396 vs 427 Why?
#1
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
396 vs 427 Why?
How can the 3855961 casing number be the same for a 396 nd a 427 ci motor. There is no way a 396 can be bored out to a 427. Confused.
I can not find anyone who can explain why GM used the same casting number for two different cubic inch blocks.
Help me solve this puzzle.
Thanks George
I can not find anyone who can explain why GM used the same casting number for two different cubic inch blocks.
Help me solve this puzzle.
Thanks George
#2
Le Mans Master
How can the 3855961 casing number be the same for a 396 nd a 427 ci motor. There is no way a 396 can be bored out to a 427. Confused.
I can not find anyone who can explain why GM used the same casting number for two different cubic inch blocks.
Help me solve this puzzle.
Thanks George
I can not find anyone who can explain why GM used the same casting number for two different cubic inch blocks.
Help me solve this puzzle.
Thanks George
#3
How can the 3855961 casing number be the same for a 396 nd a 427 ci motor. There is no way a 396 can be bored out to a 427. Confused.
I can not find anyone who can explain why GM used the same casting number for two different cubic inch blocks.
Help me solve this puzzle.
Thanks George
I can not find anyone who can explain why GM used the same casting number for two different cubic inch blocks.
Help me solve this puzzle.
Thanks George
#4
Melting Slicks
#5
The 1965 396 "962" block (all 4 bolt mains) is a THICK wall casting, in most cases, unless there was significant core shift during the casting process, they can be bored out the additional 1/8" to 4.250" (427 spec).
The 1965-66 396 "961" block (2 bolt & 4 bolt mains) is a THIN wall casting. Regardless of core shift, boring one out to 4.250" (427) will result in either breaking through a water jacket, or dangerously thin cylinder walls that will cause the engine to run hot and be impossible to keep cool without boiling over on the street. Of course you'll always hear somone claiming how they bored a 396 "961" block out to 4.250 inches "back in the day" and raced it, but I doubt they got further than a 1/4 mile before it was puking antifreeze.
..and to answer the next question that usually follows, NO - there were no documented 1966 427 Corvettes ever produced with the 961 block ...even if GM did slip a few onto the assembly line early in Aug/Sept 1965, they would've rolled off the showrooms with 396 cid.
The 1965-66 396 "961" block (2 bolt & 4 bolt mains) is a THIN wall casting. Regardless of core shift, boring one out to 4.250" (427) will result in either breaking through a water jacket, or dangerously thin cylinder walls that will cause the engine to run hot and be impossible to keep cool without boiling over on the street. Of course you'll always hear somone claiming how they bored a 396 "961" block out to 4.250 inches "back in the day" and raced it, but I doubt they got further than a 1/4 mile before it was puking antifreeze.
..and to answer the next question that usually follows, NO - there were no documented 1966 427 Corvettes ever produced with the 961 block ...even if GM did slip a few onto the assembly line early in Aug/Sept 1965, they would've rolled off the showrooms with 396 cid.
Last edited by Viking427; 02-19-2008 at 09:46 AM.
#6
Race Director
Member Since: Feb 2007
Location: northern california
Posts: 13,608
Received 6,519 Likes
on
3,001 Posts
C2 of Year Finalist (track prepared) 2019
1. In 1957, some passenger cars came with 265 engines. The 265 block has the same casting number as the 283 block and differs only in the bore.
2. In 1961, 409s were made from 348 blocks. The 348 casting number was ground off and a different "casting number" was stamped in its place.
Jim
#7
Tech Contributor
The engine that was in my 62 when I first got it, was a 57-issue 265. Sold it to a drag racer 'cause he thought it had a beefier cylinder wall for better boring.
#8
Race Director
Member Since: Feb 2007
Location: northern california
Posts: 13,608
Received 6,519 Likes
on
3,001 Posts
C2 of Year Finalist (track prepared) 2019
#9
Drifting
Jim,
As to the '61 409, most 348 blocks will not survive the 3/16" overbore. The 011 348 core casting was modified to provide thicker cylinder walls. There were also some changes at the main webs due to the new crank. The '61 409 was indeed a new casting rather than just a bored and stroked 348.
As you say, the new casting number was obviously overlooked on some early blocks, but corrected later.
As to the '61 409, most 348 blocks will not survive the 3/16" overbore. The 011 348 core casting was modified to provide thicker cylinder walls. There were also some changes at the main webs due to the new crank. The '61 409 was indeed a new casting rather than just a bored and stroked 348.
