Hello Mark, I enjoy watching your videos, and also admire your attention to detail in your machine work and spotless shop/dyno room/ and engine builds. I especially liked watching your chevelle pull the front tires off the ground. I have a 67 chevelle with a 327 in it, and would like to build it similar to what you did for your son's pickup. Happy New Year to you
Vortec heads and a roller cam would have been a much better combination. Would have made 400 hp and had no worries about needing ZDDP Additive with every oil change.
Had a vortec head the 461 flow better ,and if you have a x head hold on to your seat. But for just cutting the seats and minor porting. I would say this is great.
@@marccres6619Wrong. There is plenty of RU-vid videos proving that the Vortec heads that you pull off a 1996 GM pickup OUT FLOW the Camel Hump heads you paid a rip off $800-$1500 a set for, as badass as Fuelies were, by 25-40 cfm depending on the individuals tested. Google has that proof also. Yes Vortecs crack easy, yes you have to run vortec style rocker arms, yes you have to machine the valve seal stumps down to run over .450" lift cam, yes you have to run ugly centerbolt valve covers, yes you have to run a vortec style intake bolt pattern, but they still beat the double humps to shreds
Very interesting for 327 build! That's what I've been running for years, very similar. Only running the original Z28 duntov camshaft. With the 11 to 1 .120 Dome Pistons. Definitely a real powerhouse! Especially for a stock performance setup. I've always wondered what real Dyno numbers would come out of that set up.
Great video Mark. This is as basic of a build as it gets here. Very low end parts but goes to show the audience what great machine work does to a 327/300. Carb, headers and basic hyd flat tappet, small cam.
Nice little engine. I'm building a SJ 327 for a '51 Henry J street rod. Using flat-top pistons, Dart 65cc heads with 180 runners, a Howards 110951-10 cam (duration is 221 @ 50 intake and 231 @ 50 exhaust with .470 lift using 1.5 rockers and 110 LSA). Currently planning on a dual plane air gap intake. Hope to pull similar numbers.
I had a 327/ 365 back in the 70s that was bored .060 over and the heads were ported and polished. The pistons were 11 to 1 TRW castings In my 69 Camaro . It ran pretty even with the high performance 396s of the day. 350 C I motors with this type set up turned low 12 second quarter mile passes. That's what I ran in my 65 Nova.
The Isky cam specs sound very close to the L-79 151 cam with 222@ .050 and .447 lift, with the Isky cam having a much tighter LSA. Nicely done. Good power from stockish parts. I assume that's an open spacer? I've never found the 4 hole version to work very well on the dual plane intakes.
What a sweet sbc, I have a little sbc in my MGB (exbracket race engine), 358ci. small journal ('67) block, billet main caps, aluminum rods, 12 to 1 comp., .600" lift solid roller cam, fully ported 492 angle plug heads and port matched Holley strip dominator intake, Holley 750 HP DP--pretty sporty. I had a similar L-79 clone type sbc as yours in a '65 Chevelle daily driver, 1 of my favorite cars ever.
nice job. runs nice. my 398 sbf puts out 1.22hp/ci and I was disappointed. wanted 500. should've went with the 408ci. was watching cost. already had 3.85 crank,rods, srp pistons. oh well.
Thanks for the video I had a friend that had a hj sedan I'm from Australia it had a staunch lil 327 in it built by Mark winters in the 80's about 11to 1 double humps with nothing left in them they were skinny (the chap that bought this engine from my friend supercharged it and blew the wall out of a port ) it was balanced really well I ended up in a heated argument with a friend that was a pretty good chap normally although he had a streak of uncertainty about him I stated that the lil Chevy would have had close to 400 at the wheels the hj had a top loader and nine inch in it so say 20 loss from flywheel hp Well my friend flipped right out started accusing me of major bs and said I was romancing my youth and then called me a fkn idiot I said get in your car c___head and don't ever come back That lil Chevy had a solid flat tappet cam can't remember the specs and revved to 7k plus It run as smooth as silk back then it was about $8.5 k dressed to build it that was a house deposit it had a Victor junior and a 650 double pumper holley on it jetted up a lil sorry bout the scattered specs but I'm remembering as I go that lil engine moove that biggish car so well I drove it at 240k one day and had a lil rd left and stomped on it and it had more I had to back off Too see this vid with an iron headed 327 with those numbers gives me solice but I won't get my friendship back shame Long live the mouse Thank you Ps it was so much fun to drive that car had a linear power delivery not too much anywhere but enough
Love your videos.real engine builders not jist assembing stuff out of a box.good work and thanks for sharing the specs and knowledge in general excellent for a v8 man like myself.any advice in regards to cam for the l98 ls motor?mostly street driven.I have a 2nd hand isky with 224@50 int&exh.it has 609 lift with 112 lsa.I thought this would be a good cam as my car is manual tr6060 3:45 diff gears. Cheers mate
I built a mean ass little 327 I know it's got over 425 horses. To make a long story short I put racing pistons vortec heads with a whole bunch of money in them from a machine shop a big ass Cam a big carburetor And a big stall converter. I call it my pissed off 327 .
