360-1 Casting better?

-
G

gzig5

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
2,836
Reaction score
3,812
Location
Mequon, WI
I'm looking at potential blocks for a future stroker build. Ran across one from a late 70's van with 3870230-360-1 on the side of it. Does the -1 have any significance or imply better quality? Thicker cylinder walls or less core shift? I think it has something to do with being on the first run of the mold? Or is it pretty much a crap shoot, no matter what number it is?
 
gzig5 said:
I'm looking at potential blocks for a future stroker build. Ran across one from a late 70's van with 3870230-360-1 on the side of it. Does the -1 have any significance or imply better quality? Thicker cylinder walls or less core shift? I think it has something to do with being on the first run of the mold? Or is it pretty much a crap shoot, no matter what number it is?
Click to expand...

Maybe. The lesser the dash number means how many times a certain mold was used. A 1 indicates that block was the first run of that mold, so yes, it could be better than higher numbers.
 
The 1 was debatable. It could have been the #1 cell in a casting group of 8 blocks or it may have been the 1st version of the casting with subsequent revisions fixing minor flaws, getting a thicker web, etc. I guess only a caster would know. @slantsixdan you got a take on the 'casting revision number'?
 
RustyRatRod said:
Maybe. The lesser the dash number means how many times a certain mold was used. A 1 indicates that block was the first run of that mold, so yes, it could be better than higher numbers.
Click to expand...

pishta said:
The 1 was debatable. It could have been the #1 cell in a casting group of 8 blocks or it may have been the 1st version of the casting with subsequent revisions fixing minor flaws, getting a thicker web, etc. I guess only a caster would know. @slantsixdan you got a take on the 'casting revision number'?
Click to expand...

Exactly. All relative. Would a #1 casting be better than a #9? I would think the "best" would be a #2 or #3. They've had a chance to fix anything that was wonky with the mold to start off with and not enough runs to need to fix the mold because of wear.

At best, I think picking a certain mold # thinking it would be better than another is a total crapshoot. Sonic test is the only way to know for sure.
 
72bluNblu said:
Exactly. All relative. Would a #1 casting be better than a #9? I would think the "best" would be a #2 or #3. They've had a chance to fix anything that was wonky with the mold to start off with and not enough runs to need to fix the mold because of wear.

At best, I think picking a certain mold # thinking it would be better than another is a total crapshoot. Sonic test is the only way to know for sure.
Click to expand...

I refer you to my previous use of the word "maybe".
 
72bluNblu said:
Right, which is why I agreed with you by saying "exactly".
Click to expand...

I've sonic tested a lot of blocks looking for a pattern and there really is none.....that I found anyway. I did find some thick ones. I will say most were 73 and back but there were some up into the late 70s that were thick. This was before I knew anything about the - numbers, so I did not include that. The 77 360 I punched .070 over for a 416 was thick. I don't remember the numbers as this was back about 1998 or 1999. Decent sonic testers are not too expensive now. If anyone builds any number of engines at all, it's a good tool for the tool box.
 
RustyRatRod said:
I've sonic tested a lot of blocks looking for a pattern and there really is none.....that I found anyway. I did find some thick ones. I will say most were 73 and back but there were some up into the late 70s that were thick. This was before I knew anything about the - numbers, so I did not include that. The 77 360 I punched .070 over for a 416 was thick. I don't remember the numbers as this was back about 1998 or 1999. Decent sonic testers are not too expensive now. If anyone builds any number of engines at all, it's a good tool for the tool box.
Click to expand...

Agree. 440 Source tested a whole bunch of blocks (granted, big blocks but I would assume the same logic would apply) to see if there was any pattern to the early vs late or "thinwall" blocks. They found that if anything the later blocks were better. 440 Source.com Everything you've ever wanted to know about blocks and more....

They also said this about the tooling numbers here 440 Source.com - Info on Chrysler's casting and part numbering system

"While we are on the subject of casting numbers, often there will be what is known as a "tooling revision number" or a "dash number" after the casting number. A 1968 440 block, for instance, might read 2536430-12, or sometimes there will just be a space, such as 2536430 12, or sometimes 253643012. While 2536430 would be the casting number, the 12 would be the tooling revision number, which indicates how many times the tooling (core molds) have been reconditioned back to the proper specifications or modified to include improvements. After so many "pours" the tooling gets worn and needs to be reshaped or reconditioned. So theoretically, higher numbers will be later dates and have any casting improvements incorporated into them. The only problem with this theory is that engines were produced in such volume that many many different sets of tooling were used concurrently to meet the necessary output. So while some may have lasted for quite a while, (in which case you will find later dates with earlier revisions) some got worn quickly or damaged and needed to be revised after a short time. So while in some cases, parts with later numbers may include some improvements the earlier parts may not have, on a practical level, it means nothing as far as the quality of the piece. In other words, don't waste your time looking for an early or late tooling revision number. Blocks, heads, water pump housings and many other cast parts have revision numbers as well.