As you say, the new casting number was obviously overlooked on some early blocks, but corrected later.
#10
Race Director
Member Since: Feb 2007
Location: northern california
Posts: 13,608
Received 6,519 Likes
on
3,001 Posts
C2 of Year Finalist (track prepared) 2019
It's been 25 years so my memory is hazy. What I think I recall is larger numbers on the "casting number" stamping than those shown in your photo (3/8" or maybe 1/2" tall) and a slightly different font, one with (for lack of a better description) more "style" to it. I do remember the casting date was sometime in October of '60.
And apologies for hijacking this thread which was really about 396/427 engines.
Jim
#11
...and here's some useful info on overboring early SBC's for anyone interested;
http://books.google.com/books?id=g46...3OLojcd705wfcg
http://books.google.com/books?id=g46...3OLojcd705wfcg
#12
Team Owner
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 25,455
Received 2,334 Likes
on
889 Posts
We ran this over-bored block for a year of racing with L72 pistons, with no failures. We then tore it down and swapped in L88 pistons (12.5:1 CR), and at the second or third weekend outing at the strip with the much faster configuration we blew a hole in the #5 or #7 cylinder wall. We added a sleeve and continued to run the block for the balance of the race season, and the entire next year.
This photo is from a month or so before we scored the 396 block (we suffered a drunk hitting the front end of the car the weekend before this photo, and we were forced to run with no hood).
#14
Safety Car
Member Since: Sep 2004
Location: St. Clair Shores MI
Posts: 4,050
Received 132 Likes
on
74 Posts
C2 of Year Finalist (track prepared) 2019
2017 C2 of the Year Finalist
265, 283, 302, 307, 327, 350, 400 are all small blocks
any motor with crank, pistons and no heads is a short block
#15
Le Mans Master
Rich
#16
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: Greenville, Indiana
Posts: 26,118
Received 1,843 Likes
on
1,398 Posts
One of my racing friends had one of these five 4-bolt main cap 396's out of a 65 Chevelle that we ran in a 68' Camaro. When a rod scored a cylinder wall in the block we looked to add a thin wall sleeve. Our machinist ran the block through a sonic test and came back to tell us it could be bored an 1/8th over, to a 427 bore, to clean up the cylinder. The set of 427 pistons cost a little bit, but worth the expense. One of our rivals who ran a SS legal 375hp/396 67' Camaro heard a rumor of what we did and claimed it could not be done safely, so we had our pin-striper paint "396 ? - 427 ?" on the sides of the hood scoop (just to keep him guessing). The guessing lasted about two drag race meets, before the track times improved to answer the question.
We ran this over-bored block for a year of racing with L72 pistons, with no failures. We then tore it down and swapped in L88 pistons (12.5:1 CR), and at the second or third weekend outing at the strip with the much faster configuration we blew a hole in the #5 or #7 cylinder wall. We added a sleeve and continued to run the block for the balance of the race season, and the entire next year.
This photo is from a month or so before we scored the 396 block (we suffered a drunk hitting the front end of the car the weekend before this photo, and we were forced to run with no hood).
We ran this over-bored block for a year of racing with L72 pistons, with no failures. We then tore it down and swapped in L88 pistons (12.5:1 CR), and at the second or third weekend outing at the strip with the much faster configuration we blew a hole in the #5 or #7 cylinder wall. We added a sleeve and continued to run the block for the balance of the race season, and the entire next year.
This photo is from a month or so before we scored the 396 block (we suffered a drunk hitting the front end of the car the weekend before this photo, and we were forced to run with no hood).
Forget the old greasy cars. Who is the chick with the pink top?
#20
NASCAR allowed the Chevy to run as a 427 in 1965 to compete with the 427 Ford and 426 Hemi.
I have not seen it in writing, but would not be surprised if this is at least one reason why the early 396 block would take the 427 bore size.
They all wanted to win in NASCAR including Chevy even though Chevy was not supposed be involved in racing.
It's funny how the 1965 396 could be run as a 427 as only 2 years before management stopped the 1963 427 NASCAR engine program.
by the way, very cool Camaro picture
I have not seen it in writing, but would not be surprised if this is at least one reason why the early 396 block would take the 427 bore size.
They all wanted to win in NASCAR including Chevy even though Chevy was not supposed be involved in racing.
It's funny how the 1965 396 could be run as a 427 as only 2 years before management stopped the 1963 427 NASCAR engine program.
by the way, very cool Camaro picture