1965 327 engine differences
Safety Car
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 239
From: Ocean Township NJ
If we're talkin' about 327's here, my guess is that he says L75 (300hp), followed by L79 (350hp).
The more high strung engines like the 365/375hp L76/L84 were not fun to drive.............below 4000 RPM. But at this point, the power came on like gangbusters.
Also, the 300, and even the 350hp 327 engines were happy with 3.08, 3.23 or 3.55 gears. The L76/L84 needed at least 3.70 to enjoy. Preferably 4.10.
Joe
Safety Car
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,049
Likes: 134
From: St. Clair Shores MI
C2 of Year Finalist (track prepared) 2019
2017 C2 of the Year Finalist
Joe,
I always heard it ws becausee the 327 did not have to be the biggest bullet in the chamber because of the 396 and 427.
It was assumed by the bean counters that racers would buy big blocks, so the L79 was born to be hotter than the base motor, but have less warranty claims than the solid cammed motors.........
I always heard it ws becausee the 327 did not have to be the biggest bullet in the chamber because of the 396 and 427.
It was assumed by the bean counters that racers would buy big blocks, so the L79 was born to be hotter than the base motor, but have less warranty claims than the solid cammed motors.........
Safety Car
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 239
From: Ocean Township NJ
Joe,
I always heard it ws becausee the 327 did not have to be the biggest bullet in the chamber because of the 396 and 427.
It was assumed by the bean counters that racers would buy big blocks, so the L79 was born to be hotter than the base motor, but have less warranty claims than the solid cammed motors.........
I always heard it ws becausee the 327 did not have to be the biggest bullet in the chamber because of the 396 and 427.
It was assumed by the bean counters that racers would buy big blocks, so the L79 was born to be hotter than the base motor, but have less warranty claims than the solid cammed motors.........
The early 302 ci Z28 took over where the L76 left off, but, unfortunately was not available in the Corvette. A pure race engine, it was used in Trans Am and had to be homogenized
by being offered in a street version.The rat was cheap thrills........hard to pass by with all that tire smokin' torque, and gas at 30 cents/gal. Only a few bucks more than an L84, but not nearly as durable. The porcupine heads used to eat valve springs and drop valves like there was no tomorrow.
Last edited by 65tripleblack; Nov 14, 2007 at 12:52 PM.
Team Owner
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 26,118
Likes: 1,874
From: Greenville, Indiana
Some of you guys simply amaze me!
First off, no, I don't know anything about Car and Driver. No interest there for a Redneck. You could have put two of those L-98's in a Corvette and it still wouldn't catch an L-88 if it got a bite. Just selling magazines is all they were doing. You bought one, right?
Which engine did I like best? Any of them with solid lifters and including the L-79. I find the 250 and 300 horse engines extremely dull, boring and uninteresting to drive in an occasional use vehicle like a Corvette. The fuel injected engines are by far the best for throttle response and mileage. The tune of any engine, whether base or high performance has to be driven in the rpm range it was designed for. That's what transmissions are installed for. I would exclude the L-79 as being "happy" with a 3.08 or 3.36. If you have to sit in a lot of hot, stop/go traffic, none of the engines above are fun to drive in anything.
The l-79 engine was not conceived solely for introduction in the '65 Corvette. Originally, it was to be released in the '64 Chevelle. Didn't make it. Next, it was to be released in the '65 Chevelle, Corvette and Chevy II. The first two got it, the Chevy II had to wait until '66. I doubt there was a scramble to get some sort of performance small block out preceding or complimenting the MK IV BB. They could have just released a hydraulic lifter version of the BB like the '65 Chevelle Z-16.
Development may have slowed on the SB in '65 but don't forget the Z-28 engine development program that probably started in '66 or even before.
Lt-1 cams? In spite of all the hip hop you've heard on this and other forums about how "torquey" they are..................Ah, never mind.
First off, no, I don't know anything about Car and Driver. No interest there for a Redneck. You could have put two of those L-98's in a Corvette and it still wouldn't catch an L-88 if it got a bite. Just selling magazines is all they were doing. You bought one, right?
