TheAMCForum.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > The Garage > AMC V8 Engine Repair and Modifications
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 327 to 360 conversion.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Click for TheAMCForum Rules / Click for PDF version of Forum Rules
Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.

327 to 360 conversion.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message
nda racer View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Nov/28/2009
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 2591
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nda racer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2015 at 11:09am
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:


One thing to remember -- hp rating methods changed after 1971. When comparing pre 72 engines with 72 and later subtract 28% from the pre 72 rating and you will be close to the 72+ rating. Add 30% to a 72+ rating for a near equivalent pre 72 rating. So a 270 hp 327 becomes 195 hp in 72+ standards, and a 175 hp 350 becomes 228 hp in pre 72 standards. The weights of a 63-66 Classic and that 3400# Camaro are about the same -- the Classic may outweigh it by a 100-200#. My 63 wagon is around 3700-3800#, a sedan or hardtop should be a bit lighter. So the specs bring the two cars to near equal. Race results would end up being decided by how the cars are set up I bet. Steeper gearing in one would result in better take-off, converter stall and shifting speed differences, etc., would make the difference... and of course the driver and how familiar they are with the car and drag racing it.





See, I'm a auto 101 guy, since I needed that explained to me. So hence the easy pickin's. A 327 2bbl with single exhaust should wax a junk Chevy that a guy without a clue owns. We'll be bumbling around at the track waiting for a race. Also, a 18 y/o boy that's only had the car down the track once before will be racing. Not me.

I'm also willing to weigh the cars, if that classic is #200 heavier, 3600pds, it's a lousy chassis. My Jav IS #200 lighter than the Camaro. I have the weigh slips to prove it. 71-74 Humpsters seem to be the only AMC chassis worth building, since all the others are so stinking heavy.
Back to Top
FSJunkie View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Jan/09/2011
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 4742
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FSJunkie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2015 at 4:03pm
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:


Stock 69 390 was 315 hp.  Hp per cubic inch is about the same -- 1.21 per inch on the 327,  1.24 per inch on the 390 -- the 390 wins by 0.03 hp per inch, actually.
You calculated backwards. You did cubic inch per horsepower.

HP/CID:

270 HP / 327 CID = .825 horsepower per cubic inch.

315 HP / 390 CID = .807 horsepower per cubic inch.

Torque is the same story. The 327 wins by a small margin for it's displacement.

Yes, the 340 HP 390 beats them both. Yes, we can debate the accuracy of factory ratings. Neither is the point.

I realize saying anything against the 390 on this forum is forbidden, so let's find another engine. Look at the 360 instead and it's the same story. Even the highest output 360 is close, but not quite to the 327's HP/CID.

We can argue the accuracy of factory ratings all day long, but that's not the point. Absolutely a 390 will suck the doors off a 327. I'm not arguing the faster engine here. I'm arguing use of available displacement volume.

The 327 is not a high performance engine by initial looks. 465 CFM carburetor, 244* camshaft (a 232 six had more than that), tiny valves and head ports. Compare that to the 360 or 390 with 600 CFM carbs, 266-293* cams, and ample heads. The fact that the 327 puts up a good fight against these without a doubt superior engines is a great testament to the 327's engineering.

That's all I'm saying here.




1955 Packard
1966 Marlin
1972 Wagoneer
1973 Ambassador
1977 Hornet
1982 Concord D/L
1984 Eagle Limited
Back to Top
amc67rogue View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Nov/05/2008
Location: Phx. AZ.
Status: Offline
Points: 1578
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote amc67rogue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2015 at 4:10pm
The early 199-232s used the same grind as the 327s . 244deg. .375 lift .
Keith Coggins 67Rogue X code
Back to Top
farna View Drop Down
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Avatar
Moderator Lost Dealership Project

Joined: Jul/08/2007
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 19676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote farna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2015 at 5:40pm
Duh!! Yep, did the math backwards.... thanks for the correction!!

I thought my wagon weighed around 3700#.  Just looked up the specs and I'm off  500# -- shipping weight for the six cylinder 63 Classic wagon was 3200.  Mine probably weighs a little more with the Jag axle and all, but not much. The two door V-8 model was 3100#.
Frank Swygert
Back to Top
Buzzman72 View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Sep/15/2009
Location: Southern IN
Status: Offline
Points: 2725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buzzman72 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2015 at 5:47pm
Guys....I think you missed the boat on your estimates.  Not that your numbers are off...but that the important thing here is how many pounds of car you have per horsepower.

