Scrivet Counter
Posted 15 March 2016 - 04:33 PM
Ian, don't forget the most important question of all.
Does The C.A.M.S have any documents or photographs in relation to or confirming the existence of a 2nd cast date on the outside of the crankcase above the alternator lower bracket mounting bolt bosses on these 9/2e cylinder and case assy's?
Forum Fixture
Posted 15 March 2016 - 05:04 PM
With the number 1 always being higher, I was referring to a 1972 or 1973 202 block with 8 digits
Sorry for any confusion...........
A 1969, 1970 or 1971 186 block must be compared to a 1969, 1970 or 1971 186 block.
Scrivet Counter
Posted 15 March 2016 - 06:16 PM
With the number 1 always being higher, I was referring to a 1972 or 1973 202 block with 8 digits
Sorry for any confusion...........
A 1969, 1970 or 1971 186 block must be compared to a 1969, 1970 or 1971 186 block.
Hahaha, convenient!!!
The number fonts are the same just the engine numbers are different.
_Drag lc_
Posted 15 March 2016 - 07:58 PM
if you guys are after any more pics of std red blocks I've got a few at home ..
_Skapinad_
Posted 15 March 2016 - 08:10 PM
_Drag lc_
Posted 15 March 2016 - 08:12 PM
ok I'm home at easter ill get onto it then..
Forum Fixture
Posted 15 March 2016 - 10:42 PM
Dave, You are aware that a 3100X 186 block has 10 digits and a JP 202 block has only 8 digits
Scrivet Counter
Posted 16 March 2016 - 07:23 AM
Dave, You are aware that a 3100X 186 block has 10 digits and a JP 202 block has only 8 digits
As my daughter would say.............like............derrrr!!!
Hahaha, convenient!!!
The number fonts are the same just the engine numbers are different.
Which part of ^^^ don't you understand? The bit about the number fonts being the SAME or the bit about the engine numbers being DIFFERENT (as in different number sequence)???
Forum Fixture
Posted 16 March 2016 - 10:03 AM
Forum Fixture
Posted 16 March 2016 - 10:17 AM
Like to thank the owner for the photos of his dual cast block second owner.
Cheers
jp390023 13.jpg 60.12K
12 downloads
jp390023 4g3.jpg 61.84K
3 downloads
_ChaosWeaver_
Posted 16 March 2016 - 04:48 PM
Can I just ask a question Anthony...... Why in every photo of a Dual Cast JP you show, the motor is not in a car ........ How many of these motors are actually in cars ??
Forum Fixture
Posted 16 March 2016 - 05:46 PM
Ian,Two i know of JP397### is undergoing a full restoration and will be back in the car in a month or two.......JP390023 is a mint xu1 and i think the guy is about to restore the car or parts of it and has owned the xu1 for about 25 to 30 years.
Can I just ask a question Anthony...... Why in every photo of a Dual Cast JP you show, the motor is not in a car ........ How many of these motors are actually in cars ??
Scrivet Counter
Posted 16 March 2016 - 06:08 PM
Funny talking about build number requirements of cars and parts for group C homologation, there are numerous examples of cams rubber stamping new homologations even though the required numbers of complete cars or parts thereof were not actually built.
Of course CAMS historic commission will tell you their requirements of the rules back in the day. Doesn't mean the officials of the time followed the requirements to the nth degree.
Yep, all the manufacturers were cheating the system wherever possible, The CAMS knew it but could not or would not do anything to stop it.
It's not always what is stated in the rules but what is not.
'made and/or sold'
Edited by S pack, 16 March 2016 - 06:12 PM.
Forum Member
Posted 16 March 2016 - 06:51 PM
here is a genuine JP that was for sale last year.
jp103939 26L1 1.jpg 177.59K
10 downloads
jp103939 26L1.jpg 125.38K
3 downloads
jp 103 26l1.jpg 79.5K
1 downloads
_ChaosWeaver_
Posted 18 March 2016 - 06:53 AM
My eyes aren't what they used to be ... but is that a "3"
Scrivet Counter
Posted 18 March 2016 - 08:07 AM
My eyes aren't what they used to be ... but is that a "3"
Must be a JP block then! 
Lotsa Posts!
Posted 18 March 2016 - 08:27 AM
Must be a JP block then!
_Skapinad_
Posted 18 March 2016 - 08:40 AM
Ian, you appear to have missed the point of the mould number 3.
I don't believe that Fly and Crabba have said that every 202 with a 3 is a JP block. They have said that every JP block has a 3. get it ?
There could be another 100,000 blocks with a 3 on them also.
Bored
View Garage
Posted 18 March 2016 - 10:57 AM
_xr8250_
Posted 18 March 2016 - 11:54 AM
Skap, you can't have it both ways. If a 3 belongs to an xu1 it don't belong on a Belmont.
_Skapinad_
Posted 18 March 2016 - 01:04 PM
Skap, you can't have it both ways. If a 3 belongs to an xu1 it don't belong on a Belmont.
why not ? all 202's were cast the same, the engine prefix is the only difference afaik....
_ChaosWeaver_
Posted 18 March 2016 - 05:54 PM
Skap, you can't have it both ways. If a 3 belongs to an xu1 it don't belong on a Belmont.
Exactly, he'll work it out ... 
Lotsa Posts!
Posted 18 March 2016 - 07:35 PM
Means nothing to me about all this cast numbers and stuff
jpe.JPG 105.49K
32 downloads
jpc.JPG 117.93K
14 downloads
the dust samples should back soon to prove the pictures came from the same block.
Bloody light does not even play fair when taking pics. to at least give the same shade of paint colour.
Even some 3.3 blocks have a 3 , does that make them a JP , nope , probably got more to do with eng. # as already said.
_duggan208_
Posted 19 March 2016 - 12:10 AM
Was the number pad painted or left unpainted from the factory?
regards
_ChaosWeaver_
Posted 20 March 2016 - 03:35 PM
Ian, you appear to have missed the point of the mould number 3.
I don't believe that Fly and Crabba have said that every 202 with a 3 is a JP block. They have said that every JP block has a 3. get it ?
There could be another 100,000 blocks with a 3 on them also.
Listen dickhead your starting to piss me of Skap....... Where the frOck did I say that all 202 with a 3 is a JP.. Dave made that link ..... Skap if you really want to have a go at me...... leave it to Torana fest .... and you can tell me what you think of me to my face....... Keyboard warriors have never frightened me.....
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users
This topic is locked
