Good Morning Vette People,
I was looking at the NOM in my '62 Vette and hoping someone could give me an Idea of what the builder was trying to
accomplish....Horsepower...Mechanical..W hatever.. The Engine is
DEFINATELY a "Frankenstein" Engine. It probably has a racing cam
as it idles a little rough at a normal idle but smooths out at about an
800 RPM idle. The Castings are as follows:
Block is 3858174 C46 (March 4 66)
Heads are 3876775 C297 (March 29 67)
Intake is 3746829 L277 (Dec 27 57)

The car came with a Holley 4 barrel that leaked really bad and was missing
choke parts and bolted on with an adapter plate. I have since installed
a Carter WCFB (ID tag is 28179), I believe this is for a 58 Bel-Air with
a 348. Is this good as far as CFMs are concerned for this pieced together
engine? The engine does seem to run pretty good, no smoke, ocassional
oil drips, reliable. Could do a little better on gas milage...LOL. Any Info
would be greatly appreciated. The car was no doubt turned into a drag
race machine, the front bumpers were notched out for a tow bar and
It came with Crager ETs and wide tires. The floor was all cut up for an
after market shifter. I am gradually going back to original. My goal is
to turn this horse back into a princess.....
Thanks...Take Care,
Shawn :chevy


[Modified by stouro, 7:58 AM 1/28/2003]

 

block 327,heads 327,intake corvette. post the sufix of the number stamped on the block just in front of the passenger side cylinder head which may tell us more. :chevy

 

Hey Clem,
Thanks for the info so far. The Block appears to have been decked and those numbers are gone.
Take Care,
Shawn :chevy

 

Shawn,

If memory serves, the Carter WCFB's were rated about 450 CFM. In '62, the AFB's increased that to 600 CFM w/larger secondaries. If your looking at the cruisin' end of the spectrum and not performance, the WCFB will suffice. I've been there, done that, and it works fine. On a recent trip to Mystic, Ct., I averaged 17 mpg w/T10 close ratio, 3.36 rear, mild Crane cam, solids, Jardine headers, etc. as long as I didn't get "footloose and fancy free". Of course, the co-pilot usually took care of that. Good luck with the restore and most important, have fun drivin' it!

 

Actually, the WCFB only flows about 385 CFM. An AFB would be more appropriate , (and more correct) on a 327. For low speed cruising, it probably won't make much difference, but at WOT it will. There are some new AFB clones on the market which have a good reputation.

 

I agree that an AFB would be more in line, but ultimately you need to decide what you want to do with the engine / Vette overall.

If your going to return it to "close" to Numbers matching, you might not want to spend money on carb that is just better for the moment. If your short term goal is to get it running as a nice driver, then agree go for the AFB. But sounds like you suspect the cam as being more than needed or desired, and there are probably other mismatches. Does it have headers or exhaust manifolds? Whatever carb you go with, don't use an adapter plate! Use a manifold designed for that particular carb.

I look upon it as having 2 ways of approaching this type of project. A nice Hi-PO driver that still gets decent economy, or go for completely original, and therefore bigger bucks for all the little things that entails.

I went for the first option (but still havn't gotten beyond 14 MPG during cruising - that is one of this year's main projects). From the appearance of my plugs, I am running way too rich, and dual AFB's do not help!

Good luck with your 62 project,

 

I wasn't certain of the CFM rating and I agree with you in part, however, the '62 327/250hp engines were equipped with 3191S WCFB's, which, technically makes a WCFB equipped 327, no less correct. In Shawn's case, it appears that much is incorrect. I also agree with your assessment on the after market clones. The "Competition Series AFB" is a good example.
I happened to be in the same predicament as "Plasticman" w/ dual's, except mine were WCFB's. I had a 250 hp/ 4bbl manifold and decided to try it with a WCFB rebuild. Got off cheap and it works great. Granted, I do lack some performance, but, it's a good cruiser and that's what I wanted. As Plasticman said, ultimately, Shawn must decide to do what will make him happy!
:thumbs:

 

Hey Guys,
Thanks for the info So far. Basically what I am doing is this
'62 is a driver with mostly original trim and components, NOT really
a showcar. Still need to paint it too... I'm just trying to confirm what
I've got under the hood and make sure I maintain it correctly. It is
running quite nicely at the moment. AFB might be in it's future WOT
could use a little help!...LOL
One other thought....Question, On the 327 heads
for '67 Would those have originally been Hydraulic or Solid lifters?
I also notice these '67 heads have the larger type body spark plugs.
(I.E. not the smaller AC 44 type plugs) Would that somehow indicate a higher horsepower option?
Again...Thanks
Take Care,
Shawn :chevy


[Modified by stouro, 4:33 PM 1/29/2003]

 

Shawn,

The heads do not determine if it was a Hyd. or Solid lifter cam (but can be a "clue"). 67's were available with both type cams, with the higher HP engines using the solids. The plugs you have are correct for a 67 set of heads if they are 14MM thread and have a 13/16" hex with a steel gasket for the seat area (think GM changed to the smaller 5/8" hex tapered seat plugs around 71).

I have found your head numbers in only one listing, and they are 62-67 327 truck heads. None of my Vette of passenger car manuals list your heads. To find out further info, such as valve and port size would require removal from the engine. I would bet that these heads are small valve and port size. In the long run, you would be better served to get a "known" set of heads (with either 1.94/1.50 or 2.02/1.60 intake/exhaust valves, and have them reworked per your requirements (I would recommend a clean up mill on the gasket surface, new bronze guide liners, new valves, 3 angle valve job, and perhaps some pocket porting). The 1.94/1.50 heads are very available cheaply and are a great choice for a reliable driver. The later heads (from like a 71 & up 350) would also have hardened seats for running no-lead fuel, and would lower your compression ratio (depending on what your ratio is - since we really don't know what you have for chambers and pistons). Only "issue" with the later heads is they have extra mounting bosses on the ends, but this is not a problem on most "drivers".

Plasticman


[Modified by Plasticman, 5:45 PM 1/29/2003]

 

Hey Plasticman,
Thanks for the info on the heads. That makes more sense to me thinking back. I had a '59 Apache with a '74 350 and it had the smaller
5/8" type plugs. It's kind of funny to see what the builder came up with when
he pieced this 327 together. Checking into it a bit more I found out the bellhousing too is '66, when I went to get a fork boot for it. The Cool thing is
when I got the car it was trailered in from Michigan and it wasn't running.
The seller told me bad fuel pump and carb rebuild. And that worked out just
as stated. Just recently had exhaust replaced from a hacked-up glass pack
setup (the idiot notched the frame X in the front), to a stock quiet set up.
And it runs fairly smooth. Not looking to get into any serious engine work at this point, just really trying to maintain what is there. Anyway Thanks Again!
Any suggestions regarding running Unleaded fuel on these older engines?
Not a lot of choice in the matter down here...$$$
Take Care,
Shawn :chevy

 

Shawn,

As long as it runs and is reliable, have fun!

Unleaded fuel is not really that big a problem with the older engines (as once was thought). As long as you are not driving it under constant high load (racing or towing are 2 prime examples), there should be minimum valve recession. These engines are really lightly loaded, considering how large the engine is and how light the vehicle is (estimates are that the typical engine generates only about 12-14HP to cruise at 65MPH). Other items will probably wear out way before you have problems due to the unleaded fuel (timing chain, cam, etc.). Besides, the unleaded allows the plugs to last a lot longer! My 70 Vette (back in the early 70's) use to get 2K miles on a set of plugs! How times have changed.

Have fun!
Plasticman