327 build. what else would you do?

Keep the bumpstick you have... it'll run fine. Are there better ones, sure. Your compression is fine for that cam and it doesn't need 11:1.

If you thinking of swapping cams, here's some good prices, a hair over $50...

http://www.competitionproducts.com/...rt_on=&sort_by=


Register now (free) or login to remove ads

Thank you!

I really hope you find the cam that works for you. As far as the 327 4 bolt question, I was rebuilding SBC's long before there was a internet, cell phones or color TV. Built literally hundreds of SBC's and never ever have I seen a 4 bolt 327 block. Pehaps they do exist, but not in this world.

Ay yi yi. What a cunundrum... How about this. Maybe we are all right! Maybe technicaly there were not "SUPPOSED" to be any of those but as Jimfulco said GM would have done what they need to to meet production. All I know is that when this was brought up earlier there were several guys backing up what I have heard by what I consider a reputable source "after" I typed it, about them being in trucks and Corvettes. Several people with their own experiences.. Maybe I was royaly duped by multipule sources, I dont know, but after being told a certian thing by so many and when the stories all jibe, one has to consider the possibilities. There can be no denying that it would have been easy enough to do, and the nay-sayers would be hard pressed to "prove" that it didnt! It is also a known fact that several motors of different displacements shared the same blocks. 3932386= 327, 302 and 350. 3932388= 350 and 327. What does that prove? It proves that GM was not above mixing and matching.

Bottom line IMO though is its much-ado about nothing. I really dont even care! Ive got a 4 bolt main 327 sitting in my garage. Some guys would argue that point, but it IS a 327 and it DOES have 4 bolt mains. Why the fuss? Ive never claimed that mine was a factory configuration nor would I. "Numbers matching" isnt my bag! Some folks act as if it isnt even possible though, not only is it possible but it is really easy. I expect GM realized that as well as we do.

Now I think I may start another thread. Ive got a lot to learn about cams and I never wanted to go in the direction that this thread took.

Have yourself a fine day!

This is absolute truth, I've seen alot of 'junk' or 'odd' stuff restoring GM cars- before Barret Jackson and this whole investment car deal came along, me and my dad would never buy old muscle with build dates right before or after the Christmas retooling-break. Different bolts, sometimes no bolts in places, chrome e-brake handle in a 150 55' when it was supposed to be black, I could list 100 or so different items that 'should' have been this way or that or 'couldn't' have been but were. To comment specifically on your 327 large journal- I wouldn't doubt it but I would say, if indeed it is factory, it would be rare. Even the 'GM By the Numbers' books aren't always right. No are any of us.

[QUOTE=65smallblock]Ay yi yi. What a cunundrum... How about this. Maybe we are all right! Maybe technicaly there were not "SUPPOSED" to be any of those but as Jimfulco said GM would have done what they need to to meet production. All I know is that when this was brought up earlier there were several guys backing up what I have heard by what I consider a reputable source "after" I typed it, about them being in trucks and Corvettes. Several people with their own experiences.. Maybe I was royaly duped by multipule sources, I dont know, but after being told a certian thing by so many and when the stories all jibe, one has to consider the possibilities. There can be no denying that it would have been easy enough to do, and the nay-sayers would be hard pressed to "prove" that it didnt! It is also a known fact that several motors of different displacements shared the same blocks. 3932386= 327, 302 and 350. 3932388= 350 and 327. What does that prove? It proves that GM was not above mixing and matching.

Bottom line IMO though is its much-ado about nothing. I really dont even care! Ive got a 4 bolt main 327 sitting in my garage. Some guys would argue that point, but it IS a 327 and it DOES have 4 bolt mains. Why the fuss? Ive never claimed that mine was a factory configuration nor would I. "Numbers matching" isnt my bag! Some folks act as if it isnt even possible though, not only is it possible but it is really easy. I expect GM realized that as well as we do.

