Team Camaro Tech banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

68 327, need recommendations for a mild cam

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
S

Stewie

· Registered
Joined
·
1,288 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
I have a 68 327 four barrel. It is not the original motor and it is supposed to have 275 horses. I am looking to get a little more performance out of her. I have headers and an eltronic ignition. I don't know what cam is in it but it is very mild with almost no lump to it. I have the standard four barrel cast intake. I recently added power front disc brakes. So I would like to have enough vacuum.
Can you guys recommend a good all around cam, and should I go to to an aftermarket high rise aluminum intake? It has a T400 trans.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#2 ·
Sure,

Hy-cam!!

Install any one of them from the old CC 268HE, 270 Magnum, Isky 270 Mega, and Crane's 272/272 Energizer and old 274H06 up to UDHarold's latest 268 VooDoo type cam!!

Me, personally, I'd install something like a good old CC 270S solid lifter cam in her and rpm it!! You have to remember that a 275 to 300hp/327 will love rpmm'ing up to 7,000!!

pdq67
 
#3 ·
pdq67 said:
Sure,

Hy-cam!!

Install any one of them from the old CC 268HE, 270 Magnum, Isky 270 Mega, and Crane's 272/272 Energizer and old 274H06 up to UDHarold's latest 268 VooDoo type cam!!

Me, personally, I'd install something like a good old CC 270S solid lifter cam in her and rpm it!! You have to remember that a 275 to 300hp/327 will love rpmm'ing up to 7,000!!

pdq67
Click to expand...
you dont think a voo doo 268 or any of them other ones would be to big for his application ?. i have a 355 and i think the 268 was the biggest cam ud harold rec. I figured somthing more along a 214 or so @.050...but i dont know alot about motors,..maybe a 327 can handle different stuff than my 355 ?
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#5 ·
check the head casting numbers first, and maybe the cranking compression. We really need more data to recommend a cam, heads and compression ratio are WAY important.

I ran a 270H magnum in a 9.5:1 327 with good heads, it worked GREAT, as will any of the cams PDQ recommended, assuming your comp is at least 9.5:1 and your heads are decent.

If you got 76cc heads, you won't have the comp you need. If you have nail valve 2 bbl heads, fugetabout it, change the heads not the cam.
 
Discussion starter · #6 ·
I will check the heads and see what I have. I really haven't spent alot of time on the engine. I have been getting everthing else fixed. This will be the last item. So far it cruises quite nicely but I still would like a little more performance!
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#7 ·
Jim... How was the bottom end with that 270H on a 9.5:1 327? I have tall gears (3.08) and will be running a Muncie. 270H sounds a bit big to me.

Figured I'd ask here, since the OPs car likely has 2.72-3.08 gears too (assuming nothing has been changed over the years).
 
#8 ·
If he's got the 275 horse motor then he has the 291 double hump heads and those are 64CC I think. Those are great heads but he has the 194 valves not the 202 z28 valve. For his application the 194's will be better anyway.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#9 ·
John65nova said:
Jim... How was the bottom end with that 270H on a 9.5:1 327? I have tall gears (3.08) and will be running a Muncie. 270H sounds a bit big to me.

Figured I'd ask here, since the OPs car likely has 2.72-3.08 gears too (assuming nothing has been changed over the years).
Click to expand...
The 270H ran GOOD. Idled at 750-800 lumpy, great low end torque, killer midrange, shifted at 6200. I also used 1.6 rockers with it.

Driveline was muncie m20 (2.52 first) w/3.08 gears.

Voodoo 268, or a similar comp HE or XE would probably make more power without hurting the low end.
 
#10 ·
bdzee said:
If he's got the 275 horse motor then he has the 291 double hump heads and those are 64CC I think. Those are great heads but he has the 194 valves not the 202 z28 valve. For his application the 194's will be better anyway.
Click to expand...
Check and make sure. Number is under the valve covers, between the valves, cast in.

When I first went searching for my "no power" situation, I found a PO had put a set of nail valve 327-210 heads on!!!
 
#11 ·
JimM said:
The 270H ran GOOD. Idled at 750-800 lumpy, great low end torque, killer midrange, shifted at 6200. I also used 1.6 rockers with it.

Driveline was muncie m20 (2.52 first) w/3.08 gears.

