1967 Small Journal 350

[erikjohn]

Cool, I will clean it off the paint with some mineral spirits and take some new photos.

[erikjohn]

You only mention the main journals as being the smaller size.  How about the rod Journals?  Are they they the smaller size also?

Also I checked my July issue of the 1969 GM parts manual and there is only one part number for a 1967 & 1968 350ci crankshaft.  So if they ever did make a crankshaft with a small journal they never expected to replace it....they would have to replace the whole short block instead.

As to the engine pad.....did you repaint the pad when you rebuilt the engine?   The original engine pads from the factory were never painted.

Yeh, I repainted it chevy orange when I rebuilt it and painted over the numbers, didn't think twice about it at that time.  I don't remember the rod journals being a different size than was expected for a 350.  I had bought all of the bearing kit to rebuild a 350, the only ones that didn't work were the main bearings which I had to get a different part number(283-327 version).  Everything else was fine as far as I remember.

[1968 Z28]

Now that is strange....why would there be a crankshaft with large rod journals and small main journals.  About the only way that would happen is if they had a large journal crank with bad main journals and they then ground down the mains to the smaller size and stuck the crank in a 327ci block.  That would be a one of a kind animal.

[Stingr69]

You could have been handed main bearings for a 400 SBC on accident when you got the rebuild kit.  Those would have been impossible to install on a 350 block/crank.  Without the original block, crank and original bearig shells "in hand", this discussion is not going to go very far. Clearly a 350 with 327 main bearings would be contrary to accepted "normative practice". 

-Mark.

[IZRSSS]

EJ - take another look at your engine stamp "V T 1 0 8 M S"...Now take a look at your Toe Plate Engine ID "V 1 1 0 8 M S". It's not looking good my friend...I can almost bet your broach marks are gone...

VT makes no sense at all. V=Flint & T=Tonawanda. It has to be one or the other.

[JohnZ]

I've been building/rebuilding small-blocks for almost 50 years, and have never seen nor heard of a small-journal 350; will be interested to see the block casting number and date, and a good close-up of the pad (cleaned of paint). I'd think something  happened to this engine between 1967 and 1988.

[plumL78]

I'd bet when all the smoke clears its a big  journal  crank and the owner  may have just have it confused with another motor he may have rebuilt a long time ago.  It would have to be 1of 1 as nobody has ever heard of an orig small 350 crank. I owned an early 350 camaro in high school and just like everybody elses it was a big crank

[67ss350camaro]

EJ,
  First thanks for the data you have posted, it always helps to see what you have. 
The revision date on that document you mentioned (Jan 1967) was because the L35 engine was added to the document, not because of a change to the L48.  I have a Chevy parts catalog dated Oct 1, 1966 and the 350 crank assembly listed has only one part number (3912355) and no cost listed.  This is the same assembly listed in the Chevy parts catalogue #691A for 67 and 68 350 engines.  I also have all of the 67 model year Chevy dealer service bulletins and they don’t list any changes for the 350 crank.  I have all of the Chevy Service News publications for 67 and they don’t show any changes to the 350 crank.
My 67 Camaro’s engine code is V1209MV.  I have never had the bottom end apart, so I don’t know what I have.  If I have a reason to take it apart, I will check into what the crank is, but I really don’t expect anything different than what is listed as stock.
You can email me any pictures you like at the higher resolution.
Daniel

[erikjohn]

Awesome thanks Daniel.

I am going to keep plugging away at this until I get it figured out.  As the one poster said it was 25 years ago that I had it apart so I may have misspoke on the rod journal bearings, but I just know that I had to put the smaller main journal bearings in and I am 100% sure it was this engine.  I will probably end up pulling apart the bottom end and start mic-ing stuff and looking for numbers.  I cleaned off the engine pad with some thinner.  See below.

[IZRSSS]

Thanks for taking the time to clean up & post the pad. It certainly isn't a restamp but what I thought was a "T" is indeed an "I" which either way still has me puzzled. There isn't a listing for this for an L48...or any other engine for that matter. http://www.camaros.org/drivetrain.shtml#PadStamps. Your engine has certainly peaked my interest.

Again...something is still amiss concerning your stamp as it relates to your POP. The POP indicates; V=Flint, 1108=Nov 8, MS=350ci/295HP L48 w/Manual Trans. Not really sure what the I means...

[erikjohn]

Thanks for taking the time to clean up & post the pad. It certainly isn't a restamp but what I thought was a "T" is indeed an "I" which either way still has me puzzled. There isn't a listing for this for an L48...or any other engine for that matter. http://www.camaros.org/drivetrain.shtml#PadStamps. Your engine has certainly peaked my interest.

Again...something is still amiss concerning your stamp as it relates to your POP. The POP indicates; V=Flint, 1108=Nov 8, MS=350ci/295HP L48 w/Manual Trans. Not really sure what the I means...

From what I have read on the internet it was a very common occurrence for the stamp letter "I" to be used interchangeable with the stamp number "1" .

Here are a few links to the info but I also saw it elsewhere:
http://www.chevy-camaro.com/chevy-camaro-engine-suffix-code-help.asp

also a post by John Z on the camaro.net forum saying the same thing
http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=123269

[erikjohn]

Here is the casting number:

[erikjohn]

The engine date code.  This indicates it was cast on Nov 4th 1966

[IZRSSS]

From what I have read on the internet it was a very common occurrence for the stamp letter "I" to be used interchangeable with the stamp number "1" .

Here are a few links to the info but I also saw it elsewhere:
http://www.chevy-camaro.com/chevy-camaro-engine-suffix-code-help.asp

also a post by John Z on the camaro.net forum saying the same thing
http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=123269

Blew that idea right out of the water. Great pics thanks. Sounds more and more like your journals were switched.

[erikjohn]

This is driving me crazy so I called my dad today as it was a father son rebuild type deal as I was like 14 at the time.  Anyway he set me straight a bit and informed me that it was the rod bearings that were smaller not the main bearings.  He said the main bearings were standard 350 size.   I must have not been there for this part of the rebuild when he tried to install the rod bearings the first time cause he said that when he tried to tighten up the rods he actually broke some of the bolts and ended up having to send all of the rods to the machine shop to have them resized after that to make sure there wasn't damage.

So I am looking at this link:

http://www.chevy-camaro.com/parts/chevy-camaro-part-codes-connect.htm

It says that all 1967 350's had the same size rod journal size as a 327.  It was made larger in 1968.  Apparently my engine is just the same as every other 1967-350.

Sorry for the confusion.