DZ Block Serial Number ID

[markinnaples]

I sold the DZ block that was in my old Camaro to a fellow member, who was able to pull up the serial numbers by the oil filter, which were 19N6 4527.
What do these numbers match, the VIN of a 1969 Z?
Is there any information we can glean from these?

[Jonesy]

Yes, thats the partial VIN

124379N6x4527 would be the full VIN

What was the stamping on the pad? That could maybe narrow down the VIN possibilities

[markinnaples]

Thanks Jonesy. The block was decked, so the DZ and the rest on the pad could not be read, unfortunately.

[Jonesy]

Inserting 0-9 into that VIN would make it land into Feb twice, March once, April once, May once, June twice, August once and Sept twice. :)

[markinnaples]

I guess finding the original car would be like a needle in a haystack.

Anyway, love your selection of Camaros. That's quite the collection!

[rlw68]

Thanks Jonesy. The block was decked, so the DZ and the rest on the pad could not be read, unfortunately.

What's the casting date?


:dunno:

[x77-69z28]

What's the casting date?


:dunno:

That would narrow it down quite a bit!
Buddy

[Jonesy]

Ya, casting date. That could help also. :blush:

[NorCam]

Do you have a pad stamp picture Mark?

[markinnaples]

It's a 39700010 block, and the pad was blank. I used acid from a couple different forensic kits to try to raise it, but nothing showed. Guess it was just cut too far down or the OG stamp wasn't very deep.

[NorCam]

Given that, it's simply a 4 bolt main block.

Maybe check and confirm whether or not it has a 1/8" pipe plug above the timing cover, and if the bottom end has 2482 main caps. Those would at least credit the block to having been a Flint made casting. The 010 blocks started being produced in mid April of 69. Flint castings were used in all solid lifter builds and included Z/28's, Corvette's and are also found in many CE coded warranty blocks and over the counter LT1 use.

[markinnaples]

I'll relay that info as well. I know it's an orig DZ block and it had the original 302 crankshaft when I sold it, and I've known the history since the early 70's from the guys who originally built it.

[markinnaples]

Here are some pics I found:

[Jonesy]

After looking at known stampings and the casting date on this engine being May 12, most likely VIN is 124379N654527 or possibly 124379N664527 (this is a stretch)

[Lynn]

Normally, you are right on Jonesy; but the 010 blocks didn't show up til mid to late April, 69.

This is a May 12, 1969 casting. May 69 blocks could make it into a late May car, or something as late as Aug. 1969. The VINs you just posted are Nov. 68 cars, right?

[Jonesy]

Oh geez. I meant to say 654 and 664 in my above post. That puts these in right time build for that casting date. Not sure what I was thinking. :dunno:

[rlw68]

Normally, you are right on Jonesy; but the 010 blocks didn't show up til mid to late April, 69.

This is a May 12, 1969 casting. May 69 blocks could make it into a late May car, or something as late as Aug. 1969. The VINs you just posted are Nov. 68 cars, right?


Are there any significant differences between this block and my earlier 3956618 ?


:dunno:

[Lynn]

Nothing significant.

A lot of guys claim that the 010 block has a higher nickel content.

John Hinckley (JohnZ) said that was a myth. Others say so as well:

https://www.camaros.net/threads/high-nickel-block-is-it-a-real-thing.455169/

[Jonesy]

The 'high tin/ high nickel' story is actually just a myth, John Hinckley posted about this over at CRG:
"And, as it turned out after further research with the Saginaw Foundry (now called Saginaw Metal Casting Operations, part of the GM Powertrain Division), the old story many of us were led to believe about the 010/020 describing the tin/nickel alloy turns out NOT to have been true at all, although the magazines thought it was true and continued to publish the tale, and still do today.
Actually, the "010/020" cast into the front bulkhead under the timing cover turned out to be simply the identifier for the foundry pattern for the front bulkhead, which was shared by the 3970010 (350) and 3970020 (307) blocks; it had nothing to do with the iron alloy, which was never altered for any particular production block (although the alloy was altered for some later low-volume GM Performance Parts over-the-counter "Bowtie" blocks)."

Some people still do not accept this.

[NorCam]

Yup.

It's just a block, and its no more mystical than any other block once the stamp is void. They all come from similar molds, and they all share the same metallurgical ingredients in the foundries pour.

[Lynn]

I get it. I think it is mostly an academic argument these days.

If you believe the 010 block is the better block, no big deal; there are many more of them sitting around than any of the earlier blocks in the 60s. On the other hand, if you are restoring a 67 model Chevy, they you are pretty much stuck with an earlier block, right?

I will admit that virtually every sbc I have built for a non numbers car used an 010 block as the foundation, unless using an aftermarket block. Last one I bought, I paid $200 for the engine, less intake carb and distributor, and it came with an engine stand. Plentiful and cheap.

[firstgenaddict]

correct me if I am wrong however I do not believe it can be 634527 with a may 12 casting date.
633599 was an 04C. April 23rd IIRC

[Lynn]

You are correct. second digit of the sequential part of the VIN would be 5, 6 or 7.

I know a lot of guys don't think it could be an August car, but because of the extended production, lots of August cars (especially the first two weeks) have May or June components.

Graeme may be right. It is just another 010 block. However, the big X factor would be finding a car that matched the rest of the VIN, and the car turns out to be a Z/28. Would likely be an X code car, being that late (chances are 2 in 3). Even a slim chance the car and the block could be re-united.

Mark, I know you tried to bring up the stamp on the pad. What about that part of the block, trying to determine the second digit?

Wouldn't hurt to get the shipper docs from NCRS. I would if it were my block.

[Jonesy]

I went and looked closer at this.
Its most likely 19N654527 and out of a June car. 19N664527 is also June but engine dates were farther along by then, but I guess it could still be considered.

As far as what you say about August, I am not seeing that in August cars

[STEFS]

06A on trim 519DZ and 657274 per the POP

[firstgenaddict]

Pretty sure nearly all, if not all, June tags were dated 06A.

[Lynn]

06A on trim 519DZ and 657274 per the POP

I guess I missed this. Where is the info on the POP?