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.