While I already know the newer engine would ultimately win this test, I have a 327 in my Chevy and I absolutely love the way it responds to mods. It revs quick. Quicker than any 350. I think that 327/375 was the most powerful small block ever until just a few years back. I love power but there's just something about an old 327. Anyone else feel that way?
I've had both. 283 makes the sweetest sounds I've ever heard from a car and the 327 is in 2nd place for sound only. Fastest car I ever drove had a fully built 327 in it. Just awesome...... 350s sound like metal is flexing and it's not a good sound at 6-7k rpms. All my current vehicles have 350s including my boat. 😅
@MrSpartanPaul my dad has a 56 chevy with a 265, I put a set of 40 series Flowmaster on it and let me tell you people think it's bigger than it is, it'll wind to the moon. But yea other than my 57 bel air having a 327 everything else has a 350. I can agree, it just isn't the same. I think for sound and revs, big bore, short stroke is the way to go. Plus if I am not mistaken, all the early small journal small blocks had a forged crankshaft
@@jeremygranier6086 Not true, I used to think that as well until I took my 283 apart and found it had a cast crank. However, someone was throwing away a forged 283 crank at my local dump so I grabbed it!
I am actually surprised.. The old 327 with updated heads is very close to the new LS engine... It is all about the heads.. I wouldn't toss out an old smallblock
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IT'S ALL ABOUT THE HEADS. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE HEADS ON THE LS ARE? THEY ARE COPIES OF THE WINDSOR HEADS. WHICH ARE SPIRAL-INDUCING COMBUSTION CHAMBERS AND WHAT GM DID IS GRAPH THE HIGH-RISE PORTS FROM THE FORD 427 HIGH RISER MOTOR ONTO IT. FORD COULD HAVE DONE THIS MANY YEARS AGO. BUT GM BEING THE CHEATS THEY ARE. HAS THE GOVERNMENT IN THEIR POCKETS AND ALWAYS PRESSURED THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT HEAVY RESTRICTIONS ON EMISSIONS, ON FORD IN ORDER TO TAME DOWN THEIR PERFORMANCE ENGINES. THE LS DOES NOT MEET THE EFFICIENCY THEY CLAIM. THE EPA LOOKS THE OTHER WAY BECAUSE OF THEIR LONG RELATIONSHIP THAT GOES BACK A HUNDRED YEARS WITH GM. MODULAR MOTORS ARE MORE EFFICIENT BECAUSE THEY ELIMINATE ALL THE PUSHRODS AND LIFTERS WHICH REDUCES FRICTION AND INCREASES EFFICIENCY. I HAVE A FRIEND OF MINE THAT HAS A '80S CORVETTE AND HE PUT A 383 OLD SMALL BLOCK CHEVY IT WITH A GOOD PAIR OF HEADS AND CAM. HE DRIVES IT TO THE TRACK AND DOES 11:50 AND BLAZES BY ALL THE LS'S ALL DAY LONG.
@@bobdeegan2293 yeah they failed to mention $ per hp and $$ per hp for the mods. That is the information i really want. The fuel injection of the newer engine is nice for drivability but i believe they should have used the same carb on both engines as the displacement is the same.
Thanks. i went with the 327 diamond pistons, jesel solid lifters, 12-700-8 cam, AFR 180 heads, Dart block mainly because the LS looks like crap under a 69 Nova. Daily driver BTW. Love your content!
The natural evolution of technology. If we didn't have the musclecar era and all of it's craziness, we might not have developed the power and efficiency we have now in our vehicles.
@@2000freefuel I was thinking the same thing and that's in actual HP to the wheel too. It's impressive to see tiny 2 l 4 cyl putting out 300 hp**to the crank but I just don't trust it. I have nothing against turbos or superchargers but it just feels more prudent to go NA if possible. *or supercharged -5 L v8s putting out 600 crank...
The 5.3 LS at 9.5:1 compression and a roller cam murders the 11:1 comp SBC. You would gain some power with a modern roller cam on the SBC but I don't think even that would even them out. Same heads cam and intake on the 5.3 with 11:1 compression would make a good bit over 500 HP. Engineering is just so much better now.
@@chriscatarcio2983 Saw an NHRA Super Stock motor - stock style block, .999 valve lift, 9000 rpm. Valve train probably costs more than these two motors combined :)
Not a bad comparison at all! I can't believe the whiney ones aren't saying "but you should have used the truck 327" lol. Fact is, unless you changed the Pistons in the truck 327, power would have been lower still and the 5.3 still had a completely stock bottom end and imo, a top end still on the milder side of the fence. I love sbc. The sounds, smells, working on them etc. But, an ls is just so much more advanced and stupid cheap to play with. Regardless I love all engines and engine dynos so, no complaints from this guy ✌️
I went with my old 327 block in my 67 Camaro but with Blueprint aluminum heads, .485 lift roller cam, tru-ram stainless ramshead exhaut, Edelbrock airgap and AVS2 carb. I'm satisfied. I could have gone wilder, but you know, with my weight down to 2950 lbs and a 700R4 I'm having plenty of fun and the whole system is easily repairable. And I'm still within the old school look.
What is strange that I only recently (as in yesterday) started considering this exact choice issue for a 1938 Chevy coupe that I'm building. I really wanted to go old school with a 327 but began thinking about a 5.3. Thank you for showing us the difference and what is possible for both. Now if I can figure out the computer stuff on a 5.3, I will consider going that route. Thanks again for your efforts !
Also, do you want to run a harness full of wires and connectors or one 12v wire to make the thing run?? Also for some reason (maybe head design?) the original sbc''s sound a lot better/ tougher! If you're doing an Ls swap into an older car, it cost a lot of money! Need different motor mounts, different header's, different oil pan, different radiator, Ignition to control the LS and make it run! So there's a lot to it, don't be fooled by those saying it's so easy cuz it's not!
Its really easy unless your to lazy to learn the differences and the LS will give you far more HP for less fuel, less carbon emission, will last another 100,000 miles. I can go on and on!
Also need a baffled gas tank and entire fuel system, if running efi. As you said, “lots of things”. I looked into it when i started on my Nova. I ended up building a 408 sbc (really a 409). LOVE the 408!
Ever heard of a Distributor? Put it on your LS with a carb and blow your old Gen 1 off the road! Its that easy boys! But I know I know cant teach some old dogs a new trick.
@@mewrongwayKOCXF another thing, converting from coil on plug to a distributor is stupid! High cost, plus the timing events aren't as accurate as coil on plug , which means less power for more dollars. Only an idiot would do that.
I love both engines! I’ve been debating on old school or LS in my off-road build. I like the simplicity and lack of electronics on the old school. Makes diagnosing problems in the desert easier. But I love the potential of the LS. Unsure which way I should go
@@bill2178 I know they’re pretty simple. But was I meant is getting the truck back running if I’m in the middle of nowhere. HEI are cheap. I can pack an extra. Right now I have a Holley sniper. If that goes out. I can toss on a carb and get it started up
I think the fuel requirements are a big consideration. An 11:1 327 isnt going to be happy on the crap 84-86 regular at the pump but the 5.3 will. And the power ratings vs drivability is a huge factor, same power with ease and reliability to be a daily driver is a win for me.
SBC 327s are awesome. I use to run 327s in my dirt track race car. I was very competitive and the engine held up. I love the way they rev up on the straight aways. Lots of curious race fans would ask what you running due to the way it sounded. Great memories.
Nice video.....I love both new and old Push Rod 327 engines and like you said...the diff. in modern design! at least they resemble each other on size and not overhead cam vs. ol school.....beleive the LS Series Chevy is gonna be around awhile.
You didn't mention the electronic complexity of the newer engine when it comes to the backyard mechanic, a lot less to go wrong with the 327 and the 327 is a lot easier to fix for the average Joe
Ive got a 68 327 impala and an 02 5.3 tahoe. I like them both a lot. I always thought of the 5.3 as the 327 coming back like Gandalf even stronger hahaha. If someone were considering which to build for their ride I would say it’s so close between the sbc and the lm7 that I would just run what the vehicle came with, or could have came with, for simplicity and so you don’t have to spend a million years doing wiring and making stuff fit. Both motors build up really well and for cheap (realativel speaking of corse).
Don't need to spend "a million years on wiring and making stuff fit". There are literally plug and play kits to install LS engines in most chassis these days. 🤷🏻
@@davelowets ah, mr not enough zinc we meet again. Didn’t get a response from you on dd’s vid after telling you how much zinc he had, just in case you didn’t see he had more than twice the recommended amount from the manufacturer of the cam. And on those harness it’s an exaggeration joke bud, you know… humor? You were supposed to laugh not get upset. Those harnesses are out there but they always need some working over and in no universe is it easier to swap a harness than use the existing stuff. No ones saying it’s impossible it’s just pointing out that one of these options is significantly easier and with the consideration that the results are almost exactly the same power wise between the two motors this is something a lot of people would be glad to know going into a project.
@@SpecialAgentJamesAki The LS platform is superior over an ancient small block. The LS gas mileage WILL be better, the engine WILL run longer, there will be LESS maintenance, and you dont know what you're talking about. There are systems out there with NO harness to have to mess with, the the entire fuel injection system including the pcm is contained within the fuel rails, or entirely within a throttle body. All you need is power, keyed power, and ground for such a system. There are MANY examples out there, such as David Freiburgers "Muscle truck". Do your research before you post incorrect information. As far as the content of oil in the other video goes, HE didn't even know the content of the zinc in the oil, so you didn't either. 😒
@@davelowets He shows the oil and additive used in the video which amount to a ppm over 5000 of zinc and the manufacturer of his cam required 2000. It’s simply incorrect to state that no one knows how much zinc was in there. So much chemical testing has been done and is readily available on these particular fluids. And no one said the ls isnt good the ls is almost a perfect motor it’s just that it’s such a marginally small gain over the sbc that it really isn’t worth swapping with all the added cost and time for the average person. I’ve watched so many people dive in head first not knowing what they are getting into with these swaps it’s just a good thing for the kind of person who will find themself watching this video to consider when weighing their options. The Forrest for the trees man.
Love the 327. It can rev like a 302 but produce torque like a 350. Had an LT-1 in my '69 Camaro and it was good. If I were to do it over again, 327 just for the 'fun' factor.
"Fun" is big torque down low... because the vast majority of your time behind the wheel in a daily is not racing at 5k+ rpm. Something that is lost on nearly everyone. Torque is what you actually feel when you hit the go pedal. The more of it, the more fun it is... So once again, the mighty LS proves it's a worthy successor to it's wonderful parents.
