84 t/a 5.0

My dad has his fathers 1967 chevy impala 4dr. It has the original 327 engine and the 2.02 (Is this right?) heads on it. supposedly it has 275-300 horsepower stock. Is this engine worth keeping to build up?

SUPER-SPORT-CHEVY

Its very possible it had the 2.02 valves. Any 327 is worth rebuilding. I personaly think that 327's were the best SBC engine ever made. They hade killer power and got very decent fuel economy.

Heres some usefull info, these are not my opinions I just cut em from a site, although I do agree with them.
SSC

"462" – Could be 3890462, 3891462, 3990462. The 462 is one of the best flowing
production SBC heads. They were used between 1962-1968 on various HP versions of
302, 327, or 350 engines. They could have come with either 1.94/1.50" or 2.02/1.60"
valves, had 64CC combustion chambers, DO NOT have accessory holes, intake port
volume should be 161CC's, exhaust port volume should be 65CC's. These heads have
double hump casting marks.

"461" – Could be 3782461, or 3782461X. These were an excellent performance head.
The regular 461 casting was used between 1964-1966 and could be found on 327
engines. They had 2.02/1.60" valves, a 64CC combustion chamber, DO NOT have
accessory holes, intake port volume of 161CC's, exhaust 62CC's. These heads have
double hump casting marks. The "X" castings had the same port configuration, but had
larger port volumes, they DO NOT have accessory holes. The intake port on the "X"
casting was 172CC's, and the exhaust port was 62CC's, valve sizing was 1.94/1.50".
The "X" heads had double hump casting marks as well.

"291" – Could be 3912291, or 3917291. This is another good performance casting.
They were found on 1967-1968 302, 327, or 350 engines. They could have either
1.94/1.50" or 2.02/1.60" valves, 64CC combustion chambers, DO NOT have accessory
holes, intake port volume should be 161CC's, exhaust port volume should be 65CC's.
These heads have double hump casting marks.

"492" – 3991492. Another good performance head. They were found on 1970 LT-1
engines. They had 2.02/1.60" valves, 64CC combustion chambers, DO have accessory
holes, intake port volume should be 161CC's, exhaust port volume should be 62CC's.
These heads have double hump casting marks. This particular casting head was also
available as an "over the counter" head from GM in straight or angle plug configurations.

"186" – 3927186. Another good performance head. They were found on 1969-1970
302 and 350 engines. They had 2.02/1.60" valves, 64CC combustion chambers, DO
have accessory holes, intake port volume should be 161CC's, exhaust port volume
should be 65CC's. These heads have double hump casting marks.


[This message has been edited by SUPER-SPORT-CHEVY (edited June 22, 2001).]

NTChrist

Definitely nothing wrong with the 327, but I'm pretty sure if its got the right crank journal sizes, you can swap in a 350 crank for 350ci. 350 cranks are probably free, what with all the guys swaping in 400 cranks.

------------------
No guts, no glory.

jms

iTrader: (1)

If this 327 is stock from the factory, it will have the 1.94 intake and 1.50 valves. Not hard at all to have the 2.02s (or larger) intake valves and the 1.60 exhaust valves installed.

Still, this is a good engine to build as it should have the steel crankshaft. Most 1968 and 1969 327s had cast cranks.

Since there are no bolt holes in the ends of the heads, the accessory brackets for the alternator, power steering pump, and air conditioner could be a problem if you try to put this engine in a late model f-body. It can be worked out, though.

The best bet would be to sell the heads to someone that think the double-hump heads are worth gold and buy a newer set (such as Vortec).
jms

RB83L69

Having had several similar cars myself, including a 66 Impala 4-door and a 68 Impala 4-door, I'd doubt that it has double-hump heads of any kind, although it's not impossible. The ones with the good heads were the 300 & 325 HP versions, and they rarely came in 4-door family sedans. The 275 HP version was the base 327 4-barrel.

Now if it was a 2-door coupe or hardtop, it would be more likely.

Even if it has the better heads, they're not very good for a modern engine, since they don't have bolt holes, and their chambers lack the "squish" area that promotes better combustion chamber turbulence and less tendency to detonate. The short block is OK, it's 327 CID which is about 22 CID better than a 305 but about 23 worse than a 350, small-journal with steel crank.

------------------
"So many Mustangs, so little time..."
ICON Motorsports

84 t/a 5.0

RB83L69, it does have the double hump heads, but I don't know which kind.SSC, what site did you get that info on? Tomorrow me and my dad will take a look to see which heads they are. Were planning to buy a chevy (camaro, chevelle, or nova) to put it in.

"Drive it like you stole it."

