Nickel in blocks???

[70 copo]

In conclusion. Yes I have looked into this just like I did with the two books I wrote on the Norwood Plant. A comment made by the Norwood Superintendent "for those guys"

"Funny that None of us at Norwood can recall anything about what we did in plant yet someone who worked in another GM plant makes a claim and everything he says is gospel on that forum. Yet the extensive research you did which is very factual is usually dismissed out of hand. Jealousy is a bad thing as well as partisanship".

So with that said gentlemen lets discuss this like gentlemen shall we? Unless you are going to claim the images are "fake "what I have presented is self evident.

So what do we have here? What are we looking at? I have presented EVIDENCE. Opinions are ok but an opinion should not be framed as evidence.

"Silly" I am not. I am quite serious.

[dustinm]

I thought the question at hand was nickel content, not structural integrity of the casting??

[70 copo]

Well we can try to get to the bottom of this. If the basic block design varies then the metallurgical content can also vary that makes sense. Also both blocks are flint cast. and as we know Hi performance flint blocks were the blocks used for the high winding engines during that period.

[jeffschevelle]

I have no idea about the original question and no dog in the fight. But it is very obvious to me that pictures of casting differences between a 1973 and a 1969 block don't have one single thing to do with what the metal content of either of those blocks is or is not. For example, 1965-66 396 blocks (both 961 and 962) carry the same casting numbers and part numbers across both years, but there are numerous significant casting differences between early 65 396 blocks and 66 396 blocks. That does not mean the metal content was any different. Maybe after 4 years the content was different, maybe it wasn't. But casting differences have nothing to do with that question.

And if I was going to weigh evidence and render a judgment (continuing the courtroom theme started earlier), I would find it very easy to believe the guy who is "a metallurgist and was superintendent of the melt department at the Tonawanda metal casting plant." Is anyone else posting in this thread a metallurgist? Is anyone else posting in this thread a former SUPERINTENDENT of the melt department at the Tonawanda metal casting plant (not just a low level laborer, but a SUPERINTENDENT)?

This is not the same as the silliness of an assembly line worker claiming he remembers what head marking was on a screw he installed on a certain Wednesday in between punching the clock to get his paycheck 50+ years ago. I find it hard to conceive of anyone who would be any more likely to know what the metal content of a casting was than the person who was "a metallurgist and superintendent of the melt department at the metal casting plant" at the time in question.

So what am I missing here ??

[bergy]

Phil - Don Quixote has nothing on you!

That's a lot of research to prove that:

- there were 12 stations at the oil sand oven where front and rear housings cores were produced. 6 International machines for front housings and 6 International machines for rear housings. So, that means 6 DIFFERENT core boxes for each housing (plus the spare core boxes up in the pattern storage area on the second floor. Not every core box was identical due to repairs and cosmetic changes made over the years. this same explanation applies to changes in the filter bowl set core area (only there were 24 individual inserts plus spares). Ditto for the cope and drag patterns where there were 3 of each (plus spares).

The flow off scar on the top rail is an addition to the patterns that I HAD MADE. There was a problem with gas accumulating at the top of the rail during mold fill. We added those pins to help the gas escape better.

anyone who thinks we added 10-20% nickel to gray cast iron isn't just silly.

[70 copo]

Bergy,

Good. Progress.

So far Where in this thread did I offer anything stating that the Nickel/Tin thing was 100% real?

Note: I didn't.

Many here are basing their informed opinions on the fact that the blocks were "all the same."

Are they? How does this relate to .10/.20?

Start there.

[Steve Shauger]

Lets be respectful to one and other. It's a slippery slope when a theory is purported as fact. I don't want to squelch debate, but facts need to be introduced to support them or mis-information turns into myth and later fact.

I do believe the casting #'s represent running changes for strengthening, manufacturability and various improvements, which are documented with examples. Regarding block material being identified by casting identifiers... well this is completely unproven. We have two notable authorities (John Z. & Bergy) who have firsthand intimate knowledge and have debunked the nickel and tin content variants based on application theories as it relates to Chevrolet built engines.

[70 copo]

Originally Posted by Steve Shauger

Lets be respectful to one and other. It's a slippery slope when a theory is purported as fact.

Steve,

I am curious to ask .. Are the images I posted both real and authentic small blocks?

What is your take on this specifically?

Are these images and what they show a "theory"?

[Lynn]

Phil: I can't admit your position as fact if I don't even know your position.

I can't tell from any of your posts if you believe the 010 blocks have higher tin and nickel content.

[70 copo]

Fair enough. I appreciate your candid reply.

Just so you know I have complete understanding of all the positions taken here and unlike you I understand them.

In order to even reach a discussion point one of these sides is going to need to entertain the idea of a radically different position.

My position that the blocks were different is supported with evidence.

Ball is still in your court guys.