There is a 1969 H/O listing on ebay that has an unusual block stamping number. Where I would expect to see 39MXXXXXX, it instead has 79MXXXXXX where the last six do match the VIN of the car. Does anyone know what the "7" designates??

Thanks

 

The Listing

 

My thoughts.

It could be a service replacement block. However, a careful examination of the ad seems to show a very well written ad that does NOT say original powertrain. If it WERE a legit service replacement, the ad would have said so. Since it has not, and since Olds blocks, like the OP says, have 3 in the stamp, I am concluding that is IS a 69 Hurst Olds, with a non original engine that is attempting to be passed off as an implied original without actually saying so (which is standard these days).

An email to ask "is this the original engine?" would either result in no reply, or saying "it is numbers matching."

I believe we may be fortunate that some fraudsters are still ignorant, if it is indeed a fraud.

 

IMO....note the IMO...from my vette world experience and the all-important prominence of undisturbed broach marks... the first 3 characters are stamped at an odd angle heavy on the 7 light on the M. This does suggest gang stamp. This could suggest either a miss stamp or someone doing a restamp on a service replacement block didn't do their homework intentional or dumb azz. But the remainder of the characters look individual not gang stamped? Also, notice the numbers matches the line card. Could the dealer mechanic simply have looked at the POP and transferred it under warranty? The first 7 doesn't exactly look the same as the 7 at the end, that's my eyes. Makes zero sense to put a 7 as the first character knowing all 69 olds 455s are 39, not 79. Someone didn't do their homework or screwed up. This is supposed to be a low mile unmolested car...prior to its rotisserie tune-up. Replacement block on such a low mile "cared for" car is not exactly normal...but it was circa 69..70..71.

The trans tag looks too good and could be a repro or a really good original tag. The case stamp looks legit.
The axle stamping looks too deep and purposeful from the many I've seen. Most are light and haphazard. Why do a restamp unless trying to make a totally legit car but who would really care if it was a 391 or a 342 unless it was replaced...likely not ifs a true low mile unmolested car. Its a 69 HO!

The car is beautiful and over-restored. To obtain smart top dollar further investigation of the broach marks and the car's history need solid documentation to fetch top dollar...IMO.
Is this one in the H/O registry? If so some history could be ferreted.
Regardless, a very nice example...car art.

 

I'll bet if we ask the life-size RAT on the spare tire in the trunk he'd know where the "7" originated?

 

I think that it is a re-stamp by the restorer. The 7 is the last digit of the numbers indicating the body style in the vin, he/they, did it wrong, not knowing that it is supposed to be a 3, indicating Oldsmobile. The trans tag stamp is really deep, like they put way too much effort in stamping that thin piece of metal. The rear end stamp is too perfect for a 50 year old car.

 

Very nice restoration, almost too nice to drive! I wouldn't kick it out of my garage but at almost $90k I couldn't afford to put it there in the first place! I love the painted on "spiral shocks" out back. I hope it's in the H/O registry. It's a shame that the stampings appear to be fudged it's a really nice looking H/O. I'd love to have one & a '68 some day.

 

Thanks everyone for your insight. I just looked up the VIN and it is #255 in the registry. It truly is a beautiful car, I tend to agree with the majority that this is not the original block.

 

I was just going to post a question regarding this car's drive train stampings and this thread surfaced when I search for "gang stamp". This car's block & trans case obviously are not gang stamped. I assume they should be, but should they also appear the same as in the same gang stamp was used for both on the assy line?

The mention of broach marks here has me a bit baffled as well. Beings how the VIN derivative stamp on Olds blocks are on this little casting nub, I don't see how it could have the typical broach markings such as found on original chevy block vin pads. What type of machine markings would be typical for a olds block on the VIN pad nub?

tc

 

My thought would be that they copied from the VIN not realizing that the numbering was different on the block than the VIN.





Because the trans is stamped correctly.

 

All that attention to detail otherwise and D'OH!!!!! Stupid rookie mistake.

