True enough. I have never seen one, and I have probably had more sbc stuff pass through my hands than the average bear, so they have to be fairly unusual. But then again, I have never had my hands on a gennie small journal 302 either, or a Grand Sport weber cross-ram, but I sure wouldn't dispute their existance.
running a first year (62) 327 with 69 Z28 heads and a L79 cam in current 40 coupe with a preformer drilled for the oil spout in front--small journal 327's are a favorite of mine--as to manifolds, don't overlook the earlier Hirise from Chevy with the sq front intake runners (L-79/340HP Vette,ect) stumble onto them now and then at swapmeets-good velocity on a 327
Best motor ever! I had 327 fuelie block with two WCFB carbs in a stock bodied 1930 Model A roadster when I was in High school. Nothing could touch it. Go for it!
SP2P= Small Port 2 Plane. It was a an attempt by Edelbrock to take advantage of the gas crunch back in the 70's. People were swapping out their old performance intakes, big carbs, and lumpy cams to try and get better gas mileage. It might be ok for a truck motor with a tiny carb that never saw more than 3500rpm. MAYBE.
thanks racer32 for the info...I'm gona swap it out first chance I get then doesn't sound like it'll let the heads breath much...the heads are 291 fuelies...although the guy I got it off said it really revved good Is it poss that with good headers the intake velocity could be higher with a small port?
Covers the spark plug wires on the early glass corvettes only. Don't think any other models have these covers
Those 291 heads would probably breather better with a stock 4-barrel intake than the sp2p. The 291's were the old "camel hump" performance heads on the 68-69 327s. They have bigger ports and valves than the low-performance heads that Chevy had on the LJ 2bbl car and truck motors. Swap the SP2P for something that'll flow and your 327 will probably wake up on the top end.
Couldn't hear the radio for the static without the shielding. Radio delete cars did not have it on them. The 365 horse motor was what I had in my '65 Corvette. Love to have that motor for my car now. I have given thought to running the shielding on the 350 horse motor I am building for it. After all, it is a 'glass body...... Dennis D
Not without dropping the pan. The flange is fully machined, so the parting line doesnt show. I assume you are asking about casting/forged? Doesnt matter anyway. For what you are building, it isnt gonna make a hill of beans of difference.
You mean with the very restrictive "dog leg" intake runners??? I wouldn't buy one unless I was restoring an original L-79 Vette or Nova SS..
I did find a forged crank in a stock '65 300hp small journal motor. So it was used in several applications.
I have seen literally dozens of forged small-journal 327 cranks, never seen a cast one. Not saying they arent out there, am saying they are pretty uncommon.
So then I'm looking for the rare one for my hotrod? They might have made some on large journal the 327 was no longer the hot motor to have by then.
Most of the large journal '68-'69 327 cranks were cast, but ALL of the '62-'67 327 cranks were forged. Every time someone says they've got a small journal 327 cast crank, they fail to back it up with evidence.
I'm very surprised that no one has mentioned why the 327 is such a great engine in it's stock configuration, be it large, or small journal. It's the stroke to connecting rod ratio, and the connecting rod length. The rod is 5.700" long, and the stroke is 3.250". For you dumb asses 3.250 = 3 1/4". So it measures 3 1/4 " stroke. The ratio comes in at 1.7538. If some of you remember when they came out with the 6" connecting rod for the 350 Chevy engine. when placing a 6" rod in a 350 engine the connecting rod to stroke ratio comes very close to the original 327, and the 1.75. I didn't make this shit up. Anyone that's been around for a while knows this. Smokey discovered it, but the engineers at GM new what they where doing when they designed the 327. I was at GMI in the early 60's studying Automotive design, and it was explained to use way back then. But remember that the 265, 283, and later 302 did use the same 5.700" length rod, but the 327 in stock configuration outperformed all of them. When Smokey ran dyno test with different combinations he found that the ratio very close to 1.75 was the way to go. How about the big block. Don't they lengthen the rod on the long stroke engines so that they come very close to the 1.75? This was basic knowledge back in the day. We haven't even covered flame front travel, and the use of a pop up piston in the 327 engine using the original 63 cc heads. You guys that have been around the block a few times already know this stuff, but I thought someone should mention this to the younger new guys. After all it's up to use older guys to bring the younger guys along. The so called young know it all's can't learn a dam thing so this isn't written for there benefit. O, by the way I ran these type engines back in the day in hydroplanes at speeds over 150 MPH every weekend. Check out my profile and you will see pictures of real racing. Not that straight line shit for 10 seconds.
Johnny Sweet has made a good point about the stock rod ratio of 1.75:1 on the 327. According to Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins back in the 70's..."We know that the 3.25 stroke likes a rod length of 5.90 inches (a 1.8:1 rod ratio). This is what we use in our 330-inch Pro Stock engines. This rod is only slightly longer than the stock 5.70 inch connecting rod. It would seem reasonable that a stock-rod 327 cubic street engine would be an excellent all-around performer!" Who's gonna argue with the Grump? 327=GOOD
I did, with a lot of help and "google", all I need to finish is six jets from walker products (55s-56s)
The Jalopy Journal