@@mewrongwayKOCXF Such things are totally bizarre... Even scientist can't figure out how that is possible. I pray that one day they find a firing order. A small morsel to help relieve their self induced pain. So tragic.
@@jeredfowler7194 True, but that is just a fix. What you end up with is something that sounds like it's about to explode just cursing down the highway.
I think this is a good comparison, especially for anyone with a desire to build a street rod with an engine as the centerpiece with no hood deciding which to run. From my point of view aesthetically, the new engines don't look nearly as good as the older engines rather it be Chevy, Chrysler or Ford. I'd much rather see an old 426 Hemi than a modern Dodge Hemi, for example, so it's good to know that old iron can still make comparable power. Even so, new engines in stock form make more power on regular pump gas and get better fuel efficiency too.
Anything goes when both engines are modified. I'm not bad mouthing the 327, but life expectancy and drivability decreases rapidly with increases in power. The 5.3 valve train and bottom-end are much better than a 327. I remember back in the good old days, when wiped out cam lobes where common. The "only" design flaw a LM7 has, is the heads have to come off to change lifters.
There is 60 years of development between the two, plus a more honest horsepower rating system that takes 30% off the same engine starting in 1972. Roller cams and engine management made powerbands so much wider, than anyone could dream about in the 60s.
I'm not sure about the rest of the U.S. but the junkyards here in Texas seem to think that the LS is gold plated and want insane amounts for 250k mile motors. Even want a bunch for the LS core motors they get back from a sale. Then they act like you should pay another few hundred extra for the LS wiring and ECM(Or you pay for the stand alone harness new.) I've got all kinds of early small block high performance parts cheap from Craigslist,Facebook marketplace and friends. I just don't see the LS being more bang for the buck unless I could find a better deal on one. And I'm looking every day!
The old carburetor engines are great for being uncomplicated. No electric fuel system and electronic engine controls required. Just tune your carb right and burn rubber...
I happen to love the 283 / 327 motors alot more than the 350s . I also have 4 suburbans a 99 with a vortec 5.7 ,03,07 and 2010 all have the awesome 5.3s my 03 has 697k miles and her motor has never been rebuilt, I've done intake gaskets a couple times, no major work no oil pump issues ever so I'm impartial to the 5.3s they have plenty of balls ,plenty of torque, get very good gas mileage even towing, but I have a 69 chevy g10 mid engine van iput an lt1 in back in 2006 I don't like she runs hot and funky with points and carb, although j have a 5.3 4l60e in the shed from a wrecked 03 suburban 90k miles I'm putting in a 65 283, the motor was made for points and I can finally put her original gas pedal linkages, and hook up my original gouges in my dash inst cluster finally if they still work otherwise i may buy back a twin van to mine and put the 5.3 in that one I would ls swap mine but I want everything stock no modifications to her wiring
That's an interesting comparison. I thought the 5.3L would not do as well stock but would do have done much better when modified. Consider that the small block in 1965 had grown from a 1955 design, the 5.3L is what an almost 50 year newer design? And BTW I have a stock LS2 in my daily driver. It isn't as much fun as the modified SBC that I've owned in the past but probably makes as much power with less fuss and much more reliability.
I've always wondered what the traditional small block would do with a 14 or 16 degree head like the ls has, I know the price would Skyrocket for that type of an aftermarket top end but it's always been a curiosity
agreed, but engine parts , boilers, hydro-electic power water pumps, etc. were constructed from cast iron. Anything made from aluminun such as LS heads are temporary, thus old 60's & 70"s cast iron cylinder heads are still going while aluminum parts are time sensitive such as old beer cans.
@@dianedonovan4073 yes, I had a brother who worked at the GM aluminum foundry in Defiance Ohio and he said the exact same thing. I agree wholeheartedly. The old V8 blocks and heads could be overheated and still hold together. Today's motors are trash if they get overheated one time. Aluminum has some big advantages but far more disadvantages. I will trade longevity for performance any day. Aluminum has a niche and I believe it's in racing, and I believe cast iron had a niche and that's in everyday reliability. Without a anode aluminum's self passivation isn't enough to protect it from serious harm compared to the self passivation of iron. Just look at cast iron engine parts from the 30's and 40's that are still being brought back to useful service. 50 year old aluminum becomes so pitted and corroded that it is beyond machine repair to be brought back to usage. Sorry so long or TMI. But I wanted to explain my position about today's aluminum usage in automotive application. Aluminum in aircraft parts is a different story because they are subjected to a completely different set of conditions. I'm a automotive shade tree mechanic and a retired jet engine parts machinist and aircraft sheet metal mechanic. So I believe I have a a little experience in both fields.
@@elmerfudpucker3204 Is that the best you can do? lol That has been disproven 100 times over! And Fords new Crapzilla 7.3 is a push rod copy of a LS. The Coyote didnt work out so Ford went back to push rods! lol
i'm very old school with carbs and stuff and always stuck with it for engine swaps. If You did go down to the old junkyard and got an LS engine, what kinds of computors would you need to make it run??
I don't miss the old school engines. I had 432 rwhp out of a 350 in my Camaro. It was fun, but it wasn't street friendly..... Now the same car has a 5.3 with twin t04e turbos. It's faster, better mileage, street friendly, and more dependable.
Richard how would i go about getting an actual parts list for the 5.3? This is what I have been hoping someone would do a test and video on. While I like both engines, sometimes you have to move along with technology.
That old 327 did great. Of course another thing to consider would be durability. As Richard has proven, the 5.3 is durable enough to be pushed well over 1000hp. I doubt the 327 would be able to be pushed that far on a stock bottom end. Still, if you want a 500hp street small block in say a '69 Nova it shows that you don't have to throw in an LS because the old school engine with the right parts is just as viable.
You should have did the cam upgrade on the Fuelie heads to maximize the original appearance 327.. and possibly a ported set of double humps. I have some 291 heads with 2.02's and factory relief cuts and port work. I'm thinking about a roller cam upgrade.
I’d just put afr enforcer 195s on it it’ll probably make more power the double humps flow like 215cfm the as cast afr head flows 250-260ish they will make 500hp pretty easy in a high rpm small block
@@jeredfowler7194 I'm trying to keep a original appearance. Not spend $3,000! The 291 castings are supposed to be the best Fuelie heads (no accessory holes) and I'm just trying to optimize what I already have.. I have a vortec motor I could use but I like old school stuff.
@Your Pappy David Vizard ported a set of 186's to flow as good as a AFR Renegade. I haven't flow benched mine but I've opened up the bowls pretty good and pushed back the pushrod wall. And my intake relief cut matches the lump in the SBC head gasket and looks like it promotes swirl better than a vortec. With the old AFB carb it looks like the original 265 in my Camoe. (Except the oil filter)
The issues are availability and driveability. 5.3s or 6 0s are available everywhere and are super reliable, while the 327s are near impossible to find and more suited to racing or occasional driving rather than daily driver status IMO.
The thing that always strikes me at this point is that the modern engine lasts for a quarter of a million miles, isn't at all cranky, and gets substantially better fuel economy than the older tech. Anyone remember having to put timing chains in at 80 or 100k? I sure do also remember things like carburetor icing, and having to file contact points. How many times did I have to say... Must need a new condenser.
You can have a lot of fun with either of these engines. But, as expected the modern version is better. In fact it SHOULD be better! Seems to me the biggest improvement since 1965 has been in head design. That's to be expected when you use modern design and production methods. In 50 years, if combustion engines are still around (unlikely at the rate things are going) then we'll most likely be able to say the same thing about the dinosaur LS 5.3 engine. Lol.
Hello Richard! Love your video's, thanks for making them! Question: What would be the maximum horsepower you can make with each of those two engines with changing pistons, cams, intake, heads, rocker arms, and adding say fuel injection? Both being naturally aspirated. No blowers, turbo's, nitrous, etc.?
Wonder what the 327 would make with a roller cam and Vortec heads. You know for the ones who are on a some kinda of budget. I have a set of ready to boot on Vortec heads, just curious
The 400 cu. in. motor in my 1970 GTO was rated at 350 h.p. The 5.7 L Hemi in my Ram is rated at 395 h.p. It would have cost a lot of money to get that extra 45 h.p. back then.
If you have a 327 that already has a good forged bottom end put the afr on it and do the cam you will still be money ahead vs doing an ls swap and have within 20-30 hp and no headache of a swap. If you don’t already have an engine it’s hard to beat the price on a junkyard 5.3
Amazingly BROAD POWERBAND ...roughly 350+ HP from 3100-6500 RPM...so 3400 RPM Range at near max HP! Great for Racing and less pressure of course to "be in the right gear to stay in the powerband"!
Your historical knowledge on all things SBC is incredible. What if GM had produced a factory mid-engine SBC option in the late model (65+) Corvair? Corvettes might have been obsolete.. Oh, what might have been.
They did put a 327 in a 67 Corvair but it kept poping wheelies so they came out with a new design called a Camaro! GM answer to the Mustang! Corvair production reached 1,835,170 produced from 1960 until 1969 imagine all of them running around with LS7 in the trunk. 😁
A 1963 Tempest stomped a mudhole in Corvettes, Ferraris, and everything else on the track in the 1963 American Cup Challenge, lapping them several times. Brian Lohnes did a video on it, so you don't have to take my word for it. Mercedes bought that Tempest and shipped it to Germany for 'engineering purposes.' You know Lohnes, he does the announcing for Drag Week and NHRA. The sbc is still just a taxi cab engine, with barely adequate design, barely adequate machining, and you have to throw the aftermarket at them to make ok power when you spin the snot out of them. I get that people are fans of them, because you could go to a junk yard, yank one out, stuff it in your camaro, run 14s, blow it up on the weekend, and do it all again over and over.. similar to what you can do with a 5.3 now. The LS engines share more design with the engine that powered that Tempest than they do with the sbc. A lot more. What does the LS share with the sbc? The pattern for the transmission and the name put on it. The sbc uses the rocker arm from the Tempest engine, chevy had to steal that design otherwise the sbc would have a shaft rocker system like a mopar. Without the ball stud rocker system nobody would ever care about the sbc, it would be just a weak suck fleet vehicle engine that leaks everywhere. What the LS shares with that other engine is 4 head bolts per cylinder, cam retaining plate, air gap intake with a valley pan over the lifters, fully machined combustion chambers and gasket surfaces, 12-14 degree valve inclination, long runner high velocity intake ports, the bore and stroke of the LS1 is closer to the 350 Pontiac than the sbc, and the 5.3 B&S is closer to the 326 Pontiac than the 327sbc, and a few other things. The LS is more Pontiac than it is chevy. GM took the best of their engine designs and then added the chevy transmission bolt pattern so they didn't have to retool the transmission plant. Its about time the Corvette and GM trucks got a good engine, only took them until 1997.
