redone000
Veteran Member
Engine pad reads V0505CTB, engine casting date D 11 0 and the heads casting date A 15 0. Is it possible to have the heads and block casting dates so far apart on a matching engine?
70 rs z28 on ebay
- Thread starter redone000
- Start date
CamarosRus
Veteran Member
Who's to say it couldn't be possible
but not very likely (IMHO) that these major cast components
from Flint,MI were that far apart.
ISFAIK Rick Griffin's Z-28 Database doesn't have Block/Cyl Head dates ????
but not very likely (IMHO) that these major cast components
from Flint,MI were that far apart.
ISFAIK Rick Griffin's Z-28 Database doesn't have Block/Cyl Head dates ????
Very Possible IMO...
Phil - Can you elaborate on this? I guess I could imagine a wider gap in casting dates for very low prodution items...like the L78, but would have expected a more consistent FIFO type of process for higher volumes components like the 186 castings, especially when they were married to the high-nickel content 010 blocks. I am not challenging your statement...just trying to understand better your insight into the subject. Thanks in advance.
My June built VO626CTB engine has a F220. Casting date on my block. A F230 date on 1 head and F220 0n the other head. The water pump cast is F230 also. I feel Your dates are a little far apart compared to mine. I wish there were some more information on the engine assembly plants. I was going to post a thread question asking about engine assembly plants. Anyone have some information about Flint and or Tonawonda?
l16pilot said:
Possible and common are two separate things. I would say common no. Possible-yes.
What I am saying is that it would be a shame to toss the original heads on the car because they do not conform to the consensus established by the hobby at this point in time. I did lots of tossing myself years ago including a 330/041 manifold set that was original to one of my cars - just so folks would quit haranguing me at shows.
I guess my overall position would be if you are confident that the item is original to your car then leave it as is and enjoy the car.
Thanks Phil and I understand your point(s) 
bkmont
Veteran Member
ronzz572 said:
Alex71RS
Veteran Member
Like it was said before, it's quite possible that the heads on your LT-1 are the original ones. The reason why I say this is because it's a 1970 Camaro, meaning the late release (Feb. 1970, approx. 6 months late) puts a lot of the casting dates in limbo. For any of the following years ('71 and up), I would have said that they aren't the "born with" heads, but the '70 model year is kind of a wild card.
The 186 heads were used in '69 as well, and with the model year extension, it's quite possible that the heads were put aside with the anticipation of the LT-1 short block availability. Most information on this was probably not known to the public, and all correspondence was probably released in-house. I have worked in the aerospace industry for 30 years, and the shuffling of parts to satisfy delivery dates is not uncommon.
Forty five years after the fact, we scrutinize every detail and question the numbers that don't make sense. Our cars were made on an assembly line and the factory was focused on satisfying the manufacturing quota. They filled requirements for powertrain shortages the best they could, with no regard to casting dates. If the part# was correct, it got used, even if there was a span in the casting dates.
I enjoy diving into the casting numbers and dates, and this thread brings up some great dialogue on the subject. With the late release of the '70 Camaro, I'll bet there were hundreds of internally-released company memos regarding the late release and how they were going to handle the transition from the '69 model year. Two totally different cars, and I'm sure it was a huge headache.
The 186 heads were used in '69 as well, and with the model year extension, it's quite possible that the heads were put aside with the anticipation of the LT-1 short block availability. Most information on this was probably not known to the public, and all correspondence was probably released in-house. I have worked in the aerospace industry for 30 years, and the shuffling of parts to satisfy delivery dates is not uncommon.
Forty five years after the fact, we scrutinize every detail and question the numbers that don't make sense. Our cars were made on an assembly line and the factory was focused on satisfying the manufacturing quota. They filled requirements for powertrain shortages the best they could, with no regard to casting dates. If the part# was correct, it got used, even if there was a span in the casting dates.
I enjoy diving into the casting numbers and dates, and this thread brings up some great dialogue on the subject. With the late release of the '70 Camaro, I'll bet there were hundreds of internally-released company memos regarding the late release and how they were going to handle the transition from the '69 model year. Two totally different cars, and I'm sure it was a huge headache.
