[Mr_GTO]

We've had this stored away in MA for 30yrs. It's nothing great. 27P code, K113 date code, standard bore. My old man wants it out of his garage. Just not sure what it's worth in reality. Any thoughts?

[b-man]

To a local buyer maybe $100 - $200. Shipping cost pretty much kills the deal for anyone not close enough to pick it up.

[tom s]

64-66 are more valuable and desirable.Tom

[b-man]

Originally Posted by tom s

64-66 are more valuable and desirable.Tom

Date code indicates it’s an early model year 1964 block.

Note that it’s drilled and tapped for a block mounted starter.

[carcrazy]

I had one sitting around for years that was nothing special....couldn't give it away.....ended up in the scrap yard.

[tom s]

As Bart said,this uses a block mounted starter.Tom

[misterp266]

Is that in Taunton? If you can’t find a buyer, let me know, I’ll get it out of his garage for him. While I don’t really need it, I’d hate to see it get scraped.

[Goatracer1]

Give it to someone who can use it. 3 months ago I tried to give away one and nobody local wanted it. I dropped it in the local dump.

[25stevem]

With the scrap value of cast iron today a bare block is worth 22 bucks.

[Mr_GTO]

No 65+ heads will fit on this block correct?

[b-man]

All Pontiac heads will fit, not just ‘64 and earlier.

[MarkS57]

Well, if you're looking for a 64 dated coded block or an earlier 389 where you want to replace the Slim Jim with a TH400 then this might fit the bill. If you had a 4spd Super Hydramatic in good order, I'd let it be. Didn't the 65 & 66 blocks have issues with the cylinder wall thickness?

[Bermuda Blue]

https://boston.craigslist.org/nos/wa...596453057.html

[grandam1979]

One of of my buddy’s last week asked what I thought a complete 65 389 was worth? Then he tells me he buying a complete starcheif I think he said 4 door car rough but is drivable. He’s going to flip it and it’s in Ohio if anyone might be interested in it. I think he’s going to ask 1500-2000 but not positive on that he’s actually picking it up this weekend. If anyone’s interested I can forward your number to him he is not a PY’er.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by MarkS57

Well, if you're looking for a 64 dated coded block or an earlier 389 where you want to replace the Slim Jim with a TH400 then this might fit the bill. If you had a 4spd Super Hydramatic in good order, I'd let it be. Didn't the 65 & 66 blocks have issues with the cylinder wall thickness?

Late ‘66 blocks had core shift problems. I’ve seen two with primary thrust walls that were .090 or less.

[25stevem]

I love when it’s said in a blanket statement that this or that such year or cid block has casting thickness issues.

If there where two different foundries making blocks and they each produced there own sand box cores it seems to me that there’s a really good chance that one of those foundries produced a block with more even wall thickness.

I myself had a late 1965 389 block that I took to .090” over to use 400 pistons and when it was up and running put a 671 blower on it and never had a issue .

I don’t know, was mine a fluke, or where the thinner walled ones a fluke?

I know one thing for darn sure from porting cast iron heads and this is many times motors from from southern areas where at some point run with near pure water in them and casting wall thickness suffered massively from the effects of rust!
I had got 2 blocks long ago from a trip down south and in the process of taking the motors apart and removing the two lower drain plugs had to use 1/4” drill bit on a drill to finally get thru the rock hard rust build up to get them to drain again.

[77 TRASHCAN]

I agree, Steve!!!

I'm a blue collar working person. Always looking for a bargain. I don't have a use for such a block, but if I had storage space, I'd buy it.
389 and 400 Pontiac engines are GREAT engines. Unfortunately 99% of us Pontiac enthusiasts prefer more cubes, no big deal, you only live once.

This block would utilize any motor mount used in 64-69 Pontiac chassis (if I am wrong...) and could be used in 70 and newer with readily available adapters.

Someone close needs to buy it!!!

[61-63]

Folks should be saving std. bore 389 blocks they can easily be made into 421 blocks by boring them .030, 428 blocks if bored .060. Then turn a 421/428 crank down to 3" mains and use Olds thrust bearing shimming both sides. Old indian trick.

[b-man]

If I was building a 400-450 hp 3.75” stroke engine with a flat tappet cam I’d use this block if I had it sitting around and/or had no other choice to find a block locally. However if I was hunting down blocks I’d want a ‘67 - ‘74 400 block.

I wouldn’t use a stroker crank or a roller cam in it, lifter bores are on the thin side. Thread showing thin ‘64 389 bores compared to thicker ‘64 421 bores:https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=772995

Sure you could put a stroker crank in it, but for myself I’d definitely find a more robust ‘67- ‘74 400 block if I was doing that. Looking at how much more metal they put in the 421 blocks compared to the 389 says something.

Also keep in mind the only kind of factory windage tray you can use is the ‘64 and earlier style that separates the sump from the crank and bolts to the #4 & #5 main caps. There’s really no easy way to attach the later style lower dipstick tube either, the longer type used on the earlier engines is retained by this tray.

Look closely at the pictures and you’ll see the tapped bosses on the caps. This windage tray / baffle requires the use of a ‘64 and earlier oil pan, the baffle plate is a little too wide to fit in a ‘65 or later pan, I know because I’ve tried it.

Pictured below - 1964 windage tray, 389 lifter bores and 421 lifter bores.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by 25stevem

I love when it’s said in a blanket statement that this or that such year or cid block has casting thickness issues.

If there where two different foundries making blocks and they each produced there own sand box cores it seems to me that there’s a really good chance that one of those foundries produced a block with more even wall thickness.

I myself had a late 1965 389 block that I took to .090” over to use 400 pistons and when it was up and running put a 671 blower on it and never had a issue .

I don’t know, was mine a fluke, or where the thinner walled ones a fluke?

I know one thing for darn sure from porting cast iron heads and this is many times motors from from southern areas where at some point run with near pure water in them and casting wall thickness suffered massively from the effects of rust!
I had got 2 blocks long ago from a trip down south and in the process of taking the motors apart and removing the two lower drain plugs had to use 1/4” drill bit on a drill to finally get thru the rock hard rust build up to get them to drain again.

Ever had an ultrasonic inspection done on a late ‘66 389 block? I have personally seen TWO with cylinder walls so thin (.090) that boring any cylinder was out of the question. I have also talked to other engine machinists who have seen the same thing. What do we know? We are only the people that have to attempt to convert the garbage people bring us into a useable engine block.