Squeeks83

ok i got a 327 engine and a 350 block, and i was wondering what would be the CI if i tossed in a 327 crank into the 350 block, or does it have the same stroke?

DartByU

A 327 crank in a 350 block would be a 327!!! Both have the same factory bore size 4.00. The stroke is shorter on the 327 it's 3.25", the 350 has a 3.48 stroke.

ede

all 327 cranks except 68 were SJ and all 350 blocks are LJ so there's a very good chance the crank wouldn't fit your block. if it did you'd have a destroked 350 with 23 cubic inches of less potential than a 350.

jms

iTrader: (1)

1967 model year 327s were the last small-journal cranks.

Model years 1968 and 1969 327s used large journal cranks.

jms

Squeeks83

well i want to maybe destroke the 350 so it can rev, but it its just gonna turn it into a dam 327 then ill just build my 355 or 383. :lala:

ede

stroke has as about as much to do with the ability of an engine to "rev" as the color you paint the block with.

chevymad

Thought I'd allready told you that sparky?! The casting #'s on my 68 327 block and the early 350s are exactly the same.. probably even used the same block for 302s havent investigated in awhile. So if casting # is the same block is the same. All are 4" bore. Only place I know of that you can't tell the original bore from the casting # is on early 427s.. could be wrong though.. always exceptions.

Hawk92z-TDZ

#3970010....302.....69....4...Z-28 Camaro
#3970010....327.....69....2...Trucks and industrial
#3970010....350...69-80...2 or 4

They ran different cranks in all three

blacksheep-1

The 302 used a small journal 283 forged crank (actually all 283's were small journal). We used to race the crap out of those small journal steel-crank 327 engines. They ran so well that when the 350's came out, we thought they were junk. I had one in my street car that I would routinely take to 7,200 rpm, it never missed a beat.

zippy

i agree ede, if you can't get a 355 to turn as many rpm as a 331, you're doing something wrong.

blacksheep-1

I think the 327's had the great reputation as winders because they came stock (or at least 90% did) with the small journal forged steel cranks and fairly light rods. You'd have to purchase a forged steel crank for the 350, or be very lucky to fall into one.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Only in '67.

blacksheep-1

those engines were few and far between, in 1970 the SCCA upped the displacement to 350 cubic inch. Although it may be true that some 302's had large journal cranks, every,and there have only been 3, 302's that I've ever seen has been small journal. GM probably knew it would be a small production run and produced all that they figured that they would use. I've never seen or heard of a large journal 283, which is the crank used in the 327 block, to make the 302.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

There was no large-journal 283, true. In '68 & '69, however, they made 3" stroke large journal cranks for the 302s. FWIW, the 302 I had was asssembled from a 327 block (SJ), 283 crank (SJ), and 302 pistons.

We go through this all too often. How high an engine revs is related more to the way it breathes than to its stroke. Someday, we'll get that message across.

Well, spark has something to do with it, too. The points in the distributor I had on the 302 would start bouncing at 6000 RPMs, but my current 305 w/upgraded HEI will rev to 6300 without complaint.

Squeeks83

no because of the longers stroke of the 355, 350, or 357, it can only rev up to about 6k or just under, while ive seen a 327 take it well over 6k on the dyno, so they ARE completly different engines with these seperate cranks.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

You aren't listening.

You can easily build a 383 for 7k RPM operation. It takes a valve train and ignition that can handle it. The cam has to be designed for that range, as does the intake. The bottom end will have to be strong enough to handle the stress. But, just because it has a 1/2" longer stroke than a 327 doesn't mean it can't rev past 6000 RPMs.

I have a racer buddy with a '57 Nomad & 383. He shifts at 6200, goes through the traps at 6500. When he visits Pomona, he still shifts at 6200, but goes through the traps at 7200. He's been running that engine for 8 seasons now.

I saw a dragster at Bandimere this weekend with nitrous 355 that revs to 9000 RPMs.

What makes engines "completely different", as you described it, are things such as cam, heads, intake, etc. You could have the same 327, one time with an RV cam and Performer intake that won't let it rev above 5000 RPMs, and the next with a solid roller monster cam & tunnel ram that pulls to 8000 RPMs - the stroke isn't what dictates how high an engine will rev.