[This message has been edited by 84 t/a 5.0 (edited June 22, 2001).]

ede

i'm with rb about it not having 2.02 valves. if it's a 67 it'll have a forged crank and a 350 crank won't fit it because of the journal size differances.

rb what about the 350 hp 327 you left it out, the L79. my first car was a L79 66 chevy II.

------------------
ICON Motorsports
1st & 3rd
MM Black Diamond 538 F&AM

SUPER-SPORT-CHEVY

http://www.chevytalk.com/tech/
This site wont give me a direct link to the page so when you get there click on engine then SBC heads.
SSC

RB83L69

My bad ede, we wouldn't want to forget that one would we? That was one of the best ever at the time.

------------------
"So many Mustangs, so little time..."
ICON Motorsports

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Are you sure about the double hump? Are they actually double point? The latter were common 4-bbl heads, while double hump were much less common. But, neither would have 2.02 valves stock, that didn't happen until the 1970 LT1 350. And, neither hold a candle to today's aftermarket heads.

I'd also take exception to the forged crank. 283's all had steel cranks, but 327's typically got cast. If it still has the factory air cleaner, it may have a sticker that says something like "275 Horsepower Super Turbofire 327", which was the plain-jane q-jet 327. No double-hump heads, no forged crank, cast pistons. Millions made. Good engine, but not spectacular.

Stock, 327's aren't much to brag about (275 was "gross" horsepower, measured without even requiring the engine to turn the water pump - open air cleaner, open exhaust). What they need are better heads (like Sportsman IIs), nice cam, good intake, and headers. If you decide it isn't worth keeping, just send it my way - I'll figure out something to do with it.

------------------
82 Berlinetta, orig V-6 car, now w/86 LG4/TH700R4. 2.93 limited slip. Cat-back from '91 GTA, Accel HEI SuperCoil. AMSOIL syn lubes bumper-to-bumper. Daily driver, work-in-progress (LG4 w/'87 LB9 block, ZZ3 cam and intake, World 305 heads, Hooker headers & y-pipe, 3" Catco cat & 3" cat-back).
57 Bel Air, my 1st car. 0.030 over 396, 9.7 CR forged TRWs, Weiand Action+, Edelbrock 1901 Q-Jet, GK 270 cam, Magnum rockers, Jacobs Omnipack, 1-3/4" Hedders & 3" Warlock header mufflers, TH400 w/TCI Sat Night Special conv & Trans-Scat shift kit, LT MegaShifter, 3.08 8.2" 10-bolt w/Powertrax, AMSOIL syn lubes bumper-to-bumper. Best 15.1/95.5 @ 5800' Bandimere.

ede

five7 you know i wouldn't want to pi$$ you off and miss a chance at some oil, but all the 327s i ever had apart had forged cranks. i'll admit they were 300 or 350 HP engines. i was thinking all GM small journal cranks were forged as was the first large journal cranks (used in the 302) i'll also admit i'm a dumbass and don't know much.

------------------
ICON Motorsports
1st & 3rd
MM Black Diamond 538 F&AM

86_327_camaro

ive been through my fair share of 327's.

if its a 67 its a small journal which most of those were forged cranks. as far as the valves... if its a 327/300HP motor then its a 1.94 valve head unless someone has changed them. the 327/350 and 327/375HP motors had the 2.02's on them from the factory.

Pat Hall

iTrader: (31)

The double hump heads are actually as common as doorstops on the older 327 motors no matter what kind of vehicle it was in. I've seen them in Impalas, Chevelles, even a few trucks. What's not so common is actually finding a stock set with the 2.02 valves in them. It's very simple to have them cut for the larger valves though. I have a set of the 462 castings on my 350 in my 69 Camaro. They were originally 1.94's, but now they have stainless steel 2.02/1.60 valves and hardened exhaust seats for running unleaded gas. They make a pretty decent performance head as long as you run good octane gas with them. That 327 would be a great foundation to build a decent street/strip motor.

------------------
89RS w/350 TPI; 69RS/SS w/450 HP 350/Muncie 4-Speed "Too weird to live, too rare to die."

jms

iTrader: (1)

Most of my experience (over 30 years) dealing with 327s has led me to believe if the 327 is 1967 or older, it will have a steel crank.

Chevy went to the cast crank in 1968 when they went to the large journal block. I have seen steel cranks in large journal 327s in trucks, but not too many of them.

In my experience, any factory 327 with a two-barrel carb will not have the double-hump heads.

On four-barrel 327s (not talking about the Corvette), I have seen some of the earlier years ('62, '63 and maybe '64) have the power-pack heads.

