Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
Looking into the 327 chev that we got in out Monaro and Pontiac etc I find we got a export engine so in that we got a low compression engine that was not the same as anything they got in the good old USA 327, we may of got the 4 BBL with the heads but the short block was the 2 BBL job.
The 327 we got was 8.75:1 for the USA import and 8.5:1 for the Canada import.
Now when looking up about the 327 I find no such compression 4 BBL engine for the USA public. so that will mean our 327 were not as powerful as USA had a higher comp.
The figures of SAE HP are not worth jack.
We may of got a smaller cam hear as well in our 327 maybe.
All I can find is that all our chev engines got the same cam from 1968 to 1974.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
I think they are the same as a US engine, the type 1 is anyway. I remember talking to Ben about it at one stage. From memory, but i'll check it was available in the US 1968 Impala as a 250hp "Turbo-Fire" 327. The US engines will have suffixes of HI, HJ, HL, HM or HN depending upon what gearbox was fitted to it.
I think our HT 350 manual engine is the L48 engine |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
On looking a bit more I found that they call some efficiency cams so the general performance cam must be a bit bigger.
The Canada Pontiac use the chev engines not the Pontiac engines that the USA have so they have a 1967-8 327 10:1 275 HP and a 283 9.25:1 195 HP.
And back in 1966 a 327 with 10.5:1 275 HP
And in 1963 283 9.25:1 195 HP and 327 10.5:1 250 HP.
1961 283 with 8.5:1 170 HP 2BBL and a option 283 4BBL with 9.5:1 230 HP.
The USA built Impala 1964-5 has 283 9.25:1 195 HP & 327 10.25: 250 & 300 HP.
1966 Impala had the same 283 9.25:1 with 2 BBL as 1964-5 but a option 195 HP and 4 BBL with 220 HP and the 327 10.25:1 275 HP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
It can get all a bit of a problem when you look into it all years ago a mate and his South African mates would waffle on about the 283 307 and power pack heads and 186 heads and all and it all became to much.
So I think we got the old 283 v8 from what cars in the USA or Canada are the totally same thing as our own.
Then the 307 v8 ?
And then with the 327 in our HK first USA lot 8.75:1 and then the 2ed Canada 8.5:1 lot, where is the low comp we have in there cars.
Then we have the 350 I can see the USA 1969-70 Impala has our 9.0:1 HT-G 350 auto and 10.25:1 Manual engine.
Then with our HQ 350 what is that in or come from I find the 1971 chevy caprice has no compression rating only that it will run on low octane fuel and I says 245 HP 165 net HP
The 1971 monte carlo has an 350 option of 245 HP 165 HP net like the caprice and a 270 HP 175 net HP. is that our early HQ engine.
The we could go on about the 1973-4 HQ
Then we could start going on about ADR 27A and all that with EGR intakes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 16/04/2014(UTC) Posts: 768  Location: Victoria Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 47 post(s)
|
I believe you are correct regarding the HT350 manual engine.
Mine is early, with the following castings:
Block: 4 bolt, cast number 3932388, cast date March 26 1969
Heads: 64cc chambers, cast number 3947041, cast dates March 20, and March 24 1969,
Inlet manifold: to suit Quadrajet 4bbl, cast number 3927184, cast date March 18 1969.
All are Tonawanda castings.
These numbers line up with 1969 production engines as fitted to Camaros with the 300HP L48 Option. (and a lot of non Camaro vehicles as well).
The 10.25 compression ratio is obtained with the small chamber heads, as the standard pistons are flat tops with small relief pockets.
The 3932388 block did come in 2 and 4 bolt variants, but I can't speak to the 350 Auto, or the local 327, but I believe the 64cc heads were fitted to higher performance 327 engines in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
Have a look a bit down the page in this link. You can see the 275hp and 250hp versions of the 327 as options in 1968 Impala. The 250hp is the standard gas 8.75:1 engine that we got, the 275hp will be the 10.5:1 engine. http://www.oldride.com/l...8_chevrolet_impala.html
You can see there is a 235hp 327 in the 1969 Impala but it is a 2 barrel, my guess is this is what the 1969 HK GTS327 has, just GMH specced it with a 4 barrel carb. http://www.oldride.com/l...9_chevrolet_impala.html
Here is the sales brochure for the 1968 Impala, shows both 327 engines. The page that shows the shifter on the second bottom line tells you the 250hp 327 is 8.75:1. https://myclassicgarage....-impala#sales-brochures
|
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/01/2013(UTC)
Posts: 307
Thanks: 7 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 11 post(s)
|
...we may have received lower rated HP engines because of taxable horsepower ratings applied by the government and affecting the duty on these imported engines....just a thought...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/11/2006(UTC)
Posts: 543
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
back when I had mine hk, I looked into this and found that they had the same 250hp engine over there with the 660 block, in impalas Camaro,s in lots of thing, just different sump etc.
pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/11/2006(UTC)
Posts: 543
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
virtually seen the same 660 block with 2bl and 4 bbl carb and even fullies heads in the higher out put Camaros and vettes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 21/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 75
|
"Just Holdens" magazine (Editor Eric Norton) had a mention of "special" 327 engines used here, in the Monaro edition of the magazine in 2010 (page 26). I have copied it here: "Even with the high price tag, GM-H found they were selling more Monaro GTS327s than they planned and were soon running out of the imported Chev v8 engines. In an effort to meet demand a new shipment of engines had to be ordered from the USA. As GM (USA) had introduced the Chev 350 CID in August 1968, GM-H had to order "special" 327 engines to fill the breach. They used a 350 CID block and accessories with 327 crank and truck engine cylinder heads.As the new engines were dressed differently, GM-H stored the remaining original 327 engines for fitment to the still-being-locally-assembled Chevs and Pontiacs whilst the "special" engine was exclusively fitted to the Monaro GTS 327. This engine, being a bit of a "bitsa", was not as powerful as the original engine. ... "
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
I wouldn't pay much attention to that info, or a lot of what he publishes. There is bits of fact scattered amongst it, but lots of BS too. Example they didn't "store" remaining engines for the Chevs and Pontiacs, those were all CKD packs and each CKD vehicle had an engine assigned to it. Whilst the earlier Monaro GTS327 engine and the Pontiac/Impala engine were near identical specification (bar the carby and exhaust manifolds) they were not interchangeable as they had different sumps/pickups which was reflected in the engine assembly plant's number suffix. Plus the GTS engines had a bellhousing, clutch and flywheel on them and the Pontiac/Impala engines had a flex plate. Yes the block on the 327 is the same block as used by a 350 of the same era, the 327 engine was still produced in late 1968 for varying applications which is when the second type HK GTS327 was produced. I have one of them in my shed, it is 16th October 1968 cast and 24th October 1968 assembly. The heads may have been used on trucks, but they are also passenger car heads, and not that much different in spec to the earlier HK GTS327 head. In my previous post you can see the link to the engine options for the 1969 Impala, a 235hp 2 barrel 327 is one of them. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/10/2011(UTC)
Posts: 19
|
Just for reference, here's the info page from the brochure of the 1967 RHD Impala. Regarding the engine it states: Engine: Tubro-fire V8 Bore: 4.001 ins. Stroke: 3.250 ins. Capacity: 327 cu. ins. Compression ratio: 8.75:1. Max Max Brake HP: 240 @ 4,800 rpm RAC Rating: 51.2 HP Max Torque: 325 lbs/ft @ 3,200 rpm I also have the brochure for the 68 RHD Impala, and the engine specs are identical. Click here for high res: http://i33.photobucket.com/albu...67RHDImpalaBrochure5.jpg Edited by user Friday, 8 August 2014 4:04:01 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
The '68 Impala 8.75:1 327 is 250hp, here is the sales brochure: https://myclassicgarage....-impala#sales-brochures
Click on the 2nd column, 4th row. The GMH one is an auto with a single exhaust. The manual and dual exhaust of the GTS327 (and the US Impala) would probably account for the extra 10hp. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 16/04/2014(UTC) Posts: 768 Location: Victoria Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 47 post(s)
|
Except that prior to 1972 GM and other US manufacturers rated engine power (very loosely) in SAE gross horsepower, which excludes ancillary items, such as exhaust systems. I think it's generally accepted that most power claims from the period were rubbery numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
They probably were, just trying to account for the 10hp difference between GMH's 240hp claim for tha Impala and 250hp claim for the GTS327 and the US Impala. GMH did this a sometimes claiming different hp figures for single and dual exhaust, rarely in advertising though. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,058
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 203 time(s) in 184 post(s)
|
Yes, the figures were quite 'rubbery' weren't they.
The same can be said for the HK/T 307, 200 bhp in the US & 210 bhp in Aust.
Dr Terry |
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rusty HQ
Just for reference, here's the info page from the brochure of the 1967 RHD Impala.
Regarding the engine it states:
Engine: Tubro-fire V8
Bore: 4.001 ins.