Period.

zippy

best example for long stroke high rpm applications is sprint cars. 400 plus cubic inch small blocks that will turn 8k plus.

blacksheep-1

Back in the day when everyone could afford to run pro-stock(1969-1970) We had a 427 with aluminum heads that would launch at 10,500, and that with chevy (hi-perf) rods. Really, any sbc should turn 6,000 and that would only be restricted by valve float.

Air_Adam

The ONLY reason that some engines "rev better" than others is just like Five7 said - breathing - let me explain a little more...

A 350ci engine and a 302ci engine are built with all the same parts (not in reality, but for comparison sake). The 350 seems to run outta steam by 6000rpm and the 302 keeps going untill 7000rpm. Why? The the 350 and the 302 have the same breathing capacity (same parts remember) but the 302 has less cylinder to fill than the 350 does. THAT is what is rpm limitting. And back in the '60s, most of the hi-performance small blocks were built with basically the same parts, from 302s to 327s to 350s. That is why the smaller 302 and 327 have an inaccurate reputation of being high winding engines, while the 350 is a low revving stump puller.

Five7 is exactly right in what he said.

blacksheep-1

I wasn't arguing with 57, we were discussing relatively stock engines. Don't take it out of context, although your theory is a good one concerning cylinder filling any engine builder knows that the true factor limmiting rpm potential is the cubic inch to cubic dollar ratio.

Air_Adam

I never said you were.. I was simply expanding on what he was saying.. and yes, $$$ is the main limitting factor, lol

RBob

iTrader: (1)

I've passed on by this discussion a couple of times. . . There are some things that are not being taken into consideration. In the realm of SBC's the sorter stroke engines have an advantage in rod/stroke ratio. This has the effect of less side loading on the pistons skirts with the resultant lower fricton. (as Smokey says 'put the longest possible rod in the engine').

Another consideration of a shorter stroke is the fact that the piston speed is slower. Slower is less friction.

The above two lead to a longer lasting engine, good for the street.

When speaking of the 283, 302, & 327, many were made with small journal cranks. This means smaller diameter rod & mains bearing ID. Again, less friction.

Add up all of the 'less frictions' and you have an engine that will rev quicker and higher then one with 'more friction'.

RBob.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

So use synthetic oil already. Reduces friction more and is a lot cheaper than building a handicapped smaller-displacement engine.

You like small bearings? Use Honda rods, even smaller bearings than small journal SBCs.

How about that reduced-friction LS-1? And it's stroke is what compared to a 4" bore 350?

RBob

iTrader: (1)

I already use synthetic oil.

Rods are too short, remember the R/S ratio I mentioned?

And?

You are missing the point. There is a difference between a street engine that gets a lot of miles and has enough power to hold its own, and an engine designed for an all-out racing purpose.

Even in all-out racing look at NASCAR engines, large bore, long rods and short stroke, hmmm. . .

RBob.

F-BIRD'88

Destroking a 350 will not make it "rev" higher.
the rev limit of an engine is limited by its valvetrain (valve float) not the crank stroke.

You're going to spend a lot of money for nothing.

If you want your 350 to "rev" get some good heads and a big cam with the matching high rpm valvetrain.
Then get some gear and a high stall converter for your car, cause you'll need it.

blacksheep-1

Good discussions, but in my opinion the 3 greatest (stock) SBC revvers are...Ta Da The 302 Z28 engine with the small journal crank, The 327 with the small journal crank, and then the 365h/p 350.
there are several reasons for this, one of course is the stock valvetrain, heads and etc, but it seesm to me the combination of parts is what made these engines legendary, not one particular item, remove that one part and you end up with just another engine.
Two other items, the 307 engine that evryone hates, found it's way into a lot of lightweight injected drag cars because of it's mid range characteristics, why, I don't know, it just worked for them, and the NASCAR engines are built to a rule, so I would be careful using that example, as they are built specific for h/p, longevity and mileage(in some cases). A case in point would be a somewhat bizarre engine combination of a 400 sbc, 305 L69 heads and a 350/350 HP cam. This particular engine dominated the stock class at the short tracks for years, and it makes a great street motor (for some reason) in a heavy car. Again, it's the combination.
But... money conquers all....

