3969854 block question

[DSYenko]

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

[DSYenko]

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!?

[Rick H]

[ 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.

[nuch_ss396]

[ 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

[DSYenko]

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

[DSYenko]

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

[Rick H]

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.

[DSYenko]

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

[DSYenko]

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

[Mr70]

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.