: Victor junior w/divider
May 8th, 00, 12:54 AM
I have a 72 Camro with a large journel 327, I am not sure of the spec's on the cam but it is the GM 350/350hp grind. I have 1.6 rockers and a edelbrock 600 carb I was given a victor jr and liked the way it looked but not the 3500 RPM + powerband. I ordered a kit from wiend fro a diveder plate to lower the power band. I ended using the spacer that holds the divider but had to fab the plenum divider. My question is would I be better off with a performer RPM or sticking with what I have? I have 4.56's with an Auburn posi and a 700r-4 with a saturday night special torque converter. I have run a best of 14.30 in the 1/4. I can't help but think it should run at least a little better then this. I have seen friends run faster with less. Is it my intake or should I swap in 3.73's?
May 8th, 00, 05:49 AM
What intake manifold are you currently running?
Also, do you shift into overdrive in the 1/4 or are you revving your engine up to make it thru? If you are revving the engine up, the 600 cfm carb may be too small. Also, a dual plane would be out of its power range at the top end of the track. If you are shifting into overdrive, that's probably part of the problem because the engine loses its mechanical advantage over the rest of the drivetrain.
I'm not intending to trash your engine, but I don't think your combo sounds right. Your cam was meant for a 350 and you put it in a 327. This makes the cam even more radical. This cam with 1.6 rockers would work better with the Victor single plane intake. But, then you will lose some of the low end torque you currently have.
I think the best alternative would be to get a smaller cam, maybe a Comp Cams 268H, and keep your current dual plane intake and 600 cfm carb. Also, I would get lower rear gears. With the 700r-4's low first gear, you could go to 3.55 without a problem, 3.73 if you want. Gear it so that you DO NOT need to shift into OD and so that you are near peak hp as you go thru the lights.
The key at the track is to keep your engine in its powerband. If you build a low RPM torque monster and shift at 6,500 RPMs, your times will suck.
Hugger Orange & white 69 Camaro with supercharged 350, Tremec TKO, and 3.73 12-bolt
See my website updated 4/5/00 at:
May 8th, 00, 06:08 AM
Leave the Victor Jr in place, use the divider, makes it work. 151 327/350 cam works in every small block you can throw it at. Set initial timing at 14 BTDC, start curve at 900 rpms, limit total mechanical total to 36 @ 2600/2700 rpms. Holley LIST 3310-3 (750 cfm, vac secondary) carb will be fine, if you want a double pumper, use the LIST- 4778-2.
Your present system is geared way too stiff, and the carb is too small for the package. Putting the divider in the intake makes it lower the "on" rpm without making the top end suffer. I would suspect the engine pulls slow up the rpm (carb size too small) and the rpms get there in 3rd gear some distance before the lights (way too low a gear).
Although there is 1/4 inch strike difference, the 327 responds same-same as a 350, and isn't that different on torque, just in a slightly different rpm, not different enough to warrant major change in the engine package.
If I have the choice on engine size between 327/350, I always do the 327, works better than any 350 ever has or will. I even put 327 cranks into 400 blocks with very long rods, to make a 350 the way Chevrolet should have made it in the first place.
May 8th, 00, 06:22 AM
I've been doing much research on the 400/327 ci combo as I am planning on doing this for a dragger and am wondering exactly what set-up you used. Thanx in advance for your input.
May 8th, 00, 05:40 PM
Did my own, for the last 26 years.
May 9th, 00, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IgnitionMan:
Did my own, for the last 26 years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
An old trade secret ay. lol
May 9th, 00, 04:26 AM
Bearing spacers are needed, you'll have to make your own, use Oldsmobile rods, any of them, and have the compression heigths set to your engine, uses a .990 pin for the Olds rods. Turn crank snout down for small block timing sprocket. Other than that, it all bolts together. Well worth the effort over any longer stroke 350.
May 9th, 00, 06:28 AM
Hey thanx a million IgnitionMan, I too think this will be the better choice in the long run. Have been tossing the idea for a couple of years now, just never encountered anyone that has actually ran it before now.
May 9th, 00, 01:41 PM
The only 327s I ever liked were those bored .060 over, and/or ones with the 1/2 inch stroker cranks. These worked better than any 350 setup ever has for me. It seems the 1/4 and 3/4 inch stroke cranks just work best, 3.250/327, 3.750/400 and 3.760/454. The only starignt on stroke that is worth a darn is the 3.00/302 Z/28 one. As far as I am converned, I can get more out of the "odd" strokes than the even 3.500/350 and 4.00/454 ones.
I have proven to myself that the short stroke/long rod 349 inch (4.125 x 3.250) engines just work much better than the other 350 design. You can use longer than 5.700 inch rods, and I now believe there is a piston that is designed to fit this setup, makes it easier.
Seems to me the only use for a 4.00 x 3.500 350 is in a tow truck, granny-mobile or parts delivery vehicle.
May 9th, 00, 04:54 PM
makes sense to me. i had a friend that had a 283 small block nova that blew away 350 79 cmaros daily. seemed likethe motor reved smoother and faster or something.
as long as you are going toward the short stroke, long rod combo, ever thought about the a 283 in the 400? what kind of rev would that make? i know that they made the 302 withteh 283 crank in the 327 block. i think that i may have to plug that into my desk top dyno.
just a question.... JS http://www.camaros.net/forum/biggrin.gif
May 10th, 00, 05:44 AM
That combo would be possible but, according to what i've learnd you would need to use the large journal crank considering the off the shelf bearing spacer inserts. if im not mistakin pistons will need to be made tho????
I have done some more checking around after my last post and found (2) different ways to go on the 400/327 combo, both of which use off the shelf products. BOY now I'm really fired up about it.
