[wmurrell]

Does this engine unit number and code look OK? It is on a 389 block with a casting date of L34. Thanks!

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

It must be an I (eye) instead of an L
The EUN is Way Too Low for Dec 64 .... Way too low

The font is the 66-67 style on the WS
From my best memory , all the genuine 65 WS were stamped above the EUN , not below.
And the font is slimmer.

So many are restamps now I don't think it really matters on the open car market anymore as long as it isn't done real goofy looking.
65 and 66 are the wild west

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

014229 would be very very early in production of the model year.

By Dec it would have at least started out with a 1 instead of 0
Something has been ske-daddled here or there , or everywhere.

[65madgoat]

I am betting a restamp

[johnta1]

I already have this in my database. Not sure where I got it from though.

If the zero was on the end, it would put it in the correct area for the eun - 142290.
It would correspond with the date code L34.

I don't have many eun/eng codes pics, but one that I do have is from a clone GTO (not original engine for car) so not sure what date code it has. It looked about like this one with the WS stamp. But who knows it it wasn't a re-stamp from same guy?



The pic looks like there is still factory mill/broach marks?

[60sstuff]

As already mentioned above on a 1965 389 block the two letter code is stamped on top of the EUN.
1966, 67 were stamped below EUN.

Photos showing examples of factory Original ‘65 stampings and POP.

Bill, you may want to include this information in your files pertaining to the ‘65 WS.

Chris.

[60sstuff]

1966 version for records.

[wmurrell]

There were several things that made me question the originality...

The font looked off on the WS. The font on my car is tighter. I didn't know about the position of the stamp, but that is another potential red flag.

When I rotated the photo (attached), it looks like the EUN was stamped in groups of three. The first three numbers are positioned slightly higher than the last three numbers.

I know this isn't a hard fast rule, but all the cars I have documented that have the original engines (at least it seems reasonable they do - very few still have the P-O-P to back it up) and were assembled in Pontiac, all have casting dates within 3-4 weeks of the build date. Most are closer to 2-3 weeks. This car is approximately 10 weeks.

The last issue for me was the EUN number. There is no way that engine block number 14229 was produced in December 1964. The two cars I have documented with December casting dates are 113673 (earlier in the month) and 150220 (towards the end of the month).

[johnta1]

Kinda off topic.

Now here is a restamped code:
(in 70 GTO on BAT)

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

For whatever reason , 1965 Pontiacs built out at PMD plant have some really tight date codes on the blocks. The later in the year it gets - the tighter they get.
Have seen some July cars so tight it would make most layman Pontiac enthusiasts howl and scowl.

You guys will love the "original 65 WS block" with "supporting affidavit" that I will post next.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Highly restored and phs documented 65 3x2 4spd Convertible
Red, Red, White

Same car came with an "aged" repo window sticker from phs - also claimed as original.
The guy got hosed like a 4 alarm fire.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

For EUN purposes
L264 or L284 casting date
YS
197156

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Originally Posted by wmurrell

Does this engine unit number and code look OK? It is on a 389 block with a casting date of L34. Thanks!

Here is the date code on the block in question by wmurrell.
Another highly restored convertible .
Red, White, White 65 WS 4spd - Sold for some biggy bucks.

Some of us commented a few things during its auction.
I haven't been smacking people with bogus stamps if they aren't goofy, because there are so many really nice 65's and 66's being sold with restamps.
The EUN flew right by me though.

The buyer has hatred towards me , and I really should have laid it out after he bought it and gloated.
Thanks Bill

[Bill Hanlon]

Originally Posted by Baron Von Zeppelin

L264 or L284 casting date

December 26, 1964 was a Saturday, the day after Christmas.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Must be L28 then.
Good point Bill

[John V.]

Looked like L264 to me. An 8 would be narrowed at both sides at the waist.

I also wouldn’t count on the foundry not working the day after Christmas, Saturday or not. In particular as all of GM was probably still playing catch up after the strike earlier in the model year.

As to the likelihood that the subject block Was original to a ‘65, I’d say about nil.

If I was betting, I’d suspect the cast date has been messed with. It was quite some years ago when I first heard brazing of cast dates had become a thing in the Corvette world. It would come as no surprise that a highly restored GTO could have a “revised” cast date.

The widest legit spread I ever logged for a ‘64 was about 10 or so weeks between block cast date and Final Assembly for a Fremont built Lemans with a 4 bbl 326HO and unrestored. Those builds were less common than GTOs so the March cast block in a May built car didn’t surprise me and was documented by the PHS as the March Motor Unit No. was valid for the block cast date and shown on the PHS record.

Too many things don’t add up in this case.