@@mewrongwayKOCXF who is upset about that? Oh yeah the Ford guys are.. Before the 1963 racing ban Pontiac was owning all of them in NASCAR and in the stock/super stock classes. GM didn't like that the Pontiac division was winning so much, and the gov was talking about breaking up GM so no more racing for Pontiac. All through the 60s and early 70s GM had to keep the Pontiac engineers restrained from doing performance things. Thats why they had to do the end around thing to put a 389 in a 1964 A body, it was an option.. We all know how that turned out.
@@SweatyFatGuy Your confused with Ford! Chevys shitty ass taxi cab engine gave GM more NASCAR wins than Ford or Dodge! Almost all of your statements about the SBC and LS is incorrect and there are 1,000's of LS Fords and Dodges to prove it! Chevy and Pontiac are one and the same! Its called GM, nobody stole anything! lol Your posts are so entertaining! Thanks
I should have read the title more closely, I thought I was going to find out what exactly is the difference between these old muscle car era very high-performance modified engines , compared to the modern day technology engines that are supposedly creating these very high horsepower ratings, and yet are many times handicapped by the same problem that killed off the muscle car era, lack of high compression.
When I was young, putting headers on your car to increase the HP didn't impress the older generation, who thought we did it for the 'sound'... NOW, all the 'radical high-performance" stuff we did is now standard on most cars today. Look at the factory exhaust now. Looks a lot like the old "Headers"... And fuel injection is now standard...
The simplicity of the older engine blows that, not market created, away. The"diognostic tool's" required makes a lot of unessential crap essential. Like air-conditioning and having to buy a"reclaimer". The issue is wrongheaded.
GM actually produced some curves for internal use that showed the power at the piston crown. They did this by 'motoring' the engine on a dyno and recording the drag in lb-ft. Then they ran the engine and recorded the difference. I am not sure what they were looking for but the graphs seem to be out there and I have seen Corvair graphs.
I would like to know how they stack up. If you use a head on a 327 that flows equal numbers to the 5.3 and then put port injection, on the 327 and then compare them. would I be wrong to assume the 327 would be much stouter than the 5.3 and how much of that do you think it because of the higher compression in the 327? also, would I be wrong to assume that valve size wouldn’t be as much of an factor if the heads flow fairly equal numbers?
The LS design has a long runner high velocity intake port with a shallow 12 degree valve angle which means it can make the power with less RPM and less camshaft duration than the sbc. There is a lot more to an engine and where it makes power along with how much power than basic head flow. The sbc is a poor design, which is why it needs the aftermarket to make it run decent and live longer than a grenade with the pin pulled. GM tried to make the sbc produce more torque in the range people actually drive when they did the TPI. The experience trying to make that work vs the long runner Ford intakes is what prompted GM to go through all their old designs, pull a book from Pontiac, and design an engine from that starting point. Long runner, high velocity ports making torque through the entire RPM range instead of a little bit of torque up top and weak suck on the bottom. 400ftlbs is amazing with an sbc, but if a Pontiac is only making 400ftlbs you are wondering what is wrong with it. The difference is the port length and velocity due to the shape of the ports. From throttle blade to header collector, velocity matters a lot more than basic raw flow. The LS takes all of the best design from every GM engine that came before it, and leaves most of the bad design behind. They had to make a concession to the trans bolt pattern so they wouldn't have to retool the transmission plant. The starter location and the transmission pattern are the only things the LS got from the sbc, and they were packaging issues/concessions for trucks and Corvettes. Compression increases make more power everywhere in the RPM range, how much more depends on a few things like chamber shape/design and fuel quality. Why do you want more torque with less duration and compression? Because when you are running pump gas you can't run much compression, and more duration moves the torque bad up in the RPM range. Longer runners move the torque lower in the RPM range, and the LS has VERY long runners for that reason, they are moving trucks GM found that balance between velocity and volume so they don't need radical camshafts which EFI doesn't like, and they can run pump gas while making the same or more power than the sbc did. Most vehicles are not driven at 7000rpm, they are operated between idle and 3500 for the most part. For years chevy guys have been on the more is better bandwagon. If 4.10 gears are good then 4.88s are better. If a 3500 stall is good, 5000 stall is better. If 6000rpm is good then 8000 is better. Then someone with a Pontiac comes along and goes quicker with a 3.08 gear and 1900 stall in a heavier vehicle with 87 octane compression running a factory dual plane intake. Been there, done that, made the chevy guys cry foul. They always asked how much I was spraying, because its just impossible to run like that without a power adder in their minds. The best part is my 4100lb GTO would get 20mpg highway and still run 12.60s with a 2.93 gear, Th400, factory iron heads, and a Qjet on 87 octane, that is 8.8:1 compression. Very fun daily driver. The 3750lb Firebird ran 11.40s around 120mph with a 3.42 gear, 1900 stall, and a bit more compression in its iron head 455, it got 17mpg highway with an 850 Holley double pumper on it. The chevy guys said it didn't "sound like a race car, more like going to the store for a loaf of bread' because they never went over 6000rpm. That Firebird is now 1000lbs lighter, has a 461 (stroked 400), and unported Edelbrock heads, very mild build that can be daily driven with a highway gear. I have about $3500 in that engine. It will cost me at least that much to put an LS in something, and its still a junkyard engine. I know, I am big into the LS stuff too, for my trucks. Wonderful truck engine, I adore the ugly little things. The 6.0 is quite impressive to me, so the 76 C10 has one and the 80 C10 as well as the 88 C1500 are getting one. Once you remove all the chaff from the factory harness the LS is almost as easy to get running as a carb. I get the entire truck with a running 6.0 from free to $600. Usually its around $400 for the entire rusty truck. The benefit of living in the north, the drawback is almost everything is 4x4 here, finding 2wd stuff for the C10s is a pain. Been trying to give away sbc stuff that came with trucks.. nobody wants it.
it would be a port injection so you would use a longer runner intake with a throttlebody giving you a better low and torque number basically. let me ask the question another way is the the higher compression in the 327 making up for the lack in airflow were the LS base is running lower compression but making just a bit more power? now, all of this is judging off of his graphs on his Dino runs, so this is more or less about that specific combination. I know compression makes power, but you can’t make big power without airflow.
@@looneylonzo28 yes you need airflow, but how the air flows is more important. Air does not act linearly, it does 'strange' things with various shapes. Pressure and velocity are very important, and engines use both of those far more than raw airflow. If you have ever been in an aircraft hangar when the doors close you can get the idea of what happens when a large airflow is pushed through an ever smaller gap. As the gap gets smaller the air goes faster. As the gap widens the velocity of the air drops. As the velocity increases, pressure drops, as velocity slows, pressure increases, that is how a carburetor works. So you can have a lot more air flow through the open doors, but its slow and lazy. Make the hole smaller and the air goes a lot faster as a result, so it flows 'less' but fills the space faster. A long tube flows air faster than a short one, a smaller tube flows faster air than a larger one. There is a balance between displacement and airflow, and depending on what you want from the engine, will dictate how long and large the ports are. That plays an even larger part than camshaft timing or valve size, because small differences make a huge impact. The sbc is a short runner engine, which means it requires rpm to make power since the air flow is lazy at low rpm. Its the big barn door that is open, if you can get a high enough windspeed then sure it flows more air. A Pontiac is a long runner engine, or to go for an even more pronounced example a cross ram 383 or 440 mopar with runners that are almost 3 feet long. The long ram mopars made all of their power under 5000rpm. Its like a tunnel ram split apart and laid on its side. The tunnel ram does the same thing, and they increase mid range power and due to the size of them they allow more flow up top too, but within reason. A single plane has short runners, a dual plane has longer runners, in addition to the open or split plenum. Thats why dual plane intakes are down up top but better under 5000 and single plane intakes are better above 5000. Take the 5.3 sized engine, have one with 4" runners and one with 2' runners, the short runner will make pathetic torque at low rpm, and still be making relatively pathetic torque above 5000, but since HP is TQ over time, the HP goes up. It makes more TQ above 6k than it would with a long runner or dual plane intake. Thing is it NEEDS the RPM to make power in that configuration. Now with the long runners that same 5.3 with no other changes is going to make most of its power below 5000rpm and probably won't go past 6k. I pay attention to where an engine is making its torque, and I let HP do whatever the hell it wants. Why do I see it that way? Its because an engine making 400hp at 2000rpm is making a bit less than 1100 fttbs while a 400hp engine at 9000rpm is making less than 250 ftlbs. They are both making 400hp, but the one making it at 2k is going to move things a lot easier and won't need deep gears to do it. When one of my Pontiac engines makes 700hp at 6000rpm it is making a lot more torque than an LS making 700hp at 8000rpm. Its 620ftlbs for my Pontiac compared to 465ftlbs for the LS, and the LS is making that at high RPM with a lot less below that, whereas the Pontiac is probably making more than 600ftlbs from 2500 to 6500 rpm. Who needs deep gears when you have that kind of grunt? My Pontiacs go slower with a 4.10 gear than with a 2.73 to 3.55 gear, so do roots supercharged vehicles.. and yeah some of them are making 600ftlbs from 2000 to 5000 without a blower or nitrous. Long runners make more torque, short runners make more HP because they allow a bit more torque to be made above 5252 rpm where TQ and HP are always the same. Take a 400 Pontiac and a 400 chevy same bore and stroke at 4.125" x 3.75", but with very different port lengths and sizes. The Pontiac is going to make a lot more torque than the chevy, but the chevy can possibly make a bit more hp up top even with heads that flow the same cfm and cam timing. So the 400 chevy needs 4.10 or deeper gears and the Pontiac needs 3.55 gears or at most a 3.73. I have been trying to get someone to build a stock head and intake 400 sbc to race one of my stock head Pontiacs with the same cam specs in the same weight car with a 3.08 to 3.55 gear, you know, like a street car you can drive daily. So far nobody will do it. Then you get into cam timing, opening events, overlap, and that can move the RPM range around as well. Bore size can play a part too, you see that with the 305 chevy and the 350 Pontiac since they lave less than 4" bores but heads that want over 4" bores. The LS1 and 5.3 have small bores too, but the heads are designed to not cause the air flow issues with the small bores, since GM knew what happens with a small bore from the 326, 350 and the 305. That is getting into even more stuff though, not just airflow and velocity. I like high velocity, because my engines make a lot more power the faster the air is moving through the ports... and its at an RPM level I can actually use every day.
