I have a 65 SS with a 200 HP 327. I can see the difference in the maifold on higher power versions, but I am curious if anyone knows what the difference is between the 200HP motor and the 300 HP motor? I'd like to do a little upgrade but I'd like to do it with stock components, or at least not give up the oil filler tube.

Thanks
Chuck

Not sure on the differences, but I know a guy that ordered a black 65 with the 300hp 327 an M21 and 12 bolt. The car is not an SS, but he has had it since new. In fact his son is on here Demonic Obsidian or Obsession is what he named the project. Do a search for it and PM him.His dad gave it to him. Unfortunate, all rusted out with 42K on the clock. Any way he should know or if you ask him his dad does for sure. Pretty sure it had a solid lift cam.

Just some basics
The 327 had small journals until the end of 67.
68 327s have large journals...the LJ size same as the new 350 engine for 1967 SS Camaro.

A low horse engine would have 2 barrel intake and about 9:1 compression, modest sized valves.

A 300 horse engine would have 4 barrel carb, better camel hump heads with larger valves casting number 461 or 462, 10.25:1 CR, and I do recall the hyd cam is a mite bigger than the bottom-feeder engine's cam.

68 327s have large journals...the LJ size same as the new 350 engine for 1967 SS Camaro.


To correct that. A '68 327 has medium journals. A 400 has large journals.
Cams, heads, carbs (or FI), and pistons were the major differences. Horsepower ran from 210HP to 375HP.

Just to let you know, there was no 327ci /200hp made in 65 Malibus. They made a 250hp, 300hp and a 350hp (again FYI). If you want to post the last 2 letters on the front stamping of your engine (EA thru EF) I can tell you exactly what it is.

I believe it was the late 68 & all 69 327's that had the larger journals.

Scott

Try this thread from over at Little Brother.

Good info b/c I found out I was off a bit on some of the 327 engines.

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=95181&highlight=327

pdq67

Just to let you know, there was no 327ci /200hp made in 65 Malibus. They made a 250hp, 300hp and a 350hp (again FYI). If you want to post the last 2 letters on the front stamping of your engine (EA thru EF) I can tell you exactly what it is.

OOPS! Sorry brain fart. It's a 250 HP EE block. Good call! It already has a 30/30 Duntoff cam so it's more than 250 horse right now. It has a stock manifold. In fact everything outside is stock and original. I'd like to put a higher performance intake on it though and put away the original. I'd like one like the higher runner version on the Z28 and L-78 but I want to keep the old style oil filler tube for origionality, otherwise I'd put on an RPM Air Gap with a Holly.

That's the main reason for the question. I can play with the camel hum heads later but where can I find a better manifold with the stock oil tube. I bet the cam and the intake alone would get me to 300HP, then I wouldn't feel guilty about putting 300HP stickers on the valve covers, HAHA.

Excellent thread on Team Camaro, Paul. Thanks.

Chuck

To correct that. A '68 327 has medium journals. A 400 has large journals.
Cams, heads, carbs (or FI), and pistons were the major differences. Horsepower ran from 210HP to 375HP.

Animal69,
You will NEVER hear anyone say "I have a MEDIUM Journal 327"
Either SJ or LJ

When the 400 came along, yes, a new larger size journals. Top avoid confusion, most would call this "400 Journal"

OK, So, to pull this thread out of the weeds.....

where can I find a better manifold with the stock oil tube. Does anyone make a higher performing manifold with the oil filler tube?

Thanks
Chuck

In '65 the 250hp and 300hp engines were practically identical. The advantage the 300hp engine has is dual exhaust (vs. single exhaust on the 250hp) and a larger 4-bbl carb. They both used the same hydraulic cam and heads and have the same 10.5:1 compression ratio.

I think Edlebrock intakes have a boss molded into the front which would allow you to bore out a hole for an oil fill tube.

Thanks Rich. I will have to see what Q-Jet is on there now and look for a bigger one. With gas the way it is, I am not sure I want to change it though.

Chuck

Chuck,
ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SB Chevy engines used the up front oil fill tube through 68 models. So ANY 55-68 intake manidold will have the tube, or at least the hole for an oil fill tube. For a LONG TERM daily driver manifold, my personal preference is the 66-68 cast iron Q-jet manifold. It has NO provision for any of the later emissions/smog stuff (very clean manifold)
and it is a moderately good flowing manifold for daily street/driver use.
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/DZAUTO/0730814-R1-024-10A.jpg

My all time favorite performance manifold is the ORIGINAL Z28/LT1 alum hi-rise version. The 67-69 manifolds had the front hole for an oil fill tube. Although, the 69 manifolds had a welch plug installed in the hole (which is easily removed). All of the hi-perf 62-68 alum manifolds had an oil fill tube, but they were not as hi-rise as the Z28 intake.

