Chevy Nova Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well I searched and found some but not all the info please help me thanks. On the back of the block it has Id 3970010 and on the front of the block it has 13K430618, also How do you know if it is like a high nickel block please tell me what you can find out thanks Nate
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,862 Posts
For a high nickel or high tin block there will be an 010 or 020 cast in behind the timing cover.

Drive: No 350's in 1963 and I believe the 430618 is the part of car's VIN number
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,245 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,862 Posts
Interesting reading. While the individual appears to have a good grasp on current casting procedures I find it hard to believe that what has been considered fairly common knowledge to this point is not true. You would have thought that if the 010 and 020 designations under the timing cover were not a reasonably accurate representation of a high nickel or tin block that it would have surfaced many years ago.

Oh well, all I want to do is eat Lifesavers and make babies!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,332 Posts
If you read carefully I think possibly this had been a truth about identifying high nickel blocks before 1971 but somehow had been misinterpreted over time. For a long time people thought the world was flat but it takes some rethinking to realize the facts.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,862 Posts
I read it pretty thoroughly. He talks like an engineer (I know because I am one) and he implies lots of caveats which in the automotive industry is standard procedure. I am reasonable certain that the 010 casting number on the side of the block has nothing to do with it's metalergy, which at one point in the referenced thread was the number in question and I can see how this number has been misconstrued over time. With the hit and miss documentation of the early auto industry I sometimes wonder how we can take anything for granted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,332 Posts
He discusses that all the markings even the ones behind the timing cover has nothing to do with metallurgy after 1971 . Here is the point of reference i speak of. From his stand point I would think that particular piece of information has some credibility.

What you wrote was how it was supposed to be. But once it was put through the system, engineering realized that their intent could not be efficiently tracked. So the plan was abandoned, but it would have been too costly to rework all the patterns in the core machines, so those were left alone.

When engineering originally developed the plan, they needed a way to identify the metallurgy after the block was poured, thus the fabled "stamp" But engineering soon realized that the same block part number could posess one of 3 different mettalurgical blends. Because of this, it was near impossible to trace or efficiently logistically locate castings from pourtime to end customer use, as well as service parts orders.

So it was abandoned, because with the original idea, you wouldn't be able to call any GM parts office & locate a "nickel 010 block", because there was not a specific part number associated with it. Parts are organized by part numbers, not core stamps.

Now, to straighten this out, they did change the casting part number to correspond with the metallurgical content. This is true for only older blocks (pre 71) Blocks after that just used the same sand cores as the older ones until pattern changes were made, which will give false hope to many.

Hinging on that, many cores were interchangeable. Today, error proofing measures have been installed, and it is impossible to assemble mismatched pieces without destroying a section of the core.

Processes were brutal years ago, and it was very common to grab the pallet of cores with the 010,020 stamps to keep the mold line running (even though the current run was not supposed to have the 010,020 stamps. The wost thing we could do, was to stop a mold line. If we did, the iron would cool, and we could freeze up the system with solidified iron. Always keep the mold line running! So, you cannot base your "nickel" block, solely on the 010 stamp on the timing face. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and cores have been switched in the past.

Today, most owners do not understand that the 010 on the side of the block has nothing to do what the metallurgical content is, or if it's a 4 bolt main.

Like I mentioned before, we have poured iron to what the part number is, not what the core stamps say. If I had 2 assembled core packages next to each other, you would not be able to tell if one had 010 on it, unless you destroyed & dissected it or poured iron into it & removed the iron to see. The one thing that is consistently 100% validated is the part number, which is part of the drag mold and is the seat for the upside down core package to rest in, before the cope is placed on the mold package, sealing it off.

In the end, if you have a 60's block with these stamps, there is a 95% chance that it is what you think it is. But it can be your luck that the 5% of mismatched core packages could be one of yours. If you have a 70's & up block, don't count on it, unless it's a bowtie (but only some bowties had different metallurgical qualities)

Hope that helps explain it.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,862 Posts
Well not knowing the individual other than one thread on the Internet, his credibility is questionable, but it would be an interesting topic to look into further.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,332 Posts
From the back posts this person has made on the site he would have to be clinically insane to make up this story and his title at the GM foundry. Im sure their are ways to check his credibility. I dont think its fair to question credibilty unless you have some hard proof or even have contacted the person himself.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,862 Posts
I am in the construction industry where everyone lies to you. You just have to be able to recognize it. I have not read any other posts by him and frankly do not have time to indulge another board to get to know him. Therefore I can only take what he says at face value and, if I am interested enough, look for verification elsewhere.

Sorry that you took it personnally. I found it interesting that something that has been fairly common knowledge was contradicted by one person on an internet forum forty years after the fact. I guess I'll leave it at that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,332 Posts
The thing is I never took it personal but offer anyone or even my self to prove he is lying. Even if it is a complete fabrication I still think its worthy of some type of research to find if what he has to say holds any weight. Frankly everything I have ever read has been a lie or the truth bent to some degree. So just because it was something that was commonly known may have come from an unreliable source and make people believe in something thats false. Lots of auto magazines (I wont name any specific magazines in fear of bashing them) have publicized half truths or misinformation in the past and have even admitted to it. So then all you have is word of mouth but then thats not 100% being credible either. So then your left with the feeling well maybe the block is or isnt a high nickel block. My question to you is this. Does it really matter?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,245 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,862 Posts
Shaggy, I agree totally. There is a "feel good" feeling about these numbers that is probably misplaced and if the motor is built right it shouldn't matter what the metallurgy is or isn't.

Drive: I believe both numbers can exist on the same block, but I am not totally positive, but after this discussion I think focusing on the general condition of the block and the block casting number is more important information.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,046 Posts
The 010 blocks all being 4 bolt main is also a legend; I had a two bolt 350 that had the 010 cast into it. It came out a early eighties 1 ton bread van.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top