Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

HK1837 Offline
#1 Posted : Wednesday, 17 October 2018 3:35:55 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,568

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 480 time(s) in 458 post(s)
I bought a pair of 1968 dated fuelies today off Gumtree cheap. They are mint untouched. Nice piece of GM history.

These exact heads, right down to the cast dates (C28 and C148) are what would have been fitted to the first 500 HK GTS327 IF GMH had decided to fit the other 4BBL hydraulic cammed 327 that was in the GM parts book for the 1968 model year, the L30 327 275hp engine. The only difference between this engine and the 250hp L73 engine we got is the heads. There was only the three normal duty passenger 4BBL hydraulic cam SBC's available in 1968: the L73 327 250hp, L30 327 275hp and L48 350 295hp. These heads I got also suit the 1968 L48. The rest of the higher output SBC engines (like the legendary 327 L79) used the 2.02/1.6 valved fuelies, and these would have been Flint 291 heads.

They are 3947040, Tonawanda's version of the Flint 3917291. These have the same casting mark as the HT GTS350 manual's 3947041 fuelies - they are the same head bar the 040 is missing the accessory holes as they are 1968 heads. They look identical externally to a HK GTS327 290 head but have a triangle mark rather than the single hump.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
abi Offline
#2 Posted : Wednesday, 17 October 2018 10:14:28 PM(UTC)
abi

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/07/2010(UTC)
Posts: 70

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Whats really upsetting about this Decision by GM back in the day, the only difference in the 250 and 275HP engines were 2 part numbers, the 1.94 intake valves vs the 1.72 inch we got and the bare head castings. Both of these items added zero cost to production so would have resulted in cost to Holden the same as the engines we ultimately received.
I guess from history we know the GTS 327 was never challenged in a straight line by the XT GT so in the end the choice by Holden was a good one. This was not the case for the next model HT 350, that 300HP 350 was absolutely no match to the Windsor HO 69 XW, a real pity.

ABI
Premier 350 Offline
#3 Posted : Wednesday, 17 October 2018 11:30:40 PM(UTC)
Premier 350

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 562
Man
Australia
Location: On a build over WWII airfield. Got the .50 cal cases from my driveway to prove it

Thanks: 30 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
Originally Posted by: abi Go to Quoted Post
Whats really upsetting about this Decision by GM back in the day, the only difference in the 250 and 275HP engines were 2 part numbers, the 1.94 intake valves vs the 1.72 inch we got and the bare head castings. Both of these items added zero cost to production so would have resulted in cost to Holden the same as the engines we ultimately received.
I guess from history we know the GTS 327 was never challenged in a straight line by the XT GT so in the end the choice by Holden was a good one. This was not the case for the next model HT 350, that 300HP 350 was absolutely no match to the Windsor HO 69 XW, a real pity.

ABI


Yeah, I wish GM-H had raided the parts bin harder. Vented 4 piston front discs, rear discs, LT-1 small blocks. Would have shaded the tarted up Fairmonts.
Not that we did all that badly, but we could have gone harder.
Attn camry drivers. The accelerator is the skinny pedal on the right.
HK1837 Offline
#4 Posted : Thursday, 18 October 2018 4:44:52 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,568

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 480 time(s) in 458 post(s)
Originally Posted by: abi Go to Quoted Post
Whats really upsetting about this Decision by GM back in the day, the only difference in the 250 and 275HP engines were 2 part numbers, the 1.94 intake valves vs the 1.72 inch we got and the bare head castings. Both of these items added zero cost to production so would have resulted in cost to Holden the same as the engines we ultimately received.
I guess from history we know the GTS 327 was never challenged in a straight line by the XT GT so in the end the choice by Holden was a good one. This was not the case for the next model HT 350, that 300HP 350 was absolutely no match to the Windsor HO 69 XW, a real pity.

ABI


Remember though that whilst John Bagshaw wanted the 327 for the HK, the car was never intended to race at Bathurst. The intention was for Group C (Improved Production), and this is why GMH started the association with Norm Beechey using the first of their factory racers, the EH S4. For Improved Production you only needed the 327's capacity and could use any hi-po 327 from the US parts bin. The stock 4BBL 327 with hydraulic lifters was chosen, back at planning stage it was 230hp. The decision to race the car at Bathurst and in selected Series Production races only came about after Ford (after hearing about GMH's upcoming special car) produced the XR GT and won the Gallagher 500 in 1967. GMH changed the suspension on the GTS327 early in 1968 so that it could be competitive.