Voodoo 268, or a similar comp HE or XE would probably make more power without hurting the low end.
Click to expand...
When you say "great low-end torque", do you mean off-idle, or was it a dud until 2000 rpm or so? Just wondering, because I would expect a cam like that to be a little soft when trying to pull a hill in 4th at 1800 rpm or something. I could be (and probably am) completely wrong! ;)
 
#12 ·
275hp/327 spec's at 10.25, so I figure right at 10 to 1 CR.

It hopefully has -462 or -291, medium valve heads on it along w/ stock type, .020" thick, steel shim headgaskets just like way back then.

It's a heck of a good engine to start out w/ for a 327, imho!! About as good as the 300hp/327!!

Any of those cams that I mentioned earlier along w/ a good 600 cfm 4-barrel on a good dual plane and a set of 1.625" dia., 4-tube, long headers will do great!!

Sucker will run like a "scalded-dog!!"........

pdq67
 
#13 ·
pdq67 said:
About as good as the 300hp/327!!


pdq67
Click to expand...
It's the same exact engine. The only difference is that it had a Q-jet instead of an AFB, and it came with single exhaust. Also, in 1967, the cam changed from a 198/198@.050, .398/.398 cam to the '929' cam.

Factory CR was optimistic for both, IMO, assuming the heads are a true 64cc, and that deck clearance was .025" per spec. Also remember that head gasket bores are not 4.000", and FT pistons had ~6cc worth of valve releifs. Plug it into a calculator and you will see. ;) :)
 
#14 ·
John65nova said:
When you say "great low-end torque", do you mean off-idle, or was it a dud until 2000 rpm or so? Just wondering, because I would expect a cam like that to be a little soft when trying to pull a hill in 4th at 1800 rpm or something. I could be (and probably am) completely wrong! ;)
Click to expand...
I mean I could take off from a red light at just above idle with no clutch slipping (M20-2.52? 1st, 3.08 gear)
I could roll her at 2k in first, put in half throttle and smoke the (RR only) tires, without touching the clutch. I could putt around at 35 in 4th without drama. It worked real good.
 
#15 ·
JimM said:
I mean I could take off from a red light at just above idle with no clutch slipping (M20-2.52? 1st, 3.08 gear)
I could roll her at 2k in first, put in half throttle and smoke the (RR only) tires, without touching the clutch. I could putt around at 35 in 4th without drama. It worked real good.
Click to expand...
man, thats crazy..i can take off on wet pavement in my car in 1st and i have 3.55 and if im crusing along 2,000 or so in 1st gear and floor it on wet pavement, it want even spin untilllike 4500-5000 rpms..then i can hit second and it will spin to about 4000 rpms and just finaly grip and go.....and thats only the right rear also because i dont have posi. .im starting to think the guy i get to do my timing and stuff has my timing curve all messed up or somthing

on drive pavement i can be crusing along in 1st around 1500 and floor it and it want do anything...then around 2500 it will pull but it dosnt pull hard untill 3500, change at 5800 rpms and hit 2nd and it will only BARK the right rear tire...my motor seems alot more sluggish than some of the other motors on this forum....the only thing i can think it is
28" rear tire
my 600 vac secondary holley
timing curve
my stupid 882 heads
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#16 ·
I think the biggest difference was the Iron Eagle 180 heads I put on the car at the same time as the cam change. Between the 2, it was a completely different car. Before the swaps, I could sidestep the clutch at 5k and barely get a chirp, after, I'm constantly working to keep her hooked up!
 
Discussion starter · #17 ·
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#18 · (Edited)
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#19 ·
Stewie,

Those are the "double hump" or "Camelback" or "Fuelie" heads, as enthusiasts used to call 'em. Stock for a 275hp/327. Anyway, those the are the good ones... 64cc 1.94/1.50 valves, and about 9.5:1 on a stock flat-top 327.
 
Discussion starter · #20 ·
I was hoping that was so. So now I can go ahead and look for a cam that will work with those heads and a Quad Carb. I will incorporate a highrise aluminum intake for a bit of eye appeal.
Oh yea ridnbikes, that is silicon, and no leaks!
Thanks again.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
About this Discussion
20 Replies
8 Participants
Last post:
PDQUICK
Team Camaro Tech
posts
2.4M
members
90K
Since
1998
A forum community dedicated to 1st generation Chevy Camaros owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, restoration, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, reviews, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Bench Racing Engine Body Shop Performance Brakes, Suspension & Steering