I've got the original 327 block out of my 66 that I'm planning on rebuilding and putting back in the car. What's the most cubes and stroke you guys are getting out of these? I want to squeeze as much power as I possibly can out of this thing while still looking like a stock 327.
max stroke in original 327 block
mb66l79
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
I've got the original 327 block out of my 66 that I'm planning on rebuilding and putting back in the car. What's the most cubes and stroke you guys are getting out of these? I want to squeeze as much power as I possibly can out of this thing while still looking like a stock 327.
Joined
·
2,739 Posts
As far as "look like 327", a 400 with a 4" crank (427, or 434 w .030" overbore) will do a mighty fine job of that.
There aren't alot of small journal parts, of ANY kind, available any more... people mostly quit building stuff like that a long time ago. Since all SBCs pretty much look the same from the outside, and cubic inches act like an amplifier for your money, it doesn't make alot of sense to try to go fast with an engine that's smaller than what it could be. Think of it this way:
Fun = CID x $$$$
For any given amount of Fun, the more CID you start with, the less $$$$ it takes. (to a point of course) Or, for any given amount of Fun, the less CID, the more $$$$ it takes. Or, for any given amount of $$$$, the more CID you have, then the more Fun you get. Pretty simple really.
I think you can probably figure out a few more interrelationships among those 3 quantities. Once you do all that math, stroking a small-journal block doesn't make as much sense as it might have used to.
There aren't alot of small journal parts, of ANY kind, available any more... people mostly quit building stuff like that a long time ago. Since all SBCs pretty much look the same from the outside, and cubic inches act like an amplifier for your money, it doesn't make alot of sense to try to go fast with an engine that's smaller than what it could be. Think of it this way:
Fun = CID x $$$$
For any given amount of Fun, the more CID you start with, the less $$$$ it takes. (to a point of course) Or, for any given amount of Fun, the less CID, the more $$$$ it takes. Or, for any given amount of $$$$, the more CID you have, then the more Fun you get. Pretty simple really.
I think you can probably figure out a few more interrelationships among those 3 quantities. Once you do all that math, stroking a small-journal block doesn't make as much sense as it might have used to.
I knew a guy who had one that was 4.060 x 3.50. that's like 361 or something. It was a welded up stroker crank, used 350 pistons. It was a small journal with the 11/32" 327 rod bolts. He ran it pretty hard, but not often. With modern parts you could do that, use SJ 6" rods and modern lightweight piston. Problem is those early heads, totally obsolete as far any air flow goes.
Joined
·
1,672 Posts
This is Genius! You should get a Noble Prize for this. Fun is directly proportional to both cubic inches and dollars......:yes:Fun = CID x $$$$
For any given amount of Fun, the more CID you start with, the less $$$$ it takes. (to a point of course) Or, for any given amount of Fun, the less CID, the more $$$$ it takes. Or, for any given amount of $$$$, the more CID you have, then the more Fun you get. Pretty simple really.
Steve O.
Joined
·
7,226 Posts
RB nails it again.
Joined
·
277 Posts
Sounds like a hard-sell pitch for a Sonny Leonard "Mountain Motor".it doesn't make alot of sense
to try to go fast with an engine
that's smaller than what it could be.
Fun = CID x $$$$
the more CID you have,
then the more Fun you get.
Pretty simple really.
Lots of various interpretations for what makes sense, for what money can buy, for what constitutes fun and for what cubes are preferred.
:beers:
Joined
·
277 Posts
How about a nice little (stroked 327) 377 engine, putting out 616 HP at around 6500? :yes:
From almost fifty years ago:
http://www.racingicons.com/gs/power.htm
Joined
·
2,739 Posts
The key here is this:
Do the same things, for the same today-equivalent dollars, to a 400 block, you'd come out with nearer 800 HP.
Given that simple fact, explain how it would EVER be a good idea to resurrect that old small-journal build. Let's say it would take, in 2011, $20,000 (just to pluck a # from the air... doesn't too much matter what the actual # is) to build that 616 HP motor; but for THE SAME $20,000, you could have 800 HP instead, with less risk and less effort. How is it a good idea to build the 616 HP version?