If your car is packin' around 20 pounds per horsepower, you shouldn't be surprised if the car is a slug.  Back in the '60's, AMC was hesitant to rate any of their engines at less than 10 pounds per horsepower...probably for insurance reasons, as the '70-'71 season saw insurance surcharges on a lot of high performance cars.  So a 3150-pound AMX with a 315-hp 390 beats the surcharge, but barely.  Same for the 3400-pound, 340-hp Machine.

The '66 Shelby GT-350 Mustang was considered a high performance car by anyone's standards.  Its 306 HP and 2940-pound curb weight translates to 9.60 pounds per horsepower.  For a 270-hp 327, a 2592-pound car would approximate the Shelby's power-to-weight ratio.  [A Bill Kraft Rambler American comes to mind here as a possibly competitive package...a '66 American weighs between 2552 and 2782 pounds.]  With the right gearing, camshaft, some bigger valves [SBC comes to mind], and a suspension that's dialed in, the 327 might just be competitive...not above 6 grand, but up to that point it should be a decent performer.



Edited by Buzzman72 - Mar/02/2015 at 5:51pm
Buzzman72...void where prohibited, your mileage may vary, objects in mirror may be closer than they appear, and alcohol may intensify any side effects.
Back to Top
nda racer View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Nov/28/2009
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 2591
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nda racer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2015 at 6:08pm
http://carnut.com/specs/gen/nash60.html

There's some weights, prolly shipping. Anyways, that's why I put mine on the scale. No guessing. Some 78 Camaros weigh 3700 pds, (I had a 80 Z I parted out with all the paper work it's shipping weight was 37xx) so I could pull that card and use it as an excuse for losing, but I don't play that game.

Edited by nda racer - Mar/02/2015 at 6:14pm
Back to Top
RamblinMan View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Sep/26/2007
Location: Port Charlotte
Status: Offline
Points: 1237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RamblinMan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2015 at 6:10pm
The curb weight of a 66 Classic V8 model is 2980, so you're getting real respectable horsepower weight ratio with the 4V 327. The 327 is a pretty heavy motor so that's a light chassis.

The Right Reverend of Blessed Acceleration
Back to Top
nda racer View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Nov/28/2009
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 2591
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nda racer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2015 at 6:22pm
I just get amused when TSM Based cars are compared to Track Raced cars. Have fun figuring the woulda coulda shouldas, cause all the stuff I've seen published on them, isn't close to what I've put down the clocks in a far inferior car.

I've been begging for a real 1/4 mile time out of one for years. It hasn't happened, prolly never will. They're a bench racers dream, it sounds good on paper, but the reality is often very different and not very pleasant.
Back to Top
purple72Gremlin View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar
Charter Member

Joined: Jul/01/2007
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Points: 16611
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote purple72Gremlin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2015 at 7:13pm
The 327 is heavy and overbuilt.   It is just a reliable engine. The heads are the limiting factor for better performance, and its heavy rotating mass doesnt help either. The 343 4bbl was rated 10 more hp, but it would out perform the 327.   I personally would not waste my time with the 327 for performance use. The 360 is much better. Just because it idles smooth doesnt mean much.   Any older engine will idle smootg if its working right. Ive fooled with older engines as well.
Back to Top
purple72Gremlin View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar
Charter Member

Joined: Jul/01/2007
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Points: 16611
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote purple72Gremlin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2015 at 7:16pm
Originally posted by nda racer nda racer wrote:

I just get amused when TSM Based cars are compared to Track Raced cars. Have fun figuring the woulda coulda shouldas, cause all the stuff I've seen published on them, isn't close to what I've put down the clocks in a far inferior car.

I've been begging for a real 1/4 mile time out of one for years. It hasn't happened, prolly never will. They're a bench racers dream, it sounds good on paper, but the reality is often very different and not very pleasant.
I agree. Ive seen some cars on paper that looks good on paper and they dont perform.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
All content of this site Copyright © 2018 TheAMCForum unless otherwise noted, all rights reserved.
PROBLEMS LOGGING IN or REGISTERING:
If you have problems logging in or registering, then please contact a Moderator or