Well here it is. I was debating on a 383 for the Z, after putting a 327 in my S-10 I'm rethinking it. I'm thinking of using my factory block, and put in a 327 crank. I have heard of the kit that converts the older style crank to fit the one peice rear main block. So far I havent found any info on the kit yet, but I'm looking. The whole point is to retain the roller cam feature of the factory block. The 327 in my Blazer is a non-roller with stamped rockers and its an animal. I'm shifting it at 6500 RPM, and It still wants more. So with that in mind, with the HSR, and AFR's the Z ought to fly. Anyway constructive comments welcomed.

 

If the 3.25 stroke crank that you're planning on using is a lg journal, an adapter can be used for the 2pc seal crank in a 1 pc seal block.
I bought a Cat one from Dynoflow, it's at least $60 cheaper than the others @ about $25.
Cat is an alum casting, and others like GMPP or Moroso are billet I believe, that would account for the price diff.
The Cat one seems to be perfectly adequate.

 

Thanks for the info, I wasnt having much luck. You near woodburn?

 

No replacement for displacement, the 327 has a cool factor to it, but in reality if built using the same parts the 350 or a 383 will smoke a 327 everytime. All three will rev to 6500 but using a hyd.roller you will need a light weight and costly valvetrain and maybe a rev. kit to get to 6500 without valve float, thats VERY bad with roller cams.

 

Northern Cal.
Never heard of Woodburn, unless you're talking about what's in the fireplace Then yes it's good to be near woodburn right now, it's cold and wet out there.

 

I thought you were farther north. Local track is in woodburn,Or. So you are using the adapter?

 

I have one, but the engine it's going into isn't running yet.
All the machined surfaces on it look right, I doubt that there will be any problems.
I'm glad to have found one for such a reasonable price.
I have a couple 327s. I had the parts around so I couldn't see not using them. I'm happy with them. I just found out the hard way that my engine wants more rpms than the valvetrain is good for though.

 

Hang on a second. There were at least 3- 4in bore blocks. The early small journal 302 and 327 engines had (for the most part )forged steel cranks These engines have pretty much all evaporated for 2 reasons, 1- They were of the less nickel, "softer" blocks and have all been bored to or past .060.
2- They were last made in about 68-69 which is 35 years ago. IMO These were the absolute best SBChevies ever made, in stock form with a soilid lifter cam and decent valve springs these (2 or 4 bolt main) engines would turn 7 grand all day long.
After that the 4in bore block had large journal crankshafts, these later engines were almost all cast crank engines. There were a few large journal 327's out there, (I owned one) but they have no advantage over the 350. (sort of like the 305 vs 350 debate)
The later 4 in bore blocks had 2 piece rear main seals on them.
You can buy an adaptor to interchange 1 and 2 piece cranks and blocks.
You can also buy bearings that will allow you to run a small journal crank in a large journal engine, but most builders shy away from these since they can be problematic. Besides, the small journal cranks are all over 35 years old as well.
I just threw out my last small journal 327 core, It was .030 and some jackass honed the crap out of it, went with oversize rings and then knurled the pistons. When I undid the rod bolts, the piston assembly just fell out of the bore. It wouldn't go .060 even, so off to the scrapheep in the sky.
I too would like to build a 327 or 302, but without discovering a virgin (small journal) block and crank somewhere, it's probably not going to happen.

 

Small journal 327's were made from 1962 to 1967. The small journal 302 was a 1967-only event.

Large journal 302's & 327's were 1968 & 1969. I, too, had a 327 version; it wiped out a bearing while being asked to sustain 4500 RPM operation for about one mile.

It was replaced with a .060"-over small journal 327 block that had a 283 steel crank. Tweaky to the max, no guts below 2500 RPMs (solid lifter cam and single plane intake).

A 327 has a real advantage over a 305, but no particular advantage over a 350. Going from 383 to anything with a shorter stroke is a sure way to reduce power and/or driveability.

 

Really no point in taking away cubes, its just costing power.

 

RPMs are worth de stroking. To many people here only think of real 1/4 mile track number. On the street the 327 kills. Same reason they use to love them old 302s, they could turn 7000+ all day long.

RPMsXGears=Fun

Same thing that makes crotch rockets fun. 14000Rs n 6 speeds.

 

Wishing it was so won't make it so.

It takes the same thing to get a 327 to rev to 7000 RPMs as it takes to get a 350 to rev to 7000 RPMs as it takes to get a 302 to rev to 7000 RPMs as it takes to get a 305 to rev to 7000 RPMs. There are mainly two things involved - valve train, and rods that will hang in there.

The stroke has very, very little to do with that.

I had a 302 (as mentioned above), with "old school" technologies from the early 70's. It would rev to 6000 RPMs before things started petering out. I never really figured out if it was the ignition (points) dying, or the 12.5:1 domed pistons killing flame travel. But, it was a fun "street warrior" - as long as I didn't have to take off from a standing start. However, my current 305 will rev higher than that 302 would, without complaint. Or the 327, for that matter.