He did sorta claim all the numbers matched, but did post the engine block number and it's totally obvious they don't match.

Nice car, but just wow. Just wow.

 

The trans ID tag is a fake.

 

Even the license plate is wrong for the car. A plate sold in 1969 starts with maybe a V at the earliest, but no letter before that. The black background is too glossy as well

That plate would be found on a 1967 vehicle or thereabouts.

 

I agree lots not "original" to the car

- obviously it is "rust free" now after restoration, but hard to believe this can be a true statement on a car that originated in Minnesota (I guess "patched" original panels would qualify by the statement ??)

& my first car - a '69 Mercury Cougar was sold new & licensed in San Diego county CA with the plate "ZUY 310" in April of 1969
I also have a Fall '67 directory of automobile owners from Madera county CA (~10,000 plates) very few '67 model year cars made this directory, and most of the '66 model year Buicks/Oldsmobiles/Pontiacs are SCx xxx & SWx xxx

 

with the limited pictures does anyone care to comment on the authenticity of the '69 H/O ONLY intake and/or the "D" heads?

 

Can't get a good look at the casting number on the heads. Should be 400 370. I can't tell for sure, but the first number looks a lot like '409' which would make it more like a G or Ga head with a 409 100 casting number. I think H heads shared that casting number too but I couldn't see where anyone would want to fake those. My eyes are for sh*t so I could be wrong.

The "D" and pad it's on looks odd to me. I'll have to go and check out my heads and see what that is. IIRC, the "screw head" and the "pad" was more flat and less pronounced. I could be out to lunch on that. I haven't seen 4,000 D heads so I don't know what the 'norm' is on that.

I can't see crap on that intake. Casting 405233. Only one application. There should be a "J" just on the driver side and right behind the water outlet hole. The other "J" manifolds have the J on the passenger side. Can't see anything in this pic but you almost need to be right up on it to see it. If someone has better eyes than me...

 

I have asked this seller more than once about that block stamping...as you might expect, no reply.

 

What's with the oil pan drain plug? Did '69's have the drain plug on the side as shown in the pic in the auction?

 

IDK but here it is

 

No. Good eye. I didn't pay attention to all the underside shots.

All the nit pick aside, it's still a very nice car overall. I'm not a fan of all the color markings, every line having an ID tag, and all that jazz, but I'd drive it. And it's VIN shows it to be verified as H/O #255. Not sure about the engine/trans even came with this car (doubtful) but I wouldn't care too much if the numbers didn't match. If the pad were left alone instead of restamping it, that would be more palatable. JMO. But since it's very suspect of not having the correct engine, the price should suffer some because of that. I'd probably go 60 on a car like this if all the other H/O specific parts are there.

 

Positive battery cable right?

 

A bit nit picky, but it seems to be positioned correctly for a non-A/C car. I assume that's what you're getting at.

 

Been a while on this thread, but I’m actually doing some work on a real 69 H/O & am replacing the battery cables. I thought the above image showing the cable running on top of the valve cover was a 4 speed thing.

Not sure what AC would have to do with it?

Here’s a picture of what I think it’s supposed to look like? Thought it would just run up on the fender liner.

I don’t have the assembly manual to reference.

Appreciate some feedback.

Thanks!
Joe

 

There appears to be a conflict between the CSM and the PIM. The CSM (pg 12-9, Figure 12-10) shows all A-body cars with AT routing the cable on the inner fender as your photo shows. It clearly specifies that only 400 SMT cars route the cable over the valve cover. And yes, A/C and non-A/C with SMT are different because A/C puts the alternator over the top of the driver side valve cover, which forces the cable to be routed over the middle of the valve cover on A/C MT cars.

The PIM shows the routing on the inner fender for 350 only (section 12, page 131) and all 400 motors with the routing over the valve cover (section 12, page 132). I actually think this is a typo, as there are other notes on the illustration on page 132 that imply this is for SMT cars. Neither the PIM nor the CSM address the 455 motor in these routing diagrams as the drawings were made before production of the 1969 H/Os. I assume the 455 was treated the same as the 400 in this respect.

