View Full Version : Block casting #3970014 vs. 3970010.


vfitom2aol.com
01-15-2008, 06:10:32 PM
Which is better?

Gary S
01-15-2008, 06:15:07 PM
They are basically the same. Chevy made both castings and used them pretty much interchangeably over the years. The 3970010 seems to have been made in much larger numbers than the 3970014.

Twisted_Metal
01-15-2008, 07:56:57 PM
I thought the 3970010 had a higher nickel content... Myth or my failing memory?
How much difference would that make if it's true?

427Rat
01-15-2008, 08:50:51 PM
Does a higher nickel content, make a block stronger?? I thought it would make the metal softer... am i wrong??

ZS10
01-15-2008, 09:24:06 PM
Stronger, nickel and tin makes it a tougher alloy. The content is cast on the block...under the timing cover Something like:
010
020

tom3
01-16-2008, 12:28:59 AM
Seems like there should be somewhere to find out if the 010 and 020 really indicate alloy. Be pretty strange if it does. I can understand the early blocks needing extra strength with high tension non-moly rings, small journal cranks, vintage oils, higher compression, and so on. But I can't really imagine a casting number would indicate the iron alloys. Someday we'll find out for sure.

Gary S
01-16-2008, 12:54:22 AM
Seems like there should be somewhere to find out if the 010 and 020 really indicate alloy. Be pretty strange if it does. I can understand the early blocks needing extra strength with high tension non-moly rings, small journal cranks, vintage oils, higher compression, and so on. But I can't really imagine a casting number would indicate the iron alloys. Someday we'll find out for sure.

A year or so ago, one of our members posted some inside information here. I don't remember his name, but he works for one of the GM foundries that casts the blocks. He debunked the old theory that the 010 and 020 have anything to do with metallurgy content of the blocks. He says that these numbers only identify which molds actually cast the block so GM can track any possible problems that might crop up. I've never seen any credible information to indicate that the 010 and 020 mean anything more than that, so I'll believe a GM insider before believing old retold stories with nothing to back them up.
As far as the 3970010 and 3970014, this follows a pattern that Chevy had through the entire 70s production. They always had two almost identical castings to use to build their engines. Why? We can only speculate. Maybe this was insurance for Chevy that in case of a casting flaw in one casting or a strike in one plant, they could keep up production anyway. The 041 and 186 heads were used in the early years along with the 010 and 014 block. Those heads were pretty much identical castings just like the two block castings. And, the 010 and 014 blocks were both sold in 2 and 4 bolt mains, so you can bet that Chevy felt they both were up to handling anything their best engines would throw at them.

Twisted_Metal
01-16-2008, 01:39:01 AM
Mr. MythBuster to the rescue! :D

Thanks, Gary! :cool:

I've heard the nickel/casting thing for years and was always suspect of it.
I'm glad I finally asked someone who could shed some light on it!

Gary S
01-16-2008, 04:13:05 PM
I found that thread. Read the posts by BrianBerry.
http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10896&highlight=010+nickel

Toomanyhobbys
01-16-2008, 06:46:16 PM
Might ask Marv D, he is particular to the 010 blocks