Go Back   The Supercar Registry > General Discussion > Technical & Restoration


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-04-2022, 05:20 PM
70 copo 70 copo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: chillicothe Ohio 45601
Posts: 3,834
Thanks: 219
Thanked 1,240 Times in 578 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bergy View Post
Phil - I don’t want to argue. You always draw your own conclusion anyway :-)
Not trying to Argue.

Can you address the questions posed given your stated expertise?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-04-2022, 05:57 PM
MarcDant's Avatar
MarcDant MarcDant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Canada North york Ont.
Posts: 288
Thanks: 107
Thanked 113 Times in 53 Posts
Default

This is from the camaro brochure.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MarcDant For This Useful Post:
69M22Z (12-04-2022), 70 copo (12-04-2022)
  #23  
Old 12-04-2022, 06:04 PM
bergy's Avatar
bergy bergy is offline
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pennsylvania, Florida
Posts: 2,801
Thanks: 854
Thanked 1,436 Times in 391 Posts
Default

So, you called a machinist who has determined that the brinell hardness reading is greater on later blocks? 😂

Do you know how silly that sounds? All you want to do is argue. PM me if you really have questions.

Quantitative hardness testing on a representative sample of blocks cast on specific dates would be the only way to draw conclusions. I lived this Phil - please don’t just be contrary. PM me if you have questions.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bergy For This Useful Post:
1967Z28 (12-04-2022), 69M22Z (12-04-2022), RobR (12-04-2022)
  #24  
Old 12-04-2022, 06:07 PM
70 copo 70 copo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: chillicothe Ohio 45601
Posts: 3,834
Thanks: 219
Thanked 1,240 Times in 578 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bergy View Post
So, you called a machinist who has determined that the brinell hardness reading is greater on later blocks? ��

Do you know how silly that sounds? All you want to do is argue. PM me if you really have questions.

Quantitative hardness testing on a representative sample of blocks cast on specific dates would be the only way to draw conclusions. I lived this Phil - please don’t just be contrary. PM me if you have questions.
Perfect!

Now with that aside the Marc Dant post is instructive as to the discussion for those so inclined.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-04-2022, 06:14 PM
bergy's Avatar
bergy bergy is offline
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pennsylvania, Florida
Posts: 2,801
Thanks: 854
Thanked 1,436 Times in 391 Posts
Default

The brochure must refer to casting design enhancements. Class 30 cast iron for blocks was metallurgically unchanged.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-04-2022, 06:18 PM
70 copo 70 copo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: chillicothe Ohio 45601
Posts: 3,834
Thanks: 219
Thanked 1,240 Times in 578 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bergy View Post
The brochure must refer to casting design enhancements. Class 30 cast iron for blocks was metallurgically unchanged.
Two apparent distinct and separate references.

One to a tougher block. The other to 4 bolt main caps.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-04-2022, 06:21 PM
70 copo 70 copo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: chillicothe Ohio 45601
Posts: 3,834
Thanks: 219
Thanked 1,240 Times in 578 Posts
Default

As an aside I have a detailed Early and later 010 design comparison changes for blocks in images... I can post here if there is interest.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-04-2022, 06:21 PM
bergy's Avatar
bergy bergy is offline
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pennsylvania, Florida
Posts: 2,801
Thanks: 854
Thanked 1,436 Times in 391 Posts
Default

I’m just telling you facts Phil. Your “apparent” conclusions are on you :-)
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bergy For This Useful Post:
1967Z28 (12-04-2022), 69M22Z (12-04-2022), all_about_cars (12-04-2022), RobR (12-04-2022)
  #29  
Old 12-04-2022, 08:38 PM
Andy Andy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Cleveland, Georgia
Posts: 403
Thanks: 147
Thanked 201 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Bergy,, I have a question. I’ve always heard that 2 freeze plug, 2 bolt main 400 small blocks were better/stronger/heavier castings than the 3 freeze plug 2 and 4 bolt main versions. So I built my 406 with the two freeze plug casting. Can you shed any light on this? I’d appreciate hearing your feedback.
__________________
Andy
1967 Camaro 406 4 speed
1969 C/10 383 5 speed
1969 D300 318 4 speed
1969 Super Bee 383 4 speed
1972 K/5 350 Turbo 350
1972 Duster 340 727
1974 'Cuda 340 4 speed
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-04-2022, 08:55 PM
bergy's Avatar
bergy bergy is offline
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pennsylvania, Florida
Posts: 2,801
Thanks: 854
Thanked 1,436 Times in 391 Posts
Default

When I don't know I'll tell you Andy - I don't know the answer to your question. As I recall, there was a 400 block that ended in 817 during the 70s. We all felt that it was the highest quality block that we produced. It was the only block that was cast using a single core to form all of the bores and bulkheads. So, it was a lot more dimensionally accurate then the multiple cylinder bore cored blocks.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bergy For This Useful Post:
69M22Z (12-05-2022), dustinm (12-04-2022), earntaz (12-05-2022), Steve Shauger (12-05-2022)
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

O Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.