On those same years, I have also seen the double-hump heads. The best I could figure out here was "maybe" the dual exhaust cars got the better heads.

I don't recall, from model year 1965 through 1968, ever seeing a factory 327 four-barrel car that did not have double-hump heads. I've scrounged many salvage yards but I will not say that is the absolute fact. GM has always done strange things.

1969 is/was a strange year year for 327s. I've seen very early (in the model year) '69s that had the old-style double hump heads, without the accesory bolt holes.

I've also seen 4-barrel 1969 327s with the 186 style bolt-hole double-hump heads.

Double-hump heads were great heads "for their time". I've ported many, and rebuilt and sold dozens of more sets.

They (overall-not yours) are at best 32 years old and most likely need a BUNCH of work(other than New Old Stock versions that sat on shelves for years), especially in the valve guide areas.

Also, many of the double-hump heads I've seen in the last 5-10 years have problems with cracks in the valve seat region.

Remember, the original double-hump heads were a factory aluminum head for the 'Vette (I think it was for the 315 horse-283 in 1960) but there was a problem with the castings and GM yanked 'em all back. These heads were originally designed in the late 1950s.

Nothing wrong with being designed in the '50s (I'm a Sept.-Oct. 1955 design according to my June 1956 birthdate!) but with the expected costs to rebuild these heads to "factory-specs", not to mention the "up-grades that are really needed", you would be much better off purchasing (or trading) to a more recent design that already has the advantages of 40-plus years of research and advancement.

If you want to keep the double-humps, nothing wrong with that, at all. Just be prepared to spend about as much money as what you could get a "newer" set for.

As far as the rest of the engine-it is a great beginning for what ever you want.
jms

Jim85IROC

iTrader: (2)

Just to add more to the 1.94/2.02 debate.
My 350 in my IROC has a set of 461 heads, and they are 1.94s, not 2.02s. And let me tell you, if you plan on having air conditioning, don't waste your time dicking around with heads that don't have accessory holes. I sweat my *** off on hot days because I can't mount my AC without custom bracketry.

------------------
The IROC Homepage
<A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~jli4307/camaro" TARGET=_blank>
View the restoration of an 85 IROC</A>
"I didn't know a bored out Ford could go so slow" -Shenandoah

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

You all are probably right about the small journal cranks being steel. Although there were a lot of 327's running around in my family in the old days, the only one I took apart was a '68 large journal. Uncle.

To boot, the older 327's I was around were in single exhaust cars, so that may explain the double hump thing as well. None were "hotter" than the 275 horse. I wasn't into casting #'s back then, but everybody talked about "fuelie" heads being the hot thing.

Obviously, I don't know everything, either. But, what a forum to expose one's ignorance!

I would still say, though, that to get a '67 327 running "right" by today's standards, go with all aftermarket parts on the block, and a different cam. Any disagreement there?

ede, I'll get to you soon. Had some "making up" to do this weekend...

84 t/a 5.0

Were probably gonna keep the engine, and get a new cam, bore it .030 over, carburetor, intake manifold, maybe get new heads or work on the ones that are on it, and get a new exhaust system. It will definitely be a project.
Oh, and for fun, maybe some nitrous

"Drive it like you stole it."

Tas

'68 was the transition year from small journal forged cranks to large journal non-forged cranks.

------------------
-Tas
'89 Formula WS-6

305, TBI, auto, 14x3 chrome flat based open element with K&N, Milodon 160* thermo, functional Formula hood, cross-flow Flowmaster, '99z28 rear pipes and tips....

Soon to be installed:
Hooker 1-5/8" 50 state legal headers, Dynomax 3" I pipe (PN 44063 and 43248), Catco 3" cat, and injector spacer.

Super GRK_Taz World
F-Body Dual Exaust
EFI & Intake Options
AOL IM: superGRtaz

84 t/a 5.0

the head casting number is 3890462, then it says K 14 6 can anyone tell me what the "K" number means? Sorry this is not third gen related.

"Drive it like you stole it."

[This message has been edited by 84 t/a 5.0 (edited June 25, 2001).]

jms

iTrader: (1)

K=11th month, therefore the heads were cast November 14, 1966. Used in a 1967 vehicle.

NOTE-I have seen some information that says GM did not use the "I" in the month listing because it could be confused with "1" (one).

If that is the case, the heads would have been cast on October 14, 1966. Still used in a 1967 vehicle.

The 461 heads were available in both 1.94 and 2.02 versions.

Most serious racers would use a 462 head over a 461 because the spark plug location on the 461 is to close to the deck of the head.

However, a 461X head is generally more preferable (and much harder to find) due to its larger intake runner volume.
jms