@@looneylonzo28 on a shorter note... I have been playing with the idea of a long runner intake to take advantage of ethanol, kinda want to use an LS engine, perhaps a stroked 6.0 making it a 6.6 and some shaved 706 heads making lots of compression, but make an intake where I can put the injectors farther upstream. Then heat the fuel in the rails to over 200F so it instantly vaporizes in the relative vacuum of the intake port. Gives it more time to cool the charge, make it denser, make more power, and burn cleaner so it uses less fuel to make the same power. I've done it with carbs to some extent, and if I can make my FiTech run without a return, it will get a heated fuel system too. When you switch to ethanol to take advantage of high compression it opens up opportunities to do other things you simply can't with gasoline. I've already matched mileage in the same car with pump gas and ethanol compression 455s, actually did a bit better on ethanol, and made a lot more power too. Its fun messing with all this stuff, so much to learn and find out.
makes sense. I appreciate your time. I ran into some of those exact issues with airflow on one of my old builds. it was a LA 318 the heads were a 54 cc close chambered heart shaped casting number 302 the heads with a 2.02 int& 1.50 exh they made good power and phenomenal torque compared to stock but just couldn’t get enough airflow (680 cfm) because of the raised shoulder at the valve it caused a choking point and cause the engine to really struggle over 5500 when I got rid of the 318 heads and put the 360 heads 76 cc with a 2.02 &1.60 open chamber, which caused me to lose torque but what I lost in torque, I gained in horsepower at 6200. my airflow numbers improved to just under 730 ish cfm
I was actually wondering this same scenario. I have a set of Afr 195 comp port heads and am starting a resto on a 1950 3600 5 window and was trying to decide whether to go sbc or ls. I have a daily driver Tbss that is worn and could be donated to the cause also. Or a 2004 2500 4x4 chassis with a 6.0. Decisions decisions. 😂🤷🏽♂️
You know in The Graduate when the guy at the graduation party takes Dustin Hoffman aside and whispers "plastics". What he should have said was "computers" And that's what we're seeing here.
Love the video I'm not a LS guy by no means but I seen what they can do when you put turbos on a pretty much stock one and I know they have a really strong bottom end and are very reliable I just have never seen a carburetor on a LS ran and make alot of power please show a NA version of a 5.3 or 6.0 on the dyno and what horse power they make stock I wouldn't mine putting a 6.0 in my 88 SS monte carlo NA if it could make the power my big block make it would be alot of weight of the front end. Thanks your friend from Louisiana 427
@@richardholdener1727 Doesn’t necessarily have to be the way they’re set up now. I just love RPM. But… I’m always into seeing how high power can be carried. I turn my LS6 about 700-ish RPM past peaks because it carries well and gains about 40-50 WHP on shift recovery.
I can't believe how heads can allow the 327 to make 450hp. Holy crap, that is an insane power gain. Regardless of cost, i didn't think the short stroke 327 could make that power.
It's like the DZ302 that came in the 69 Z/28. Factory rated at 290 H.P. Numerous people have dyno tested stock 302s and came up with 370 H.P. more or less. Can you imagine what that motor would do with these same mods?
I like the comparison. I still wonder if you add all the same fuel injection, cam specs, heads flow same, compression, etc etc… where it would land on new vs old. I’ve seen a lot people make serious power on both. Better yet investment wise which would be more worthwhile building?!
1972 Bill was running 331cid, 020 over 327 and 292 turbo heads. 680hp, 9000 rpm and a 9.90 pass. The Chevrolet engineers were tasked with building the lowest-priced OHV8 and given the directive to use as little iron, steel and aluminum as possible. When they were done, a ready-to-install engine cost Chevrolet about $55 to make in 1962 when released and included a 4bbl and 11.5 comp. That it came to handle horsepower and RPM incredibly well was a happy accident.
@@mewrongwayKOCXF Yeah, that sounds right. I think he broke 700 hp with that set up in '73 or '74. My memory is not as good as it used to be. BTW, I have a modified 331 SBC in my '68 Corvette. She runs good.
Good video Richard, let me bottom line it for you. In my EXPIRENCE with the 5.3LS a bone stock motor with a $150 Sloppy Stage 2 cam will easily make over 425hp with the stock heads and truck manifold for an investment of way less than $1000. What other engine combination will put out so much HP so cheap ? Some will say you need to spend money on a high pressure fuel system. OK, let's add $150 for an external pump, a Corvette filter/regulator and some 3/8" hard line and a return to the filler neck of the tank. A cut down stock harness and a reflashed PCM will cost $250-$400 so let's say we will invest a little over $1500 and some change for a powerplant. $2000 for a swap. With tax and shipping that's little more than just the cost of a good set of aluminum heads for a SBC. I get the purist's who want the 327 for their '64 Vette but for the average guy it's very difficult to beat the LS for a swap into a Nova, S or C10 or any GM G body or a Mustang, even a B or E body Mopar.
Here's an idea. Take a 6L LS based engine, destroke it with a 4.8L crank, and the compare it with a 376 L76. At that point you're working with the same displacement. 2 different engines with a 4" bore, and 3.25" stroke. Of course when modded the LS will likely make much better power. I'm just not a big fan of 2V engines with less than a 4" bore for modding N/A power out of them. I've owned LS1 cars that I thought were great, but even a GEN3 5.7L SBC is rocking too small a bore diameter. Proof being how much more efficient of a head will fit on a 6L+ LS than on a 5.7L LS.
Hi there Richard i have a question you might be about to help with wondering how i could make a 500-580hp with ls2 from my 2007 cts-v please and thank you if you can help me out or point me in the right direction unlike alot of known car people at the drag strip
Richard when are you bringing your 2 cams to market I want one I’ve been waiting 2 years o look up Richard hold we truck cam and nothing yet can you give us an update buddy
I had a 66 Impala with a 327 and a power glide tranny I loved the engine but I had to put another transmission in about once a year I was very efficient at changing tranny's by the time I got rid of that car 😂😂
I’d still choose small block becuase when shtf I can always make it run and 99% of the time I will make it home but when new stuff has electric or ecm issues they are waiting for a tow.
@@richardholdener1727 yes it should last longer both being brand new same miles drove. but again when it breaks down it can’t usually be able to limp home and my carb and points always seems to be able to. I have never needed a tow unless it was in newer vehicle. I like them both same as you if I had to choose I take the old school.
Duntov cam is the ONLY choice. In a LIGHT car you will KICK A** & take names all day EVERY day. I have one in my 2100# Model A Coupe...I'll show ya my teardrop tail lights any time.....
While I already know the newer engine would ultimately win this test, I have a 327 in my Chevy and I absolutely love the way it responds to mods. It revs quick. Quicker than any 350. I think that 327/375 was the most powerful small block ever until just a few years back. I love power but there's just something about an old 327. Anyone else feel that way?
The 283 is even better !
I've had both. 283 makes the sweetest sounds I've ever heard from a car and the 327 is in 2nd place for sound only. Fastest car I ever drove had a fully built 327 in it. Just awesome......
350s sound like metal is flexing and it's not a good sound at 6-7k rpms. All my current vehicles have 350s including my boat. 😅
@MrSpartanPaul my dad has a 56 chevy with a 265, I put a set of 40 series Flowmaster on it and let me tell you people think it's bigger than it is, it'll wind to the moon. But yea other than my 57 bel air having a 327 everything else has a 350. I can agree, it just isn't the same. I think for sound and revs, big bore, short stroke is the way to go. Plus if I am not mistaken, all the early small journal small blocks had a forged crankshaft
@@jeremygranier6086 Not true, I used to think that as well until I took my 283 apart and found it had a cast crank. However, someone was throwing away a forged 283 crank at my local dump so I grabbed it!
Although I totally agree, the 327 is a very underrated motor, but modern small blocks make almost twice what the hp the 327 makes
I am actually surprised.. The old 327 with updated heads is very close to the new LS engine... It is all about the heads.. I wouldn't toss out an old smallblock
Really all about volumetric efficiency. Heads is a easy way to fix, but you could do other stuff, like piston speed, port shape, cam timing, etc...
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IT'S ALL ABOUT THE HEADS. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE HEADS ON THE LS ARE? THEY ARE COPIES OF THE WINDSOR HEADS. WHICH ARE SPIRAL-INDUCING COMBUSTION CHAMBERS AND WHAT GM DID IS GRAPH THE HIGH-RISE PORTS FROM THE FORD 427 HIGH RISER MOTOR ONTO IT. FORD COULD HAVE DONE THIS MANY YEARS AGO. BUT GM BEING THE CHEATS THEY ARE. HAS THE GOVERNMENT IN THEIR POCKETS AND ALWAYS PRESSURED THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT HEAVY RESTRICTIONS ON EMISSIONS, ON FORD IN ORDER TO TAME DOWN THEIR PERFORMANCE ENGINES. THE LS DOES NOT MEET THE EFFICIENCY THEY CLAIM. THE EPA LOOKS THE OTHER WAY BECAUSE OF THEIR LONG RELATIONSHIP THAT GOES BACK A HUNDRED YEARS WITH GM. MODULAR MOTORS ARE MORE EFFICIENT BECAUSE THEY ELIMINATE ALL THE PUSHRODS AND LIFTERS WHICH REDUCES FRICTION AND INCREASES EFFICIENCY. I HAVE A FRIEND OF MINE THAT HAS A '80S CORVETTE AND HE PUT A 383 OLD SMALL BLOCK CHEVY IT WITH A GOOD PAIR OF HEADS AND CAM. HE DRIVES IT TO THE TRACK AND DOES 11:50 AND BLAZES BY ALL THE LS'S ALL DAY LONG.
Yes they made similar power but the intake alone on the ls cost almost as much as the heads on the sbc
@@bobdeegan2293 yeah they failed to mention $ per hp and $$ per hp for the mods. That is the information i really want. The fuel injection of the newer engine is nice for drivability but i believe they should have used the same carb on both engines as the displacement is the same.
@@tomkielian5291 or FI… either way, def wouldve evened it out better
Thanks. i went with the 327 diamond pistons, jesel solid lifters, 12-700-8 cam, AFR 180 heads, Dart block mainly because the LS looks like crap under a 69 Nova. Daily driver BTW. Love your content!
I rebuilt a 283, 327, and 350 when I was a kid. My favorite was the 327. Thnx Richard
The natural evolution of technology.
If we didn't have the musclecar era and all of it's craziness, we might not have developed the power and efficiency we have now in our vehicles.
