets discuss this like gentlemen shall we? Unless you are going to claim the images are "fake "what I have presented is self evident.

So what do we have here? What are we looking at? I have presented EVIDENCE. Opinions are ok but an opinion should not be framed as evidence.

"Silly" I am not. I am quite serious.

I thought the question at hand was nickel content, not structural integrity of the casting??

Well we can try to get to the bottom of this. If the basic block design varies then the metallurgical content can also vary that makes sense. Also both blocks are flint cast. and as we know Hi performance flint blocks were the blocks used for the high winding engines during that period.

That promo was written long before they even cast an 3970010 block which didn't show up until the last part of April, 1969. "Tougher" could just be referring to a design change where some part of the block was beefed up.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so it really doesn't matter one way or another to me.

Phil, are you saying there is credible evidence that "The best blocks have both tin and nickel, and show two numbers: 010 and 020, which means the block has 10% tin and 20% nickel."???

I don't believe anyone disputes there were a lot of design changes. If you have some GM documentation on the percentage of tin and nickel, I would be interested in seeing it. Just post it.

Yes showing respect is uncomfortable.

Right now Nobody wants to take a position because they are hedging that I could be holding back.

Ball is in your court guys. You watched a member here openly mock me which is the normal progression of things as the flame war that started nearly 10 years ago continues.

Lynn you are a Lawyer. When one side makes a motion you are rule bound to reply.

You do not get to question me further on my submittal because absent a credible argument the other reply is “gee Phil we jumped to conclusions and we are sorry”.

A non reply on the other hand admits my position as the fact

OBJECTION !!! Badgering the witness, PHIL
NO ONE is going to reply because we are all sick and tired of your bullying, badgering insistence on being right.
It has become PAINFULLY obvious that you will not quit until others do and you can feel self justified that you WIN...
Silence is not winning, it's just the rest being tired of your tactics.



Are you holding back ????????????

If so, the cards are on the table and now it's YOUR turn to show your hand of aces. If you have credible, documented PROOF to back up all your conjecture and smoke, we're ALL waiting to see it.


If not, then it's well past time for you to agree to disagree and stop the badgering to get your way.

Mitch,

Calm down and look through the thread. Where is the information that I posted that is wrong or incorrect ?

Your reply looks like an attempt to get the thread locked or entirely deleted.

Not good.

I have no idea about the original question and no dog in the fight. But it is very obvious to me that pictures of casting differences between a 1973 and a 1969 block don't have one single thing to do with what the metal content of either of those blocks is or is not. For example, 1965-66 396 blocks (both 961 and 962) carry the same casting numbers and part numbers across both years, but there are numerous significant casting differences between early 65 396 blocks and 66 396 blocks. That does not mean the metal content was any different. Maybe after 4 years the content was different, maybe it wasn't. But casting differences have nothing to do with that question.

And if I was going to weigh evidence and render a judgment (continuing the courtroom theme started earlier), I would find it very easy to believe the guy who is "a metallurgist and was superintendent of the melt department at the Tonawanda metal casting plant." Is anyone else posting in this thread a metallurgist? Is anyone else posting in this thread a former SUPERINTENDENT of the melt department at the Tonawanda metal casting plant (not just a low level laborer, but a SUPERINTENDENT)?

This is not the same as the silliness of an assembly line worker claiming he remembers what head marking was on a screw he installed on a certain Wednesday in between punching the clock to get his paycheck 50+ years ago. I find it hard to conceive of anyone who would be any more likely to know what the metal content of a casting was than the person who was "a metallurgist and superintendent of the melt department at the metal casting plant" at the time in question.

So what am I missing here ??

Phil - Don Quixote has nothing on you!

That's a lot of research to prove that:

- there were 12 stations at the oil sand oven where front and rear housings cores were produced. 6 International machines for front housings and 6 International machines for rear housings. So, that means 6 DIFFERENT core boxes for each housing (plus the spare core boxes up in the pattern storage area on the second floor. Not every core box was identical due to repairs and cosmetic changes made over the years. this same explanation applies to changes in the filter bowl set core area (only there were 24 individual inserts plus spares). Ditto for the cope and drag patterns where there were 3 of each (plus spares).

The flow off scar on the top rail is an addition to the patterns that I HAD MADE. There was a problem with gas accumulating at the top of the rail during mold fill. We added those pins to help the gas escape better.

anyone who thinks we added 10-20% nickel to gray cast iron isn't just silly.

I have no real knowledge of the block difference, however, I do find it hard to believe these high percentages of Tin and Nickel. Perhaps 1% and 2% is more accurate.

Bergy,

Good. Progress.

So far Where in this thread did I offer anything stating that the Nickel/Tin thing was 100% real?

Note: I didn't.

Many here are basing their informed opinions on the fact that the blocks were "all the same."

Are they? How does this relate to .10/.20?

Start there.

Phil: I can't admit your position as fact if I don't even know your position.

I can't tell from any of your posts if you believe the 010 blocks have higher tin and nickel content.

Fair enough. I appreciate your candid reply.

Just so you know I have complete understanding of all the positions taken here and unlike you I understand them.

In order to even reach a discussion point one of these sides is going to need to entertain the idea of a radically different position.

My position that the blocks were different is supported with evidence.

Ball is still in your court guys.

I'm no good at riddles; I am out.