Another thing to keep in mind is that tooling revision numbers have absolutely nothing to do with core shift, which is when the core molds move around as the cast iron is poured. That will vary depending on how much the molds moved in the specific piece (usually engine block) you are talking about, and the only way to tell if there is enough material in the cylinder walls is to sonic check the specific block you are going to use. As you probably learned from our "Everything you've ever wanted to know about engine blocks" page, (and if you haven't read this page yet, you should) there are no thinwall blocks, however we have found core shift to be less prevalent in the later blocks, perhaps due to improvements in casting technology over the two decades the engines were in production."

So, kinda sounds like a crapshoot to me. If you're building a high horsepower block or going for a larger overbore, have it sonic tested.
 
My 87 block is holding up just fine...
If your interested in going over 600hp start with a non factory block.. If under 600hp don't sweat it....
 
If it really worries you, do a half fill with hard block up to the bottom of the freeze plugs. That adds a lot of strength.
 
skrews said:
I've also sonic tested numerous blocks, and there isn't much of a pattern from what I see.
Click to expand...

No expert here but, the centering of the lifter bores in their bosses can be a good /quick way of telling about core shift , if its bad it will most likely show up as the lifter bores being off center .
 
First pour out of a ladle is less porosity . On a block with a low number the cylinder usually sonic test better do to this reason. Porosity can cause core shift. I had a X-block 318-11. The porosity on this block was terrible and they are high nickle . You can see on some pic's the right rear lifter bore was welded back in with a spray weld. You can see the paint burned off where welded. Most of the lifter bore was missing from porosity when we received it. My original 318-3 X-block conveniently disappeared at "Shady Dell". This was the replacement. We had it repaired and sold it.

I have many 340 blocks here You can visually see the difference in the blocks after hot tanked. -1 blocks are smooth and shiney. Highly sought after in the Sprint car world are the -1 blocks.

block5.JPG


block6.JPG


block12.JPG


block2.JPG


block13.JPG


block17.JPG
 
Anyone seen any of the higher - series (tooling revision) numbers with wide gaps between the numbers? My stock production '71 318-13 actually reads like
318-1 3. It's probably irrelevant, other than showing how far out the quality control during manufacturing.
 
From a manufacturing point of view it makes no production, logistical or financial sense to be casting (or fabricating in any way) something considered better with the rest of the "run of the mill" parts on the same line with the same part number, tooling and production individuals. If they were better in some way why did they end up in production vehicles? While there will be variations from tool to tool, shift to shift, operator to operator, from an mass assembly point of view they would all move on to be built for their intended production use.
 
pishta said:
The 1 was debatable. It could have been the #1 cell in a casting group of 8 blocks or it may have been the 1st version of the casting with subsequent revisions fixing minor flaws, getting a thicker web, etc. I guess only a caster would know. @slantsixdan you got a take on the 'casting revision number'?
Click to expand...
I should rename it 'core revision number' as all these blocks were sand cast as there was no die cast mold that iron was poured in repeatedly. I would think every block cast would have its interior and exterior cores destroyed in the process so there is no wear on the disposable cores themselves. The molds that make the cores are what gets worn down and the exterior texture is probably due to the fact that the core molds get filled with abrasive sand/glue, cleaned out and dusted so often that the surface finish starts to decay. They would not have 1 mold for a blocks cores, they would have several (12?) so they could get these onto the line fast. Each core mold would have its own control number for tracking purposes. If core -8 were found to have a bad tolerance, it would be tracked in all the -8 blocks. I'm just looking at this from a student of manufacturing process perspective. As for the 340 resto block finish, those core molds were probably lower production (in the grand scheme of 340 production) and were subjected to less wear. I would think the 'first pour is less porous" may be more of a die cast term as those die castings do wear over time also.
 
This will show a basic pour... more modern than our old blocks but the same principle.




This is more like how our stuff was made...


 
Last edited:
I've been in several engine casting plants in Michigan..

Casting sand gets recycled over and over... It's burnt black, probably the dirtiest and smelliest manufacturing plants to be inside of because of the burnt green casting sand. That sand is also the source of flaws and what you get for surface texture. The pattern doesn't have a texture to it. And old pattern pieces sometimes get stored when they are at the end of there life to be used in emergency's and to piece other patterns together to make a mold. So, I'm not sure you could tell much about some blocks getting cast, there are sacrifices in the process.

I would be more concerned if a cast iron engine block wasn't allowed to get "seasoned" for a month or two before it gets machined. But when demand is high they go out the door as quick as they can.
 