So you go to the grocery store, right... you're standing there at the meat counter, you've got $5 to spend, and you see steak for $5 a pound let's say. You decide, yeah steak looks mighty fine tonight, I'll get some... but I'm "different", and besides I remember how 50 years ago I had some steak and it wasn't very big but it was good, so I'm going to spend my $5 on some steak, but I'll tell em to only give me ¾ of a pound, just because that's what I had 50 years ago and so I can show everybody how "different" I can be. That's smart, eh? Different? I'd say, yes, that's different; "short bus" different, specifically. How is it any different building a motor?
Now if for some reason you HAVE TO USE your "numbers matching" block, like for class rules or some such, that'd be one thing; but if all you want to do is go fast while still running a small block, that's economic suicide.
The reason they did what they did 50 years ago, was because that was ALL THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME. They did what they could do with what they had to do it with at the time. They DIDN'T HAVE any 4.125" blocks already clearanced for a 3.75" stroke from the factory like we do today.
Do the same things, for the same today-equivalent dollars, to a 400 block, you'd come out with nearer 800 HP.
Given that simple fact, explain how it would EVER be a good idea to resurrect that old small-journal build. Let's say it would take, in 2011, $20,000 (just to pluck a # from the air... doesn't too much matter what the actual # is) to build that 616 HP motor; but for THE SAME $20,000, you could have 800 HP instead, with less risk and less effort. How is it a good idea to build the 616 HP version?
So you go to the grocery store, right... you're standing there at the meat counter, you've got $5 to spend, and you see steak for $5 a pound let's say. You decide, yeah steak looks mighty fine tonight, I'll get some... but I'm "different", and besides I remember how 50 years ago I had some steak and it wasn't very big but it was good, so I'm going to spend my $5 on some steak, but I'll tell em to only give me ¾ of a pound, just because that's what I had 50 years ago and so I can show everybody how "different" I can be. That's smart, eh? Different? I'd say, yes, that's different; "short bus" different, specifically. How is it any different building a motor?
Now if for some reason you HAVE TO USE your "numbers matching" block, like for class rules or some such, that'd be one thing; but if all you want to do is go fast while still running a small block, that's economic suicide.
Joined
·
277 Posts
The link to the GS Corvette was provided for its relevance to the thread topic of a "stroked 327" and its historical interest, not as a blueprint.
Just as in an earlier post , there are various individual conceptions of "go fast" and how "going fast" is achieved.
The "one right way" is impossible as there are too many individual variables that go into any one person's project & goals.
If, as postulated, money alone was the controlling determinant variable in hot rodding, the entire performance, muscle car and automotive enthusiast
industry would collapse.
No financial advisor or investment banker would ever recommend participation in this hobby, but you spend your money and you make
your choices, for your own individual reasons, to please yourself.
That's just individual differences.
FYI: The reference & use of the "short bus" term, as an illustrative effort
and/or mocking slur (from its association with handicapped children) is
very hurtful to a lot of great parents, teachers and children.
Once again, all children & all adults have individual differences.
The difference here is some differences are not individual choices.
Joined
·
2,739 Posts
Sure, I don't dispute the "historical" value of things like that.
OTOH, at one time people threw stuff at and then tried to tackle their dinner as it ran by, just to slow it down enough to take a bite. Just because that was how it was done at one time doesn't mean that it's the best way to do it, now.
The money thing, and getting the most possible for it, is a critical point about hot-rodding. We all want to go faster, but it's not "necesary", in the sense that food clothing & shelter type things are... or even, basic transportation. It is therefore CRITICAL that we get whatever it takes to satisfy the "itch", for as little $$$$ as practical; or conversely, to take some allotted $$$$, and get as much satisfaction as practical for it. Stroking small motors doesn't pass that test. While there may be many ways to "go fast", spending gobs of money on something that gets beat by others who spent ALOT less, doesn't isn't one of the "right" ones, even if at one time that particular way was effective. That's what I'm trying to help this gentleman (or lady? doesn't matter) avoid.