 

Joe, this is the best evidence I know of besides documentation- real world examples of showroom new cars. Notice the underhood pic- positive cable routes on top of the valve cover. No denying it.

 

I was hoping someone had a photo like that. Clearly if the cars were delivered that way, they came from the factory that way. Anyone have similar photos of a 1969 442? As I mentioned, the PIM and CSM do not explicitly talk about the 455, only the 400.

 

400 cubic inch A/C cars had the positive cable routed over the valve cover too but the cable went behind the alternator before landing on top of the valve cover according to the PIM. Only the 350 V8 autos had the cable run over the fenderwell according to the PIM. I'm guessing the 455 was in a 442 with the H/O, so doing it the way the 400 was done makes sense. I doubt if anyone will nit pick, but if they do, here's the page...

 

That was my point above. The PIM and the CSM are in conflict. The CSM says that only SMT 400 cars got the cable over the valve cover. It clearly shows that all AT cars route it on the inner fender. I realize that the drawings in the PIM were supposed to be the ones used to put the car together on the assembly line, but dealership photos of a 1969 442 when they were new would answer that question.

 

I tend to go with what the "factory" did with the cars, but note here, this I find weird. The pre-production models, at least one of the ones they paraded around all the magazines had the battery cable going over the fenderwell. Even if it was a 442 it should have been routed along the top of the valvecover...hmmm.

As a side note, my car is #43, and has the flat black grille but the grille and headlight bezels were silver. Everyone said that was BS and they never came that way. I got a feeling that some early ones just might. Or if not, the original owner wanted it to look like the magazine car. Who knows? I just noticed the pre-pros had the silver outlines around the grille and headlight bezels. Maybe in the sake of time saving they quit taping off the silver surround? I dunno. GM did some strange crap. Still doing it.





Of course, I digress, but just wanted to show that sometimes your foam seal sticks to the hood and pulls your air cleaner apart. Check out the top picture below. Something went awry. Car thinking it was an S/CRambler.

 

Well, for what it's worth, here's a period road test of a 1968 H/O that clearly does not have the cable on the valve cover. Yeah, flipping the air cleaner lid is kind of stupid...

 

And to further confuse things, here's the Car Craft article from 1969. Note the battery cable over the valve cover.

 

Here's another WTF moment from the 69 PIM. Can someone 'splain this?

 

Thats a really cool video, thx for sharing

 

I never get tired of watching that!!

 

I think in that Car Craft arrival you are seeing the harness for the sending units?

 

Yeah, I also considered that. Can't really tell at the resolution of this JPEG. I'll need to go dig out the actual issue.

EDIT: Well, I think you're right, that's the engine harness, not the battery cable. This is apparently the same press car, and these same pictures show up in the Motor Trend and Car Life articles. In the Car Life photos, you can clearly see the cable come off the battery and run to the inner fender.

 

Note too that some of the paint schemes and hood scoop decals and the like aren't all "factory correct" either on those media H/Os. I think one of them has the pcv valve on the valve cover too because it doesn't have the factory-supplied intake. Don't know what that was all about.

I've seen barn find pictures of 442s with automatics that were supposedly unmodified. No proof obviously. A couple had positive cables running along the fenderwell and one had A/C but the positive cable went behind the alternator on top of the valve cover.

I guess for me it's "proven" both ways. Documentation says it both ways and photographic evidence seems to prove it both ways. So I guess you could do either way and have documentation of your choice that backs you up. Regardless, I'm still riding the valve cover.

 

I think I’m leaving it in the valve cover as well. The cable tube is in that vertical position on the head and looks original.

Cool to learn something new on these things once in a while.

My only understanding was that the positive cable only routed over the valve cover if manual transmission......

 

That is what I've always heard as well. I'm leaving mine along the fenderwell.