Question for anyone,

Recently rebuilt my 350 and the machinist said that the connecting rods that came out of what I believe to be the original 350, had small rod bolts and were not as good for performance use. I'm looking for info on these rods, the only ID is the fact that they have a "dimple" near the piston part of the connecting rod. No other ID other than the GM insignia. What are these? Any info would be nice.

------------------
Barry Holland
1967 RS/SS Convertible
Red w/White top and Interior
355 w/ 280H Comp Cam, 9.75:1, 461's (2.02/1.6), Holley 750 VS
PowerGlide w/ 2500 stall
4.10 12 bolt posi., 25.1" tires (60 series)

your engine is rare if it is indeed a 67 350 this was the only year a small journal 350 was ever made , your rod's are the same rod's that were in 327's for many year's I would think you could get a set of aftermarket rod bolt's for it very easy , just ask for rod bolt's for a 67 small jounal 327 they will fit perfect , the 67 350 was a 4'' bore 3&1/2 inch stroke small journal , in 68 gm increased the journal size on all small block's , also your engine should have a forged steel crank ,

------------------
69 camaro traded for 67 camaro traded back for 69 now back with a 67 rs WILL IT NEVER END ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I HOPE NOT .
ADVENTURE'S IN RUST REPAIR

mebe_epp,

Thanks for the response, you are right in that the crank was forged. I did although put the bigger connecting rods in the rebuilt engine. Thanks for answering that question.

------------------
Barry Holland
1967 RS/SS Convertible
Red w/White top and Interior
355 w/ 280H Comp Cam, 9.75:1, 461's (2.02/1.6), Holley 750 VS
PowerGlide w/ 2500 stall
4.10 12 bolt posi., 25.1" tires (60 series)

mebe_epp,

Are you saying a real '67 350SS engine had medium journal mains and small journal rods??? pdq67

In November of 1999 I looked at a 67 350 steel crank, small rods & small mains it was a august of 1966 cast date & was for a my 67 Camaro. That is the only one I have ever seen. The man that I bought my car from had the orginal engine & transmission for $1000 for the engine block, crank, rods, heads, intake & valve pan covers, I had it all checked out at a machine shop & the owner of the machine shop told me that he had seen 5 or 6 of the small journal 350's $1000.00 for the transmissinon

------------------
1967 RS/SS 396 Camaro

pdq67, no! a 67 is a small jounal engine , all after 68 are large jounal , all small block engine's from 55 to 67 share the same rod and main jounal size , the first Z/28 in 67 with a 302 was a 327 4'' bore block with a 283 3'' stroke crank , in 68 all small block rod and main jounal size's were increased , so if you you hear someone say they have a large jounal 327 then they have a 68 up 327 , and so on

------------------
69 camaro traded for 67 camaro traded back for 69 now back with a 67 rs WILL IT NEVER END ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I HOPE NOT .
ADVENTURE'S IN RUST REPAIR

Barry, and everyone else...
I do not beleive there was ever a small journal 350 motor. The 67 350's were late in the year and I am pretty sure they were all large journal. I do remember seeing a "weird" 350 connecting rod a few years back that was a large journal rod, but still had the small (11/32") rod bolts. Barry might have confirmed this suspicion when he said that he put the "larger" rods in the motor. You cannot just replace small journal rods with large journal ones so I am betting that what he had was a set of the "weird" rods. I bet that the crank is large journal.
Barry....what part number rod and main bearings did you sue...that will clear up the confusion.

------------------
Bill Koustenis
Owner
Advanced Automotive Machine
Waldorf Md
1971 Chevelle "Heavy Chevy" original owner

this will be interesting in that to my knowlege (AND THAT AIN"T MUCH) all 67 small block's were small jounal , I'll bet if he has large journal rod's then he doe's not have an original 67 350 , but we will see ??
http://www.camaros.net/forum/confused.gif

------------------
69 camaro traded for 67 camaro traded back for 69 now back with a 67 rs WILL IT NEVER END ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I HOPE NOT .
ADVENTURE'S IN RUST REPAIR

Da-m-it! I NEVER threw a socket on my stock, '67, 350SS engine's rods!! And I've looked at them b/c my pan was off it for years in storage before I screwed it up. And mine should quailify b/c it was a 'Dec. '66 car!!