This is the Z28 intake on the SB400 in my 70.
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/DZAUTO/Qjetw-plate.jpg

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/DZAUTO/100_1253.jpg

Correct, Tom and thanks. Mine looks a lot like the orange one in your picture. I'd like to put a higher rise manifold that was available in 65 so I don't lose the visual appeal of the orinal motor. I understand from Rich that the 300 HP 327 engine has the same manifold as the 250 so there wouldn't seem to be any performance advantage there.

I am guessing that a Z-28 manifold from 67 or later would not be correct, year-wise???

Chuck

Imho, the cast-iron 300hp/327 AFB intake is a dandy!

I honestly figure it is the best cast-iron intake there is up to the newer Marine cat-iron copy of the dual flanged Z-28 intake. It takes both square and spread-bore carb's if not mistaken. GM's darn proud of it b/c of what they sell for, in my book..

And if you want a period correct aluminum intake, but don't want to spend the $Bucks for the Z-28 jobber, then buy a good Holley 300-36!

pdq67

I was also told that the 300 HP engine came stock with the same manifold as the 250 but a bigger Q-Jet carb.

Thanks Paul. That's what I am looking for. Do you know the casting number of the 300hp AFB manifold?

CB

I was also told that the 300 HP engine came stock with the same manifold as the 250 but a bigger Q-Jet carb.

Q-jet carbs are both the same cfm on 250 and 300 horse engines. The difference in the two engines is the cylinder heads, valve size and the compression.

OK, thanks Jon. I was told both 250 and 300 were 10.5:1 and the difference was dual exhaust and a bigger carb. I would guess that a bigger carb without more flow is a little useless.

Chuck

The ONLY "hi-rise" alum intake (until the 67 Z28 intake) on FACTORY SBs were the 62-68 Hi-Perf engines (62-63 340hp/327, 64-65 365hp/327 and the 65-68 L79 hyd lifter 327s). The upper runners of all of the above manifolds had "squared off) runners, whereas the Z28/LT1 manifolds had rounded corners on the runners, which made them better flowing. Also, the original Z28/LT1 manifolds were the tallest alum SB FACTORY manifolds ever made (cast at Winters foundry).
The plenum area below the carb and the runners were the same on all 67-72 Z28/LT1 manifolds. But the 67-68 versions had a totally different configuration at the front/water passage/thermostat housing flange/oil fill tube hole. Why? Because up through 68, the alternator was on the "correct" side (left). Then, for 69 later cars, Chevy got stupid and moved the alternator over to the right side, thus, this required a change in the front of the manifold beginning with the 69 model because of the difference in the alternator upper adjusting brackets.
OK, OK, OK, so what was so stupid about moving the alternator over to the right side in 69?????????? NOTHING, UNLESS you have a car with FACTORY air cond!!!!!!!!! Ever tried to pull/replace/install an engine in a 69-later Chevelle (or other Chevys) with those air cond hoses crossing over the top front of the engine????????? Basically, it CANNOT be done without taking loose the air cond hose---------------------AND LOOSING ALL YOUR FREON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is one of those situations where I would literally like to have a PERSONAL FACE TO FACE visitation (OK, altercation) with the dumb @$$ engineer who made that change!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :angry::boxing::angry::boxing::angry:

Q-jet carbs are both the same cfm on 250 and 300 horse engines. The difference in the two engines is the cylinder heads, valve size and the compression.

I beg to differ. As you can see from the AMA Spec sheet for the '65 Chevelle 327 engines, the 250hp and 300hp engines use the same valve set up (thus the same heads) and cam and the 300hp engine has dual exhaust and a larger carb.

The valves/heads/cam:
http://heartland.chevelles.net/RCstorage/enginespecsheads.jpg

The carbs:
http://heartland.chevelles.net/RCstorage/enginespecscarbs.jpg

The exhaust:
http://heartland.chevelles.net/RCstorage/enginespecsexhaust.jpg


Also, calling the carbs used on these early engines Q-Jets isn't exactly accurate since the Quadrajet didn't come out until later (1966 I believe). The Rochester four barrels used in '65 I believe were call 4-Jets and look and work nothing at all like a Quadrajet. The 300hp engine used a Carter AFB.

Keep in mind, in the earlier days of the 327 it was considered a high performance engine across the board (and as such didn't appear in the trucks until years later) in all it's incarnations, thus the larger heads across the board.

"The upper runners of all of the above manifolds had "squared off) runners, whereas the Z28/LT1 manifolds had rounded corners on the runners, which made them better flowing. Also, the original Z28/LT1 manifolds were the tallest alum SB FACTORY manifolds ever made (cast at Winters foundry)."

This is why the Holley 300-36 is still a winner in my book even if Holley did can it!! And it is taller than the Z-28 intake if not mistaken.

I have a new one in my bedroom closet now, still in the box!

pdq67