I would like to see a test with factory vortec heads, they are easy to come by. My first v8 was a 68 327 250 hp, in my 68 Impala, with a glide, and 308 gear. That thing would light the tires, and cruise the highway with ease. I still got the car. Love the 327 sound. Hey...maybe you could build it for me!
I can't remember exactly what year was 1999 maybe was 98 but super Chevy magazine did an article about building a small block Chevy With vortec heads making about 425 horsepower. They used A350 stock bottom end . I had A327 so I bought my pistons board it at 30 over 9 to 1 flat top Forge pistons. I had everything balanced and blue printed they used a Cam with 488 lift i used 1 was 510 lift. I bought vortec heads put Chrome Molly push rods and all that good stuff, then I had the heads took to a machine shop they put screw in studs guide plates they shaved and decked the heads I forgot how much. polished shaved some stuffed in their put some very expensive Springs and. 1.7 roller tops edlbrock rpm intake headrrs flow master exhaust.they used a Turbo 350 with a 2500 stall converter from B&m i used a 3500 TCI 10 and stall converter 750 edlbrock carb. 3 stage shit kit. That motor and car has been in my garage for about 20 years. I only put about a 500 miles a year on it. most of them are just little joy rides but that thing will scream and run like a raped ape shifting at 6500 rpm all day long I think if I change the rear gears That thing would come unglued . My daughter will be taken it soon its been hers since the year 2000 ive owned it since 93. she says I can keep the motor it's to angry for her she plans to put a stock big block in it something a little more street friendly for her.
@@roelbarroso5421 that sounds like fun no matter which way you go! I like 327's my first v8 was a 327 in my 68 impala, still got the car, motor, trans, plus a whole lot more. My 327 was a screamer with the tiny valve heads factory q-jet, stock cam ect. Going to build a similar, hot 327 when the dust clears, and put it in my 75 Monza.
great videos... got a question in regards to cam lobe separation.... im building up a 350 but i want the ""lumpiest"" idle sound i can get.. the exhaust will is gonna be really load... lm even willing to sacrfice some power to have that sound... so what lobe separation deg should/could i use? 102-105 or do i need higher thanks?
I do have a 327 out of a vette that im building sooon but right now I'm enjoying the power that the Ford Cleveland makes the 70 4v with closed chamber heads makes 380 lb of torque with the stock cam but they are getting very hard to find and parts are getting very expensive. Great video I'll be watching more.
In the Feb 2008 issue of popular Hotrodding magazine, the Engine Masters challenge there was a 327 that I guy had that made 450Lb Ft TQ @4200 and 470HP at 6500. It also had a #461 head on it, I just wonder what these guys did to make that kind of power???
I was there personally at the Engine Master's with a 305. They were Porting Dynamics that had that 327. They ported the 🐫 humps very well to get that kind of power because that's there business.
Valve size increase on this small a CID ranks low in HP per dollar. CFM/Flow dif in 1.94 vs 2.02 is often barely measurable. Use valve money for head or intake porting, trick windage tray, trick carb. HP ahead for same money.
Under most circumstances I would totally agree, but if the valves need to be replaced due to wear, no harm in replacing them with a larger diameter...especially in a SBC where the 202s are probably the same price, and the valve gets a nice fresh seat without being sunk into the head.
@@txstang84 1.94 to 2.02 is a 4% increase in valve size... At what cost? At what increase in CFM? If any? Budget goes to what helps the most .. always. Vortec Pro has some great info .. "2.02 upgrade" is a 70's, 80's machinist money maker.. Not a Flowbench owners suggestion typically.
Closeoutracer no argument there, which is why I phrased my reply the way I did...read it a different way IF you need to replace valves due to stem wear, cracks, runout-whatever-why not upsize? The valves are all too often the SAME price, and when the machinist opens up the seat to accommodate the new bigger valve, the seat isn’t sunk into the head which hurts flow, especially at low lifts in most legacy heads. Ultimately speaking, it would probably be cheaper in the long run to use the vortec heads and appropriate intake as they’d very likely beat out the old camel hump castings in every way.
So, back in 68-9 and slightly beyond there was a lot of discussion what was better, a 327 or 350. I've always been a 327 fan based on Rod ratio and with the large journal crank, it's ability to rev slightly higher, getting more out a combination. And wallah! 1.08 hp per cubic inch. Now swap everything into a 350 and find out just how hard it it to get just 1 hp per cubic inch is!
