Yep, fun I am sure......the engine design was based (as Tom pointed out) due to 5 liter restrictions to go SCCA racing so Chevrolet had the parts in their bin already....the 327 block (at the time) and the 283 crank.....not because they thought 302 was a magical number for HP but because that was their restrictions so they had to make a street version of the car.....the Z28 version was born....ALL 290 HP of it (maybe underrated understood as well) but still.....14 second cars with the help of solid lifters letting them pull to 7 without floating the valves; not bad for the day, but it was never going to be a the ultimate winner in the 1/4 slug fest running against 396 Chevelles or 426 Hemi cars with bigger cubes that pulled to 6,000 RPM....NO WAY.... it did what it was intended to do: revved and went around corners....

I remember once back in high school, a friend had a 283 Chevy II with a nice set of heads and a big stick.....ran OK......transferred the same heads and cam to a 350 block.........BIG DIFFERENCE....car was WAY faster.....went from a 14.5 1/4 mile to high 13's....didn't rev as high but sure it sure made MORE HP AND TORQUE

 

For your own knowledge, 302 cranks were not 283's. They had a V notch in the flywheel mounting boss unlike the 283. Also, 68, and 69 were large journal which 283 never was. 68, and 69 also saw a shared block across 302, 327, and 350. The 302 Ford and Chevy were dyno by Hotrod at both over 350 hp. The 302 vs 396 was actually comparable in 1/4 mile et with a better driver in the 302 beating it's big brother. What's really funny here is the 302 is worth way more than the 396 car. GM switched to the LT1 in 70, because it was more dependable even if it only produced the same power.

 

Well,

whatever, I am not going to debate your thoughts here.....you like smaller cubes.......no problem, I respect your opinion......

 

No debate, but pointing out facts that you missed. I've never said I like smaller cubes, but have said bigger bore, shorter stroke is faster.

You comparison of a 283 to a 302 would be like saying a 305 is the same as a 350. The 302 produced pk hp at 6800 which is the highest for any factory produced SBC. It is always safer to go with a longer stroke on a street engine for power and longevity. The ultimate is different. The premise of the long stroke argument would have everyone building 434's. Therefore, anything less isn't any good?

 

sure it made peak HP at 6800 RPM because it was short stroke solid lifter motor.......

I bet I make plenty more power with my longer stroke 350 at 6,000 RPM than your 302 at 6800 RPM; mine has roughly at 350rwhp @ 6000 RPM; see what the 302's did at the wheels (at 6800RPM)......but I am sure you have ways of defying history, logic, and physics on my "improper assessment" of that as well.........

again, no problem with your ideas here....destroke and make more power.......

 

First, I'm not trying to say a 302 is better than a 350, or anything really. Example, you live in a state with smog check? Build a stroker with max cam to pass emissions like a 383, 396, 415, or 434. Dependable, lots of power, and passes smog to be street legal. However, no smog and I'll build a 377 and cam it based on use.

Currently my L98 is in a 2800 Jeep. 72 010 4 bolt block, 1053 3.48 GM performance parts crank with ZZ4 113 heads and TPI with gobs of low end that can bust anything in the drivetrain.

20 years ago I had a 327 with BowTie heads and a comp 294 solid in the same Jeep. It was waaay faster, but really wasn't what was needed except maybe sand. There's a design for every purpose, and longer stroke is not the only answer end all of said subject.

If the OP wants to put a smaller crank in a LT1 I say go for it, and support it. Presenting a tone that the OP is just a stupid idiot, and longer is the only way makes you wonder who the idiot really is.

 

How did you measure that one was "waaay faster"? I hope you didn't use the SOTP meter...
Doesn't matter anyway; different heads, etc. The 327 wasn't "waaaay faster" b/c is was a "magical, short stroke 327". If it was in fact faster, it was so, b/c if H/C Intake.




Easy. The guy who wants to spend money to take away tq and power, and any guy who says "that's a good idea b/c class displament limited race engines use BB/SS motors"....which isn't relevant to the OP's question.