There would have been a cost to run the 275hp 327. For the HK GTS327 GMH used exactly the transmission and rear axle that GM used for that L48 250hp engine in the same sized car, the Saginaw and the 10-bolt. In a Camaro the 275hp engine triggered a heavier duty Saginaw (same as the GTS350 got) and a 12 bolt, both added cost. The optional 12-bolt for a HK GTS327 cost over 10% of the car's purchase price at the time, although in production this would have been less. GMH took some poetic licence with the HT GTS350 manual as by rights that engine should have got a Muncie and 12 bolt in a HT sized vehicle, but for the HK the engine and box was exactly as it would have been in a Camaro or ChevyII except for the 1967 pre-AIR carby fitted (in the USA all 1968 engines got AIR carbs, even our 1968 327 Impalas and Parisiennes got AIR carbs, AIR was basically ADR27 here introduced in 8-9/73) and the bits changed to make the engine fit (sump and an exhaust manifold). Even the distributor was the same unlike all other HK-HG SBC engines. Also for the HK GTS327 GMH had to have Dunlop make special tyres for the car as a tyre to match the performance of the car did not exist at the time in Australia, a more powerful engine again may have seen added cost here too. And as we know in hindsight the HK wheel and tailshaft were not up to the task of what was required so maybe more cost.

GMH also aimed the GTS327's price deliberately below the GT, and wanted the GTS327 to be seen as equivalent in performance to a GT. They even had Falcon GTs present at the Lang Lang Press test day (a week before the Surfers Paradise release). We now know that the GT was no match for the GTS327.

The GTS350 was a match for the GT-HO, even the hobbled Press Test cars were faster than an XW GT-HO to 50mph. In Sports Car World's December 1969 test of the XW GT-HO quote: "Line it up at the traffic lights and you can still get done by a 350 GTS Monaro - which is cheaper by a very large margin. And you can be held all the way up to the open road speed limit (prima facie or absolute)." This is talking about the GTS350's they tested that were deliberately masked in their true potential that only managed to achieve average standing quarters of 15.8s and 0-100mph of 18.9s (SCW posted the GTS's test figures next to the GT-HO which showed 14.8s quarter and 16.7s). A properly tuned GTS350 only ever made it into the Press's hands twice (two different HG GTS350's), and they never got to do acceleration figures, but commented that the car was so much faster than the cars they tested originally and was very close to the GT-HO (and GT-HO II). There was never published road tests of a GTS350 until AMC Magazine tested a properly tuned and virtually untouched 40,000 mile car in about 2010 using historical testing methods (car even had its original clutch in it). They achieved standing quarter mile average of 14.78s and 0-100mph of 15.95s which is all but as quick as even the GT-HO III (Wheels 10/71 1/4 mile 14.7s and 0-100mph 15.2s), although that comparison is all but irrelevant as the HG GTS350 was killed off before 1971 came around and the Phase III had only just been released a few months earlier.

Edited by user Thursday, 18 October 2018 3:28:13 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HK1837 Offline
#5 Posted : Thursday, 18 October 2018 6:07:23 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,568

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 480 time(s) in 458 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Premier 350 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: abi Go to Quoted Post
Whats really upsetting about this Decision by GM back in the day, the only difference in the 250 and 275HP engines were 2 part numbers, the 1.94 intake valves vs the 1.72 inch we got and the bare head castings. Both of these items added zero cost to production so would have resulted in cost to Holden the same as the engines we ultimately received.
I guess from history we know the GTS 327 was never challenged in a straight line by the XT GT so in the end the choice by Holden was a good one. This was not the case for the next model HT 350, that 300HP 350 was absolutely no match to the Windsor HO 69 XW, a real pity.

ABI


Yeah, I wish GM-H had raided the parts bin harder. Vented 4 piston front discs, rear discs, LT-1 small blocks. Would have shaded the tarted up Fairmonts.
Not that we did all that badly, but we could have gone harder.


They didn't need to. The GTS350 was cheaper by the GT-HO or GT-HO II by a massive margin and was produced in far greater numbers. GMH didn't race, they were banned by GM. Ford had the "win at all costs" freedom, yet the GTS327 and GTS350 beat them in just about every head to head Bathurst or Series Production race using the cheapest parts possible and hidden from the view of GM Corporate. They even used Ford's reject Harry Firth to their advantage.

