'65 327/365 Valve Springs?

[Mark Skroupa]

Does anyone know the current GM part number for 327/365 valve springs and/or current TRW or other mfg. replacement.

[Joe L.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

Mark-----

GM #3735381 is the original part number AND the current part number. They're still available for a current GM list of $6.93/each.

[Joe L.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

Mark-----

GM #3735381 is the original part number AND the current part number. They're still available for a current GM list of $6.93/each.

[Wally Knight]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

How about $4.16 each from www.gmpartsdirect.com. Even at that price they are a rip, Manley made these things and sold them for $8 a set once upon a time.

[Wally Knight]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

How about $4.16 each from www.gmpartsdirect.com. Even at that price they are a rip, Manley made these things and sold them for $8 a set once upon a time.

[Duke W.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

The Federal Mogul number is VS 1008.

BTW, all SBs use the same spring, regardless of cam, however, there was a change to the spring circa 1969. The later spring appears to have almost identical specifications, and I'm surprised the early spring is still avaialbe. Joe - do you have any comments on this?

I don't know if the F-M VS 1008 is a replacement for the early of late spring, but I suspect it's equivalent to the later springs. F-M has a complete line of valve train replacement parts, including cams, and you can either go with OEM equivalent valves or upgrade them to better materials.

Duke

[Duke W.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

The Federal Mogul number is VS 1008.

BTW, all SBs use the same spring, regardless of cam, however, there was a change to the spring circa 1969. The later spring appears to have almost identical specifications, and I'm surprised the early spring is still avaialbe. Joe - do you have any comments on this?

I don't know if the F-M VS 1008 is a replacement for the early of late spring, but I suspect it's equivalent to the later springs. F-M has a complete line of valve train replacement parts, including cams, and you can either go with OEM equivalent valves or upgrade them to better materials.

Duke

[Joe L.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

Duke-----

The small block spring part number change occurred for 1967. The 55-66 spring is GM #3735381; the 67+ spring is GM #3911068. Both springs have similar specs. However, the fact that the early spring is still available and has not been replaced by the later spring implies to me that there must be a good reason for it. It's hard to imagine that GM would not take advantage of this opportunity for "part number consolidation" if there were not some good reason for it. Of course, it could just be that they have a huge inventory of the 3735381 springs and no one buys them so the inventory is "stagnant". That possibility could be confirmed or dispelled by the boxes that the 3735381 springs are currently supplied in.

[Joe L.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

Duke-----

The small block spring part number change occurred for 1967. The 55-66 spring is GM #3735381; the 67+ spring is GM #3911068. Both springs have similar specs. However, the fact that the early spring is still available and has not been replaced by the later spring implies to me that there must be a good reason for it. It's hard to imagine that GM would not take advantage of this opportunity for "part number consolidation" if there were not some good reason for it. Of course, it could just be that they have a huge inventory of the 3735381 springs and no one buys them so the inventory is "stagnant". That possibility could be confirmed or dispelled by the boxes that the 3735381 springs are currently supplied in.

[Duke W.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

My suspicion is that it's inventory. I had a concern about using the later springs with pressed in studs and the LT-1 cam, but being as how the change was made in '67 when pressed in studs were still used across the board eases my concern.

I guess the other question I have is why would GM make a change - especially such a minor change in the specs. Maybe they found some harmonic issue in the valve train. I can only guess, but GM would be unlikely to change a part specification unless there was a good engineering reason to do so!

Duke

[Duke W.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

My suspicion is that it's inventory. I had a concern about using the later springs with pressed in studs and the LT-1 cam, but being as how the change was made in '67 when pressed in studs were still used across the board eases my concern.

I guess the other question I have is why would GM make a change - especially such a minor change in the specs. Maybe they found some harmonic issue in the valve train. I can only guess, but GM would be unlikely to change a part specification unless there was a good engineering reason to do so!

Duke

[Joe L.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

Duke-----

Pressed-in studs were used for most small blocks right up until aluminum heads were introduced in 1986-87. Exceptions were for 70-72 LT-1 and 73-81 L-82 which did use screw-in studs. The GM #3911068 was pretty much ubiquitous throughout most small block applications during this same, 67-87 period. So, I don't think that there is a need for concern regarding the use of this valve spring with pressed-in studs.

[Joe L.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

Duke-----

Pressed-in studs were used for most small blocks right up until aluminum heads were introduced in 1986-87. Exceptions were for 70-72 LT-1 and 73-81 L-82 which did use screw-in studs. The GM #3911068 was pretty much ubiquitous throughout most small block applications during this same, 67-87 period. So, I don't think that there is a need for concern regarding the use of this valve spring with pressed-in studs.

[Chris D.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

Hello all,

The change in '67 bumped the installed height from 1.66" to 1.70". This corresponded to a change in retainer part numbers to maintain valve dimensions and seat machining.

Pure conjecture on my part, but could this have been a move to standardize a spring with enough travel for the high lift (.485") Z/28 version of that other Chevy sports car?

[Chris D.]

Re: '65 327/365 Valve Springs?

Hello all,

The change in '67 bumped the installed height from 1.66" to 1.70". This corresponded to a change in retainer part numbers to maintain valve dimensions and seat machining.

Pure conjecture on my part, but could this have been a move to standardize a spring with enough travel for the high lift (.485") Z/28 version of that other Chevy sports car?