@oi81b4uu812b4 .....So whats the inside scoop on the core numbers? The smoother resto 340 castings used the new sand and the production motors got the ****? Sound about right to me. Seems they would be sifting out the crap with every recycle. Wonder if the lower production numbers of the IH cast 318's had any better surface finish. That would be a great field trip, to a casting plant.
 
I have a son who works at the largest grey iron foundry in the world...six blocks from my house.

Waupaca Foundry casts many different products from brake rotors to transmission cases to hot water boilers. They have their own landfill where used sand goes to die.

My son is a foreman in the mill room where the castings are rough ground and have their excess sawed off. Another son spent several years there too.

They operate automated "Disa's" which pour the iron into the molds.

There is a pattern company in town that supplies patterns to them.

One of my boys had a 271HP Ford 289 that was cast here in town...had the WF logo cast in the lifter valley. The foundry president insisted they never cast any engine blocks for Ford until I showed him a photo of the WF logo inside the engine. He was one of the earliest employees from the 1950's and all he could do was scratch his head in disbelief!!!
 
pishta said:
@oi81b4uu812b4 .....So whats the inside scoop on the core numbers? The smoother resto 340 castings used the new sand and the production motors got the ****? Sound about right to me. Seems they would be sifting out the crap with every recycle. Wonder if the lower production numbers of the IH cast 318's had any better surface finish. That would be a great field trip, to a casting plant.
Click to expand...
I believe the patterns wear and become rough... those numbers indicate which pattern mold was used in the pour.

I'll call my son Tonite and ask him about the texture deal.
 
Oldmanmopar said:
First pour out of a ladle is less porosity .
Click to expand...



Do you mean the first block poured each batch, or the first part of the run???

Have you seen the size of the "ladle" that they pour the block castings from??? It's at least two stories tall...


I would think the first part of the run has the same porosity with batches that big...
 
This was from an ESL (English as a Second Language...) site on casting...."Permeability is the size of the sand grains. Higher permeability can reduce the porosity of the mold, but a lower permeability would (get) to have a good surface finish." Looks like that Ford sand is post treated pretty good to maintain a .003 core tolerance. That 50's Ford plant video reminds me of that Bugs Bunny cartoon where he is in awe of the automation of the 'modern' plant.
 
The first pour from a ladle is always the hottest and the best pour. They will pour so many from each ladle. By me having a -11 that must have been the end of the ladle. i never saw one higher or worse the lifter bore was missing a large piece. What I am telling you having so many motors over the years. I have seen with my own eyes the difference in the blocks from 1's to 11's.

Anything past a 7 you start seeing bigger flashings and more porosity. It is well known that the -1's are highly sought after by motor builders that know. Out of all the 1970 340's I have "71 model years only" there are 7 total here right now. The lowest number I have is a 340-5 Its the block I'm using unless I find a lower number 1970 casting. Having a numbers matching motor isn't as important as having a good casting . I can mill the pad and put any numbers on it. You cannot change the casting order . Sprint car guys that know mopars would pay big dollars for 340-1's standard bore.

Core shift is what it is called. But it is thin spots in the cylinders that do not sonic test consistent. A hot ladle will pour like water. As it starts getting to the bottom of the ladle after time it starts getting cooler , Thicker , and not as clean. The last one usually gets a little slag.

How do I know? I use to be the guy that scraped the the slag off the top of ladle at a foundry with a 15 ft pine wooden paddle that would burn up as your using it. Then we would have to hold the ladle from swinging with two other guys on the other side of the pit. You would pour parts until it didn't flow. The faster you worked the more parts you would get . Pour until it comes out the weep hole. When you see the molten metal getting thick your done. dump the ladle in a scrap mold. Throw the last part back in the furnace with the next ingot.

The best metal is always at the top right under the slag when the hottest. The **** is at the bottom when it gets cooler and the parts never get completely filled . Plus there is always slag left in the ladle that usually is at the back opposite end of the spout. Hence the porosity in the blocks you see in High numbered blocks.

The hottest job I ever had which reminds me. I was there when a guy was pushed into a waiting ladle in a 40 ft. pit behind us. three of us were holding the pour ladle and he put the stick on his waist to light a cigarette . The crane moved and he was gone. All there was was a flash when he fell in . We didn't even know where he went at first until the crane guy yelled down. "He fell in the waiting ladle" then laid on the crane horn. We were all around 18 yrs old. There was nothing left of him or his gear. We all would get jobs there in 73 after the war was over. I worked at the Bethlehem Steel. We were pouring rutter pins and gun barrels for Navy ships. worked there until 1981

Wow what a memory that came back from posting .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top