BuzzLOLOL oh how the racing world wishes that were true. You leaving out huge variables like bore to stroke ratio and rod length to stroke ration. Those two parameters prove that statement wrong all by themselves. Now, I don't say this with any Air of superiority, or from coming from one camp to another as far as specs go, but it's true. It had been measured time and time again, and the variable that goes unaccounted for in your statement is that of the operating RPM. Horsepower is a mathematical product of torque X Rpm divided by 5252. The higher you wind a motor with all else being equal the more HP it will make. Likewise, the longer the connecting to with respect to the stroke of the crankshaft, the flatter the torque curve will be allowing a 327 with 6" rods to overtake a 350 with 6" rods all day long. I understand what you are saying about the limits of CFM available to the engine, but with everything else being the same, same carburetor etc, the higher the ore length to stroke ration will always produce more horsepower. And that's what they found out in and around 1969. Mopar already had that firgured outs and used it to their advantage over and over again. Theses days we see the use of shorter connecting rods only because at some point displacement takes over and with the improvements is metallurgy that have come about in the past couple decades it's possible to run a rod length to stroke ratio of 1.5 to 1 without breaking crankshafts like what we saw in the 60's and 70's, maybe into the 80's. (The 80's are a hard thing to judge because GM was more interested in the bottom line than reliability, and to some extent the other manufacturers followed suit. But not to the same extremes as Chevrolet.) That said, and one of my very best friend's use of 454 blocks as anchors to stead his peers at his Marina, which was common practice when one couldn't find viable crankshafts for those who wanted to build 454's. Hell, even the SBC Chevy 400 cranks letters the grounds of machine shops during the early days of using factory cranks to build their 383's. At least those cranks were cheap, but the forged 454 cranks ran about $500 plus a $600 core charge if you didn't have one to turn in. A pricey option back in the day!anyway. Theoretically your are correct, burin the real world at the time of my comment, it didn't hold water, hence the vast and numerous discussions on which mill was better the Big Mac, or its older brother, the Quarter Pounder!
Enough power to push around a 1st generation Camaro or Nova and be streetable, have some fun and run in the 13's Mark, do you remember the old GM SB 'angle plug heads'? Supposed to be better for bigger pistons like 11.5 + back in the day, just wonder if they actually worked ir just marketing?
It did ok , a hyd roller would have made a big torque dividend , without some chamber mods those heads are just not that great , I would want a 327 to wind to 7000 myself , this one probably will but it's already made the numbers it's going to , so he didn't push it that high ,, the z28 type springs will do that easily , it did good , it's probably in the 91-93 octane bracket anyway so I would've bumped the compression on up to close to 11-1
Get rid of the factory heads and put some AFR 195cc heads and a solid roller cam and watch that 327 make 450 horses and 415 plus lb. ft of torque. I bored my 327 to 4.062 and used a forged piston, but many people don't realize how wicked these 327s can be.
@D Mass not at all too big at all for my application. We had it set up to run make peak power in the 3500-6800 rpm range. The heads and cam were chosen with the stall converter and rear gear ratio we were running. Low end torque wont be great, but thats not what i was aiming for with a 327.
@D Mass sounds fun. I remember back in the day guys used to run a 377 (when they would find a 400 crank and put it in a 350 block) on the tracks. They ran good.
@@demarques1911 - I was just giving the spec.s of the stock 1965 375 HP 327" engine... the spec'd .030"/.030" valve clearance cost some valve lift(more HP, less drivability available by tightening up the valve lash)... 365 HP was same engine except carb.d and no F.I./F.I. intake manifold... Stock heads having about 157- 165cc intake ports and poorly cast runners/ports... misshapen bowls... large valve guide bosses... The F. I. intake manifold was similar to a high rise dual quad carb.'d tunnel ram intake... Easily worth 10 more HP... The engine dyno'd here has ported stock heads, 10:1, mild hydraulic cam...
The cam is not made to work in that RPM range I would suspect it would make less HP and TQ reving it that high with that cam. Plus you may kiss a piston with Z28 springs. That woiuld suck.
@@michaelphelps5064 - The stock 365 HP/375 HP 327" cams ARE huge cams and do work to 7000 - 7500 RPMs... but shimming the valve springs may be needed... the stock heads flow are the main detriment to HP above 6,000 RPMs...
Here is a small journal block with the same heads on it. However, I turned a 383 crank down to fit. These heads did remarkably well. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Hu79WwV6wLE.html
More the keyboard builders post the more it is obvious they dont know jack. THis is a great street combo good torque curve can drive every day! Makes more torque than the GM 350hp cam too. Dont think anyone here is gonna teach mark anything haha