When I was a kid if you had 1 horse power per cubic inch you were doing pretty good. Now I expect that from my stock LS engines.
now people want 100 horse per 1000cc
@@2000freefuel I was thinking the same thing and that's in actual HP to the wheel too. It's impressive to see tiny 2 l 4 cyl putting out 300 hp**to the crank but I just don't trust it. I have nothing against turbos or superchargers but it just feels more prudent to go NA if possible.
*or supercharged -5 L v8s putting out 600 crank...
@@2000freefuel check Packard performance Yamaha yxz 3 cylinder 700 plus hp. Rockets
The 5.3 LS at 9.5:1 compression and a roller cam murders the 11:1 comp SBC. You would gain some power with a modern roller cam on the SBC but I don't think even that would even them out. Same heads cam and intake on the 5.3 with 11:1 compression would make a good bit over 500 HP. Engineering is just so much better now.
I don't think so. Check out NHRA stock.
@@chriscatarcio2983 Saw an NHRA Super Stock motor - stock style block, .999 valve lift, 9000 rpm. Valve train probably costs more than these two motors combined :)
@@chriscatarcio2983
You are talking full race motor compared to street motors. Let’s keep the comparisons apples to apples.
Put the same cam and a head with the same flow as the 5.3 on the 327 and its going to make pretty much the same power.
@@WVXL64 yup, about the same cubic inch, so that's pretty much the end game right there.
Not a bad comparison at all! I can't believe the whiney ones aren't saying "but you should have used the truck 327" lol. Fact is, unless you changed the Pistons in the truck 327, power would have been lower still and the 5.3 still had a completely stock bottom end and imo, a top end still on the milder side of the fence. I love sbc. The sounds, smells, working on them etc. But, an ls is just so much more advanced and stupid cheap to play with. Regardless I love all engines and engine dynos so, no complaints from this guy ✌️
I went with my old 327 block in my 67 Camaro but with Blueprint aluminum heads, .485 lift roller cam, tru-ram stainless ramshead exhaut, Edelbrock airgap and AVS2 carb. I'm satisfied. I could have gone wilder, but you know, with my weight down to 2950 lbs and a 700R4 I'm having plenty of fun and the whole system is easily repairable. And I'm still within the old school look.
I have figured for awhile this was the case, thanks for doing the test, but I do have to put my 327 back together someday soon
What is strange that I only recently (as in yesterday) started considering this exact choice issue for a 1938 Chevy coupe that I'm building. I really wanted to go old school with a 327 but began thinking about a 5.3. Thank you for showing us the difference and what is possible for both. Now if I can figure out the computer stuff on a 5.3, I will consider going that route. Thanks again for your efforts !
Also, do you want to run a harness full of wires and connectors or one 12v wire to make the thing run?? Also for some reason (maybe head design?) the original sbc''s sound a lot better/ tougher! If you're doing an Ls swap into an older car, it cost a lot of money! Need different motor mounts, different header's, different oil pan, different radiator, Ignition to control the LS and make it run! So there's a lot to it, don't be fooled by those saying it's so easy cuz it's not!
Its really easy unless your to lazy to learn the differences and the LS will give you far more HP for less fuel, less carbon emission, will last another 100,000 miles. I can go on and on!
Also need a baffled gas tank and entire fuel system, if running efi. As you said, “lots of things”. I looked into it when i started on my Nova. I ended up building a 408 sbc (really a 409). LOVE the 408!
Ever heard of a Distributor? Put it on your LS with a carb and blow your old Gen 1 off the road! Its that easy boys! But I know I know cant teach some old dogs a new trick.
@@mewrongwayKOCXF you can't put a distributor in an ls unless you use an expensive belt drive one that's run off of the crank.
@@mewrongwayKOCXF another thing, converting from coil on plug to a distributor is stupid! High cost, plus the timing events aren't as accurate as coil on plug , which means less power for more dollars.
Only an idiot would do that.
I love both engines! I’ve been debating on old school or LS in my off-road build. I like the simplicity and lack of electronics on the old school. Makes diagnosing problems in the desert easier. But I love the potential of the LS. Unsure which way I should go
i am all electronic even sbc i use standalone ecm once you understand the electronics its fairly simple
@@bill2178 I know they’re pretty simple. But was I meant is getting the truck back running if I’m in the middle of nowhere. HEI are cheap. I can pack an extra. Right now I have a Holley sniper. If that goes out. I can toss on a carb and get it started up
I think the fuel requirements are a big consideration. An 11:1 327 isnt going to be happy on the crap 84-86 regular at the pump but the 5.3 will. And the power ratings vs drivability is a huge factor, same power with ease and reliability to be a daily driver is a win for me.
Never seen 84-86 octane? 87 is the norm here(NC)
youd have to do some magic with the timing and the curve itself. it may have less power then tho...
@@NCSTANGGUY I mostly see 86-87 at home in West TX but I travel a lot for work and it never fails I pull in somewhere and see 84 at least once a week.
You can always mix it with racing fuel
What happens if you strap tbi and coil packs on a 327?
Or a 4-barrel and a dizzy on the 5.3?
Since you are comparing apples and oranges.
GREAT VIDEO RICHARD!!!! BOTH ARE GREAT OPTIONS!!!! BOTH ARE WINNERS!!!! BOTH MAKE GREAT DAILY DRIVER MOTORS!!!!!
SBC 327s are awesome. I use to run 327s in my dirt track race car. I was very competitive and the engine held up. I love the way they rev up on the straight aways. Lots of
curious race fans would ask what you running due to the way it sounded. Great memories.
@Your Pappy we used the 461 double hump heads and a Comp Cam 268H. 👏👏
W z-28 oil pump
Nice video.....I love both new and old Push Rod 327 engines and like you said...the diff. in modern design! at least they resemble each other on size and not overhead cam vs. ol school.....beleive the LS Series Chevy is gonna be around awhile.
You didn't mention the electronic complexity of the newer engine when it comes to the backyard mechanic, a lot less to go wrong with the 327 and the 327 is a lot easier to fix for the average Joe
Ive got a 68 327 impala and an 02 5.3 tahoe. I like them both a lot. I always thought of the 5.3 as the 327 coming back like Gandalf even stronger hahaha. If someone were considering which to build for their ride I would say it’s so close between the sbc and the lm7 that I would just run what the vehicle came with, or could have came with, for simplicity and so you don’t have to spend a million years doing wiring and making stuff fit. Both motors build up really well and for cheap (realativel speaking of corse).
Thou shall not pass
Don't need to spend "a million years on wiring and making stuff fit". There are literally plug and play kits to install LS engines in most chassis these days. 🤷🏻
@@davelowets ah, mr not enough zinc we meet again. Didn’t get a response from you on dd’s vid after telling you how much zinc he had, just in case you didn’t see he had more than twice the recommended amount from the manufacturer of the cam. And on those harness it’s an exaggeration joke bud, you know… humor? You were supposed to laugh not get upset. Those harnesses are out there but they always need some working over and in no universe is it easier to swap a harness than use the existing stuff. No ones saying it’s impossible it’s just pointing out that one of these options is significantly easier and with the consideration that the results are almost exactly the same power wise between the two motors this is something a lot of people would be glad to know going into a project.
@@SpecialAgentJamesAki The LS platform is superior over an ancient small block. The LS gas mileage WILL be better, the engine WILL run longer, there will be LESS maintenance, and you dont know what you're talking about. There are systems out there with NO harness to have to mess with, the the entire fuel injection system including the pcm is contained within the fuel rails, or entirely within a throttle body. All you need is power, keyed power, and ground for such a system. There are MANY examples out there, such as David Freiburgers "Muscle truck". Do your research before you post incorrect information. As far as the content of oil in the other video goes, HE didn't even know the content of the zinc in the oil, so you didn't either. 😒
@@davelowets He shows the oil and additive used in the video which amount to a ppm over 5000 of zinc and the manufacturer of his cam required 2000. It’s simply incorrect to state that no one knows how much zinc was in there. So much chemical testing has been done and is readily available on these particular fluids. And no one said the ls isnt good the ls is almost a perfect motor it’s just that it’s such a marginally small gain over the sbc that it really isn’t worth swapping with all the added cost and time for the average person. I’ve watched so many people dive in head first not knowing what they are getting into with these swaps it’s just a good thing for the kind of person who will find themself watching this video to consider when weighing their options. The Forrest for the trees man.
Great comparison Richard! I love this kind of content.
Love the 327. It can rev like a 302 but produce torque like a 350. Had an LT-1 in my '69 Camaro and it was good. If I were to do it over again, 327 just for the 'fun' factor.
"Fun" is big torque down low... because the vast majority of your time behind the wheel in a daily is not racing at 5k+ rpm. Something that is lost on nearly everyone. Torque is what you actually feel when you hit the go pedal. The more of it, the more fun it is... So once again, the mighty LS proves it's a worthy successor to it's wonderful parents.
And neither of these have much low rpm torque
More stall converter and gear solves that problem
@@mewrongwayKOCXF Such things are totally bizarre... Even scientist can't figure out how that is possible. I pray that one day they find a firing order. A small morsel to help relieve their self induced pain. So tragic.
@@jeredfowler7194 True, but that is just a fix. What you end up with is something that sounds like it's about to explode just cursing down the highway.
@@hawkdsl 🤣
I had a Gen I 327 (68 large journal) in a 70 Chevell but I put my money on the 5.3L!!
I think this is a good comparison, especially for anyone with a desire to build a street rod with an engine as the centerpiece with no hood deciding which to run. From my point of view aesthetically, the new engines don't look nearly as good as the older engines rather it be Chevy, Chrysler or Ford. I'd much rather see an old 426 Hemi than a modern Dodge Hemi, for example, so it's good to know that old iron can still make comparable power. Even so, new engines in stock form make more power on regular pump gas and get better fuel efficiency too.
Love the energy Richard! Hope you're doing well; it's been awhile. Great content as usual.
I am still a huge fan of the Gen 1 small block.
And the small block needs good gas, the LS will run on cat pi$$
Anything goes when both engines are modified.
I'm not bad mouthing the 327, but life expectancy and drivability decreases rapidly with increases in power. The 5.3 valve train and bottom-end are much better than a 327. I remember back in the good old days, when wiped out cam lobes where common.
The "only" design flaw a LM7 has, is the heads have to come off to change lifters.
There is 60 years of development between the two, plus a more honest horsepower rating system that takes 30% off the same engine starting in 1972. Roller cams and engine management made powerbands so much wider, than anyone could dream about in the 60s.