Which engine did I like best? Any of them with solid lifters and including the L-79. I find the 250 and 300 horse engines extremely dull, boring and uninteresting to drive in an occasional use vehicle like a Corvette. The fuel injected engines are by far the best for throttle response and mileage. The tune of any engine, whether base or high performance has to be driven in the rpm range it was designed for. That's what transmissions are installed for. I would exclude the L-79 as being "happy" with a 3.08 or 3.36. If you have to sit in a lot of hot, stop/go traffic, none of the engines above are fun to drive in anything.
The l-79 engine was not conceived solely for introduction in the '65 Corvette. Originally, it was to be released in the '64 Chevelle. Didn't make it. Next, it was to be released in the '65 Chevelle, Corvette and Chevy II. The first two got it, the Chevy II had to wait until '66. I doubt there was a scramble to get some sort of performance small block out preceding or complimenting the MK IV BB. They could have just released a hydraulic lifter version of the BB like the '65 Chevelle Z-16.
Development may have slowed on the SB in '65 but don't forget the Z-28 engine development program that probably started in '66 or even before.
Lt-1 cams? In spite of all the hip hop you've heard on this and other forums about how "torquey" they are..................Ah, never mind.
Last edited by MikeM; Nov 14, 2007 at 12:54 PM.
Safety Car
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 239
From: Ocean Township NJ
Some of you guys simply amaze me!
First off, no, I don't know anything about Car and Driver. No interest there for a Redneck. You could have put two of those L-98's in a Corvette and it still wouldn't catch an L-88 if it got a bite. Just selling magazines is all they were doing. You bought one, right?
Which engine did I like best? Any of them with solid lifters and including the L-79. I find the 250 and 300 horse engines extremely dull, boring and uninteresting to drive in an occasional use vehicle like a Corvette. The fuel injected engines are by far the best for throttle response and mileage. The tune of any engine, whether base or high performance has to be driven in the rpm range it was designed for. That's what transmissions are installed for. I would exclude the L-79 as being "happy" with a 3.08 or 3.36. If you have to sit in a lot of hot, stop/go traffic, none of the engines above are fun to drive in anything.
The l-79 engine was not conceived solely for introduction in the '65 Corvette. Originally, it was to be released in the '64 Chevelle. Didn't make it. Next, it was to be released in the '65 Chevelle, Corvette and Chevy II. The first two got it, the Chevy II had to wait until '66. I doubt there was a scramble to get some sort of performance small block out preceding or complimenting the MK IV BB. They could have just released a hydraulic lifter version of the BB like the '65 Chevelle Z-16.
Development may have slowed on the SB in '65 but don't forget the Z-28 engine development program that probably started in '66 or even before.
Lt-1 cams? In spite of all the hip hop you've heard on this and other forums about how "torquey" they are..................Ah, never mind.
First off, no, I don't know anything about Car and Driver. No interest there for a Redneck. You could have put two of those L-98's in a Corvette and it still wouldn't catch an L-88 if it got a bite. Just selling magazines is all they were doing. You bought one, right?
Which engine did I like best? Any of them with solid lifters and including the L-79. I find the 250 and 300 horse engines extremely dull, boring and uninteresting to drive in an occasional use vehicle like a Corvette. The fuel injected engines are by far the best for throttle response and mileage. The tune of any engine, whether base or high performance has to be driven in the rpm range it was designed for. That's what transmissions are installed for. I would exclude the L-79 as being "happy" with a 3.08 or 3.36. If you have to sit in a lot of hot, stop/go traffic, none of the engines above are fun to drive in anything.
The l-79 engine was not conceived solely for introduction in the '65 Corvette. Originally, it was to be released in the '64 Chevelle. Didn't make it. Next, it was to be released in the '65 Chevelle, Corvette and Chevy II. The first two got it, the Chevy II had to wait until '66. I doubt there was a scramble to get some sort of performance small block out preceding or complimenting the MK IV BB. They could have just released a hydraulic lifter version of the BB like the '65 Chevelle Z-16.
