Can a '63 327 be turned into a 383?
#21
Le Mans Master
I would certainly have it sonic tested first to see how much material you have to grind for clearancing, and consider installing the 3 center Pro-Gram main caps if you plan on making much HP with it.
#22
I'm not a big #'s person (mine's not), but it seems a shame to modify an original engine...
My .02
gary
#23
Race Director
Many before you have contemplated this same feat... Unfortunately core shift is a bitch.. QC was not what it is today. I would recommend against using a numbers block regardless of the plans for the car. It is only a numbers matching car once. This I don't believe will have the results that you desire. I know of at least 2 blocks that have been wasted in vane to try to achieve what you are thinking about. Dave
#24
12.14 w/ the original 327
Our car was just a low-horse/automatic "secretary's" car. Since it had neither the collectibility nor the performance of a SHP car, I didn't mind modifying it.
The original engine had already been bored .030" over, so I had it honed to .040" over. We used pro-gram main caps, and 6.0" Manley SJ rods. The block required minimal clearancing for the crank. I would recommend having it internally balanced.
Our car has no cooling or driveability issues. The engine makes 18" of vacuum @ 800 RPM, and averaged 17.5 mpg when we drove it to Bowling Green in May. The car runs stronger than before, but to be honest, hasn't met my performance expectations. Were I to do it again, I would build a LS motor. However, I got to admit it's fun to take the #s matching engine to the track and beat on it.
The original engine had already been bored .030" over, so I had it honed to .040" over. We used pro-gram main caps, and 6.0" Manley SJ rods. The block required minimal clearancing for the crank. I would recommend having it internally balanced.
Our car has no cooling or driveability issues. The engine makes 18" of vacuum @ 800 RPM, and averaged 17.5 mpg when we drove it to Bowling Green in May. The car runs stronger than before, but to be honest, hasn't met my performance expectations. Were I to do it again, I would build a LS motor. However, I got to admit it's fun to take the #s matching engine to the track and beat on it.
#25
Race Director
Our car was just a low-horse/automatic "secretary's" car. Since it had neither the collectibility nor the performance of a SHP car, I didn't mind modifying it.
The original engine had already been bored .030" over, so I had it honed to .040" over. We used pro-gram main caps, and 6.0" Manley SJ rods. The block required minimal clearancing for the crank. I would recommend having it internally balanced.
Our car has no cooling or driveability issues. The engine makes 18" of vacuum @ 800 RPM, and averaged 17.5 mpg when we drove it to Bowling Green in May. The car runs stronger than before, but to be honest, hasn't met my performance expectations. Were I to do it again, I would build a LS motor. However, I got to admit it's fun to take the #s matching engine to the track and beat on it.
The original engine had already been bored .030" over, so I had it honed to .040" over. We used pro-gram main caps, and 6.0" Manley SJ rods. The block required minimal clearancing for the crank. I would recommend having it internally balanced.
Our car has no cooling or driveability issues. The engine makes 18" of vacuum @ 800 RPM, and averaged 17.5 mpg when we drove it to Bowling Green in May. The car runs stronger than before, but to be honest, hasn't met my performance expectations. Were I to do it again, I would build a LS motor. However, I got to admit it's fun to take the #s matching engine to the track and beat on it.
#26
12.14 w/ the original 327
#28
12.14 w/ the original 327
Scott, I sent you a PM. I drove the 62 to Famoso on the 19th for the Summit Racing Series, then again on the 25th and 26th for the ANRA Finals. Made it to the 1/4 finals. I got to run off to jury duty. I'll catch up with you later.
Wes
Wes