Stroke: 3.250 ins.
Capacity: 327 cu. ins.
Compression ratio: 8.75:1. Max
Max Brake HP: 240 @ 4,800 rpm
RAC Rating: 51.2 HP
Max Torque: 325 lbs/ft @ 3,200 rpm
I also have the brochure for the 68 RHD Impala, and the engine specs are identical.
Click here for high res: http://i33.photobucket.com/albu...67RHDImpalaBrochure5.jpg
The '68 brochure on your link shows the 1968 327 as 250hp. So the difference is probably the change from small journal to large journal engine and whatever difference in hp that entailed. http://s33.photobucket.c...Brochure5-1000.jpg.html
|
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 16/04/2014(UTC) Posts: 768 Location: Victoria Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 47 post(s)
|
The US manufacturers, pre 1972, were rating engines in gross horsepower according to the SAE standards J245 and J1995, which were written by committees which would have had an overrepresentation of car manufacturers on them.
These standards allowed for the engines to be tested on an engine dyno with no accessories fitted, and an open exhaust. The alternator, water pump, and any other extras were powered externally, and engine output measured at the flywheel.
Those standards also contain "fudge factors" for fuel temperature and quality, air temperature, and several others. The engines were also allowed to be "optimised' for maximum output, meaning things like ignition timing could be set at levels that would make the engine useless in the real world. All of that, and a lack of any independent verification, left plenty of scope for fudging the results.
Add to that the quandary GMH found itself in with the HKTG series, and it's no wonder there are variations. It would have been fun to watch the marketing department wrestling and wriggling with the engineering department over advertised horsepower while trying to address the product positioning clashes between the premium products like Impala, and performance products like the HK GTS327.
The situation would have been a nightmare with HT, with at least 6 different V8 engines, requiring juggling to position 253 and 308 within the Chev sourced engines, at least until the 307 went away.
In short, I reckon the advertised horsepower figures of that era are about as useful as the RAC horsepower.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,058
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 203 time(s) in 184 post(s)
|
quote:
Originally posted by gm5735
The US manufacturers, pre 1972, were rating engines in gross horsepower according to the SAE standards J245 and J1995, which were written by committees which would have had an overrepresentation of car manufacturers on them.
These standards allowed for the engines to be tested on an engine dyno with no accessories fitted, and an open exhaust. The alternator, water pump, and any other extras were powered externally, and engine output measured at the flywheel.
Those standards also contain "fudge factors" for fuel temperature and quality, air temperature, and several others. The engines were also allowed to be "optimised' for maximum output, meaning things like ignition timing could be set at levels that would make the engine useless in the real world. All of that, and a lack of any independent verification, left plenty of scope for fudging the results.
Add to that the quandary GMH found itself in with the HKTG series, and it's no wonder there are variations. It would have been fun to watch the marketing department wrestling and wriggling with the engineering department over advertised horsepower while trying to address the product positioning clashes between the premium products like Impala, and performance products like the HK GTS327.
The situation would have been a nightmare with HT, with at least 6 different V8 engines, requiring juggling to position 253 and 308 within the Chev sourced engines, at least until the 307 went away.
In short, I reckon the advertised horsepower figures of that era are about as useful as the RAC horsepower.
Fudge is probably the correct term & RAC rating is definitely worse than advertised 'SE gross'. Dr Terry |
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
When you start to look into ford Australia and the ford USA with the Cleveland engine you will see a lot of difference in spec, as the compression have to be rubbish the clamed power rating has to be rubbish as well and that's just talking up to our 1972 cars with full import engines.
Ford claiming 240 HP out of a 2BBL 302 total rubbish just to make out it's up there with the 308 4BBL.
No XA-B 302 could hose off a HQ 308.
Valiants with the 340 V8 there are some that say the first batch get the better higher compression bigger cam and valves then the rest are just low comp 340.
In trying to understand how it all works, Australia calls out for engines and they get a response ? like GM USA say we have no more 327 being made in that type, but GM Canada can give you a 327 closest to what you are after, she had a little less compression and heads are a different P/N but close to what will do and she comes with a few different things like rocker covers and alt position, and Aus GMH say she will do. then they Get the HT 350's from Canada until the last batch and they come from GM USA for some reason.
So myself being a bit of a nut for history, I like to put the puzzle together as I hate when the facts are not right. but if no one cares about seeking out the truth then I think they are just bogans.
And I would like to think that we don't just walk around in a daze. as that gets on my goat.
I get someone ask about our Australian history I like to point them to the facts and more deeper understanding if need be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