DV would say that the 327 has incorrect cam events due to 1.25 tq/cube output. Still looks fun!
this wasn't to choose the best cam-just show you what happens when you run this cam
I'm not sure about the rest of the U.S. but the junkyards here in Texas seem to think that the LS is gold plated and want insane amounts for 250k mile motors. Even want a bunch for the LS core motors they get back from a sale. Then they act like you should pay another few hundred extra for the LS wiring and ECM(Or you pay for the stand alone harness new.) I've got all kinds of early small block high performance parts cheap from Craigslist,Facebook marketplace and friends. I just don't see the LS being more bang for the buck unless I could find a better deal on one. And I'm looking every day!
The old carburetor engines are great for being uncomplicated. No electric fuel system and electronic engine controls required. Just tune your carb right and burn rubber...
A 421 Sbc vs any LS would be a cool comparison.
421 is not factory
I happen to love the 283 / 327 motors alot more than the 350s . I also have 4 suburbans a 99 with a vortec 5.7 ,03,07 and 2010 all have the awesome 5.3s my 03 has 697k miles and her motor has never been rebuilt, I've done intake gaskets a couple times, no major work no oil pump issues ever so I'm impartial to the 5.3s they have plenty of balls ,plenty of torque, get very good gas mileage even towing, but I have a 69 chevy g10 mid engine van iput an lt1 in back in 2006 I don't like she runs hot and funky with points and carb, although j have a 5.3 4l60e in the shed from a wrecked 03 suburban 90k miles I'm putting in a 65 283, the motor was made for points and I can finally put her original gas pedal linkages, and hook up my original gouges in my dash inst cluster finally if they still work otherwise i may buy back a twin van to mine and put the 5.3 in that one I would ls swap mine but I want everything stock no modifications to her wiring
That's an interesting comparison. I thought the 5.3L would not do as well stock but would do have done much better when modified. Consider that the small block in 1965 had grown from a 1955 design, the 5.3L is what an almost 50 year newer design? And BTW I have a stock LS2 in my daily driver. It isn't as much fun as the modified SBC that I've owned in the past but probably makes as much power with less fuss and much more reliability.
I've always wondered what the traditional small block would do with a 14 or 16 degree head like the ls has, I know the price would Skyrocket for that type of an aftermarket top end but it's always been a curiosity
The engineering in the LS heads is light years ahead of anything built back in the 60's and 70's.
agreed, but engine parts , boilers, hydro-electic power water pumps, etc. were constructed from cast iron. Anything made from aluminun such as LS heads are temporary, thus old 60's & 70"s cast iron cylinder heads are still going while aluminum parts are time sensitive such as old beer cans.
@@dianedonovan4073 yes, I had a brother who worked at the GM aluminum foundry in Defiance Ohio and he said the exact same thing. I agree wholeheartedly. The old V8 blocks and heads could be overheated and still hold together. Today's motors are trash if they get overheated one time. Aluminum has some big advantages but far more disadvantages. I will trade longevity for performance any day. Aluminum has a niche and I believe it's in racing, and I believe cast iron had a niche and that's in everyday reliability. Without a anode aluminum's self passivation isn't enough to protect it from serious harm compared to the self passivation of iron. Just look at cast iron engine parts from the 30's and 40's that are still being brought back to useful service. 50 year old aluminum becomes so pitted and corroded that it is beyond machine repair to be brought back to usage. Sorry so long or TMI. But I wanted to explain my position about today's aluminum usage in automotive application. Aluminum in aircraft parts is a different story because they are subjected to a completely different set of conditions. I'm a automotive shade tree mechanic and a retired jet engine parts machinist and aircraft sheet metal mechanic. So I believe I have a a little experience in both fields.
327 is a great engine 50 years ago but the modern LS is miles ahead of old school small blocks.
Their stock heads are better THATS it. Big deal. I fear no LS .engine . With my small block. They got it right the first time.
@@chriscatarcio2983 Lmao my 88 T/A has a 5.3 with a T4 1.10 S475 and will walk any old small block🤷
@@chriscatarcio2983 lmaog every inch of a LS is superior to the Gen I 327. I had a gen I with camel hump heads in a 70 Chevell! 😂😂😂
@@mewrongwayKOCXF Yep, when the bowties copied the SBF Windsor head for their engines, it really woke them up!
@@elmerfudpucker3204 Is that the best you can do? lol That has been disproven 100 times over! And Fords new Crapzilla 7.3 is a push rod copy of a LS. The Coyote didnt work out so Ford went back to push rods! lol
Thank you for the wealth to knowledge.
i'm very old school with carbs and stuff and always stuck with it for engine swaps. If You did go down to the old junkyard and got an LS engine, what kinds of computors would you need to make it run??
stock or lots of after market choices-you can also use a carb
I don't miss the old school engines. I had 432 rwhp out of a 350 in my Camaro. It was fun, but it wasn't street friendly..... Now the same car has a 5.3 with twin t04e turbos. It's faster, better mileage, street friendly, and more dependable.
Richard how would i go about getting an actual parts list for the 5.3? This is what I have been hoping someone would do a test and video on. While I like both engines, sometimes you have to move along with technology.
ALL THEPARTS ARE LISTED FOR THE 5.3L
That old 327 did great. Of course another thing to consider would be durability. As Richard has proven, the 5.3 is durable enough to be pushed well over 1000hp. I doubt the 327 would be able to be pushed that far on a stock bottom end. Still, if you want a 500hp street small block in say a '69 Nova it shows that you don't have to throw in an LS because the old school engine with the right parts is just as viable.
You should have did the cam upgrade on the Fuelie heads to maximize the original appearance 327.. and possibly a ported set of double humps.
I have some 291 heads with 2.02's and factory relief cuts and port work. I'm thinking about a roller cam upgrade.
I’d just put afr enforcer 195s on it it’ll probably make more power the double humps flow like 215cfm the as cast afr head flows 250-260ish they will make 500hp pretty easy in a high rpm small block
@@jeredfowler7194 I'm trying to keep a original appearance. Not spend $3,000! The 291 castings are supposed to be the best Fuelie heads (no accessory holes) and I'm just trying to optimize what I already have.. I have a vortec motor I could use but I like old school stuff.
@Your Pappy David Vizard ported a set of 186's to flow as good as a AFR Renegade. I haven't flow benched mine but I've opened up the bowls pretty good and pushed back the pushrod wall. And my intake relief cut matches the lump in the SBC head gasket and looks like it promotes swirl better than a vortec. With the old AFB carb it looks like the original 265 in my Camoe. (Except the oil filter)
The issues are availability and driveability. 5.3s or 6 0s are available everywhere and are super reliable, while the 327s are near impossible to find and more suited to racing or occasional driving rather than daily driver status IMO.
The thing that always strikes me at this point is that the modern engine lasts for a quarter of a million miles, isn't at all cranky, and gets substantially better fuel economy than the older tech. Anyone remember having to put timing chains in at 80 or 100k? I sure do also remember things like carburetor icing, and having to file contact points. How many times did I have to say... Must need a new condenser.
Richard, you are “Engine Yoda” my friend lol
You can have a lot of fun with either of these engines. But, as expected the modern version is better. In fact it SHOULD be better!
Seems to me the biggest improvement since 1965 has been in head design. That's to be expected when you use modern design and production methods.
In 50 years, if combustion engines are still around (unlikely at the rate things are going) then we'll most likely be able to say the same thing about the dinosaur LS 5.3 engine. Lol.
Hello Richard! Love your video's, thanks for making them! Question: What would be the maximum horsepower you can make with each of those two engines with changing pistons, cams, intake, heads, rocker arms, and adding say fuel injection? Both being naturally aspirated. No blowers, turbo's, nitrous, etc.?
I wish you would have picked a cam with comparable duration of 236/242 in the ls for a closer test
Wonder what the 327 would make with a roller cam and Vortec heads. You know for the ones who are on a some kinda of budget. I have a set of ready to boot on Vortec heads, just curious
The 400 cu. in. motor in my 1970 GTO was rated at 350 h.p. The 5.7 L Hemi in my Ram is rated at 395 h.p. It would have cost a lot of money to get that extra 45 h.p. back then.
the 395 hp Hemi makes at least 100 hp more than your GTO motor-the gross rating was different in 1970 than the net rating of today
What I would like to know is how much hp did that 327 make without the electric water pump with an alternator and no headers ?
If you have a 327 that already has a good forged bottom end put the afr on it and do the cam you will still be money ahead vs doing an ls swap and have within 20-30 hp and no headache of a swap. If you don’t already have an engine it’s hard to beat the price on a junkyard 5.3
Amazingly BROAD POWERBAND ...roughly 350+ HP from 3100-6500 RPM...so 3400 RPM Range at near max HP! Great for Racing and less pressure of course to "be in the right gear to stay in the powerband"!
Rich, Have a go a running Methanol with compound turbocharging
Doesn't the 5.3 have a better stronger bottom end?
WAY better...
Your historical knowledge on all things SBC is incredible. What if GM had produced a factory mid-engine SBC option in the late model (65+) Corvair? Corvettes might have been obsolete.. Oh, what might have been.
Duntov wanted to make the Corvette mid engine as far back as 1958. If only the bean counters didn’t get in the way
They did put a 327 in a 67 Corvair but it kept poping wheelies so they came out with a new design called a Camaro! GM answer to the Mustang! Corvair production reached 1,835,170 produced from 1960 until 1969 imagine all of them running around with LS7 in the trunk. 😁
A 1963 Tempest stomped a mudhole in Corvettes, Ferraris, and everything else on the track in the 1963 American Cup Challenge, lapping them several times. Brian Lohnes did a video on it, so you don't have to take my word for it. Mercedes bought that Tempest and shipped it to Germany for 'engineering purposes.' You know Lohnes, he does the announcing for Drag Week and NHRA.
The sbc is still just a taxi cab engine, with barely adequate design, barely adequate machining, and you have to throw the aftermarket at them to make ok power when you spin the snot out of them. I get that people are fans of them, because you could go to a junk yard, yank one out, stuff it in your camaro, run 14s, blow it up on the weekend, and do it all again over and over.. similar to what you can do with a 5.3 now.
The LS engines share more design with the engine that powered that Tempest than they do with the sbc. A lot more. What does the LS share with the sbc? The pattern for the transmission and the name put on it. The sbc uses the rocker arm from the Tempest engine, chevy had to steal that design otherwise the sbc would have a shaft rocker system like a mopar. Without the ball stud rocker system nobody would ever care about the sbc, it would be just a weak suck fleet vehicle engine that leaks everywhere.
