3969854 block question
 

Had a fella want me to come look at an engine before he put it in his race car as he was told it was out of a Corvette. Block number 3969854 dated D 7 7 stamped EG on the pad with big outlet above the oil filter.EG comes up 66-67 Chevelle but they never made a 854 block untill 69.Thought maybe i read the D 7 7 wrong but i dont see a EG or anything ending in EG 69 or newer in case it was actually D 7 1 ,,any thoughts,im lost or blind? https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Is there a Vin or anything else stamped on the pad or oil filter areas besides what you've noted? .

~ Pete

Re: 3969854 block question
 

I did notice a vin but didnt write it down,i will get it today,im still scratching my head over this https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/crazy.gif

Re: 3969854 block question
 

A complete Vin could indicate a factory installed engine....count back the 8 digits from the end for possible vehicle model year. . Are you getting the EG from a complete Tonawanda engine number w/ date ie. T0123EG? . EG is L78 from 66-67&68? .

~ Pete

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Heres what we have TC42IEG 7K149839 Doesnt appear to have been messed with and it's been in the hands of racers for quite a few years ,,im just saving it before it becomes their next victim.

Re: 3969854 block question
 

It's probably TO421 EG.
That along with the casting date of D 7 7,(April 7th,1967),would mean it was assembled on April 21st,1967.
The VIN# of 149839 is applicable to a January 1968 assembled Chevelle-Elco.That means the engine sat assembled for 9 months before being issued into a vehicle. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...mlins/hmmm.gif
That spells out to be a 1968 Chevelle or Elcamino built at the Kansas City Leeds plant,with the 396/375HP L-78 engine & Manual trans.
Kansas City Leeds plant only made Chevelles-Elcos-Station Wagons for Chevrolet.
The fact that it's on the later issued #854 block is a mystery,and I don't believe the Corvettes used the #854 blocks either and they started with #400001 in 1968.

Re: 3969854 block question
 

The '854 block was a 396 ( actually 402 ). No Corvette
ever received this block from the factory.

Steve

Re: 3969854 block question
 

The 854 block was first cast around July/Aug 1969, replacing the 272 casting. I have and 854 CE block in my 69 Camaro dated H 69 (Aug 69).

Paul

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Hotrodpaul you are at the place that stumped me,the EG and D 7 7 would be Chevelle correct for 67-68 but the fact that it's a 854 block cast in early 67 is what through me?I also swear the stamp is IEG and not 1EG.It does have the big cooler outlet above the filter so im sure it's a 4 bolt but even if you forget the front pad the D 7 7 casting on a 854 block seems waaayyy early! https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...s/confused.gif

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Try tapping that casting date of D 7 7,and cast part # of 3969854 gently with a metal object to see if anything like an epoxy cracks off..I have seen this before as an attempt to deceive.
If nothing happens,focus on that blocks pad stamping.
Do the broach marks & stampings look authentic through a Linen tester?..I don't see an IEG suffix used in any Chevrolet BB applications.

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Rick,

The "I" in IEG is part of the date (i.e. 042I or April 21st) not the suffix code as far as I understand things.

Re: 3969854 block question
 

That's what I think also,just wanted to be clear.

Re: 3969854 block question
 

I'll try that but i would have thought that if a guy was going to try to fake something he would have been smart enough to make everything jive,if it wasnt for the 854 the other two do work.I'll try chipping lightly at it, if all's normal i must have a prototype 854 block,,just kidding.

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Duane,

Can you post some images of the casting number, date, and
pad stamping? I'd like to see a little more on this.

Steve

Re: 3969854 block question
 

I will try to get pictures today or tomarrow at the latest.My camera isnt much for taking pictures of those pads ,i have tried it on other engines in the past but maybe i'll get lucky this time,it has a hard time focusing.Stay tuned

Re: 3969854 block question
 

I've found it helps to push the Macro setting to define close up digital shots. http://www.isdntek.com/demo/camera/Macro.gif

Re: 3969854 block question
 

MR 70 thanks for the tip on the camera setting,it worked.I have the block and have pictures of the info needed but i dont know how to list pictures on here,can i email them to someone? PM me your email address and i will get them right out.I have to say everything looks normal and factory, nothing messed with or restamped! https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gifThanks guys

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Here is the first of four images of Duane's '854 block
in discussion:

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nuch_ss3...ture%20120.jpg

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Second image:

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nuch_ss3...ture%20117.jpg

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Third image:

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nuch_ss3...ture%20113.jpg

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Last image:

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nuch_ss3...ture%20112.jpg

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Well guys, I'm stumped here!

The year sure looks like a 7. I know the '854 block was
not a 1967 introduction. It is possible that it could be
found with a mid-year 1969 date, but I've not seen one
with an earlier date.

Could this be a 1977 date? Possibly a service casting?
Does this "7" font ( for the year ) look correct for the
period? This is a mystery to me..... https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...mlins/hmmm.gif

Steve

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Thanks Steve Hows this for unsolved mysteries?