I got a feeling there is merit to the small rod-bolt engines, but flat don't know, b/c I was always under the impression that the new in late '66, 350 engine was the VERY first of the medium journal SB engines!! pdq67

I am with BillK on this one...I have been around this stuff for many years and have never heard of a small journal 350. My understanding is that the 350 was the first medium journal engine available, followed shortly by the medium journal 327's and 307's.

Please don't prove me wrong...my whole little world would just fall apart http://www.camaros.net/forum/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by travis (edited 10-13-2002).]

From the pages of "Chevrolet Service News", (Sept.-Oct. 1967 issue), in wich the 1968 model year changes are described.

"CONECTING ROD
The 307, 327 and 350 cu. in. engines will use a common rod which is the same as the past model 350 rod except that larger diameter 3/8 bolts are used in place of the old 11/32 bolts.
The new connecting rod cannot be used for service on past model 350 cu. in. engines unless the cylinder block is reworked at the pan rail to clear the end of the rod nut."

The 350 crank is described as a "carryover" from 1967, with 2.10" diameter pins, and 2.45" diameter mains.

Ok...Monday AM at the shop, here is what I found.
I have looked through every crankshaft and connecting rod book that I have, along with the original GM 1967 service manual. There is no reference anywhere to a small journal 350....I dont think it exists. Every manual shows the 350 having the 2.448" mains and 2.100" rods.
There is however a large journal rod listed that uses a 11/32" bolt. So I am sure that is what Barry had.

------------------
Bill Koustenis
Owner
Advanced Automotive Machine
Waldorf Md
1971 Chevelle "Heavy Chevy" original owner

You learn something every day, Bill.

It's like I never knew GM made long rods for the BB engine but they did for the Can-Am 430 cubic inch engines, not 430hp/427, L-88 engines and they are rare as "hen's teeth".

pdq67

what is the casting #'s for a 67 camaro 327 block ?
and what is the casting #'s for a 67 camaro 350 block
and doe's a 67 SS 350 have a spin on oil filter ?


------------------
69 camaro traded for 67 camaro traded back for 69 now back with a 67 rs WILL IT NEVER END ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I HOPE NOT .
ADVENTURE'S IN RUST REPAIR

Everyone,

Wow, I thought this post was over. Bill, I believe that the rod was the same, but had the larger bolts. As I said my engine builder told me this and I just wanted some clarification. Is there anything I could measure to help clear the air? Thanks.

------------------
Barry Holland
1967 RS/SS Convertible
Red w/White top and Interior
355 w/ 280H Comp Cam, 9.75:1, 461's (2.02/1.6), Holley 750 VS
PowerGlide w/ 2500 stall
4.10 12 bolt posi., 25.1" tires (60 series)

My '67, 350 engine had the old canister oil filter and I liked it except for having to use a dedicated "ice-pick" to get the big thin O-ring outta the groove!!! pdq67

hey guy's jeff say's he looked and the 302 327 &350 were the same block so a small journal 350 must have existed , cause a large journal crank won't fit any of these block's http://www.camaros.net/forum/Forum6/HTML/002773.html

------------------
69 camaro traded for 67 camaro traded back for 69 now back with a 67 rs WILL IT NEVER END ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I HOPE NOT .
ADVENTURE'S IN RUST REPAIR

Barry,
If you still have the rods with the small bolts, bolt one together and measure the inside diameter of the rod, where the rod bearing fits. A large journal rod measures 2.225" If you have a list of parts, see what rod bearings you used.
epp, there were large journal 302's and 327's
I dare anyone to find any documentation that shows small journal crankshaft specs for a 350 engine.

