Tale of two engine blocks -1958 - which to use??

[Thomas H.]

The engine that is in the project 58 I'm working on is not the original one. The car was built on or about March 18th, 1958 (SN 5330). The 3737739 block that was in the car when I got it has a casting date of March 20, 1958, two days after the VIN build date. The pad is stamped F32IDJ - March 21 - powerglide (car will be a 4spd).

I have the opportunity to pick up a 3737739 block with a Dec 27, 1957 casting date, OR a passenger car block with a casting date of Dec 2, 1957. Both of these blocks will more then likely need surfacing so what is in the stamp pad doesn't concern me. Is there any difference between the two blocks other then pad stamps?

So from a judging perspective, I know the pad will lose points, but what about a casting date that is about 3 months prior to the car build date? I'm assuming that the existing block with the casting date a couple of days AFTER the build date would lose all points.

I don't know if I will have the car judged, but I'm trying to assemble as much of it as possible assuming it will be judged sometime down the road and now is the time to make a decision on the block to try and garner as many points as I can. Blocks are a hard thing to change once the car is assembled and I'm not a fan of doing too many things over.............

Tom

[Terry D.]

Re: Tale of two engine blocks -1958 - which to use??

I believe the block can be surfaced without taking out the stamp pad, check the archives on this. And far as judging points do you have a copy of the judging sheets? If not request one from the club.

[Dennis C.]

Re: Tale of two engine blocks -1958 - which to use??

Tom,

The least amount of point lose if you proceed with judging would be a correctly configured block dated within 6 months before your build date.

Regards,

Dennis

[Michael W.]

Re: Tale of two engine blocks -1958 - which to use??

Both of these blocks will more then likely need surfacing so what is in the stamp pad doesn't concern me.

99% of resurfacing (decking) is NOT required. It's an unfortunate standard procedure that many shops use for their own convenience and nothing more.

[Thomas H.]

Re: Tale of two engine blocks -1958 - which to use??

99% of resurfacing (decking) is NOT required. It's an unfortunate standard procedure that many shops use for their own convenience and nothing more.

I suppose I could have worded my sentence better to say "if" the blocks need surfacing.......... I have not seen them yet (tomorrow I will) and I believe the one has been outside for a while so I would expect to have to clean up the deck a bit........ We'll see.

I'm pretty hands on and the machine shop will need to prove to me a resurfacing is needed. They are only a few miles from my house and have called me in several times in the past to go over their findings and find out how I wanted to proceed.

Tom

[Thomas H.]

Re: Tale of two engine blocks -1958 - which to use??

Tom,

The least amount of point lose if you proceed with judging would be a correctly configured block dated within 6 months before your build date.

Regards,

Dennis

Perfect, thank you.

[Richard M.]

Re: Tale of two engine blocks -1958 - which to use??

Tom, Just have them "clean it up a little" on a flat table belt sander...........
..........of course I'm just kidding.

I wonder if the birthday calendar is wrong and your existing block could have been "hot off the presses" so to speak. Maybe the car was really built on the 25th or so. Tough to prove though. St Patty's day was the 17th so maybe somebody in the office was still a little hung over.

BTW, my '59 was built on March 17th. 1959. I always have fears of finding some drunkard evidence in there somewhere.

Rich

[Thomas H.]

Re: Tale of two engine blocks -1958 - which to use??

Tom, Just have them "clean it up a little" on a flat table belt sander...........
..........of course I'm just kidding.

I wonder if the birthday calendar is wrong and your existing block could have been "hot off the presses" so to speak. Maybe the car was really built on the 25th or so. Tough to prove though. St Patty's day was the 17th so maybe somebody in the office was still a little hung over.

BTW, my '59 was built on March 17th. 1959. I always have fears of finding some drunkard evidence in there somewhere.

Rich

Hi Rich,

I can say with pretty good certainty that the block that came with the car is not the original. I have some previous owner paper work that shows evidence that he bought this engine assembled from a place in AZ. Plus you can easily tell it is a restamp.

I just picked up another block this morning. Dec 4, 1957 casting date. Standard bore, never been decked. It is a passenger car block with FI2I2DB on the pad. From what I can tell that corresponds to a passenger car 4bbl, powerglide. I don't know if this is the block I'll use, but the price was right so I couldn't turn it down.

Tom

[Richard M.]

Re: Tale of two engine blocks -1958 - which to use??

Tom, Sounds like a good find. Good luck with the work ahead.

Rich