I agree that a better Muscle Car would have been nicer, and that the 1969 Corvette's L46 (350hp 350) or the 370hp 1970 LT1 engine would have been nice, but we are also talking serious driveline as well in M22 and 12-bolt, then rather than being $4000 the cars would have been closer to $5000 like a GT-HO and been unaffordable and produced in far lower numbers. As it was GMH beat Ford's high performance engined and heavy duty driveline GT-HO with what was the base 4 barrel 350 engine and undersize driveline and brakes. It would have probably been no contest if the 350 or 370hp engines with corresponding driveline had been used in the GTS. I love the GT-HO cars, full on factory race cars. But they used the best of what was available in the Ford parts bin of the day and still got beaten by regular production stuff, and not only at Bathurst. You do hear Ford tragics claim that they were let down by their tyres in 1969, and yes they were. But so was the gun HDT car, the Woelders/Macrow car. It had the highest output HDT engine in it and ran the same rubber as the Ford race team cars. But there was a GT-HO there on the same rubber as the two podium HDT cars, driven by a podium finisher from the previous year, and that car driven by Bruce McPhee finished the 1969 race on the podium. They also claim that had the Phase II GT-HO been around in 1969 it would have beaten the HT GTS350's, but they fail to recognise that the Phase II's 1970 fastest lap, top speed, qualifying time, average speed and total race time are all slower than both the 1969 GTS350's and 1969 GT-HO's figures. In fact the position 2 Qualifying time for the 51 GTS350 in 1969 of Digby Cook with Firestone racing rubber of 2:50.0 was identical to the 1970 position 2 qualifying time of Bruce McPhee in a Phase II GT-HO. And furthermore the 1970 10th qualifying position of Bob Muir in a Phase II GT-HO of 2:55.4 was again identical to the 10th qualifying position in 1969 of Des West in a HT GTS350. The only real difference between 1969 and 1970 in positions 1-10 was Ian Geoghegan's 1969 GT-HO pole was 0.4 seconds quicker than Moffat's 1970 pole in a Phase II GT-HO.

Edited by user Thursday, 18 October 2018 6:08:53 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HK1837 Offline
#6 Posted : Thursday, 18 October 2018 8:22:30 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,568

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 480 time(s) in 458 post(s)
If of interest and you have the time, have a read of the following link. This is the engine that would have been nice to see in the HK GTS327, the L79 327. The first part of the article talks about the early engines, the 1968 version is near the bottom. Great read and at the bottom is a test by Hot Rod magazine in May 1968, published basically days after the first GTS327 was assembled. In a dead stock 1968 ChevyII manual with 3.55 rear axle it ran a 14.6@95mph. Tyres I think say they were 7.35x14, and a Chevy II is the same wheelbase as a HK coupe (111"). By the looks the ChevyII is about 100kg heavier than a GTS327. This is the 325hp L79 with the small exhaust manifolds (Corvette rated at 350hp with the bigger exhaust manifolds).


http://www.superchevy.co...s-0732-chevy-l79-engine/

The hydraulic cam is the same as what was in the 1969 L46 350hp 350, and if HK had got the L79 the HT would have got the L46. The LT1 was basically the same engine as the L46 but ran the solid 30-30 cam from the older L76 1964-5 365hp 327, alloy intake and big Holley. L46 had cast intake and Quadrajet.

The heads that are the subject of this thread are not related to the L79 though, were only ever used on the L30 327 and L48 350 in 1968. The L79 and L46 engines were Flint V8 assembly only and used respectively 291 (1968) and 186 (1969-70) heads.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
morsesworld Offline
#7 Posted : Saturday, 20 October 2018 3:45:02 PM(UTC)
morsesworld

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/11/2017(UTC)
Posts: 62
Australia
Location: frankston

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Hi HK, the article sounds good. I have that cam (crane 327/350 HP cam)fitted to my 350 in my Monaro. So I cannot wait to get it going to see what it is like with my Fuelie 461X heads and flat top Pistons. It should go alright, having read reports on it.
HK1837 Offline
#8 Posted : Saturday, 20 October 2018 5:44:22 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,568

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 480 time(s) in 458 post(s)
With flat tops it is down on compression compared to the factory setups on the ‘68 L79 and ‘69 L46 - these had lumpy tops for about 11:1. Yours should have 10:1 or close to it, but 10:1 with iron heads and a bit more overlap should be good for 98. From memory the 461X were from the big hp 327’s around ‘63-‘64 and have marginally bigger intake ports than other fuelies. They have different shape chambers to the later 462/291/040/186/041 fuelies if I remember correctly.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
morsesworld Offline
#9 Posted : Monday, 22 October 2018 6:03:46 PM(UTC)
morsesworld

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/11/2017(UTC)
Posts: 62
Australia
Location: frankston

