327 chevy really all the hype? - Page 2 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 04:16 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 283
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 52
Thanked 54 Times in 52 Posts
Demarques,
'There is no replacement for displacement' is a solid statement and I'm pretty sure that the guys on here that have responded will agree (I'm not trying to speak for them.) But from reading this, it is relatively obvious that several of these guys have dated themselves with their comments - which there is NOTHING wrong with.

The question you have to answer is what are your goals. All out power from a SBC? Something that's fun to drive? Something that makes people take a second look? Which of these questions is most important to you? Oh yeah, don't forget the budget question.

For me, fun to drive and making people take a second look while staying in a reasonable budget was most important. I found a 327, I am running it and I love it. It screams and sticks together. From a nostalgic perspective, I believe that a 327 is the coolest SBC out there, but that is my opinion. If you want all out power, then find a 400, stroke it to a 434 or so and you'll make my 327 look silly in terms of power and torque. The same can be said for a well built 355 or 383 and it can be done cheaper than a 400. In the end, YOU need to know what your goals are and be happy with your choice.

p.s. MouseFink - in '68 the only concerns I had was when and where my next meal came from (Mom). Love to hear old tales - keep them coming!

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 05:03 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: dallas texas
Posts: 196
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 79
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
i appreciate everybodys opinions and sharing the knowledge and or stories.... i know the 327 was pretty stout back then but i guess in these new days people are running 355 and 383's , 406's all over the place....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 05:04 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: dallas texas
Posts: 196
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 79
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
but one serious question ive always wanted to ask... Why do you think it was replaced with the 350????????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 05:16 PM
prostreet6t9's Avatar
Differential/Driveline
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: oregon
Age: 51
Posts: 1,725
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 8
Thanked 40 Times in 37 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinniekq2 View Post
I love the stories of how fast cars used to be back in the sixties and seventies,way before we had the good after market heads we have now.
The guy that had a doug nash 5 speed,Lee sheppard Welded straight plug cast iron heads,that revved to 11,000 rpm, was compared to the street guys that were running bias ply tires,3 speed saginaw low boys with flat heads
Yes,they were fast,40 years ago.

I watched a special event at boundary bay airport in 1975 where special guest racers Dick Landy and Bill Jenkins were there for our first night race.The pro stock guys were running 9.0s

this day and age you can find street cars with twin turbos and air conditioning that run 9s.

what kind of 327 was this old guy talking about? probably a small journal 375 hpGM engine. Today that is a rough running,high revving fair performing engine.The 11:1 CR is not pump gas friendly and the 30/30 cam has many times over been improved since then.
I would've loved to raced cars back in the 60's. In todays world we can do some machine work and mail order the stuff. Those guys in the 60's knew all the tricks And you could pull up to the pump and get good gas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 05:32 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 283
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 52
Thanked 54 Times in 52 Posts
Do some research and reading in your spare time (not meant sarcastically).

Check out Chevrolet small-block engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 283 was an overbored 265. The 327 was a stroked and overbored 283. Hence the reason for the early small journal 327's. I think GM realized they could restroke the 4.00" bore 327 to 3.48 without any block clearance issues, so why not take advantage of the longer stroke and rod to stroke ratio and build 350's. I've read in several places (not known to be fact) that the 307, that came out in '68 was the result of alot of 283 blocks 'laying around' at GM that could use the newer 327 cranks. And, again from what I've read, the 302 was a response to racing displacement rules. Now, for the 400, I don't know, maybe GM wanted lead the pack for small blocks.

Of course this is my opinion.

But one thing that GM did was maintain a very similar platform that led to alot of interchangeable components amongst different displacements and model years, which is real good for us and made the SBC very cheap to build. For example, check out the pricing on building a stage II or stage III 455 Buick or hot 340 or 383 Mopar.

