[screamingchief]

Naw Brian I'm not really worried about that "secret" 455 block bit,what I was really getting at here is I just dont want to discourage anybody else from posting their pics for fear some imaginary specter of doom is gonna appear and suddenly make any specific casting # block value skyrocket due to it being some "superior" factory casting.

Like you and Dude have already stated,no big deal right...

It's just the cooling effect that some comments can have,if someone reading this thinks to themselves "hey,if I post this,than the secret is out",and they decide to refrain from posting their pics,it'll just hurt the process.

When there really is no "secret" to let out...

I just felt that the broadest possible assortment of block pics can give folks ideas what and where to look for good and bad traits,regardless of casting numbers,a "heads-up",not a "be all,end all" to block selection.

I just find this subject interesting myself.
No different than a good article in a car magazine if you ask me.

Only reason I included the other pertinent casting info in my posts was strictly for reference,not an iron clad guide on casting numbers to look for.

I'd just like to see as many pics posted and info of any and all blocks so people here can see,judge and debate amongst themselves what deems a block fit,or unfit for a specific use.

Seemed to make sense to me...
Is there a good reason to not do this???
Or should this thread just be left to fade away into obscurity in the archives as it is now?

[Brian Baker]

I'm on the same page with you now, SC. Pictures would certainly help, but only as a basic guide, for the naked eye can't always see what a micrometer can.

[Tom Vaught]

Quote:

"Are we to admonish Pete McCarthy,Jim Hand or the guys over at H-O for letting the "cat out of the bag" by their putting that info out for all to see in print?"

I can remember very well Pete writing a statement in his book based on the best info he had, and then getting a bunch of letters from people saying he was full of it because they had a part that made the statement wrong. Who needs that crap.

I do think that this thread was one of the best for documenting some of the basic things to look for in a block selection.

JMO

Tom V.

[ChrisTransAm78]

Wow - I should have never read this thread. Curious me takes me to my site and I see: http://www.visualmktg.biz/transam78/...TorqueRods.jpg.

Guess noone felt the need to speak up then... oh well - she runs nice and looks great too. BTW nice rockers there SC

[Half-Inch Stud]

...can feel the love.

To Integrate my viewpoint: early 420A or 425A have the rib-rail, ALSO has the thick Main webs and taller caps. Yet the Bellhousing is ugly.

I stick to 428/455 blocks for their neatness. The 10%s' here might find the 400 Block stronger with the big-stroke small maind cranks. The 17%s' here may optimize the block strength with them early 420 & 425A blocks.

Block codes do not interest me (except to sell sell sell). Sold YS WS WT YH YH YC YK YK. Several had Steel Caps. I'm left with 1 block now, it is a 71-YC with Stock 4-bolt caps...NOT so exciting huh. HIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by Half-Inch Stud

...can feel the love.

To Integrate my viewpoint: early 420A or 425A have the rib-rail, ALSO has the thick Main webs and taller caps. Yet the Bellhousing is ugly.

I stick to 428/455 blocks for their neatness. The 10%s' here might find the 400 Block stronger with the big-stroke small maind cranks. The 17%s' here may optimize the block strength with them early 420 & 425A blocks.

Block codes do not interest me (except to sell sell sell). Sold YS WS WT YH YH YC YK YK. Several had Steel Caps. I'm left with 1 block now, it is a 71-YC with Stock 4-bolt caps...NOT so exciting huh. HIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark, you left out the 13.9% here that think the 400 block is better than a 455. No wait, that's the other board.

[455-4+1]

Anyone have a source for the unwanted early blocks with the missing side mounts, weird bellhousing and no provision for starter mount.?

Obviously with all these problems mounting into later cars they should be just about giveaways right ??

By the way I think they may also have thick walls, good caps, additional pan rail support and thick main bulkheads but thats not really important

If someone has a couple taking up room near the coast or main shipping port let me know. I may be able to get them out of your way to make room for more user freindly blocks.

I would also be willing to take a handfull of 350/400 "N" or Arma steel cranks also

[Region Warrior]

Remember Steve Barcak(sp?) sayiing he has alot of old 389's.
Has a yard in Arizona.