Waaaaaaaaaaay back at the beginning of this retarded thread, the OP asked; No. The answer for someone seeking advice on this is "no". Most people who know how engines work, and most on this thread don't agree that someone should spend their $$$ to make their car slower. The OP asked a question...presumably, seeking sound advice. NOW, If the OP is "in love" with the idea of having his 'magical 327' engine that will be a "screamer", then sure...he can go for it.

But he should have never asked the question in the first place b/c if that is the reason why he wants to do it (emotional/psychological), then it really doesn't matter what the facts are, if it's a good idea or not! He wants to do it...so go do it! Then report back about your 250 RWHP LT327.

 

My 346 is faster than my 350 was

 

And a monster stroker at 3.622! I've got one of these and it is fast considering it's 100% stock. Maybe with a K&N filter I can get 50 more hp?

 

There is no replacement for displacement.
Why do you think Dodge doesn't just put a smaller version of the Hemi in the SRT Viper, instead of lugging that massive V10 around that's so choked down with air restrictors.

 

Thanks for the laughs, guys! This thread reminds me of the old Jane Curtin, Dan Aykroyd debates:

 

I put a K&N sticker on my SLP claw and it gave me 40 RWHP. I tested it with my SOP meter.

 

The modular 4.6's also destroy pistons due to side scuffing from said long stroke.

 

I am glad you told me that........

I'll have to let my brother know that his 460rwhp Cobra that has 70K of tough miles (with absolutely no engine problems at all) that the pistons are destroyed from side scuffing.....or maybe they will be........his stroke is too long, right???? OK

It's amazing what I have learned here...........


I need to call my engine builder......see if they make a shorter stroke crank for my 355...may not get it down to 327 but maybe 330 cubes....much better off that way.....I'll have a real screamer.......and I don't want destroyed pistons either......

 

You started this silly thread so go ahead and end it with another silly comment.......I am done

usually don't post on threads that are somewhat humorous like this since I fear a troll in the mix, but I was rather amazed and could not help myself.....

 

I don't know about anyone else, but surely we should take these guys at their words. It's not like racing sanctioning bodies limit displacement for a reason or anything right? Clearly smaller is better!

(says this as I'm eyeballing a 400 to stuff in my C4)

Parts for parts, you won't find ANY 327 that makes the same power as a 350. Not in anything under 7,000 rpm at any rate.
Slap some AFR heads on a 327 with a cam. Go do a pull. Now put those heads and cam on a 350. Guess who wins. It's not the 327.

Why in the hell would you go SMALLER on an engine? (especially if you aren't changing Packaging Size)
For the money you will spend on turning an LT1 into a 327, you could have gone up to a 383, produce MORE power and torque than the 350 (which the 327 will at best EQUAL, part for part), and had enough money left over to buy a cheap turbo kit an go even faster. And I don't know about anyone else, but the rumble of a 383 plus the sound of a turbo sounds like a much more bad *** car than some high revving 327 ever will. And it'd be a hell of alot faster too.

Something else to note, with a 327 build you WILL have to go to a solid roller camshaft or break the bank for a 4 pattern cam, unless you enjoy picking up pieces of engines up off the road behind your car. So you lose reliability, or gain a huge expense in the engine build which would have been completely unnecessary to make MORE power SOONER with a 383.

 

I guess the only way to tell is to build one.. oO no one ever has that i can find....

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by captcolt

So we all KNOW the advantages to the 327... the short stroke. gives great revs sometimes ridiculously high. Colt

What rev limit do you plan to build this motor too? Also, what cam will you be using? Where do you project the power band to be?

 

Serious? Lots here have and are trying to make this make sense to you

Someone else here built one a year or two ago same thoughts. Built it with a mild hyd roller nothing special heads. Ran 13 somethings he was bummed but got his 302.

If youre going to do it throw a good 12:1 at it a solid roller thats no good below 4k, a 4.56 gear and a 195 comp port head then youll reap the benefit

 

Same guy told me it ran great and he was very pleased. I mean really, if we're going to resort to hearsay let's at least get it right.