What the LS shares with that other engine is 4 head bolts per cylinder, cam retaining plate, air gap intake with a valley pan over the lifters, fully machined combustion chambers and gasket surfaces, 12-14 degree valve inclination, long runner high velocity intake ports, the bore and stroke of the LS1 is closer to the 350 Pontiac than the sbc, and the 5.3 B&S is closer to the 326 Pontiac than the 327sbc, and a few other things. The LS is more Pontiac than it is chevy. GM took the best of their engine designs and then added the chevy transmission bolt pattern so they didn't have to retool the transmission plant.
Its about time the Corvette and GM trucks got a good engine, only took them until 1997.
@@mewrongwayKOCXF who is upset about that? Oh yeah the Ford guys are.. Before the 1963 racing ban Pontiac was owning all of them in NASCAR and in the stock/super stock classes. GM didn't like that the Pontiac division was winning so much, and the gov was talking about breaking up GM so no more racing for Pontiac.
All through the 60s and early 70s GM had to keep the Pontiac engineers restrained from doing performance things. Thats why they had to do the end around thing to put a 389 in a 1964 A body, it was an option.. We all know how that turned out.
@@SweatyFatGuy Your confused with Ford! Chevys shitty ass taxi cab engine gave GM more NASCAR wins than Ford or Dodge! Almost all of your statements about the SBC and LS is incorrect and there are 1,000's of LS Fords and Dodges to prove it! Chevy and Pontiac are one and the same! Its called GM, nobody stole anything! lol Your posts are so entertaining! Thanks
I really wanted see similar camshafts 590 lift
Nice comparison
I wish you had tested the 327 with hydraulic rollers. I just know without a doubt that any sbc looks way better than any LS
I have not found the '91 Cavalier I want to put the 5.3ls in, yet.
I should have read the title more closely, I thought I was going to find out what exactly is the difference between these old muscle car era very high-performance modified engines , compared to the modern day technology engines that are supposedly creating these very high horsepower ratings, and yet are many times handicapped by the same problem that killed off the muscle car era, lack of high compression.
Can you run a dyno test on the edelbrock vrs carb
When I was young, putting headers on your car to increase the HP didn't impress the older generation, who thought we did it for the 'sound'... NOW, all the 'radical high-performance" stuff we did is now standard on most cars today. Look at the factory exhaust now. Looks a lot like the old "Headers"... And fuel injection is now standard...
Excellent video!!
The simplicity of the older engine blows that, not market created, away. The"diognostic tool's" required makes a lot of unessential crap essential. Like air-conditioning and having to buy a"reclaimer". The issue is wrongheaded.
GM actually produced some curves for internal use that showed the power at the piston crown. They did this by 'motoring' the engine on a dyno and recording the drag in lb-ft. Then they ran the engine and recorded the difference. I am not sure what they were looking for but the graphs seem to be out there and I have seen Corvair graphs.
power at the piston crown? do you mean cylinder pressure?
@@richardholdener1727 They really measured the friction torque and added it to the output torque. It made a higher reading than gross up.
I would like to know how they stack up. If you use a head on a 327 that flows equal numbers to the 5.3 and then put port injection, on the 327 and then compare them. would I be wrong to assume the 327 would be much stouter than the 5.3 and how much of that do you think it because of the higher compression in the 327? also, would I be wrong to assume that valve size wouldn’t be as much of an factor if the heads flow fairly equal numbers?
The LS design has a long runner high velocity intake port with a shallow 12 degree valve angle which means it can make the power with less RPM and less camshaft duration than the sbc. There is a lot more to an engine and where it makes power along with how much power than basic head flow. The sbc is a poor design, which is why it needs the aftermarket to make it run decent and live longer than a grenade with the pin pulled.
GM tried to make the sbc produce more torque in the range people actually drive when they did the TPI. The experience trying to make that work vs the long runner Ford intakes is what prompted GM to go through all their old designs, pull a book from Pontiac, and design an engine from that starting point. Long runner, high velocity ports making torque through the entire RPM range instead of a little bit of torque up top and weak suck on the bottom.
400ftlbs is amazing with an sbc, but if a Pontiac is only making 400ftlbs you are wondering what is wrong with it. The difference is the port length and velocity due to the shape of the ports. From throttle blade to header collector, velocity matters a lot more than basic raw flow.
The LS takes all of the best design from every GM engine that came before it, and leaves most of the bad design behind. They had to make a concession to the trans bolt pattern so they wouldn't have to retool the transmission plant. The starter location and the transmission pattern are the only things the LS got from the sbc, and they were packaging issues/concessions for trucks and Corvettes.
Compression increases make more power everywhere in the RPM range, how much more depends on a few things like chamber shape/design and fuel quality.
Why do you want more torque with less duration and compression? Because when you are running pump gas you can't run much compression, and more duration moves the torque bad up in the RPM range. Longer runners move the torque lower in the RPM range, and the LS has VERY long runners for that reason, they are moving trucks GM found that balance between velocity and volume so they don't need radical camshafts which EFI doesn't like, and they can run pump gas while making the same or more power than the sbc did.
Most vehicles are not driven at 7000rpm, they are operated between idle and 3500 for the most part. For years chevy guys have been on the more is better bandwagon. If 4.10 gears are good then 4.88s are better. If a 3500 stall is good, 5000 stall is better. If 6000rpm is good then 8000 is better. Then someone with a Pontiac comes along and goes quicker with a 3.08 gear and 1900 stall in a heavier vehicle with 87 octane compression running a factory dual plane intake.
Been there, done that, made the chevy guys cry foul. They always asked how much I was spraying, because its just impossible to run like that without a power adder in their minds. The best part is my 4100lb GTO would get 20mpg highway and still run 12.60s with a 2.93 gear, Th400, factory iron heads, and a Qjet on 87 octane, that is 8.8:1 compression. Very fun daily driver. The 3750lb Firebird ran 11.40s around 120mph with a 3.42 gear, 1900 stall, and a bit more compression in its iron head 455, it got 17mpg highway with an 850 Holley double pumper on it. The chevy guys said it didn't "sound like a race car, more like going to the store for a loaf of bread' because they never went over 6000rpm.
That Firebird is now 1000lbs lighter, has a 461 (stroked 400), and unported Edelbrock heads, very mild build that can be daily driven with a highway gear. I have about $3500 in that engine.
It will cost me at least that much to put an LS in something, and its still a junkyard engine. I know, I am big into the LS stuff too, for my trucks. Wonderful truck engine, I adore the ugly little things. The 6.0 is quite impressive to me, so the 76 C10 has one and the 80 C10 as well as the 88 C1500 are getting one. Once you remove all the chaff from the factory harness the LS is almost as easy to get running as a carb. I get the entire truck with a running 6.0 from free to $600. Usually its around $400 for the entire rusty truck. The benefit of living in the north, the drawback is almost everything is 4x4 here, finding 2wd stuff for the C10s is a pain.
Been trying to give away sbc stuff that came with trucks.. nobody wants it.
it would be a port injection so you would use a longer runner intake with a throttlebody giving you a better low and torque number basically. let me ask the question another way is the the higher compression in the 327 making up for the lack in airflow were the LS base is running lower compression but making just a bit more power? now, all of this is judging off of his graphs on his Dino runs, so this is more or less about that specific combination. I know compression makes power, but you can’t make big power without airflow.
@@looneylonzo28 yes you need airflow, but how the air flows is more important. Air does not act linearly, it does 'strange' things with various shapes. Pressure and velocity are very important, and engines use both of those far more than raw airflow.
If you have ever been in an aircraft hangar when the doors close you can get the idea of what happens when a large airflow is pushed through an ever smaller gap. As the gap gets smaller the air goes faster. As the gap widens the velocity of the air drops. As the velocity increases, pressure drops, as velocity slows, pressure increases, that is how a carburetor works.
So you can have a lot more air flow through the open doors, but its slow and lazy. Make the hole smaller and the air goes a lot faster as a result, so it flows 'less' but fills the space faster.
A long tube flows air faster than a short one, a smaller tube flows faster air than a larger one. There is a balance between displacement and airflow, and depending on what you want from the engine, will dictate how long and large the ports are. That plays an even larger part than camshaft timing or valve size, because small differences make a huge impact.
The sbc is a short runner engine, which means it requires rpm to make power since the air flow is lazy at low rpm. Its the big barn door that is open, if you can get a high enough windspeed then sure it flows more air.
A Pontiac is a long runner engine, or to go for an even more pronounced example a cross ram 383 or 440 mopar with runners that are almost 3 feet long. The long ram mopars made all of their power under 5000rpm. Its like a tunnel ram split apart and laid on its side. The tunnel ram does the same thing, and they increase mid range power and due to the size of them they allow more flow up top too, but within reason.
A single plane has short runners, a dual plane has longer runners, in addition to the open or split plenum. Thats why dual plane intakes are down up top but better under 5000 and single plane intakes are better above 5000.
Take the 5.3 sized engine, have one with 4" runners and one with 2' runners, the short runner will make pathetic torque at low rpm, and still be making relatively pathetic torque above 5000, but since HP is TQ over time, the HP goes up. It makes more TQ above 6k than it would with a long runner or dual plane intake. Thing is it NEEDS the RPM to make power in that configuration.
Now with the long runners that same 5.3 with no other changes is going to make most of its power below 5000rpm and probably won't go past 6k.
I pay attention to where an engine is making its torque, and I let HP do whatever the hell it wants. Why do I see it that way?
Its because an engine making 400hp at 2000rpm is making a bit less than 1100 fttbs while a 400hp engine at 9000rpm is making less than 250 ftlbs. They are both making 400hp, but the one making it at 2k is going to move things a lot easier and won't need deep gears to do it.
When one of my Pontiac engines makes 700hp at 6000rpm it is making a lot more torque than an LS making 700hp at 8000rpm. Its 620ftlbs for my Pontiac compared to 465ftlbs for the LS, and the LS is making that at high RPM with a lot less below that, whereas the Pontiac is probably making more than 600ftlbs from 2500 to 6500 rpm. Who needs deep gears when you have that kind of grunt? My Pontiacs go slower with a 4.10 gear than with a 2.73 to 3.55 gear, so do roots supercharged vehicles.. and yeah some of them are making 600ftlbs from 2000 to 5000 without a blower or nitrous.
Long runners make more torque, short runners make more HP because they allow a bit more torque to be made above 5252 rpm where TQ and HP are always the same.
Take a 400 Pontiac and a 400 chevy same bore and stroke at 4.125" x 3.75", but with very different port lengths and sizes. The Pontiac is going to make a lot more torque than the chevy, but the chevy can possibly make a bit more hp up top even with heads that flow the same cfm and cam timing.
