Ford started the 221 cid in 1932 with the 60 horse flathead V8. Then in 1961 the 221 cid overhead V 8 came out and put in the Falcon Futurta and Sunbeam Tiger. The 221 cid flathead could be bored out to a 231.
Sam did all the machine work and built his own engines.. Built loads of dirt track engines for the locals too.. He machined up the goodies and I built a .040 over 327 (336) back in 1972.. I ran that engine (85 - 8800 rpm) for 2 seasons, periodically changing only the pushrods, rockers, springs and valves. When the engine became outdated due to rules changes, I pulled the engine, swapped the cam for a milder hydralic version, and put on a 600 cfm carburetor, and put the engine in my '57 Nomad.. My son drove the car to school for about 4 years. The car with the engine still intact, sits today in my garage... Yep, Sam built some fast and durable engines back in the day... All in a tiny cracked slab, 2 car garage behind his house.. RustyPile
Cheap mans buzz bomb.....262 crank(3.1 stroke w/350 mains)...350 block bore .030 deck to 9"...std 6" rod style pistons(1.25 comp height)...and cheap ebay 6.2 rods...316cu in and change Wheeeeee!! Have a crank that has been cryoed and a fresh turn if anybody wants to try it...lol
I can give you a really important reason for building a "high winding small block": you have an excuse when you get spanked by a far cheaper, far stronger bigger motor. Why is it romantic to lose?
I got some questions that I have not seen in here. With a 283 block and a 327 crank I can build: I just rounded down. 311ci 316ci 287ci 291ci what else can be built out of this combo? I thought at one time I had some thing figured out to be 331ci? Could I take a 267 crank and put it in a 283. That would give me a bore of 3.905 if i went .030 over and the 267 has a stroke of 3.48 That makes 333cu and some jingle. 283 mains are 2.30" and the rods are 2.00" (if its a small journal) 267 mains are 2.45" and the rods are 2.10" is there a way for this to work? Or Does some one know how I can go about building a 311-317 cu with a 283 block and a 327 small journal crank. I dont know if the 283 is a small journal.
All 283s are small journal, if I remember correctly. A 283 with a .030 overbore (3.905") and a 327 (3.25 stroke) crank would yield 311 cid. A .060 overbore would end up 316 cid. Pretty easy really, as long as you have a '62 or later 283 block and can find some good pistons, other than factory (cast) 307 pistons. If you have an earlier 283 block, then it's a whole different ballgame. If you are dead set on a 3.48 stroke crank in a 283 block, you might be better off finding a '67 small journal 350 crank instead of the 267 crank, or probably even better, buy an aftermarket SJ crank. Even then, you are probably going to run into clearance problems between the crank and the bottom of the cylinders and pan rail. You could shave the throws down to fit, but heavy metal would then be required for balancing.
Sweet! Right now im building a 302. Small journal 327 block, with a 283 crank. I have AFR 190cc eliminators, and a Team G single plane intake, H beam rods, and some nice JE pistons. I have a set of solid roller lifters, but i havnt decided on a cam grind yet. Solid roller is going to be nice. It just got out of the machine shop getting balanced. I
You want a 3.48 stroke use a 307 block, a 350 crank, and 400 rods if you are looking for torque. The short rods work ok if you keep it under 6,000 rpm. The rod to stroke ratio is still better then a stock 400 sb, and the short bolts give you extra clearance. If have a 283 block you will need to turn the mains down which is no big deal. There is a couple sprint cars in our area running 3.875 bore and 3.750 stroke in the 360 class, and the spank on the 4X3.48 engines.....
I have two 67 327 steel cranks and one set of stock 4 eye brow pistons and rod out of a 67 327. I think if i was more around 327-333 if thats possible it would not be a high rev motor is that correct?I dont really want 9000 rpm.
I ran a 327 stroke in a 400 block in the FED in my avatar. 3.25 X 4.125 made 347 cubic inches. I ran it in B/ED in the '70s.
Charlie Garrett ran a very small SBC in a D/A corvette. IIRC it was a 400 block with a 2.500" crank, about 260 CI.
This thread is awesome. I've read stuff like this elsewhere before and there are so many ways to go with it. I don't think going about this build by using cheaply acquired oem parts is a recipe for longevity. It's going to be in the machine work and $peed parts. .030 over 305 block plus 283 3.000inch stroke crank make a 287 with a bore big enough to accept a decent sized valve. Single plane intake and a serious investment in valvetrain hardware are going to be a must for high rpm use. Most of these engines I've ever heard of actually being built are pretty high dollar affairs.
I have to question the references to the cutoff years for small vs. large journal cranks. The '67 350 (first year for 350), in my rod, has a large journal crank. According to my '70 Motors Manual (not the greatest source!) ALL 350s had large journal cranks. I'm SURE mine is large journal because I have changed the crank. My block has the same casting number as 64-67 327 and 67 302: 3892657. The Motors Manual also lists ALL 302 (Z-28) motors with large journal cranks. Since Chevy made the 302s for Trans Am racing I would think they would use the large journal size even if they didn't plan on using it in ALL smallblocks until 1968. Does anyone have a Chevy reference book showing what crank came in a 1967 302 Z-28?
Didn't read all the posts. Did anyone mention a large journal 327 crank in a 400 block? Use big valves. They LOVE nitrous...........
not sure but i think it's the last 4 digits i will have a look and see if i can find it ..the 3" cranks have a round flywheel flange and the 302 is round whith a v notch in it
I have always been a big fan of the big bore short stroke engines. I have been involved in many discussion turned argument on several forums, usually on the destroker side, and typically the big inch stroker engines comes out on top. However there are some advantages that a short stroke engine has. Most of these have been covered but allow me to reiterate. The first advantage is the reduced pressure on the cylinder walls as a result of a shorter stroke reducing the angle of the connecting rod during it's rotation. The second advantage is the slower piston speed at any given RPM. This leads to better cylinder filling at higher engine speeds and, as a result, more power. This slower speed also results in less stress on the reciprocating assembly which means that it can spin to much higher RPM before experiencing the same stress levels in the rod and so on that a stroker might see. Why am I so hung up on RPM you might ask? Well it's quite simple. The formula for HP is as follows: HP = (Measured Torque x RPM)/5252 It is not hard to see that if you increase the RPM you will increase the HP. Now some of you are probably saying, big deal, if you increase the torque you will aslo increase the HP. While this is true it is a lot easier to increase the RPM by 1000 than it is to increase the Torque by 1000 or even 100 for that matter. A short stroke does not always mean the displacement has to be smaller than a typical regular bore regular stroke engine. You can still build a 350+ cubic inch engine. The goal is to increase the bore to stroke ratio. Nascar guys build 358s using a 3.250 inch stroke all the time and it's hard to argue with 750HP at 9500rpm Of course these are not budget engines by any means. Personally if I was going to build anything on the smallish side I would start with and aftermrket Aluminum block that could be bored to 4.200 and run a 3 inch stroke crank that has been offset ground by .020 inches to net somewhere around 328 cubic inches. I would top this off with, dare I say it, 8 individual throttle bodies and fuel injection. Then plumb it all out through a set of 180 degree headers. I doubt you would find anything that sounded as sweet in a street car other than a 12 cylinder ferrari. These are never going to be budget engines but I would run on for cool factor alone. Then if you toss some type of forced induction into the mix that only sweetens the deal. To conclude I think a small inch short stroke engine would make since in a nice light weight rod where excessive low end torque would only result in excessive wheel spin.
The Jalopy Journal