AGAIN, just my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 05:37 PM
vinniekq2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: BC,Canada
Age: 56
Posts: 8,062
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 322
Thanked 783 Times in 749 Posts
327 Vs 350

Quote:
Originally Posted by demarques_191 View Post
i appreciate everybodys opinions and sharing the knowledge and or stories.... i know the 327 was pretty stout back then but i guess in these new days people are running 355 and 383's , 406's all over the place....
back in the late 50s and early sixties (muscle car era) the best way or easiest wat to make more power was to make bigger engines. 348 became 409 with a few 427s. power to weight was also a consideration so 327 was stretched to 350.
Back in the early 60s,maybe some of the other guys remember better than me. GM built 5 x377 cube stroker small blocks for the vette racing program.I think they were put in a 63 vette?

over in Europe the Germans were well into developing fuel injection for their road cars and were able to find more power that way,better mileage was more important in Europe than here.
R&D will try many things and market some of the successes

The 350 chevy came out in 1967 in the Z-27 Camaro.not sure what the 396 was designated as?
the 302 of course was Z-28
sorry,useless bits of info tossed in a random order
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 06:01 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 1,183
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 105 Times in 96 Posts
The Chevy 302 (301 as it was called in the day) engine was a 283 CI engine bored to 4".

The SB Chevy 283 engine bored out to 301 CI was the top dog SB Chevy engine until Chevrolet introduced the 327 CI engine in 1962.

My first street machine when I graduated high school was a yellow '56 Chevy Del Ray 2-door sedan with a 265 CI Power Pack engine, 3-speed with OD. I rebuilt and installed a 1957 Chevrolet 283 CI engine in the '56 Chevy. My 283 CI engine was bored to 4.00" for 301 CI and I installed a 4.56:1 rear gear. I wrecked my '56 Chevy on December 23, 1962 and installed the 4.56 rear end in my 1959 Impala 2-dr. HT with a 4-speed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 06:22 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 283
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 52
Thanked 54 Times in 52 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MouseFink View Post
The Chevy 302 (301 as it was called in the day) engine was a 283 CI engine bored to 4".

I wrecked my '56 Chevy on December 23, 1962 and installed the 4.56 rear end in my 1959 Impala 2-dr. HT with a 4-speed.
'Sounds like your 'day of infamy' . I can only imagine the sadness. But personally, I'd rather have the '59 Impala, but I would guess that you weren't thinking that at the time. There wasn't too much cooler than those big boat tails
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 07:38 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 1,183
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 105 Times in 96 Posts
My '56 Chevy Del Ray was MINT, even for 1962. It was equipped with a 3-speed floor shifter from Honest Charley Speed Shop and a Sun 5000 RPM tachometer mounted on the steering column. I rolled it on a icy road two days before Christmas 1962. I bought a beige 1959 Impala 2-dr HT with a 283 engine and a 4-speed six months later with a $500 loan for the down payment from my father. I salvaged the 4.56 Posi rear end and later used it on my '59 Impala. The only engine parts I salvaged from my '56 Chevy was a pair of Corvette valve covers.

Of all the cars I have owned, I liked my lemon yellow '56 Chevy Del Ray the best. It came from the factory with a 4.11 rear end because it had 3-speed transmission with OD. I replaced the 4.11 open rear end with a 4.56 Posi Traction using new GM ring and pinion gears.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 09:34 PM
painted jester's Avatar
TAKE A KID TO A CAR SHOW
 

Last journal entry: mopar hump back
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Michigan
Age: 68
Posts: 1,840
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 103
Thanked 292 Times in 240 Posts
Don't believe everything you read on the web!!

Yes, A 283 is like a bored 265, a 302 is like a bored 283, and a 327 is like a bored 265 or 283 and on to the 350 But if you read that on the web you would think a 350 is a bored 265 block casting!

The easy way to build a "301" is to use an early 327 and a 283 crank. We did that in the 60s but that's not the 302 of legend.

