labrat Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 I've looked up this head casting number off my 66 327, but all it tells me is that they are off of a 66 327. Anyone have any info on them? The number is 3782461 then second line J195. Any info or links would be appreciated! Thanks! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 Those should be 62cc chambers, 2.02 Intakes, 1.60 exhaust. Heres a link with casting numbers for the heads: http://www.auto-ware.com/techref/castnum.htm Regards, Lone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peternell Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 Bill, Lone had some pretty good info for you, however the #461 casting number is not a guarantee of 2.02" and 1.60" valves. In fact of the 6 or 7 sets of 461's I've had over the years only on set were 2.02/1.60's. You can tell factory 2.02 by looking in the chamber. Chevrolet would use an oversized cutter to enlarge the chamber wall around the intake valve to reduce valve shrouding. if it has 2.02 and the chamber is not clearanced it may not flow as well a 1.94 valve. The J195 is the date code with J being the month (October-I think, some info indicates Chevy did not use "I" for dating purposes due to possible confusion with the number 1) the 19 is the day of the month and the 5 is for 1965. Hope this helps, Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl327 Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 ive got the 2.02's, think they flow pretty good, but yes, not as good as what they make today, in the way of aluminum heads and such,,,hey does the camel hump head legend mean that you have high hp type heads??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pparaska Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 Yes, the camel hump (double hump, fuelie, Corvette, Z/28 (early) ) heads are the high performance heads. They were the ones everyone in the SBC world looked for in the yards for many years (70s and 80s). BTW, I hear these are now becoming worth more to the restorers. I'd love to sell mine for a nice pile to be able to upgrade to some nice AL heads. Problem is I'd have a hell of a time deciding which to buy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl327 Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 i heard something like that myself, that the restorers liek those heads, old school hi-po and what not. i like the heads myself, i like how the 327 revs myself, sounds like a chainsaw when youre knee deep in the powerband!! love it love it!!! how much do you think a set would go for in decent condition? i rebuilt them about 30k ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labrat Posted May 1, 2001 Author Share Posted May 1, 2001 well, i just measured the valves, and the intakes are definitely under two inches. I assume measuring broad across the face... bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 Thanks Larry for the additional info. I didn't know they had two valves sizes of that casting number. Are'nt they identifiable by the shape of the casting on the front of the head? I.E. double hump, large fuelie 2.02's, and rectangle with a triangle on top being the smaller valved power pack heads or were these different casting numbers? At any rate, the 1.94's for a moderate performance street engine can work better because of the higher port velocities in the low and mid range RPM's. Crisper bottom end response. At least thats what I've seen and heard in the discusions on these two early heads. Thanks again, Lone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pparaska Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 Lone, the valve size (2.02 vs 1.94) won't be evident by looking at the marking on the front of the head or the casting number, AFAIK. I don't know if 1.94 vs. 2.02 would make much difference in this head. They don't flow all that great (compared to the stuff out today) but are what made the SBC such a nicer performer in those days. I wonder if anyone could feel or measure the difference in how a 1.94 vs a 2.02 461 head flowed at lower rpms. Those heads in stock form start to run out of breathe above like 0.47" lift anyway. Still nice heads though. I have a set of 2.02 461s on my engine and have used 1.94 462s (same ports) before on a 327 and it worked well for a slightly warmed over setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.