Now I think I may start another thread. Ive got a lot to learn about cams and I never wanted to go in the direction that this thread took.

Have yourself a fine day! [/QUOTE personally i've had enough of your so called 4 bolt main 327 if you have one i would like you to post a pic with block casting #s because you probably have the only one in the world

I want to deliver one last kick to this dead horse. I keep a very good book on my desk to look at and reference when it comes to the SBC. I have not found it to be wrong yet, but it is not 100% complete. To quote the author, Ed Staffel: "One thing is certain, while research often indicates that a particular casting number was used in a particular application, there are often exceptions. If the factory ran out of a specific part with a specific casting number, they used a different part that was on hand. If the factory had parts left over after a particular model year had been completed, sometimes the remaining parts were used in the early months of the following model year until the part inventory was used up. It usually had the same features that were required by the specification, but may have had a different casting number. All attempts to list every possible casting number used remain an ongoing effort. No one has a definitive, complete, 100% accurate listing of all engine blocks, heads, etc. All we can do is share our information and keep our eyes open for new casting numbers and applications." later in his chapter on Engine Blocks, he states: "327: These blocks were factory installed from 1962 through 68 and have a 4" bore with a 3.25 stroke. There were all two bolt blocks and the 1962 to '67 blocks used small journal crank 2.30 crankshafts. The 68 327 used a medium journal crank with 2.45" diameter main journal journals.". The only casting number he lists for the 68 large journal is 3956618. Jim Staffel's book does not list any block casting numbers for a 4 bolt main 327. Whenever I see a casting number posted and it is not in my book, I request the poster send me all the info they have on that block. Whenever I get a response, I pencil it in and try to find out as much as I can about that casting number. (This applies to heads, cranks, intakes, and other cast items). I sure would appreciate it if 65Smallblock would post the casting number on his block along with the stamped assembly date/code so I could update my list. Also the casting number off the crank would be helpful, as well.

The above quote by Ed Staffel agrees with what jimfulco and others that GM did not stop the assembly process if they ran out of some parts and if they did happen to put a 327 crank in a 350 4 bolt main block, then the stamped
assembly code and suffixes would "tell the rest of the story".

Trees

Hey trees,

I was really hesitant to post in here again, but you requested it. So! As I said earlier, I dont claim that MY motor is a factory 4 bolt 327, never have. Quite the opposite. It is nothing special, its just a '73 L-82 350 block. The #s are hard to make out but it looks like 8970044. The crank is a 4672. Like I said, #s matching aint my thing..

You may however find this # interesting for your files. I have a 3827188. Ive not done a lot of research on it but what I did see suggests that it is supposed to be a plain jane stock head. Its not! It is a camelhump casting with 1.94" intakes and accesory holes.

If I offended anyone in this thread please see "cam"plications. Now whaddya say we let this sucka die?

Yeah, I gathered you were building your 327 out of 350 block and 327 crank. Your 4672 is a 327 forged steel, large journal (medium) crank (has to be 68). I also am not too interested in matching numbered cars, but I do like to know what I am trying to put together so it turns out right when I crank it up. I can not locate the casting number you listed, but I am betting it is 3927188. It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between 3, 6, 8 and 9 on these old castings. You might want to do some cleaning and use a good light to see if you are reading the numbers wrong. The casting number I posted is for a 69-70 307 head with 74 cc combustion chamber. If you decide to take a closer look at the casting number, see if it comes out 3927186. This head would have the camel hump and bracket holes in the front and would have been on either a 69-70 302, 350 and would have 63cc chambers. If you still feel you are reading the casting number correctly, I would bet you have your hands on a skillfully made up double hump head that some one has pedaled to an unsuspecting novice. A little bit of epoxy and sand covered with paint can become a "double hump in about 15 minutes. Machining in the big valves takes a little more time and equipment. Unfortunately, there is always some one willing to make a few bucks with out a lot of honor.

Trees