DZ302 and YZ302

When you see fully machined blocks from machinist on the web passing off there 3932386 casting converted 327's & 350s As Genuine Z28 DZ YZ 302's,LT1's,High Perf. 300 350 370 375HP 350's ask them what the #'s on Main caps are. If there Not the Nodular Forged (Denoted by the Capped letters "NF") "2482"s then they are FAKE!


Camaro Hi-Performance: Vehicles: The Old Reliable


Jerry MacNeish and the legendary Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins at the 1994 NHRA Keystone Nationals, Maple Grove, PA.
TECHNICAL DATA
VIN number 124378N411100
Build Date 04A (first week of April)
Color Corvette Bronze
Interior Code 712, black standard
Car Shipper Shipped on April 11, 1968 to Ammon R. Smith Auto Company, York, PA
Engine Data Cubic Inches, 302
Cylinder heads #3917291, completely stock, no porting allowed!
Stock rocker arms & valve springs
Intake 302 aluminum intake, casting #3917610
Carburetor Holley, #4053, 780 CFM 4bbl
Camshaft Crane, .480 inches lift, 272 degrees duration, valve lash, .016-.016
Pistons GM 302, .030" oversize
Horsepower 456 @7700rpm
Rear Tires 9" x 30.0" Hoosier's
Rear axle & ratio 12-bolt, 5.57 Richmond Pro Gears
Clutch 10 inch, three finger from Advance Clutch Technology
Shift Points 8200 RPM
BEST ET 10.80 @122.30mph

05 stock champion

That's old skool: Stock class stock heads' stock rockers and springs, Shifting at 8200, 456 hp 7700rpm and still will make your heart stop today! Thus called a legend!!!

Jester
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 09:38 PM
lg1969's Avatar
Google "Tunnel Ram 406"
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bohemia, L.I.N.Y.
Age: 64
Posts: 1,059
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 21 Times in 18 Posts
IMO: Don't forget in the beginning of 1970, Emission level was getting tighter it was coming into play.
That is why a 283 was replaced with a 307, 327 was replaced with a 350, 427 was replaced with a 454. And the 305 has a smaller bore but same stroke as the 350. It seem the longer stroke motors produce less emission. Chevy was in a hurry of building 302 for trans-am racing that was limited to 305. that's another story. Because of cars were getting heavy chevy needed a longer strokes motors in order of getting more torque.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2013, 11:25 PM
gearheadslife's Avatar
MentalMuffinMan
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,284
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 114
Thanked 299 Times in 277 Posts
yes it was, remember back when the 327/350 came out.. the tire tech wasn't what it is today.. today we are spoiled with rubber that even slicks of the day didn't have..
the 327 lack of hugy low end helped it. get the car out of the hole.. and the rpm range worked great with the transmissions aval. then.. 2speed powerglide or 4 speed wide stick..
I've driven both a 327 and 350 vettes with sticks.. and the 327 was way more fun..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2013, 01:58 PM
painted jester's Avatar
TAKE A KID TO A CAR SHOW
 

Last journal entry: mopar hump back
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Michigan
Age: 68
Posts: 1,840
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 103
Thanked 292 Times in 240 Posts
I saw a test comparing a stock high hp late model Vette with a 67 Vette ( I think an L 88?) in the 1/4 and 0 to 60 times! The new Vette beat out the 67 but the 67 had stock tires 7 inch tread the new vette had stock tires but with a really wide tread and it also had stock traction aids that the early Vette didn't come out with!! I watched that and thought it was so unfair!!!!!

Its like the stock factory muscle cars of the 60s, and 70s they came out with stock tires of a tread pattern of 6 to 7 1/2 inches with bare bones suspensions, The new muscle has big tires big tread,traction aids etc ! and to compare the 2 to 1/4 and 0-60 times with data from 60s and early 70's compared to new car test data today is Ludicruse! But you see it over and over again

Jester
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2013, 05:15 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 1,183
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 105 Times in 96 Posts
My associate, Randall Brock, purchased a slightly used 1967 Corvette 427 L88 in 1969 for $6,000!
I drove his 1967 Corvette 427 L88 a few times and it was the fasted street driven vehicle I have ever drove or even rode in. The Corvette could turn 11.00 sec. ETs consistently with some good bite. R. Brock also owned a 1969 Dodge Charger with 426 Street Hemi with an automatic transmission and his L88 Corvette could blow the Charger's doors off.