------------------
Bill Koustenis
Owner
Advanced Automotive Machine
Waldorf Md
1971 Chevelle "Heavy Chevy" original owner

bill I know their were large jounal 302's and 327's , but they were 68 and later , the 67 302 was a small journal 327 block 4'' bore with a 283 3'' stroke crankshaft , I still think the 67 350 was a small journal ,
http://www.camaros.net/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
69 camaro traded for 67 camaro traded back for 69 now back with a 67 rs WILL IT NEVER END ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I HOPE NOT .
ADVENTURE'S IN RUST REPAIR

bill here is a link to a block casting #'s page scroll down to the 67 327 350 , they are the same block casting ! 3892657 !
how would it be possible for this to be anything other than a small jounal ? http://www.nastyz28.com/sbchevy/sblock.html
all three 67 engine's are in the same block the 302 327 and 350 , on the right hand of the page it show's the vehicle's for each engine out from the 350 it say's CAMARO !


------------------
69 camaro traded for 67 camaro traded back for 69 now back with a 67 rs WILL IT NEVER END ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I HOPE NOT .
ADVENTURE'S IN RUST REPAIR

mebe,
Check this listing out...it shows the block as a small journal 302 and 327 AND a large journal 350 in 1967 ! http://www.tracyvette.com/blockssb.html

I am making my comments based on the fact that in all of the many crankshaft and bearing books, along with an original 67 GM service manual, all the 350 engines specs show a large journal crankshaft. We already know that the 350 large journal rods were available with 11/32 bolts, who is to say that this block casting was not machined for both large and small mains ???
My cousin has a library of original GM service documentation from that era, but he is on vacation. As soon as he gets back, I will be picking his memory banks also.
It gets real interesting http://www.camaros.net/forum/smile.gif

------------------
Bill Koustenis
Owner
Advanced Automotive Machine
Waldorf Md
1971 Chevelle "Heavy Chevy" original owner

All my historian books seem to tell the tail that Chevrolet engineers were real worried about the small journals and the longer stroke. In a passanger car they felt it might fly but in the "HP SS 350" The didn't chance it... That leads me to believe no Camaros got small journal cranks. The books also say the L48's got cast nodular iron cranks...

------------------
...Dennis
"The '69 (http://chevelles.com/showroom/ww.jpg), the '96 (http://www.camaroslimited.com/graphics/memcars/96ss.jpg) our local club (http://camaroslimited.com/)"
and the "daily driver" (http://chevelles.com/showroom/DjD/dsc00016.jpg)

The 350 that was correct for my 67 RS/SS 350 Camaro which is a 09C build date had a steel crank & was small journal, I had it vertified as a 350 at a local machine shop, I wish now I had paid the $1000.00 he was asking for it.It would be worth it to settle this once & for all, it had the small rod bolts in the rods & they were the same rods as a 327 275 horse because I know the man that bought the rods from him & he put them in a 67RS with a 327 with a 275 hp rating & a 4 speed.

Just to confuse things a little further:

"It should be mentioned here that there were approximately 6,000 327 (275 H.P.) engines coupled with Powerglide transmissions built in early 1968 production that used the 1967 connecting rod incorporating the 11/32 X 24 bolt......." (Chevrolet Service News, Dec-67)

My L-48, 350 engine had a forged crank in it,I do remember that about it. pdq67

if a large journal 350 was made in 67 it would be a weird animal , 67 large journal canister oil filter ??? strange !!!
I think it was small journal

------------------

If anyone believes that GM did not make a large journal 350 in 67 you are sadly mistaken. I have owned 2 67 SS cars. One has a september motor. One had an october motor. Both were large journal. The september block sits 6 feet from my computer at home.

Steve

I have owned a 67 rs/ss 350 car with had a large jrnl.small bolt,cast crank,w/canister fiter.