1964 365 HP SHP vs not

[David W.]

I've looked in the archives but can't get a definitive answer as to what are the main differences between a '64 327 SHP (stamp RE) versus a non-SHP (stamp RT). Both are obviously solid lifter 11.0:1 compression engines but there obvioulsy must be some other differences. It sounds from the archives that the SHP gave the feeling of being a much stronger engine and I am curious as to how and why. Thanks, David #33277

[Joe L.]

Re: 1964 365 HP SHP vs not

David-----

For 1964, both the "RT" engine code and the "RE" engine code denoted the L-76, 365 hp engine. The engines are internally and externally identical, EXCEPT that the "RT" suffix-coded included K-66 transistor ignition while the "RE" coded engine did not and included points-style ignition. For 1964, the K-66 distributors were installed at the engine plant, necessitating specific suffix codes to differentiate them. There should be no significant difference in horsepower or torque levels beteween the 2 engine codes.

[David W.]

Re: 1964 365 HP SHP vs not

Thanks Joe. One would think the TI would give better performance and thus be the one designated SHP as opposed to the other way around. So much for that logic.

How will this engine perform vs a 300 hp hydraulic lifter engine? It sounded from the archives like the 365hp is a bit more tempermental at take-off and then goes like crazy. Is it safe to assume this engine behaves more like a big block than a 250-300 horse engine, i.e. not super quick at the start but very powerful at mid and high rpms ?

I'm just trying to figure out what I'm getting into here. Looking at a nice '64 365 SHP. Drove it but didn't want to beat it. Drove strong but much less smooth starts than my 300hp '64. I'm likely going to buy it regardless, just want to understand the nuances.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1964 365 HP SHP vs not

David-----

First off, BOTH engine suffix codes and ALL L-76 engines were designated as SHP (i.e. "special high performance"). For 1957-72, ALL solid lifter small blocks AND big blocks were designated SHP. Also designated as SHP were hydraulic lifter 65-68 L-79, 69 L-46, and 73-80 L-82.

SHP performance small blocks provide more horsepower at higher RPM than 250 or 300 hp small blocks. However, the trade-off is low speed performance and torque. In my opinion, a 250 or 300 hp small block is, OVERALL, a lot more driveable engine than a SHP. It provides more of what you want MOST of the time.

SHP small blocks are not like big blocks. They don't have the torque. Torque is, primarily, a function of cubic inches. The extra torque of a SHP big block helps to overcome some of the low speed deficiencies of its SHP "tuning".

[Clem Z.]

Re: 1964 365 HP SHP vs not

the 365 HP is a great engine if you run 4:11 rear gears,that what mine had in 1964. it also had the TI system. i had to convert the holley from side hung float bowls to "le manns bowls" that ford used on it GT-40 race cars so the carb would not flood out in the corners autocrossing and road course running.

[David W.]

Re: 1964 365 HP SHP vs not

Joe, i appreciate the clarification. My confusion stems from the "Catalogue Of Corvette ID Numbers 1953-93" where SHP is referenced under the RE designation but not for the other 365 hp versions. Must be an oversight as it makes sense that all 365 would be SHP designated. Re the 365 vs 300 hp, I would certainly agree as the 300 hp I normally drive has everything you need when going for a drive around town.

[David W.]

Re: 1964 365 HP SHP vs not

The current owner said he converted the rear end to 3.90 gears for better performance. Not sure what it had before. The car runs strong regardless.
Thanks.

[Robert C.]

Re: 1964 365 HP -standard rear end= 370 *NM*

[Dino L.]

Re: 1964 365 HP SHP vs not

David, if you are planning on purchasing a TI equipped 64, check the vin code against the availability date of that option...I recall it was not available until later in the production year.

[David W.]

Re: 1964 365 HP SHP vs not

I actually went ahead and purchased the car yesterday. My dream of having a convertible with my coupe (both 64's) is a reality. The engine code is not for TI so that isn't an issue. It is a late production car so that would not have been a problem either. I wasn't getting quite the boost off the strating line I would have expected, even in a 365 horse car. Upon further inspection late last night, I noticed the new carpeting was bunching under the accelerator pedal, causing it to not let the carb fully open. At least that's a cheap fix. My guess from the start was also that the engine may be in need of a rebuild in the not too distant future. It has 82K miles. It runs fine for the time being. When I do get around to having it rebuilt, I will likely take the advice of Joe/Duke and others and go with a cam that provides a little better low end torque. For now, I'm just enjoying another graet Corvette.