Watching a block on ebay #290185805807. Works for my build date. Not sure of the "its a good 060 over" part of the description. What cylinder bore overage is too much?

 

you should have included a link. anyway, .060 over is no big deal for most engines. they might run a little hotter sometimes, but that is no big deal. I have a 402 punched out .030, which is really a 396 punched out .090 and I have no problems

my crank is also undercut, but that just helps with my RPMs...LOL!!!

 

Here it is: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...m=290185805807

Seems fair enough. The only question is that it is being advertised as correct for a 69 Z-28. Those blocks were not the 350. The block in those cars were a 327, with a 283 crank for a net of 302ci.

 

Well, since you insist on always calling a 302 block a 327, why can't a 350 block also be a 302? First gen engine specs: 302 cid 4.000 bore x 3.00 stroke, 327 cid 4.000 bore x 3.25 stroke, 350 cid 4.000 bore x 3.48 stroke. Same bore, different strokes for all three.
Clyde

 

Maybe because the 327 was the most common set-up.

 

While that may have been true in the early to mid '60s in Chevy as a whole (remembering that the 350 was first released in '67 as a Camaro only engine), that likely was not true in '67-'69 Camaros. As the 350 continued to displace the 327 in the Camaro there were fewer and fewer 327s in them with more and more 350s and 307s. The block the OP was referring to was for '69, which was the year the 327 was dropped from the Camaro.Blocks for all three with 4" bores can be found with the same casting marks, the main difference was all blocks used for 302 were 4 bolt mains, 327 and 350 had some 4 bolt, some 2 bolt.
Clyde

 

 

The '67 302 was a small journal crank, like the 327. The '68 and'69 302 blocks were large journal, like the 350. Rod and bearing sizes were the main factors why people refer to them as either 327 or 350 blocks. Bore and stroke was the same.

 

Block went off without hitting the reserve. If the seller thinks it is a correct Z-28 block, I am sure the reserve was high. It is not a z block, and I am not sure I believe that the HA was a correct original stamp. Seems like the vin is not in line with a camaro. HA stamps were only used on camaro if I am correct?

 

The corect stamped number for the 69 Z-28 was DZ. and I would not buy a .060 over block without having it sonic tested to make sure the cyl. walls are thick enough