So the 400 chevy needs 4.10 or deeper gears and the Pontiac needs 3.55 gears or at most a 3.73. I have been trying to get someone to build a stock head and intake 400 sbc to race one of my stock head Pontiacs with the same cam specs in the same weight car with a 3.08 to 3.55 gear, you know, like a street car you can drive daily. So far nobody will do it.
Then you get into cam timing, opening events, overlap, and that can move the RPM range around as well. Bore size can play a part too, you see that with the 305 chevy and the 350 Pontiac since they lave less than 4" bores but heads that want over 4" bores. The LS1 and 5.3 have small bores too, but the heads are designed to not cause the air flow issues with the small bores, since GM knew what happens with a small bore from the 326, 350 and the 305.
That is getting into even more stuff though, not just airflow and velocity. I like high velocity, because my engines make a lot more power the faster the air is moving through the ports... and its at an RPM level I can actually use every day.
@@looneylonzo28 on a shorter note... I have been playing with the idea of a long runner intake to take advantage of ethanol, kinda want to use an LS engine, perhaps a stroked 6.0 making it a 6.6 and some shaved 706 heads making lots of compression, but make an intake where I can put the injectors farther upstream.
Then heat the fuel in the rails to over 200F so it instantly vaporizes in the relative vacuum of the intake port. Gives it more time to cool the charge, make it denser, make more power, and burn cleaner so it uses less fuel to make the same power.
I've done it with carbs to some extent, and if I can make my FiTech run without a return, it will get a heated fuel system too. When you switch to ethanol to take advantage of high compression it opens up opportunities to do other things you simply can't with gasoline.
I've already matched mileage in the same car with pump gas and ethanol compression 455s, actually did a bit better on ethanol, and made a lot more power too. Its fun messing with all this stuff, so much to learn and find out.
makes sense. I appreciate your time. I ran into some of those exact issues with airflow on one of my old builds. it was a LA 318 the heads were a 54 cc close chambered heart shaped casting number 302 the heads with a 2.02 int& 1.50 exh they made good power and phenomenal torque compared to stock but just couldn’t get enough airflow (680 cfm) because of the raised shoulder at the valve it caused a choking point and cause the engine to really struggle over 5500 when I got rid of the 318 heads and put the 360 heads 76 cc with a 2.02 &1.60 open chamber, which caused me to lose torque but what I lost in torque, I gained in horsepower at 6200. my airflow numbers improved to just under 730 ish cfm
Sbc 327 my favorite 🥰💕
Yep. No doubt!!
I was actually wondering this same scenario. I have a set of Afr 195 comp port heads and am starting a resto on a 1950 3600 5 window and was trying to decide whether to go sbc or ls. I have a daily driver Tbss that is worn and could be donated to the cause also. Or a 2004 2500 4x4 chassis with a 6.0. Decisions decisions. 😂🤷🏽♂️
I would still take the 327
There is a clear winner in the look departement...
You know in The Graduate when the guy at the graduation party takes Dustin Hoffman aside and whispers "plastics". What he should have said was "computers"
And that's what we're seeing here.
Which one has better fuel economy?
What about the weight difference between the old vs new ?
I wish I knew what the weight is.
Aluminum heads in the LS vs iron heads in the SBC.
Love the video I'm not a LS guy by no means but I seen what they can do when you put turbos on a pretty much stock one and I know they have a really strong bottom end and are very reliable I just have never seen a carburetor on a LS ran and make alot of power please show a NA version of a 5.3 or 6.0 on the dyno and what horse power they make stock I wouldn't mine putting a 6.0 in my 88 SS monte carlo NA if it could make the power my big block make it would be alot of weight of the front end. Thanks your friend from Louisiana 427
please see the stock ls video-but this 5.3l was stock
I need to see more RPM out of both of these engines. They’re both capable of more.
WE WERE ALREADY WELL PAST THE HPPEAK-WHY REV IT HIGHER WHERE IT MAKES LESS HP?
@@richardholdener1727 Doesn’t necessarily have to be the way they’re set up now. I just love RPM. But… I’m always into seeing how high power can be carried. I turn my LS6 about 700-ish RPM past peaks because it carries well and gains about 40-50 WHP on shift recovery.
@@kenm724 Ok, Dulchich.... 😆
Right on
I can't believe how heads can allow the 327 to make 450hp. Holy crap, that is an insane power gain. Regardless of cost, i didn't think the short stroke 327 could make that power.
THEY CAN MAKE A LOT MORE THAN THIS
450? Try 600 NA
It's like the DZ302 that came in the 69 Z/28. Factory rated at 290 H.P. Numerous people have dyno tested stock 302s and came up with 370 H.P. more or less. Can you imagine what that motor would do with these same mods?
I like the comparison. I still wonder if you add all the same fuel injection, cam specs, heads flow same, compression, etc etc… where it would land on new vs old. I’ve seen a lot people make serious power on both. Better yet investment wise which would be more worthwhile building?!
The answer is always LS
@@reginaldbowls7180 you misspelled "Miata." 🤓
Good for you for not putting a 236/240@.050" cam in the 5.3. The SBC guys would have a stroke when they saw it eclipse 500 hp. with a 3.780 bore.
WE WERE RUNNING 600 HP 327'S BACK IN 1970 BUD. TUNNEL RAM, DUAL CARBS, RACE PORTED HEADS. RACE SOLID LIFT CAM. NATURALLY ASPIRATED 600 HP. 327'S.
I don't think that cam will fit
@@daviddavids3468 And Grumpy Jenkins was running a 700+ hp N/A 327 in his '72 Pro Stock Vega that ruled Pro Stock that year.
1972 Bill was running 331cid, 020 over 327 and 292 turbo heads. 680hp, 9000 rpm and a 9.90 pass.
The Chevrolet engineers were tasked with building the lowest-priced OHV8 and given the directive to use as little iron, steel and aluminum as possible. When they were done, a ready-to-install engine cost Chevrolet about $55 to make in 1962 when released and included a 4bbl and 11.5 comp. That it came to handle horsepower and RPM incredibly well was a happy accident.
@@mewrongwayKOCXF Yeah, that sounds right. I think he broke 700 hp with that set up in '73 or '74. My memory is not as good as it used to be. BTW, I have a modified 331 SBC in my '68 Corvette. She runs good.
Good video Richard, let me bottom line it for you. In my EXPIRENCE with the 5.3LS a bone stock motor with a $150 Sloppy Stage 2 cam will easily make over 425hp with the stock heads and truck manifold for an investment of way less than $1000. What other engine combination will put out so much HP so cheap ? Some will say you need to spend money on a high pressure fuel system. OK, let's add $150 for an external pump, a Corvette filter/regulator and some 3/8" hard line and a return to the filler neck of the tank. A cut down stock harness and a reflashed PCM will cost $250-$400 so let's say we will invest a little over $1500 and some change for a powerplant. $2000 for a swap. With tax and shipping that's little more than just the cost of a good set of aluminum heads for a SBC. I get the purist's who want the 327 for their '64 Vette but for the average guy it's very difficult to beat the LS for a swap into a Nova, S or C10 or any GM G body or a Mustang, even a B or E body Mopar.
Here's an idea. Take a 6L LS based engine, destroke it with a 4.8L crank, and the compare it with a 376 L76. At that point you're working with the same displacement. 2 different engines with a 4" bore, and 3.25" stroke. Of course when modded the LS will likely make much better power. I'm just not a big fan of 2V engines with less than a 4" bore for modding N/A power out of them. I've owned LS1 cars that I thought were great, but even a GEN3 5.7L SBC is rocking too small a bore diameter. Proof being how much more efficient of a head will fit on a 6L+ LS than on a 5.7L LS.
DID YOU MEAN 327 AND NOT 376? THESE TWO WERE COMPARED BECAUSE THEY WERE BOTH PRODUCTION ENGINES
@@richardholdener1727 Yes, my bad. I owned a 19 1SS 1LE up until recently, and got 6.2L (376 ci's) on my brain. Lol
Can you test the lokar retro intake for ls ?
Drink every time he says " back in the day"
In 1966 you could buy a Nova with a 327 for the same price as it cost for the cam train in a today engine.
CAM TRAIN?
Hi there Richard i have a question you might be about to help with wondering how i could make a 500-580hp with ls2 from my 2007 cts-v please and thank you if you can help me out or point me in the right direction unlike alot of known car people at the drag strip
boost works
Love my Gen 4 L76 in my Pontiac!
also good
Makes me want to go port some heads.
What was the compression of the 5.3?
10 or less
@@richardholdener1727 curious how much more power the 5.3 would have made with the same 11:1 compression
Richard when are you bringing your 2 cams to market I want one I’ve been waiting 2 years o look up Richard hold we truck cam and nothing yet can you give us an update buddy
no cams-stop waiting-there are lots of good cams out there
@@richardholdener1727 you mentioned you were doing cams soon I’m guessing you decided no to go into the cam bizz
I had a 66 Impala with a 327 and a power glide tranny I loved the engine but I had to put another transmission in about once a year I was very efficient at changing tranny's by the time I got rid of that car 😂😂
I’d still choose small block becuase when shtf I can always make it run and 99% of the time I will make it home but when new stuff has electric or ecm issues they are waiting for a tow.
new efi lasts longer than points and a carb-but both are still cool
@@richardholdener1727 yes it should last longer both being brand new same miles drove. but again when it breaks down it can’t usually be able to limp home and my carb and points always seems to be able to. I have never needed a tow unless it was in newer vehicle. I like them both same as you if I had to choose I take the old school.
wait till a condenser craps, youll be on the side of the road till the cows come home, unless you keep one in the glove box like I did!
@@mewrongwayKOCXF I keep a nice little kit in all my vehicles 👍🏻
@@Thumper68 Oh well in that case just put a extra computer in your bag! or just stay home! Problem solved! 🤣
Duntov cam is the ONLY choice. In a LIGHT car you will KICK A** & take names all day EVERY day. I have one in my 2100# Model A Coupe...I'll show ya my teardrop tail lights any time.....
Dude. That fuel line on the carb in the intro won't let much fuel in.
I’d like to see the 327 with a similar cam spec as the 5.3 in modified form. To me only then would it be a more fair and convincing test.
THE 327 CAM WAS BIGGER
Ya Apples to Apples! Same Compression too!
Put some roller lifters and modern fuel injection on the 327 and?
roller lifters would eat the stock flat tappet cam-efi is not what is holding it back-it was a good motor, new stuff is just better
'why dont you ls swap it!' because i can make thesame power out of stock sbc parts as a 5.3 and i dont have to buy swap headers ect.