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Yes youré right HK. With the bigger cubes and electronic multi spark ignition it should run well. Around 360, because its out to 60 thou. makes the cam look smaller than it acts in a 327. Of course there are better cams out now, but this cam I put in back in 1985 & has sentimental value. Mr Vizard comments that using a cam with an LSA of 108 degrees is the way to go in a 350 SBC now. Whereas the original 327 cams got 114 degrees LSA.
HK1837 Offline
#10 Posted : Monday, 22 October 2018 6:54:25 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,568

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 480 time(s) in 458 post(s)
This is the cam i’d like to run:
http://www.compcams.com/...s.aspx?csid=189&sb=2

But with 1.6 rockers it a fraction too much lift on the exhaust (0.5552”) as my valve springs only go to 0.550”. Intake will be close too st 0.544”. So I have to use offset collets or go the next can down:
http://www.compcams.com/...s.aspx?csid=188&sb=2
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
abi Offline
#11 Posted : Monday, 22 October 2018 10:21:00 PM(UTC)
abi

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/07/2010(UTC)
Posts: 70

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
HK, Just run a set of 1.6s on the intake side and stick with 1.5s on the exhaust, problem solved.

I don't like the lobe separation on that cam for a restoration type deal, too much overlap and with it poor idle characteristics, but for a hottie it would be fine or even go with 106 to 108 degrees of separation.
HK1837 Offline
#12 Posted : Tuesday, 23 October 2018 6:04:13 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,568

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 480 time(s) in 458 post(s)
That would be the ideal, but I already have the rockers. Will have a better chat to the engine machiners/builders. If I do go for that XR282 cam rather than the smaller XR276 I'd probably just run the 50 thou up collets on the exhaust side or I can get springs for the heads (Alexs Parts in the USA sell all the bits for the LT1 heads) that do up to 0.570" lift. They do two sets of springs, 120lb and 135lb closed and the XR282 sits right on the borderline between the two sets of springs. I already have the 120lb springs and all the hardware to fit them on the LT1 heads.

Do you mean a cam more like this?
http://www.compcams.com/....aspx?csid=1258&sb=2

Edited by user Tuesday, 23 October 2018 6:08:15 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
morsesworld Offline
#13 Posted : Tuesday, 23 October 2018 5:35:33 PM(UTC)
morsesworld

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/11/2017(UTC)
Posts: 62
Australia
Location: frankston

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Hi Guys, Another reason I will not change the cam is i'm worried about bending standard pushrods and also pulling out the standard Rocker studs, as I already have LT1 Springs fitted which I also bought in 1985. So i'll leave well enough alone for now as the engines already together. In future if I do change the cam i'll probably get EQ heads for it from Queensland if Toowoomba Metal Technologies will sell them to me in aussie, because I think you can only buy them from their agents in the states.(www.eqcylinderheads.com). Rather than having to put Bronze guides and Pinned or screw in Studs into these original 461X heads. Each Option probably would cost the same.
HK1837 Offline
#14 Posted : Tuesday, 23 October 2018 6:01:07 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,568

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 480 time(s) in 458 post(s)
You could also grab a set of the higher performance Fuelies that already have screw in studs and 2.02/1.6 valves, although they will never be as good as more modern stuff. The old school hi-po Fuelies will give you about the same hp as these LT1 heads I have or even Vortecs, let alone modern aftermarket stuff which is streets ahead again. You will find them off old L76 and L79 engines normally in the pre-accessory hole engines, although most will be 462's and some 291's I think there were some 461 heads done like this too from around 1963-64 for L76 (365hp) or L84 (375hp) 327 but no 461X were 2.02/1.6. The later ones from 1969 and 1970 come off Z28 engines (302 or 350) or Corvette L46 350 engines, but these will be 186 castings.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
abi Offline
#15 Posted : Tuesday, 23 October 2018 10:22:27 PM(UTC)
abi

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/07/2010(UTC)
Posts: 70

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)

Do you mean a cam more like this?
http://www.compcams.com/....aspx?csid=1258&sb=2
Edited by user about 16 hours ago | Reason: Not specified


That intake lobe and separation angle would suit an angry 350 or 383 on the road but I don't like the duration split between the int and exh. I'd reduce the ex duration at 50 thou down to say 229 to 232 degrees, the idle will improve with this ex lobe change as well.
HK1837 Offline
#16 Posted : Friday, 26 October 2018 2:25:56 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,568

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 480 time(s) in 458 post(s)
Cool, thanks for that. I'll have a closer look at some other of the shelf cams.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.

Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.173 seconds.