Enough of the war stories and rose-colored memories. In truth, it really wasn't all that great back then.

 

I looked at some interesting DD figures last wk, comparing a 327 to a 350 to a 383, using the same cam, heads and CR.
Yeh... I know it's only DD, but it was interesting nonetheless.
The cam used was a Comp XR274R-12, AFR 195 heads, 10.5:1 CR
So FWIW...

They all produced peak TQ @ 4500
(383) 478
(350) 456
(327) 430
and that spread was consistent at all rpms below peak.

Above peak TQ the spread narrowed however.
The HP peak was
(383) 461@5500
(350) 456@6000
(327) 450@6250

At 6000 all three were within +or- 3 lb/ft of 452 lb/ft

At 7000 the shorter stroke motors out torqued the longer stroke ones.
(383) 353
(350) 418
(327) 432
And that torque spread widened up the RPM scale.

What's that tell you?
Well, if you choose to believe it... A shorter stroke motor is for you if you want a flatter TQ curve above 6000.

Disclaimer: It's just DD, but it's food for thought.
Take it or leave it.

 

I wasnt looking for do it or dont debate. I was just kicking around an idea, and wanted to see how hard it was. I like to hear from the people that use the products, as apposed to the people that sell them. I thought about it today at work and decided to do the 383. I would be giving up too much torque if I did the 327, in comparision to the 383. Anyway thanks for the input.

 

With the same parts different stroke (size) engines have about the exact same peak hp potential. Of course the shorter stroke smaller engines wil make it at a much higher rpm. The opposite is true about torque though, the longer the stroke the more torque you will have, the shorter the less torque. Its easy to see that the bigger, larger stroke engine has the clear advantage.

 

dp

 

Turning 7k all day long has NOTHING to do with the stroke. Its all about the valvetrain. Any engine can be built to turn 7k all day long.

 

We go through this every time it comes up. It was very great back then having a 56 chevy station wagon that would run in the 13's with a 327, dual quads, 4speed and 5.13 gears.
Anyway, you guys do what you have to, I'll stick with Bill Jenkins and Smokey Yunick.

 

I'd like to do a 302 one of these days just for freak factor and uniqueness. I heard that the aftermarket crank companies can provide a 3 inch stroke crank that'll go into a 350 block without having to modify anything.

Also on the wish list would be longer rods and a solid cam... oh yeah!!



Fun stuff.

 

If you go along the line of anything can be built.

Why even use a Chevy engine???
Much much better engines can be built then a poor mans chevy.

A 12 cyl Lambo engine is better. Jet turbin is even better.
That is if you follow the lines that anything can be built.

Casue you can then build an adapter to match up anything.

Some of the funniest car I have ever taken a ride in were 327 cars.

 

I dont doubt that. But, the concept is, if you are building it from scratch, why waste the cubes? IF you took everything put into that 327 and put it into a 350, you would make more power.

 

As I recall, the DZ302 motor was still only good for about 290hp. But back then a lot of weight breaks and stuff were based on advertised horsepower ratings so everybody (gm,ford, mopar) had all the numbers cheater'd up. But yeah, I think it would be fun to blow off some of these guys and still tell them it's a 5.0. Back then the Boss 302 and the Z28 ran almost identical 13.9 in stock from with the little weenie bias ply tires they had, so they weren't all pooches. I remember when the first 350's came out, we all thought they were turds compared to the small journal 327's. But they finally got it right with the LT-1. (the original one)

 

That's wrong. Piston speed plays a big part. The shorter the stroke, the higher piston speed that can be tolerated using stock parts. I've posted the math here before if you feel like doing a search under my name "piston speed".

That's pretty much true, but it's cheaper to build a short stroke engine for high RPMs than a long stroke engine because of what I said above.

:shrug:

 

Completely wrong!! Shorter stroke engines can obtain higher rpm's because at a given rpm they have a slower piston speed compared to a larger stroke engine. Short stroke equals lower piston speeds because the piston travels a short distance per revolution.

 

Wrong. Read the post above. Even that is really irrelevant. A proper valvetrain is what is most important. That and a solid bottom end. The stroke doesnt effect how high an engine can rev. Valvetrain, thats where it is.

 

I never said that a shorter stroke engine will rev higher because it has a shorter stroke. All i said was that the piston speed is lower at the same rpm.

I know the valve train and lifters effect how high you can spin an engine, everybody knows that!

 

I didnt mean to direct that at you, ME, sorry if it sounded that way. That was directed at the person above, I was referencing your post as being correct!

 

Yeah i'm sorry too, i misread your post, damn people keep stealing my red stapler.

 

What did I say that was wrong?

Because I "miss worded" it?

Let me rewrite it so those who can't comprehend what I'm saying will understand.

The shorter the stroke, the higher RPM can be tolerated using stock parts.