Randall Brock's 1967 L88 Corvette
427 CI engine
430 HP at 4600 RPM (advertised)
560 HP at 6400 RPM
Total production: 20 (14 known to exist today)
850 CFM Holley double pumper
Cast iron heads
White with black interior
Convertible
No radio available
No spark plug static shields
M22 Muncie 4-speed
K66 TI ignition
Side pipes
4.56 Positraction
Built at the St. Louis MO Assembly plant
The unconfirmed rumor was that Brock's 1967 L88 Corvette was ordered by the TV host Dick Clark but when it arrived without a radio, Clark refused to accept it.

In 1971, Randall Brock traded his '67 L88 Corvette roadster for a 1967 Pontiac Firebird 400 convertible which I acquired a year later . The '67 Firebird had 3500 miles on the odometer. The new owner of the '67 L88 Corvette lived in San Antonio TX and he turned it into a race car and it was never licensed again. It has disappeared from history.

Last edited by MouseFink; 02-08-2013 at 05:26 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2013, 06:13 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 6,822
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 4
Thanked 449 Times in 384 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by demarques_191 View Post
i had a guy who told me that the best engine to race would be the 327 and he said he could build it to whoop a 350 or any other engine.. so what im asking is... is this engine really that capable of 'whooping butt'. Me personally i'd rather have the 383 or a 400sbc... What are your thoughts?
Serendipity. In a theoretical since there's no replacement for displacement.

But.

In the real world often the relationships and dimensions of component just don't work together, one could think 312 Y block Ford as an old example. Other times you just hit it. The 327 was one of those times, it seems the 4 inch bore in any engine is a gift that allows valves big enough to feed the cylinder. To me it's almost a magic dimension; it's hard to think of a poor running 4 inch bore motor from any manufacturer. Sure you can load 'em up with emissions and mess them up, but generally they've proven to be a family of well, if not superlative, performance engines.

All 327s have a good rod length to stroke ratio, the performance engines got forged cranks; they also got well proportioned to slightly large ports, big to bigger valves, high compression dual quench heads. Just a lot of stuff that works well together.

But against an equally prepared larger engine like the 350 the 327 and 302 for that matter need to have a drive train that adjusts for their need to turn more RPM for equal power. So the end result is as much matching the vehicle and driveline characteristics to the engine’s characteristics.

One has to keep in mind the primary driver behind engine size evolution is the need for more torque to move grocery getters, sell these is what pays the bills over at GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Performance sells to pretty small crowd so even if mom and pop came in to the dealer on Monday following some big national raceway win the preceding Sunday; it was more likely they left with a 250 horse 327 in a station wagon than a 360 horse 327 in a Corvette. So the performance arm of the company most always makes due with what's up for mom and pop production. So as the 283 was a torque search over the 265, the 327, 350, and 400 were from the same intention on the part of Chevy; more torque to cruise more weight and power consuming gadgets.

I won't even comment on some the stuff they went to in the interest of emissions like 262 or 267, these tiny bore motors are attempts to use Voodoo to solve engineering problems and everybody went down that road to the same end.

Bogie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Annular boosters - the real deal or marketing hype? Mad Maggot Engine 18 11-22-2009 03:13 PM
are they all hype???? neverfastenuff Engine 20 05-06-2008 04:31 PM
QuietCar Sound deadener real or hype? Choir Boy Jon General Rodding Tech 4 04-10-2008 08:07 PM
Marketing {hype} Ole JIM Hotrodders' Lounge 25 08-25-2006 04:51 PM
Oil additives, hype or truth? 4 Jaw Chuck Engine 11 03-17-2003 09:14 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.