Vader

Hey, Ede... Where are you getting your High RPM enamel these days? I need to resupply.

Vader

So, let me get this straight. That 735" Merlin BBC with a 4-3/4" stroke really isn't revving at 10,500 RPM like the tach says on those 5-second runs?

racereno

This one is more interesting than you think...

Many of the top NHRA Pro Stock racers are using rods with small journal sizes like 1.888" (with bearings from Honda or the Quad-4 Olds) for lower friction! I believe GRP has some of these rods.

Psudokiller

the high performance 327 corvette and camaro engines where installed with the 30-30 duntov cam which was a mechanical camshaft, the 302 was also installed with a mechanical camshaft, no 302 EVER had a hydraulic, the 350 however was almost never installed with a MECHANICAL camshaft, the factor limiting the 350 from reving above 6k is hydraulic lifter bleed, the hydraulic lifters actually will not properly "pump up" at higher than 6k rpm, another limiting factor is the TYPE of crank, NOT the stroke, the 327 was NEVER installed with a cast crank (to my knowledge) and neither was the 302, however most 350s in existence where factory cast iron crankshafts, yet another factor is type of pistons and rods, all 302 engines had forged rods and pistons, as did the high perf 327, most 350s came with cast iron rods and cast aluminum pistons, at high rpm the weaker cast metal will actually break due to stress, most notably at the rod bolts or piston pin, the smaller engines DO rev higher, but not due to cylinder volume, but due to build material and type of parts used

vetteoz

iTrader: (13)

08-16-2003

Why bring back a 10 YEAR OLD thread just to prove you know something

Porkky

ya but a 3.25 stroke revs quicker and requires less $ to achieve higher revs in the valvetrain,yes or no

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

That would be a no on both counts.

The valve train is ENTIRELY independent of the stroke. Non-related.

There is no material difference in the "rev quicker" aspect of a 350 (3.48" stroke) vs 327 (3.25" stroke), as has already been thoroughly discussed in this thread from 2003.

Please let this old thread return to the dead and rest in peace. No need register as a new user, and on your VERY FIRST POST, necro a bunch of blabbermouth about Friday night McDonalds parking lot monkey-spank that's not true to begin with.

moocha

WILL THE 68-69 327 2 BOLT LG CRANK FIT A 350 4 BOLT LG BLOCK SAME CASTINGS 3970010.? WANT A 327 4 BOLT MAIN ! PEOPLE TELL ME THEY HAD ONE BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN ONE NOT EVEN IN BOOKS!

NoEmissions84TA

iTrader: (1)

Yes, it will bolt in. So will the connecting rods. But the pistons are different - they have different compression heights due to the difference in stroke.
Please end this thread NOW.

x55Cam

Nah, lets keep it going - discussions about engines , especially mix/matching is intriguing. Chevy's engineers "engine-uity" decision into placing a 283 crank in a 327 block for trams-am racing allowed for a quick-to-the-race-track bang for the buck solution.

I'm in the process of building a 302 that will go into a 68 Camaro Z28 clone - mostly old school - a 3914678 block was used for the 1968 Z/28 - large journal version. But using Trickflow 'double hump' heads..

It will put out more HP compared to the stock version - will have 11:1 CR but strictly nostalgia/basting around town kinda car.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

Mixing/matching involving 327s & 350s has been discussed TO DEATH, by your GRANDPARENTS. No need to bring it back to life.

There is NO benefit to a 327 over a 350. You spend more, to get less. (about 23 less, give or take) It's called using your own money to shoot yourself in the shorts.

You do you if you absolutely must. Too bad you're doing this though; it'd cost the same, MAYBE LESS, to build that 350 block into a 383. Then, you'd be getting about 33 MORE than a 350, instead of 23 LESS. Much better use of money. Building a 327 in 2021 is about like going to the grocery store and seeing that T-bone is $15 a pound and sirloin is $12; and giving the butcher $15 for half a pound of sirloin because you want to be "different". Deliberately spend MORE to deliberately get LESS.