Development may have slowed on the SB in '65 but don't forget the Z-28 engine development program that probably started in '66 or even before.
Lt-1 cams? In spite of all the hip hop you've heard on this and other forums about how "torquey" they are..................Ah, never mind.
Other dad-gum website with the smilin' shark has been down for the last few hours, and the dark side is just tooooo boooooring fer me. So, here I am, and you'll have to listen to me, like it or not.
Car and Driver is a commie-pinko rag that always loved German cars and hated American cars. Their praise of the '85 Corvette was well deserved.
2 L98's in a Corvette would require very wide tires.
The L79 did not have solid lifters.
The 250 hp engine was not available in Corvette after 1965.
The fuel injected engines were better in fast corners because there were no fuel-starvation issues. They had better top end, but the plenum diameter further killed torque because intake charge velocity decreased. The fuellie was a great motor.......if you could get it to start, and stay running.
"Happy" with 3.08 or 3.36......................OKAY, let's say, "satisfied" instead.
Z16? They could have developed the Z11, and actually used it for the street.
LT1 cams? Torquey? Preferable to the "346" cam? I think I know who you've been talkin' to.
Don't get me started on THAT.Joe
Team Owner
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 26,118
Likes: 1,874
From: Greenville, Indiana
Mike,
Other dad-gum website with the smilin' shark has been down for the last few hours, and the dark side is just tooooo boooooring fer me. So, here I am, and you'll have to listen to me, like it or not.
If your profile was filled out, I'd probably know who I was talkin' to.
Car and Driver is a commie-pinko rag that always loved German cars and hated American cars. Their praise of the '85 Corvette was well deserved.
'85 Corvettes are JUNK.`
2 L98's in a Corvette would require very wide tires.
Knock the body off the '85 and make you a nice little four wheel trailer to pull behind your mid-year. Plenty of room to haul two engines. Even four.
The L79 did not have solid lifters.
Where did you get the idea I thought it did?
The 250 hp engine was not available in Corvette after 1965.
I'm, well aware of this.
The fuel injected engines were better in fast corners because there were no fuel-starvation issues. They had better top end, but the plenum diameter further killed torque because intake charge velocity decreased. The fuellie was a great motor.......if you could get it to start, and stay running.
You been listening to that guy Luke too much. Mine starts fine, hot or cold and I don't have to work on it. The fuelies were better because they were better. Besides, they'd outrun the carb jobs.
"Happy" with 3.08 or 3.36......................OKAY, let's say, "satisfied" instead.
No way.
Z16? They could have developed the Z11, and actually used it for the street.
The Z-11 was a dump truck engine. The Z-16 was a good one.
LT1 cams? Torquey? Preferable to the "346" cam? I think I know who you've been talkin' to. Don't get me started on THAT.
What is a 346 cam? Lt-1 cams belong in pedal cars.
Joe
Other dad-gum website with the smilin' shark has been down for the last few hours, and the dark side is just tooooo boooooring fer me. So, here I am, and you'll have to listen to me, like it or not.
If your profile was filled out, I'd probably know who I was talkin' to.
Car and Driver is a commie-pinko rag that always loved German cars and hated American cars. Their praise of the '85 Corvette was well deserved.
'85 Corvettes are JUNK.`
2 L98's in a Corvette would require very wide tires.
Knock the body off the '85 and make you a nice little four wheel trailer to pull behind your mid-year. Plenty of room to haul two engines. Even four.
The L79 did not have solid lifters.
Where did you get the idea I thought it did?
The 250 hp engine was not available in Corvette after 1965.
I'm, well aware of this.
The fuel injected engines were better in fast corners because there were no fuel-starvation issues. They had better top end, but the plenum diameter further killed torque because intake charge velocity decreased. The fuellie was a great motor.......if you could get it to start, and stay running.
You been listening to that guy Luke too much. Mine starts fine, hot or cold and I don't have to work on it. The fuelies were better because they were better. Besides, they'd outrun the carb jobs.
