Hi Dave, can you also post pics of any stampings you find on your B0 Barracuda block?

I update my phone and now my pictures are not working again. This happen before and I was able to put my phone to old school settings and that worked. Moparts needs to catch up to speed. I am still trying to fix my phone

What a ton of great info, I got the answer I was looking for and a LOT more. Thanks to everyone that contributed

Here is the BO29 Block
sorry for the poor picture this was the only way I could get it to post

I agree and thanks for your insight Tom

Thanks Davesmopars, anything stamped on the oil pan rail extension? VIN# on the upper rear bell housing mating surface opposite the oil sender hole?

The MP stamped on that block is familiar. I had two of those at one time. I did not think much about it. I traded one off for a better dated block for my 65 car. Then I read an article in one of the Mopar mags that said they were installed in 67 RO/WO cars. If my memory serves me correctly, they were both cast on 10/31/66, Halloween. I sold my last one to a board member here with a 67 WO car. I think he still has it. Joel might remember.

This one came out of a 67 Hemi Charger, I think the HC was reversed by mistake, hence no MP.

hemicar1971,

Do you have any other info on this block? Assembly info, etc?

1 17 66

Ok, I have had 3 with that same 1-17-66 casting date, two were replacement blocks with no stampings, just WT on the pads. The third was CH 426 12-21 16

10 17 63 Thursday
10 18 63 Friday


4 6 64 Monday
5 4 64 Monday
5 5 64 Tuesday
9 24 64 Thursday

3 9 65 Tuesday
8 16 65 Monday
8 17 65 Tuesday

1 8 66 Saturday
1 17 66 Monday
1 18 66 Tuesday
6 13 66 Monday
6 14 66 Tuesday
6 27 66 Monday
8 16 66 Tuesday
8 23 66 Tuesday
8 28 66 Sunday
10 3 66 Monday
10 10 66 Monday
10 14 66 Friday
10 31 66 Monday

1 15 68 Monday
4 15 68 Monday
6 10 68 Monday
8 5 68 Monday
8 15 68 Thursday
8 19 68 Monday
8 30 68 Friday
9 30 68 Monday
10 7 68 Monday
10 8 68 Tuesday
10 10 68 Monday
11 11 68 Monday
11 18 68 Monday

3 3 69 Monday
3 26 69 Wednesday
5 10 69 Saturday
5 19 69 Monday
5 26 69 Monday
7 28 69 Monday
12 20 69 Saturday
12 30 69 Tuesday

1 19 70 Monday
1 20 70 Tuesday
1 21 70 Wednesday
1 26 70 Monday
1 27 70 Tuesday
2 5 70 Thursday
5 ? 70
7 22 70 Monday

5 13 71 Thursday

? ? 72

2 12 73 Monday

3 18 74 Monday
5 16 74 Thursday

8 23 66 Tuesday
8 28 66 Sunday *

5 10 69 Saturday *
5 19 69 Monday

3 26 69 Wednesday *
5 26 69 Monday

* I wonder if these are mis-identified? anyone have pics of 8*28*66 3*26*69 or 5*10*69 ?

Great topic and an awesome read. For what it is worth, you can add another 5/26/69 to the list as that is what mine is. Rob

Mine are 6-10-68, and 10-7-68 both are 1969's

To answer the post made by member srt earlier in this thread:
In 2003 I was in contact with Willem Weertman when trying to find out more about the claimed "high nickel fuel block" of the early 70s.

He gave a long reply that I partly quote:

All the Hemi blocks from the first blocks cast in 1963 to the blocks now being marketed through Mopar Performance have essentially the same metallurgy, which contains nickel.

Chryslers Indianapolis Foundry was the source of all Hemi blocks until the Street Hemi was discontinued in 1971. During this 1963-1971 time span, Indianapolis Foundry was the source of all production V8 castings.
The iron metallurgy was exactly the same as all the high volume V-8 Engines. Chryslers block iron was already a nickel-alloy iron, the nickel level being slightly higher than other auto companies block iron.
Unlike the high-volume V-8 blocks, all the Hemi block castings, including the Street Hemis, were given an annealing treatment for stress relief. This is noted in the SAE paper 660342, "Chrysler Corporations New Hemi Head High Performance Engines".

After the Street Hemi went out of production, Mopar Performance took over the after-market Hemi block business. Other, small-volume speciality foundries were used and very slight Changes in nickel content did occur - within the Material Standard acceptable limits.
If the nickel got a little too high, complaints would come from the tool shops machining the Mopar blocks and from the race teams that the blocks were too hard and were difficult to machine and hone.

Nodular cast iron (also called ductile iron) was never used for any block casting, not even experimentally. However, nodular cast iron has been used for the bearing caps except on some of the first Street Hemi Engines, which used grey iron.

Starting in February 1970, the bulkheads of all blocks were thickened. Your date of Jan 19, 1970 sounds OK.

Soon after Mopar Performance started furnishing blocks, they brought out a siamesed-bore block that was stronger, heavier and allowed larger bore sizes, up to 4,50 inches. This was called a "Fueler" block at the time. Shortly afterwards, aluminum blocks by Donovan Engineering and Keith Black became available and the fuelers switched to aluminum almost 100%.

Mopar Performance continues to offer a non-siamesed "Street" iron block and the siamesed heavier block in the 2002 Mopar Performance Parts Catalog.

I have no information on specific test results using nitromethane. I recall the work was done to generate a spark advance calibration. In all probability, the test engine used stock Street Hemi block. There was no design investigation regarding the block´s ability to handle higher cylinder pressures.

In a second reply he also says:

In looking over the notes I made when talking to Larry (Shepard), I noticed he told me when the casting was changed in February 1970 to the heavier webs, Mopar Performance called the new casting a "Fueler" - to distinguish it from the prior casting. Later, when the siamesed bore block was added, the siamesed block became the fueler and the carry-over block became the Street.


To return to the original subject of the thread:
All Hemi D5 blocks I have seen, casting numbers 3577430-1 or -2, have the casting date 1-19-70.
Was only one batch made?

email them to me & I'll post them