And yes I well remember the original "301" (that's what we called it before GM called it 302 in their Trans Am homologues). I also well remember when, in 1970, the Z28 came out with a 350 that was otherwise identical to the 302, and got WWWWWAAAAAAAAYYYYYY more power, especially USEFUL power, out of it. It had NOT ONLY more power, BUT ALSO, more torque. ALOT more. For what factory "ratings" are worth, which is not bloody much, the 302 was "rated" at 290 HP, and the otherwise identical 350 "rating" was 360 HP. Should tell you a little something about cubic inches.

"Nostalgia" and "numbers matching" are a thing all their own, not related to "get more", I realize. However, the 68 Z28 didn't come with a 327 ANYWAY; it came with a 302, and a 302 ONLY. Making a 327 to "clone" one isn't "original" or anything else. That's the kind of thing we all did in the 70s before 350s became cheeeep and widely available. (since after all, it takes acoupla years for a newly introduced engine to make it into the boneyards in any significant numbers) I think by 1977 or 78, we had all quit building 327s, because the people who were building otherwise identical 350s were WAXING THE FLOOR WITH OUR BUTTS.

Please let this thread DIE like it ought to.

NoEmissions84TA

iTrader: (1)

I will sell you my 302. Been there - done that.
It's still on the cradle and never made it into a vehicle.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

The one and only reason for 302: Rules.

And rules are made to slow people down, not speed them up.

x55Cam

Wow , I certainly rattled a few members here , fwiw, I was not contesting whether the 302 was any better or worse or whatever the purpose compared to a 350.

SOFAKINDOM, to your comment about a 1970 350 z28 - I have a 1968, what is the point? Did I mention my car was a 1968 ? Did I say the 1968 Z28 came with a 327? No, it was a de-stroked 678 block. The 302/327/350 used a 678 block -- understand what this means? It means that for me to clone I need a 678 block. Why bring up a 1970? To show your intelligence? Are you insulted?......geez chill out bro. I also have an IROC 5.7 that is slower than a snails rear, but do I care about that more than what it stands for? The stock 68 302 will run circles around an IROC 5.7 on a 1/4 mile , but that is not the point.

To NoEmission, appreciate the offer but no thanks - the heads on those versions left a lot to be desired. But, if yours is an MO block, they are worth good $$.

To QwkTrip , yes very true - just like Canadian Players Challenge restrictions when areas of the motor had to be marked to insure it wasn't tampered with. At that time , and back in '67 it was what it was.

To all here that seem to be in some sort of snit about this thread, if it bothers you just ignore it. Simple - skip over it - it seems like it struck a nerve for some reason about why we should all poo-poo 302's and 327's and put 350/383/400 small blocks in our cars and call it a day. Wow, exciting.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

No, you didn't rattle ANYBODY.

This topic comes up from time to time, almost invariably by someone that says they're gonna "try" "something different". The real deal is, it's NOT different, it's NOT unique, it's NOT inventive, NOT creative, NOT interesting, and it's NOT "trying". It's a path that MANY people have been down before, and those of us WHO WERE THERE, and have been down that path, are trying to tell you where it leads, because WE KNOW. We don't have to "try".

And NO, those old 60s cars WEREN'T as fast as imagination makes them out to be. Here's some track times somebody collected from old magazines. Granted, these were with the crappy tires they had back then, but still. The trap mph tells you ALOT.

Motor Trend 1966.
1966 Chevy II 275HP 327 Power Glide with 3.08's.
16.4 @ 85.87 MPH.
--------------------------------------------------
Car Life 1970
1970 Nova 300HP 350 TH350 3.07's
16.5 @ 85.0 MPH.
--------------------------------------------------
Motor Trend 1971.
1971 Nova 245HP 350 TH350 with 2.56's
17.20 @ 81.89 MPH.
--------------------------------------------------
Hot Rod Magazine 1967.
1967 Camaro SS 295HP 350 4Speed M20 with 3.55's.
14.85 @ 95.65 MPH.
--------------------------------------------------
Car Life 1967.
1967 Camaro SS 295HP 350 4 speed M20 with 3.55's.
15.8 @ 89.00 MPH.
--------------------------------------------------
Road and Track 1970.
1970 Camaro 300 HP 350 TH350 with 3.07's.
16.6 @ 86.00 MPH.
--------------------------------------------------
Motor Trend 1972.
1972 Camaro 165 HP 350 TH350 with 2.73's.
18.5 @ 79 MPH
--------------------------------------------------
Road and Track 1967.
1967 Corvette 300HP 327 Powerglide with 3.36's.
16.0 @ 86.5 MPH.
-----------------------------------------------
Car Life 1968.
1968 Chevelle 275HP 327 Powerglide with 3.36's.
16.8 @ 82 MPH.
-------------------------------------------------
Road and Track 1971.
1971 Chevelle 270 HP 350 TH350 with 3.31's
16.9 @ 82 MPH.
-------------------------------------------------