Got no pup in this litter,I know this sounds extreme but as mentioned earlier have a metal composition analysis done between blocks in question (2 small samples of material off each block & compare) at NSL ANALYTICS CLEVELAND OHIO, my former employer & their affiliates used to use $300 - $500. There’s also infinita lab in California I will chip in, not trying to be smart SSA. Thanks Marc

Lets be respectful to one another.
 

Lets be respectful to one and other. It's a slippery slope when a theory is purported as fact. I don't want to squelch debate, but facts need to be introduced to support them or mis-information turns into myth and later fact.

I do believe the casting #'s represent running changes for strengthening, manufacturability and various improvements, which are documented with examples. Regarding block material being identified by casting identifiers... well this is completely unproven. We have two notable authorities (John Z. & Bergy) who have firsthand intimate knowledge and have debunked the nickel and tin content variants based on application theories as it relates to Chevrolet built engines.

Steve,

I am curious to ask .. Are the images I posted both real and authentic small blocks?

What is your take on this specifically?

Are these images and what they show a "theory"?

Let me start by saying i don't know anything about this topic, nor am I taking sides on the matter...but from what i can tell the images simply show changes to the outward appearances of the blocks over the years, small casting details, etc... How do any of the photos show the actual composition of the iron the blocks were cast from was ever changed? From what I can see, they don't. It would be like posting pics of 67 and 68 camaro fenders and saying because there are outward visible differences, the composition of steel itself must have changed.

We have this same debate w Pontiacs the c118 RAII block is the only as cast 2506 block the rest were 9790071 and they ground off and stamped the rest of that 2506 number. this has led to a debate about that being a high nickel block. Some RAII race cars had that block moved to the next seasons car as they were both considered 2506 blocks NHRA allowed it. Speculation was that it must be Because it was high nickel . (The story the driver gives is it was already balanced and blueprinted and was considered the same block ) saved money.
A few months back I posted a few outward anomalies in the blocks even as cast on the same day . It was explained (by someone from a foundry) as the blocking in the molds for the dipstick tube was differnt and they had just grabbed 2 or 3 of those used on some blocks where others maybe used 1 of them . It is a very similar debate to what you have here w these blocks and around the same time period . M
Interesting coming from a segment of Gm and seeing the same basic debate .

This may help explain why some of the outward differences may have popped up over time with your blocks as well . Rember these differences can be on the same day of casting w the Pontiac block

Thank you Joe,

Have a look on the 1969 .20 block under and to the left of the cam gallery and leading to the top of the crank gallery. this is a defined bulge with a crease.

Next look at the 1969 .20 block this time at the more pronounced bulge present above the cam gallery to the right and up to the head deck.

Why is that significantly structurally different from the 1973 block with the same casting number?

So the question Joe is; do you think that the differences in the image are just the the composition of steel that has been "changed"?

This could just be a situation where an intelligent mind struggles over the simple truth. The flow path of the castings being changed could result in the cure speed which could result in hardness changing due to cool down of the molten iron. Just because the hardness is different from one block to another doesn't mean the composition changed. Take water for instance. You still have 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. Different temperatures give you different results in hardness. I really thing you are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Darrell,

Post #66 above.

Same question. Care to offer an opinion?

Good. Yes the truth is that some blocks ARE harder than others.

Excellent. I wonder if our expert Bergy would agree with you on the remainder of your informed opinion?

I think I'll leave this discussion with an apology to Phil for offending him. I should not have done that. Maybe we can make "lemonade out of lemons" here. The discussion about nickel and tin alloying is put to bed in my mind, since I actually lived the production and know what the processes were.

The discussion about physical changes in casting profiles might be interesting to the group however - I'll start a new thread and contribute what I can.

EDIT: Sorry I would not have replied if I had seen Bruce's post above but his post was done while I was typing mine.

I don't believe anyone was arguing that the hardness of one block vs another was the issue. It was when you (or someone) were correlating hardness changes to composition changes being one in the same. These things do not always go hand in hand. Like Bruce (or whoever it was) mentioned; you would have to do a statistical analysis of a sample from each sample of block. Even then if the mixture time was not evenly mixed you could have higher deposits in one side of a block or even mix to mix or pour to pour. But at the end of the day the same composition is used. My guess is that GM did have quality control for each batch and maybe even throughout each batch if I had to guess.

Thanks.

Please stick around... together we might figure this out.:beers:

Anyone here track original engine cars that are reported to have the "born with" block as part of a data base?

It would be interesting to see the balance of reported original DZ-302 blocks stated as being original to the car.

It is about 7.5 months of production for both the 618 and then the later 010 so it might be worth a look.

I had a 69 Block 4 bolt main, 3970010 Casting Number. I was going to use this block to build a 69 Z-28 302 Clone engine. It had the 010-020 cast numbers also with that strengthen 4 cast strips as shown in a picture about this topic. It had the correct 302 Cast Number caps too. It just was not a DZ stamped block. Hope we find out more info about these numbers.

Think warranty mitigation... and the number of CE blocks GM did not want to continue to pay for...

WOWWWW…I posted this question and since have been traveling and just got back to it.

Read through the whole thread. Did not mean to start all this.

Thanks for all the replies.

Without stepping on any toes, To me it’s simple…

Norwood plant manager (posthumous) and superintendent of engine plant chimed in.

Nuff said ��

Thanks SYC . Best site out there. Folks here actually lived it !!