[This message has been edited by 71 Camairo (edited 05-10-2000).]
May 10th, 00, 02:02 PM
Bonneville guys use the 283 crank - 400 bore block for their long distance useage. Seems to run great when blower assisted.
The 283 and 327 cranks are lighter than the 350 cranks, not by much but still lighter, rev quicker. 396/427 cranks are the same, 454 weigh more, and work great for larger tow trucks.
May 10th, 00, 06:57 PM
High bore to stoke and long rod benifits are obvious, but I don't think IgnitionMans odd/even stroke thoughts hold any water. Anything to back that.
May 10th, 00, 07:12 PM
CompCams makes the crank spacers.
If I remember correctly you can use a 6.250 rod for this and get an off the shelf piston. The money you spend on the aftermarket rod you'll save not having to buy a costom piston as with the Olds rod.Better combo for similer money,I think.
May 11th, 00, 03:26 AM
just curious but does comp make the spacers for the small journal crank? ive seen where they had them for the medium. the 6.250 rod versus the custom piston on the 400/327 route is 6 of one and a 1/2 dozen the other as far as pricing. in my opinion these combos are perfect for the very light cars (extreme torque and horses at the higher RPM'S) which is what im going to do with it "s10-short bed" FYI- http://www.rosspistons.com/sbcstock5.htm http://www.planet.net.au/~alexst/eaglerod.html#CHEVROLET: Small Block - Large
May 11th, 00, 04:53 AM
Well, kevin, my odd/even stroke "thoughts" as you call them, are backed up by both p[erformance and dyno results that positively prove the fact that the bore/stroke combos I build do, in fact, make more oif everything than the 350 and 454 engines do.
Think what you want, its your opinion and I certainly welcome it, but you are off base here. More than just me have proven it.
There was an article in either Cold Rod or Car Crap a couple of years ago that showed the buildup of the 349 c/i 400 bore/327 stroke engines. Their conclusion was that this is what Chevrolet should have built as a mid-size engine instead of the 350 as it is configured from GM now.
It ain't only me, there kev, its lots of other folks with the same correct "thoughts" and hands-on experiences that prove the premise fully correct.
Torque and horsepower readings are same-same for the engines, and the power band isn't far off from the slug 3.480 stroke 350, but they just run and tune lots better.
Stick to your longer stroke 350 please, the rest of us know-nothings will have more parts to do it the right way.
Even GM engine prototype engineers built these 400/327 bore/stroke engines for their projects in recent years, and run them in their own personal vehicles.
Although completely different from the old 327, the new 5.4 engine is...a 327 or so cube engine.
[This message has been edited by IgnitionMan (edited 05-11-2000).]
May 11th, 00, 04:58 AM
Regarding this "350 Engine Chvy should have built" - I think it was Hot Rod that did an article on it last summer (July issue?). They name a supplier that has the kit approach for this with - I believe - Ford 6.25 rods, thicker bearings so you avoid spacers, crank all set up, and the correct pistons. If you're interested, do a search on "serious destroke" (under Performance) and you can get all the info.
'69 400SB, Richmond 5-speed; '99 HD Road King Classic
May 11th, 00, 09:29 AM
Don't tell your theory to a lot of comp eliminator guys or Nascar guys. They run stokes of all different kinds. They change the bore and stroke depending on the track. I don't think you can make a broad statement that 1/4 strokes are better. It all depends on what you want to do. I think one proven point has been that longer strokes typically produce more low end torque and shorter strokes produce more high rpm horsepower. Torque = Force x Moment Arm where the moment arm of the crank is half the stroke. For the same force (combustion pressure), a longer stroke motor will make more torque. That is the ONLY generalization that makes any sense.
One more thing, why do you have to turn the crank snout down for the timing sprocket? ALL SBC have the same crank snout diameter. The main size goes up, and the damper is externally balanced, but the damper bore is IDENTICAL on all SBC.
69 SSRS Frame-off Resto
81 Z-28 377ci Drag Car
[This message has been edited by 69SSRS (edited 05-11-2000).]
May 11th, 00, 08:42 PM
Well, geez, who cares about NASCRAP, nobody. I am speaking of street and moderate strip performance. The 350 just don't cut the mustard when stacked up against the odd stroke engines. It ain't theory, either, its proven fact, by lots more engine people than just me, there 69SSRS.
Reason you don't see more of it is that the 350 is easiest to get parts for, the aftermarket being only into selling high profit parts junk. I can't help it if the world is 350 happy, I'll just continue to build stuff that works best. You keep feeding the 350 parts people.
May 12th, 00, 06:54 AM
Does that "nobody" include the millions of people that watch and go to NASCAR races? You don't think that the technology they have come up with in the last several years has affected and improved street performance? It's great to have your own opinion, but let everyone else have one too. Just try to prove them wrong to the next stop light. What muscle cars do you own?
67 Camaro 410sb 11.63 @117.6
67 Camaro 388 ET-???
May 12th, 00, 09:06 AM
You obviously have a lot of knowledge to share - but IMHO (and apparently a few others) you may want to work on the presentation slightly. We're just a bunch of friendly gearheads here who want to share knowledge, opinions, find solutions to problems and share a little time with others who have the same passion.
You're a bit forceful with your approach and seem to be disdainful of other's viewpoints. We may not all have your experience but that doesn't mean our opinions don't have any value. There are obviously a lot of different but legitimate ways to solve these automotive challenges.
This site can be tremendously valuable and fun as long as all the participants operate with an open, considerate attitude that allows for a thoughtful exchange of ideas and intelligent discussion. Try it - you'll like it!
'69 400SB, Richmond 5-speed; '99 HD Road King Classic
[This message has been edited by RockyMtnRacer (edited 05-12-2000).]