"Happy" with 3.08 or 3.36......................OKAY, let's say, "satisfied" instead.
No way.
Z16? They could have developed the Z11, and actually used it for the street.
The Z-11 was a dump truck engine. The Z-16 was a good one.
LT1 cams? Torquey? Preferable to the "346" cam? I think I know who you've been talkin' to.
Don't get me started on THAT.What is a 346 cam? Lt-1 cams belong in pedal cars.
Joe
Now, just WITH is "Joe"?:
You need to fill out your profile. I get back over to the other place, I'll find out.
Last edited by MikeM; Nov 14, 2007 at 02:33 PM.
Safety Car
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 239
From: Ocean Township NJ
"Other dad-gum website with the smilin' shark has been down for the last few hours, and the dark side is just tooooo boooooring fer me. So, here I am, and you'll have to listen to me, like it or not.
If your profile was filled out, I'd probably know who I was talkin' to.
Car and Driver is a commie-pinko rag that always loved German cars and hated American cars. Their praise of the '85 Corvette was well deserved.
'85 Corvettes are JUNK.`
2 L98's in a Corvette would require very wide tires.
Knock the body off the '85 and make you a nice little four wheel trailer to pull behind your mid-year. Plenty of room to haul two engines. Even four.
The L79 did not have solid lifters.
Where did you get the idea I thought it did?
The 250 hp engine was not available in Corvette after 1965.
I'm, well aware of this.
The fuel injected engines were better in fast corners because there were no fuel-starvation issues. They had better top end, but the plenum diameter further killed torque because intake charge velocity decreased. The fuellie was a great motor.......if you could get it to start, and stay running.
You been listening to that guy Luke too much. Mine starts fine, hot or cold and I don't have to work on it. The fuelies were better because they were better. Besides, they'd outrun the carb jobs.
"Happy" with 3.08 or 3.36......................OKAY, let's say, "satisfied" instead.
No way.
Z16? They could have developed the Z11, and actually used it for the street.
The Z-11 was a dump truck engine. The Z-16 was a good one.
LT1 cams? Torquey? Preferable to the "346" cam? I think I know who you've been talkin' to. Don't get me started on THAT.
What is a 346 cam? Lt-1 cams belong in pedal cars.
*************
Now, just WITH is "Joe"?:
You need to fill out your profile. I get back over to the other place, I'll find out."
***********
Does "WITH" mean what I think it means? "Who in the hell is"? Joe is me. I'm Joe! Ya fallah?? My profile IS "filled out".
What is a 346 cam? The "346" cam is the 30-30.
Lt-1 cams belong in pedal cars. First thing you said that makes sense.
The Z-11 was a dump truck engine. No, it wasn't. It was the fabled precursor to the MKIV. Some can remember seeing '63 Impalas with these 427 inchers under their bonnets.
"Happy" with 3.08 or 3.36......................OKAY, let's say, "satisfied" instead. No way. Why not? OKAY, for quicker acceleration, an engine can never have too much torque multiplication......that's true. So, when would the spindly L79 be satisfied? With 4.88's?
You been listening to that guy Luke too much. Mine starts fine, hot or cold and I don't have to work on it. The fuelies were better because they were better. Besides, they'd outrun the carb jobs. Luke? Is he the writer of the third book of the New Testament? Was that a typo? Did you mean Duke? He's correct, sometimes, you know. Only not about LT1 smog cams IMHO. If your fuel car starts fine, then where do you buy your ether? Does it continue to run, once you get it started? I like your argument that "fuelies were better cause they were better". I can't argue with you about that one. Iffen you say so, then it's true. They'd outrun the carb jobs because they were capable of flowing more charge than the Holley 2818. The fuel unit was rated at more than 650 CFM, while the Holley 4150 model 2818 was rated at 585 CFM.
