RE: [Chrysler300] Value of correct date block
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Chrysler300] Value of correct date block





Rich et al,

 

The casting date on the side of the block should be before the build date stamped on the boss on top of the engine, next to the distributor (covered by the compressor on AC cars).  I've looked at factory Build Code Interpretation doc's produced by Gil from the factory microfiche for the G and F, and the engine number does not appear on them.  In fact, there is an example on our club website for Steve Albu's car, in the Tech section, showing that the 300F engine number just states "P41+ Date", so no "HP" designation like the 300G and later has.  So, finding a replacement block for a 300F would be easier than finding a correct G block, as the G block must have the "HP" designation, the F does not.  Of course, the build date stamped on the boss must be before the build date of the car.  There is no sequential number on the boss, only the stamped designation and build date.

 

Bob J

 

From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Barber
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:28 PM
To: 'Edward Mills Antique Tractors'; 'Fern'; LabLoverDC@xxxxxxx; chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] Value of correct date block

 

 

It would appear that we are talking about two different dates.  One is molded onto the block when the engine is cast, the other is stamped onto a flat boss by the distributor when the engine is assembled.  The assembly stamp would contain other information such as the brand and model of the car, whether it is high-performance and any issues such as oversize/undersize dimensions—as listed at:  http://www.moparts.org/Tech/Archive/motor/36.html      The stamped information should certainly lag the casting date and is what identifies an original 300 engine.  And, the engine assembly date should be earlier than the chassis assembly date.

 

Now, I’m curious as to whether the IBM build cards or any other document have the original stamped engine ID date handwritten on them?

 

C300K’ly,

Rich Barber

Brentwood, CA

 

From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edward Mills Antique Tractors
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 1:45 PM
To: Fern; LabLoverDC@xxxxxxx; chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Value of correct date block

 

 

I don't know about the blocks specifically, but many castings have date codes built into the casting - frequently a month and year tag placed in the side of the "mold" before they are cast. Some go so far as to have a day and a shift code indicating which shift made it. I'm assuming it was for quality control in case there were problems to allow rejection of a group of parts cast using the same materials and parameters. These are generally raised letters / numbers on casting.

On 1/10/2014 3:13 PM, Fern wrote:

 

I meant that I don't think that there was any casting dates on 1960 Mopars plus I'm sure that there's a lot of engine blocks out there that were restamped when the engine was rebuilt.  Fern

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Fern

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:10 PM

Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Value of correct date block

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do think that there were any casting dates in 1960 mopars.

Fern

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 1:44 PM

Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Value of correct date block

 

 

Personally I would prefer to have a correct block, but correct would mean a reasonably correct casting date - one that is sufficiently earlier than car's build date. And having gone thru that on another project, it may take quite an effort to find such a block. Having a P41 block with an incorrect date code would probably not be worth my effort compared to just rebuilding what you have.

On 1/10/2014 2:25 PM, LabLoverDC@xxxxxxx wrote:

 

Hello All--Thanks to the excellent information offered here, I've determined the block in our 300 F appears to be from 1964 (V41 HP).  As nearly as we can tell, at some point prior to our owning the car, a short block was put in.  It appears that everything else (ram induction, carbs, heads, etc.) are proper and presumably original to the car.

 

The engine is out of the car, and we are undertaking a complete re-build of it.  My question is, does anyone have an opinion as to whether we should stick with the 1964 block we have, or try to find a 1960 P41 block, which of course would still not be original to the car but would be mostly correct from a date standpoint?  Does that add significant value (enough to make it worth it to go through the expense and trouble of finding a '60 block)?

 

For a point of reference, we are doing a complete, sub-frame off restoration.  While we're not necessarily trying for a concours job, especially with detailed correctness in things like wires, labels, batteries, etc., it will be a very high quality restoration, perhaps one step down from concours (at least, that's what we hope to end up with).  The car itself is a black/tan convertible with factory air, and all of the options appear to be correct according to the build sheet if that helps.

 

I would welcome anyone's opinion on this subject.

 

Shannon

 

 



__._,_.___


To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or
go to http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join and select the "Leave Group" button

For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm

For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


Home Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network Archive Sitemap


Copyright © The Forward Look Network. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
This site contains affiliate links for which we may be compensated.