OTOH, at one time people threw stuff at and then tried to tackle their dinner as it ran by, just to slow it down enough to take a bite. Just because that was how it was done at one time doesn't mean that it's the best way to do it, now.
The money thing, and getting the most possible for it, is a critical point about hot-rodding. We all want to go faster, but it's not "necesary", in the sense that food clothing & shelter type things are... or even, basic transportation. It is therefore CRITICAL that we get whatever it takes to satisfy the "itch", for as little $$$$ as practical; or conversely, to take some allotted $$$$, and get as much satisfaction as practical for it. Stroking small motors doesn't pass that test. While there may be many ways to "go fast", spending gobs of money on something that gets beat by others who spent ALOT less, doesn't isn't one of the "right" ones, even if at one time that particular way was effective. That's what I'm trying to help this gentleman (or lady? doesn't matter) avoid.
What I would like to do is be able to open the hood and have it look original, for the most part, while still getting as much performance out of it as I can. I figure since I have the original block I may as well use it. The other thing is that I want to keep the closed PCV system so I can use the correct valve covers without cutting holes in them.
I know someone that has taken one of these blocks, had the mains bored to a large journal, and stroked it to 383, so the small journals are not an issue. I would like to go further than this but am concerned about clearance issues, which is why I'm wondering what others have been able to do.
I'm much less concerned about the economics and cost as the enjoyment I will get will be worth it.
So has anyone gone beyond a 3.75" stroke in one of these blocks?
I know someone that has taken one of these blocks, had the mains bored to a large journal, and stroked it to 383, so the small journals are not an issue. I would like to go further than this but am concerned about clearance issues, which is why I'm wondering what others have been able to do.
I'm much less concerned about the economics and cost as the enjoyment I will get will be worth it.
So has anyone gone beyond a 3.75" stroke in one of these blocks?
>>> "had the mains bored to a large journal, and stroked it to 383"
Wow, you see this build with your own eyes? What did they do about the rear main seal? cut new bearing tang notches too? main bores going to be close the main bolt holes. This kinda sounds like somebody with too much time and money on their hands, re-inventing the wheel.
In general, I'd avoid getting a lot of time and money invested in this type of one-off pointless build. Likely it's going to be building up some serious garage time.
Wow, you see this build with your own eyes? What did they do about the rear main seal? cut new bearing tang notches too? main bores going to be close the main bolt holes. This kinda sounds like somebody with too much time and money on their hands, re-inventing the wheel.
In general, I'd avoid getting a lot of time and money invested in this type of one-off pointless build. Likely it's going to be building up some serious garage time.
i only wish i had the original motor/396 in my case that belongs in my 66. that said. it would be setting in the corner of the garage sealed up for safe keeping. buy a 350 4 bolt main, and build the 383 you mentioned. i'd save that 327 for the value of your car.
buy a 350 4 bolt main, and build the 383 you mentioned. i'd save that 327 for the value of your car.
Yep best all round thing to do ...........set of iron aftermarket heads old style intake with breather tube ......paint it all chevy orange use the valve covers etcetc other than a block stamp it will look identical if attention to those stock details are folowed plus a stong 383 / 406 will be pretty stout street car
Yep best all round thing to do ...........set of iron aftermarket heads old style intake with breather tube ......paint it all chevy orange use the valve covers etcetc other than a block stamp it will look identical if attention to those stock details are folowed plus a stong 383 / 406 will be pretty stout street car
Check with member DZAUTO, he has a 57 Vette with a 406 done like this. I think he internally balanced at least the front end of the crank so he could run the tiny little 283 balancer. IIRC it's Rochester original F.I. and runs pretty good.
Joined
·
520 Posts
The problem with using a 68 and newer block is the hole beside the distributor that allows for the PCV system without having to go into the valve covers. I believe that is what the original poster is looking for, using original vintage correct valve covers. A 67 SS350 Camaro block would be the best answer, but that too may not be cheap.......if you can find one.
Did the 66 still have that road draft tube hole in block , if so yes the later block wont work
Yes, it has the road draft tube hole. Steve67L-79 is also correct on my intentions about the PCV system and valve covers.
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