If you would have looked up the math that I said I've posted you'd have known what I meant rather than being so quick to judge. :shrug:

 

No. You're wrong. It does. Stock parts will reasonably take ~4,000 FPS. Any more than that and things start to break.

The stroke plays a major role it that.

 

The stroke has nothing to do with the valve train components above it. They are still required to make the trips to 7K just like everything else. And For a little info, I run a stock shortblock. Cast crank, stock rods, cast flattops. A good cam, good pushrods, good lifters, good springs, roller rockers, etc. My engine pulls all the way to 6800, and has made trips past 7K. No problems at all. This was with a budget built 350. The stroke will not matter, its the assembly of the short block and the quality of the valvetrain is on target.

And WHERE IN THE HELL IS THAT DAMNED STAPLER!?!

 

Right on.

 

Yea. And I've reved a stock LT1 in a '94 to 8,000 RPM before and it didn't break. What's your point?

That doesn't mean the chances of something breaking aren't increased after 4,000 FPS.

 

theres a difference between running something up to 8,000 rpms once and not breaking something and doing it ritually and not haveing a problem.....

 

I gotta believe that if you have 2 identical rods, except in length, that the stress on the longer rod will be greater.
Anyway, back to the original post, I think, and I might easily be wrong here, that a crank from a 262 might be the right dimension to make a 302 from a 4in bore large journal block. I won't swear to that. but as I recall, (and I'm getting older), I think that could work.

 

Exactly my point.

 

right exactly as ljnowell is doing in his without a problem....

 

I agree, but "Turning 7k all day long has NOTHING to do with the stroke" is just a very bold statement that is flat out not true.

 

all honesty if you want to turn out 7000+ rpm all day long without any problems and get there quickly and without any difficulties then you need a fully balanced setup ...and you will nolonger have to worry about stroke bieng shorter or longer....

thats what we had done to our 355 when we built it everything got balanced ..and it would run up to 8500+ rpm without a hesitation....everytime ...i dont believe in destroking an engine unless you have to in order to run in certain racing classes or otherwise....its kinda pointless to do

 

The problem is not the rods, its the bolts. The interial forces increase at the square of the engine speed increase. So at 4000 rpm the rod bolts are seeing 4x the force then at 2000 rpm. At 8000 rpm its 16x the force at 2000rpm.

The problem, is the valve springs, rockers, pushrods, lifters all have problems operating at rpms about where they can be held in check by the springs.

 

Actually, the longer rod will have LESS stress on it, because of the reduced angle between the rod and crank. Think of it in terms of extremes. If you had a really really long rod attached to a crank, as the crank rotates, the rod won't move much as the piston goes through its cycle.


:: edited, doh::

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Stroke does play a role in the RPMs an engine can take. If you don't believe that, nor agree, then so be it.

Enough said.

 

A quick war story that applies to this thread. Back when I was a kid I worked in this guys shop. He owned a pro-stock 69 camaro. It was a 427+.030, iron block TRW pistons Open chamber aluminum heads, tunnel ram 1050's etc. Those engines went 10 grand, and they were NEVER balanced. I saw it on the tell-tale on several occasions. The car ran good locally, always qualified for national events and even put the "Grump" on the trailer at the Gators back about 1970. (OK. so he broke). The small block used to go 10,500, it was a small journal 327+.030 (on a different weight break). None of these were ever balanced, they were just carefully assembled. (and no wuss-puss Lencos either). We never blew any of them up, never had a bottom end problem.

 

Actually longer rods slightly reduces the pistons speeds at TDC and BDC, where the interial forces are the greatest.

Yes it does but it is not the overriding factor. The valvetrain is. That is why the old 302's came with solid lifter cams and beefy valve springs. So the valvetrain could keep in check at higher rpms.

 

i agree completely that you can do it without balanceing also but you also dont have to destroke to do it either...lol

balanceing doesnt hurt and the cost of it makes it worth it everytime.....

but if your doing a budget engine such as lj did and hasnt had a problem its all about good parts and proper assembly and clearences completely

 

I think there is also something about the 327 that makes it rev out faster.

Knew a guy with a 327 4x4 toyota and I swear it walked on water at a drop of the hammer.

 

There is no magic in a number. He had a properly assembled, well planned out engine.

 

Perhaps these "limitation" statements need to be stated a different way.

In an engine built with "factory" components, it isn't the stroke that is going to determine the RPM limit.

In an engine upgraded with some aftermarket parts, it isn't the stroke that will determine the RPM limit.

In engines built with the absolute best everything available today, it is probably true that the shortest stroke engine will rev higher than the longer stroke engines.

That has very little to do with the choice, as originally stated, between building your 350 as a 383 or a 327.

 

By the way, speaking of small V8s, if anyone wants a real dose of nostalgia, my dad has a 1960 283 short block assembly that he'd probably sell to ya.

It would need the full disassembly and hot tank treatment though.

 

THEGENERAL has a 283 in his 66 Impala right now. A little beefed up (a big cam, dome pistons, etc) with the original Slip N Slide Powerglide.