Nice to see that you appreciate early C4's. Look, we all know that REAL Corvettes ended in 1972. No, was it 1967? No, 1962. 1955? Well, at least the POS 1985 has fuel injection, right? Not only that, it has roll-up windows. We all know that REAL roadsters do not have roll-up windows. Do we also know that they all had rumble seats, too?
See you on the REAL Corvette website.
Joe
If your profile was filled out, I'd probably know who I was talkin' to.
Car and Driver is a commie-pinko rag that always loved German cars and hated American cars. Their praise of the '85 Corvette was well deserved.
'85 Corvettes are JUNK.`
2 L98's in a Corvette would require very wide tires.
Knock the body off the '85 and make you a nice little four wheel trailer to pull behind your mid-year. Plenty of room to haul two engines. Even four.
The L79 did not have solid lifters.
Where did you get the idea I thought it did?
The 250 hp engine was not available in Corvette after 1965.
I'm, well aware of this.
The fuel injected engines were better in fast corners because there were no fuel-starvation issues. They had better top end, but the plenum diameter further killed torque because intake charge velocity decreased. The fuellie was a great motor.......if you could get it to start, and stay running.
You been listening to that guy Luke too much. Mine starts fine, hot or cold and I don't have to work on it. The fuelies were better because they were better. Besides, they'd outrun the carb jobs.
"Happy" with 3.08 or 3.36......................OKAY, let's say, "satisfied" instead.
No way.
Z16? They could have developed the Z11, and actually used it for the street.
The Z-11 was a dump truck engine. The Z-16 was a good one.
LT1 cams? Torquey? Preferable to the "346" cam? I think I know who you've been talkin' to. Don't get me started on THAT.
What is a 346 cam? Lt-1 cams belong in pedal cars.
*************
Now, just WITH is "Joe"?:
You need to fill out your profile. I get back over to the other place, I'll find out."
***********
Does "WITH" mean what I think it means? "Who in the hell is"? Joe is me. I'm Joe! Ya fallah?? My profile IS "filled out".
What is a 346 cam? The "346" cam is the 30-30.
Lt-1 cams belong in pedal cars. First thing you said that makes sense.
The Z-11 was a dump truck engine. No, it wasn't. It was the fabled precursor to the MKIV. Some can remember seeing '63 Impalas with these 427 inchers under their bonnets.
"Happy" with 3.08 or 3.36......................OKAY, let's say, "satisfied" instead. No way. Why not? OKAY, for quicker acceleration, an engine can never have too much torque multiplication......that's true. So, when would the spindly L79 be satisfied? With 4.88's?
You been listening to that guy Luke too much. Mine starts fine, hot or cold and I don't have to work on it. The fuelies were better because they were better. Besides, they'd outrun the carb jobs. Luke? Is he the writer of the third book of the New Testament? Was that a typo? Did you mean Duke? He's correct, sometimes, you know. Only not about LT1 smog cams IMHO. If your fuel car starts fine, then where do you buy your ether? Does it continue to run, once you get it started? I like your argument that "fuelies were better cause they were better". I can't argue with you about that one. Iffen you say so, then it's true. They'd outrun the carb jobs because they were capable of flowing more charge than the Holley 2818. The fuel unit was rated at more than 650 CFM, while the Holley 4150 model 2818 was rated at 585 CFM.
Nice to see that you appreciate early C4's. Look, we all know that REAL Corvettes ended in 1972. No, was it 1967? No, 1962. 1955? Well, at least the POS 1985 has fuel injection, right? Not only that, it has roll-up windows. We all know that REAL roadsters do not have roll-up windows. Do we also know that they all had rumble seats, too?
See you on the REAL Corvette website.
Joe
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvette Engines RANKED by Peak Torque (70+ Years of Muscle!)
Joe Kucinski
Corvette ZR1X Will Be Pacing the Indy 500, And Could Probably Race, Too!
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvettes Coming to Mecum Indy 2026!
Brett Foote
Top 10 C9 Corvette MUST-HAVES to Fix These C8 Generation Flaws!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Revolutionary 'Corvette Firsts' Most People Don't Know
Joe Kucinski
