Engine casting numbers

Old Oct 10, 2015 | 02:22 PM
  #1  
mattking's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 548
From: Rosemark, TN
Engine casting numbers

https://i.imgur.com/4P2MIjW.jpg

Hi all.

I am trying to decode an engine casting.

F block E heads. 396021

The stamping is on drivers side
Of the block at the front

It is really hard to read but looks like 30_10_4_1
The first number looks like a zero and the last two like 8s

Which would give us 300108481
But I don't think that can be correct. The last six are the last six from the bin right? They don't match my car which is fine it wasn't sold to me as
Matching. Isn't the third spot the assembly plant?

The car is a 70 442 made in Fremont ca but then at some point went to Canada
4P2MIjW.jpg

Last edited by mattking; Oct 10, 2015 at 02:30 PM.
Old Oct 10, 2015 | 02:52 PM
  #2  
joe_padavano's Avatar
Old(s) Fart
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 50,539
From: Northern VA
The third character of the VIN derivative is the assembly plant. In the 1970 model year, that could be either a "C" for Southgate, CA, or a "G" for Framingham, MA. Southgate built full size cars (Olds D88 and Ninety Eight) in 1970. Framingham built A-body cars. The VIN derivative on your block is either 30C108481 or 30G108481.
Old Oct 10, 2015 | 02:57 PM
  #3  
mattking's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 548
From: Rosemark, TN
Joe,

Thanks for the fast reply. I had been looking up the plants only for the 442 production. I didnt think to look up other plants too.

Thanks again,
Matt
Old Oct 10, 2015 | 06:03 PM
  #4  
svnt442's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,293
From: Palm Bay, FL
I think it's a 109481 as the size of the circle is larger in what I think is a 9 than the 8 is.
Old Oct 11, 2015 | 08:50 AM
  #5  
joe_padavano's Avatar
Old(s) Fart
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 50,539
From: Northern VA
Originally Posted by svnt442
I think it's a 109481 as the size of the circle is larger in what I think is a 9 than the 8 is.
Good eye. I think you are correct.
Old Oct 12, 2015 | 03:21 PM
  #6  
BlackGold's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,587
From: West Michigan
I agree, 109481. But Joe, blow up that second character and it sure looks like a "G". And the tops of both the second and third characters look different than the 0, 9, and 8 later in the sequence. Comments?
Old Oct 12, 2015 | 03:36 PM
  #7  
joe_padavano's Avatar
Old(s) Fart
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 50,539
From: Northern VA
Originally Posted by BlackGold
I agree, 109481. But Joe, blow up that second character and it sure looks like a "G". And the tops of both the second and third characters look different than the 0, 9, and 8 later in the sequence. Comments?
What bothers me is that the second character LOOKS like it wants to be a "C" or "G", but we know it must be a digit, so the only possible digits are "0","3", "6", "8", or "9". It clearly looks nothing like the "3" in the first position. I discounted "8" or "9" because there is no evidence of red paint under the blue, but I am reconsidering that possibility. It's an "F" block, not an "FA", so it isn't a "6". That pretty much leaves a 1970 block.

EDIT: I don't think it's a "2", but I could be wrong.

The third character must be a letter, and the only possible letters that fit are "C" or "G". Could be either - I'm not hard over on which it is.
Old Oct 14, 2015 | 05:03 AM
  #8  
wr1970's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,645
Originally Posted by svnt442
I think it's a 109481 as the size of the circle is larger in what I think is a 9 than the 8 is.
I agree with you that appears to be a 9. A ten power magnifier might tell the story. Maybe the op can get one and let us know.

Last edited by wr1970; Oct 14, 2015 at 05:05 AM.
Old Oct 14, 2015 | 05:45 AM
  #9  
tru-blue 442's Avatar
Old School Olds
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,265
From: Marble Falls TX
Originally Posted by wr1970
I agree with you that appears to be a 9. A ten power magnifier might tell the story. Maybe the op can get one and let us know.
I agree, it helps. Here's a pic of a real nasty one.
Imop, the op's #'s look to be 3G9109481 in my eye.

Looking back at my pic, looks like I should have been closer
to magnifier with my camera maybe. Hope this helps.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
IMG_1137.JPG (405.8 KB, 22 views)

Last edited by tru-blue 442; Oct 14, 2015 at 05:49 AM.
Old Oct 14, 2015 | 06:37 AM
  #10  
wr1970's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,645
Originally Posted by tru-blue 442
I agree, it helps. Here's a pic of a real nasty one.
Imop, the op's #'s look to be 3G9109481 in my eye.

Looking back at my pic, looks like I should have been closer
to magnifier with my camera maybe. Hope this helps.
The more i look at it i think you hit the nail on the head.Maybe the op can get a ten power and post back.
Old Oct 15, 2015 | 06:52 AM
  #11  
MDchanic's Avatar
Connoisseur d'Junque
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 21,183
From: The Hudson Valley
Hey, guys, I know that the second character is supposed to be a number, as stated, but, man, it sure doesn't look like one. That cutoff is way too distinct:




- Eric

ps: and what's with the new photo posting system, huh?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
4P2MIjW.jpg (127.6 KB, 2 views)
Old Oct 15, 2015 | 08:22 AM
  #12  
mattking's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 548
From: Rosemark, TN
Thanks for all the help here. Sorry i didn't reply sooner. Did you know that the reverse lights plug off the neutral safety switch and the trans kick down plug will fit in the wrong connectors? I didn't, But i do now.

Im going to try to link to an entire album of pictures so i don't have to try to make them all work on the board..

<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/daN0h"><a href="//imgur.com/a/daN0h">View post on imgur.com</a></blockquote>

the best one i can get with a phone: (it looks way better on imgur, I think it is scaled down on here)


Last edited by mattking; Oct 15, 2015 at 08:25 AM.
Old Oct 15, 2015 | 05:32 PM
  #13  
wr1970's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,645
I am sure that is a G
Old Oct 16, 2015 | 12:29 PM
  #14  
mattking's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 548
From: Rosemark, TN
So, Is the consensus 3G9109481?
If so, what does it mean? Was it mis-stamped?
From what I've read here
3 is OLDS , next number should be year, third place should be plant, right?

I went and looked again, on the back of the block is says

68
F4

This is behind where the flywheel would be.
Old Oct 16, 2015 | 02:13 PM
  #15  
wr1970's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,645
Originally Posted by mattking
So, Is the consensus 3G9109481?
If so, what does it mean? Was it mis-stamped?
From what I've read here
3 is OLDS , next number should be year, third place should be plant, right?

I went and looked again, on the back of the block is says

68
F4

This is behind where the flywheel would be.
If you look close there is the slash for the g and faint imprint of lower part of the G is kinda hidden because of a scratch! I am in agreement 3G9109481. As for 68 F4 some think that those blocks are higher in nickel! I really am not buying into that speculation no proof i have ever read supporting!JMO
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
oldsonharmont
Big Blocks
13
Mar 21, 2018 06:48 AM
bobb
Big Blocks
2
Jan 4, 2011 09:07 PM
delta881972
Eighty-Eight
2
Aug 24, 2008 09:19 PM
paige_dart
Small Blocks
4
Nov 12, 2007 09:40 AM
omega73
Small Blocks
1
Aug 17, 2006 07:24 AM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:05 AM.