Even better Keith, thanks for your input, and your honesty ...
Spotting a restamped LC, LJ engine block
#151 _ChaosWeaver_
Posted 10 March 2016 - 11:17 AM
#152
Posted 10 March 2016 - 11:26 AM
All genuine JPs have a wiggly '5'. Well spotted Dave. My block was ridiculed by one of the 3 Amigos for having a 5 bent like a banana. Turns out he was totally wrong. Funny that, thanks for the clear research.
Sorry to correct you Keith but your block was ridiculed because it did not have the 'BANANA' like bend in the horizontal bar atop the 5.
Your 5 clearly has this bend like all other genuine GMH stampings.
I wonder who the real Wanker is now that can't spot a real stamping from a fake?
Edited by S pack, 10 March 2016 - 11:31 AM.
#153
Posted 10 March 2016 - 01:03 PM
All genuine JPs have a wiggly '5'. Well spotted Dave. My block was ridiculed by one of the 3 Amigos for having a 5 bent like a banana. Turns out he was totally wrong. Funny that, thanks for the clear research.
Not just JP prefixed 202's Keith. Just about everything cast iron (that I've seen in any case) out of the Fisherman's bend engine plant or even stamped at the assembly plants (like SBC's were from the start of 1968). Even the Nasco/GMP&A stampings appear to use the same font stamps. They must have been a standard supply set from whomever was GMH's tool supplier, someone like Bennet and Wood or Repco or whomever they were sourced from.
Here is what a Flint van Slyk road engine plant stamping tool looked like. By the suffix this is about 1992. Different font.
Attached Files
#154
Posted 10 March 2016 - 01:12 PM
I spotted that gang stamp here the other day Yel,
while searching for the way engine plants stamp the block:-
http://chevellestuff...amp_numbers.htm
#155
Posted 10 March 2016 - 01:17 PM
That is probably where it comes from. There are a lot of variations in what characters were used in SBC's too, and it is great as it allows you to quickly spot a real engine, eg the use of O instead of 0 in the above example. There are a few of these too in GMH, but unfortunately not as many as GM had.
#156
Posted 10 March 2016 - 02:20 PM
Mr yel is this the block you are referring to a ex race car is it a restamp?
Attached Files
#157
Posted 10 March 2016 - 03:27 PM
Bad picture, don't know any ex race cars. You guys think you are the experts, we'll see what you think. I'm am not getting dragged into your delusions and games and BS in general.
NOT ALL 150 LIST ENGINES ARE DOUBLE DATE CODED. I'll keep typing it until the cows come home.
#159 _Skapinad_
Posted 10 March 2016 - 04:16 PM
Mr yel is this the block you are referring to a ex race car is it a restamp?
Hard to tell of such a crap photo....
The J looks #@$^%& to me but it's too blurry to tell for sure ..
#160 _threeblindmice_
Posted 10 March 2016 - 05:40 PM
The two looks a lot wider than the one .
#161 _duggan208_
Posted 10 March 2016 - 11:33 PM
This is a very interesting thread. I'm considering getting into document examination (passports etc). Never thought of engine number examination. Surely the best way to spot a fake is to study the original and all of its characteristics. it might be better to study blocks that are worth bugger all, very unlikely to be fake, and then compare with the JP stamping. Might start looking closely at all my blocks.
Regards
#162
Posted 11 March 2016 - 06:27 AM
#163 _Skapinad_
Posted 11 March 2016 - 06:36 AM
This is a very interesting thread. I'm considering getting into document examination (passports etc). Never thought of engine number examination. Surely the best way to spot a fake is to study the original and all of its characteristics. it might be better to study blocks that are worth bugger all, very unlikely to be fake, and then compare with the JP stamping. Might start looking closely at all my blocks.
Regards
Hi Jon, was suggested by another member that has a fair few old 202's laying around, and agree, will start to compile stats on these, which should be a good indication for the more desirable blocks....
#164 _Skapinad_
Posted 11 March 2016 - 07:02 AM
if anyone does have any spare holden 6's cast between 69-75 laying around, please add pics of the following:
- Clear pic of the engine number taken from directly above... preferably with all paint removed from the pad.
- Clear pic of the cast date, clock and mould numbers.
Thanks.
#165
Posted 11 March 2016 - 08:00 AM
#166 _ChaosWeaver_
Posted 11 March 2016 - 08:06 AM
Is it the same number font for any other stamped numbers on the cars ??
#167
Posted 11 March 2016 - 08:11 AM
Glancing through Torana Tough last night and noticed that JP389335, which is not a 150 listed engine, is also not included in the list of additional JP engine numbers found to date (engines whose numbers fall within the gaps on the 150 list) that have been identified as also having 9/2e internals. This engine is also claimed to have the dual cast date.
Considering the 1973 XU1 this engine belongs to is featured in Torana Tough and the fact this engine is touted as having the 9/2e bits ex factory, I'm surprised it was not added to the list of 11 additional numbers.
Edited by S pack, 11 March 2016 - 08:14 AM.
#168
Posted 11 March 2016 - 08:19 AM
thank f%ck i washed my hands from one of my favourite little torana's year's ago,could have been a nervous break down for sure...when this topic is sorted try your hand at fixing the gt falcon's ...more registered gtho's on shannons data than what was made..
#169
Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:18 AM
one more
Attached Files
#170
Posted 11 March 2016 - 10:13 AM
Glancing through Torana Tough last night and noticed that JP389335, which is not a 150 listed engine, is also not included in the list of additional JP engine numbers found to date (engines whose numbers fall within the gaps on the 150 list) that have been identified as also having 9/2e internals. This engine is also claimed to have the dual cast date.
Considering the 1973 XU1 this engine belongs to is featured in Torana Tough and the fact this engine is touted as having the 9/2e bits ex factory, I'm surprised it was not added to the list of 11 additional numbers.
And some of those 11 engines listed don't actually exist yet have been claimed to have been found....
#171
Posted 11 March 2016 - 10:21 AM
And some of those 11 engines listed don't actually exist yet have been claimed to have been found....
Hmmmmmm, GT Falcons are not the only one eh!
Edited by S pack, 11 March 2016 - 10:22 AM.
#172
Posted 11 March 2016 - 10:21 AM
And some of those 11 engines listed don't actually exist yet have been claimed to have been found....
False Byron,have six on record colours/numbers.
Cheers
Sorry seven
Edited by crabba67, 11 March 2016 - 10:26 AM.
#173
Posted 11 March 2016 - 10:24 AM
False Byron,have six on record colours/numbers.
Cheers
So, you have 6 of 11 on record, what about the other 5? Byron didn't claim all 11, only some of them.
#174
Posted 11 March 2016 - 10:47 AM
Come on stop undermining Norm Darwin's research on the book and the book he has had a go ........................
Cheers
#175
Posted 11 March 2016 - 11:03 AM
BS Crabba. The list of engines were given to Norm primarily by Bruce and/or Mike, and then some pruned off by yourself which my guess is why JP389335 isn't included. Don't worry, it'll be all made public eventually and Norm will be involved in that.
Tell me which ones you've actually recorded, and i'll tell you which ones you are lying about.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users