Re: 3969854 block question
 

If it was a service casting wouldnt it have been stamped with CE but theres no way thay cast a 854 block in 77!

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Plus the D 7 7 casting date and the 421 assembly dates work!

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Guys! http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nuch_ss3...time%20out.gif

Another question to add to the pile: Shouldn't the hyphen
between the day & year actually be a screw head? See these
images I just dug up. http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nuch_ss3.../thinking2.gif

This is another '854 block:
http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nuch_ss3...2%2Dblock1.jpg

A '512 block:
http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nuch_ss3...2%2Dblock2.jpg

Steve

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Oh - wait a second!

I just realized ( duh ) that the year went to two numbers
so what do you think the odds are that someone just ground
off the 0 -or- 1 and redimpled the block in this area? https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...s/rolleyes.gif
Steve

Re: 3969854 block question
 

It's a 4 bolt block and they were only made the first year so there would have never been a 70-71-72 cast into it,only a 9 or 69,,,,i think!

Re: 3969854 block question
 

The picture of the casting date of D-7-7, there looks like the remainders of a '0' after the last '7'. I think someone ground off the '0' in the 70 date code.
Rick

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Question I have is why would someone do that?

Paul

Re: 3969854 block question
 

It's fun to imagine things about something when we never seen anyting like it before and doubt it but i really think it's legit.I have the engine in my shop and i think it's factory.One of the things people are focusing on is the casting date,the date is one of if not the earliest seen for an 854 block .While the date is odd the hyphen is odd also and it's not like someone put one there after the block was cast, that was there when the block was born. I asked your opinions and im getting them and appreciate them but as of right now im taking this block at face value ,a 68 Chevelle 375/396.This thing was in a race car or in a race shop corner before most people ever cared about numbers matching. It also came from Texas in case you live there and are missing the original engine in your 68 Chevelle.It came from Texas 3 years ago and was in a Fiat drag car,before that.Thanks guys

Re: 3969854 block question
 

Back to ricks454 question if they ground off a 0 they sure did a wicked nice job textureizing(sp?)the block back to bare cast!?

Re: 3969854 block question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The picture of the casting date of D-7-7, there looks like the remainders of a '0' after the last '7'. I think someone ground off the '0' in the 70 date code.
Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it has been messed with. You can still see the dash were someone took off the screw head.

Rick H.

Re: 3969854 block question
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's fun to imagine things about something when we never seen anyting like it before and doubt it but i really think it's legit.......

[/ QUOTE ]

No '854 block was made in 1967. It doesn't get any clearer
than that. We are talking about two years before the '854
block went into production. It was merely a .030 over bore
to the 396 anyway, so why do a early prototype for that.

While on that topic ( the bore ), check to see if it is a
402 as it should be. It it measures standard bore, you got
something here. But I sincerely doubt it.

I hope he doesn't think we ganged-up on him or anything.

Steve

Re: 3969854 block question
 

There are still heads on it so i have not idea what the bore is at this time,i'll keep digging!

Re: 3969854 block question
 

I dont think anyone is ganging up on me but i do think back a few years ago when i drug home a pretty rough 81 Camaro out of a towing yard in California.That was when i located this site and had several nay sayers as it had a early build date ect ect.Come to find out it wasnt just a Yenko car it was one of the 2 or 3 prototype of the 18 Yenko Turbo Z cars.I learned long ago with this car stuff never say never.Id like an expert opinion on that front pad and broach marks and the stampings. Thanks again guys

Re: 3969854 block question
 

The partial VIN stamp looks all wrong. The one (1) has no foot, the three (3) has a rounded top, the nine (9) has an open top, the four (4) is closed. I've enclosed a picture of a 1969 stamp found on ebay (credit for picture goes to original poster). I really do not think they changed the font style.
No 854 block in 1967.

Rick H.

http://www.camaros.com/rick/vin01.jpg
http://www.camaros.com/rick/vin02.jpg

Re: 3969854 block question
 

I have atleast 2 more 854 blocks back in storage i will check and compare.I also have a 66 961 block i will compare to see if fonts changed , Thats for the opinion

Re: 3969854 block question
 

I just got thinking it's an L78 375hp block regardless of the rest in question beings it's a 4 bolt !

Re: 3969854 block question
 

It looks like there was a 1 ground down after the 7,indicating a 1971 Casting date on this #854 block.
You said it has the enlarged opening for the external Oil cooler,but I would like to know if it really does
indeed have 4 bolt mains by removing the oil pan.

My .02 opinion
The CON VIN pad stamping doesn't look bad,but is questionable as well.It's not upside down either.
Someone possibly ground of the 1,possibly enlarged the External Oil cooler opening,and restamped
the pad to reflect the 1967 Chevelle-Elco L-78 vehicle it went into,made at the Kansas City Plant.
I feel it's a 1971 cast #854 block with two bolt mains originally.
I've yet to see one cast after 1970 that did.