[screamingchief]

I'm left with 1 block now, it is a 71-YC with Stock 4-bolt caps...NOT so exciting huh.

See that's my point all along HIS,lets see it,it's not about the excitement factor,this is all about the mundane factor,the more pics the better,that's all I was trying to say.

I know it can be a pain for a given person to drag out a block and snap a couple of pics and then rebury it hence forth it came,but I did it,and I'd like to see a few more folks do it too.

I'd just like to have a good cross section of various castings here for folks to examine and learn what the differences may be.

Chris,,,what can I say,I dont think I was around here much while you were building that one,or I might have caught that and tried to recommend a reconsideration on that block choice,all you likely can do now is run it like you stole it and get every penny that you can from it that way.

Many are'nt actually loosing these thin web blocks in the sensational carnage fashion,more than a few are just knocking the dowel pins out and cracking the web like flamedAbone did.

Oh and the rockers you mentioned Chris,the ones on the engine now are another set I picked up here a while back,they're all 1.5's,I still have the 1.5/1.65 mixed set,gonna use those on a back-up motor for the race car,for this one I felt the 1.5's would be better till I get the heads ported further.

[eedave]

I've had this block for a couple of years and will attempt to post some pics of it. Casting Number = 485428, Date Code = K091. Since it was sitting beside a balance scale, I weighed it out of curiosity. Tipped in at 179.5 lbs without any main caps. Also measured the thickness of the main webs at the dowel pin locations. They ranged from 0.892 and 0.901 inches. Hope this helps someone.

[455-4+1]

Originally Posted by ponchoshop

Remember Steve Barcak(sp?) sayiing he has alot of old 389's.
Has a yard in Arizona.

I did quiz Steve a while back and he has some "but not as many as people might think" He said

I thought there would still be a few lying around as they arnt as easy to adopt to later chassis, bellhousing, starter setups etc

[P@blo]

Brian, thanks for your response. I realize posting the casting numbers of all the "good" blocks would be a pain in the arse but having a was for us less informed pick a block that will meet our needs. Without chunks flying off the main webbing .
"Brian: I found my block, and part of that was the extra ribs cast into the wide ribs that run in the lifter valley from the deck to the lifter bores."
are these the extra ribs cast into the lifter valley ? The block is a 68 casting 400 block for reference.

[P@blo]

Bret, you do a great job of keeping threads on track . I vote for Chief to be a PY forum Moderator as he is more active than any of the forum brass (please don't kill or ban me ).

Here are some pictures of a 72 casting.

[screamingchief]

Bret, you do a great job of keeping threads on track . I vote for Chief to be a PY forum Moderator as he is more active than any of the forum brass (please don't kill or ban me ).

Me no wanna that,no no no,just because I got a bit of time on my hands now does'nt mean it'll always be that way,hope to get much busier real soon.

Weather is just getting bearable 'round these parts for a change,and today was great,and hope to get much done now,and soon I will need to step up my employment status,so I dont need to add anything to my plate right now.

Matter of fact,gotta go walk the doggies...

Things here are just fine how they are now IMO.

Status quo works for me.

PS,thanks for more pics Brent!

[P@blo]

OK, if I am wrong can someone tell me what to look for. This would be the THICK casting features that are the most desirable ?

[P@blo]

And these would be the thin ?

[screamingchief]

Your heading in the right direction,but off just a bit in a few areas.

No one thing is the "giveaway",more like combinations of things.

The third valley pic in the above post is a ringer,has the casting bars in the valley like some thinner blocks,but being an H-O block it's bottom end is likely has the thicker casting,but I dont remember if there were any pics of it's bottom end posted or not.

And the highlights on the pics of the thin castings is pretty close,but you also need to look at the bulkhead all the way to the pan rail to see the lesser "support" in this design.

In my highlighted pic,notice the earlier block,where the X's are vs. the later thin casting that is "undercut" in the bulkhead all the way to the pan rail.

[P@blo]

Right on Bret, thanks!!

[steve]

here is a pic of a 1966 421..........

[steve]

or maybe here..