Comparatively speaking, a stock IROC with 350 and the lesser gears (2.7x) is about a low 15 second car, maybe 15.2 or 15.3; and a G92 one is somewhere around 14.8 or so. So, yeah...

I have no dog in this hunt, other than, to be sensible and realistic about the things I QUIT DOING all those years ago because I got tired of getting my a$$ beat. I certainly don't consider deliberately going back to LOSING by spending extra money, "exciting". If that's your idea of excitement, I pity you. It's your money, do with it as you like, and you don't have to be concerned in the least about what I say, or about any other good advice based on EXEPERIENCE, either. It wouldn't be "interesting" I don't suppose.

Enjoy. Come back and tell us about it AFTER you've done it, and you're feeling glad you did it that way, and happy you spent all that money on that particular result. All we ask is, be honest when the time comes.

x55Cam

Ho-hum to all that nonsensical ranting - this thread was doing fine until you came along with your holier than though BS about knocking those don't agree with your narrative. If you read my FIRST post , there was no mention about racing or blowing someone's doors off. I was trying to stay on topic as what the thread was about and to appreciate what the OP was discussing. I didn't renew this thread, it popped up, I read it, posted a thought and just took it for what it was.

As to your comment : "NOT different, it's NOT unique, it's NOT inventive, NOT creative, NOT interesting, and it's NOT "trying", 26 years ago I THOUGHT the same thing about those that dropped 350's 383's and 400 SBC's in their 3rd gens - boooring... so, I purchased an '88 Camaro SC with a 60 deg V6 multiple-port - chucked the motor and dropped in a brand new Chevy HO 454 crate motor from Apple Chevrolet. And I did it not to be the fastest hoo-dad on the block. Just wanted to be different. I had no intention of wasting my gas racing 383's or 400's. It was just something I had to do to be different. This was way before 'thirdgen.org' formed.

I joined this website to share experiences and knowledge. Whatever the topic, we should all respect everyone's thoughts and interests about the sport/hobby we are here for. What has changed?

To this day we're still hearing about car-buffs dropping in 383's and 400's or juicing up 350's in their cars - I call that boring, but do you hear me ranting about dropping the thread or to 'move on'?

You are in some type of mood - looking for an argument? Who kicked your dog? I'm done.

Fast355

iTrader: (2)

My 383 has ZERO problems turning 6,200 rpm. It peaks about 5,800 rpm but has turned to the 6,200 fuel kill a few times on accident (overshot the shift points while tuning the 4L85E) and it is definately still holding on making power up at that rpm.

Cubes are king, wish I had built a Dart SHP block 415 or 427 instead of the 383​​​​​​ because who doesn't need 600 ft/lbs in a daily driven van.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

The good parts available today have made rpm limitations a non-factor for most street cars. How high you spin it really just comes down to how much drivability you're willing to lose, and how much power the block will take. Big cubes is the answer to drivability + power.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Yeah, I get it. You've already been there, done that, want to do something else. This time it's a 327. Next time it'll be..... ???.... not what you've already done.

I think Sofakingdom is aiming his message at people that haven't tried things yet and they think 327 is some kind of magic path to performance. It's not. It's weak sauce in today's world. For somebody that wants results for their $$$, go as big as you can afford.

ironwill

LMAO @ the pissing matches these ancient 'engine' threads always turn into.



Carry on.............................

Bowtieornotie

your honesty gonna say a 350 355 or 357 cant rev as high as a 327 lmmfao ive seen some nasty *** 355s turning 7&up ill message my buddy an see if he still has the video of his engine

Tuned Performance

iTrader: (92)

You’re responding to someone who hasn’t logged on since 05. Don’t think anyone cares about bringing up a dead thread.