Kind of funny but I was running some numbers on a cam and engine setup we are putting together and the comp cam site listed the cam as the 350 hp 327 cam the cam # is 12-211-2. Does anyone know what the compression of these engines were stock?

 

327 i think was 9.1 i know the 396 was 11.1

 

I used to have a 68 Vette with a 327, 350HP engine with hydraulic lifters. The compression ratio was 10.5:1. In later years the compression was dropped due to pullution problems and the need to run on unleaded gas. There was also a higher powered version with 11:1 and solid lifters for people that enjoyed adjusting valve lash every month or so.

 

What octane fuel did you need to run in the Vette?

 

always run 93

 

That was back in 68, before unleded gas, and octane numbers were not posted on the pump. Used to fill with Sunoco 240 which was claimed to be 104 octane, probably the same as today's Sunoco 94 octane. Back then octane ratings were inflatedas bad as horsepower ratings. lol. For racing we would drive over to the local airport, and fill upwith aviation fuel, they hadfuel up to 120 octane. However, the 120 stuff, wich was intended for supercherged aircraft engines, burned so slow that the car actually ran slower.

 

Thanks Pete finally some real world numbers that relate back to our compression discussion. If I got the cam specs correct the 327 would have been in a low 8 dynamic compression. Sorry for straying off the original question. How did you like the 327?

 

I have heard this from 2 people now, what was done to the 327 to give it 350 hp?

 

Nothing special, asI said before this was the old way of measuring HP (gross horsepower). Came a time that the government said that the manufacturers could only advertise net horsepower. Net horsepower (real horsepower) comes to be about 25% to 30% of gross horsepower. That old 350 HP would be about the same as 250 HP in today.

The 327 was nice, and could sing a nice tune at high RPM, it would run 1/4 in the low 14s. Really did not have the grunt of today's cars.

 

No, I don't believe it was before my days as I know what Gross HP (or Brake HP) is vs. Net HP. I still use a dyno semi-annually on some engines that make ungodly amounts of power for the resrtictions that we are adhering to. (meaing all factory).. I think you are confusing Gross vs. RWHP. The loss of HP between Gross and NET is more like 8-10%. These are real world numbers.

25-30% is the drop from Gross (and/or Net) to RWHP.

Now factory rated HP (meaning over-inflated) is a different beast of its own. I believe that is what you are correlating your numbers to Pete.

BTW, What's with the edit in my post?

RM