C/Gas 283 build: Stroke (327 crank), or long rod?

So since my 409 project is in Purgatory, I decided it's time to do something with the '62 283 truck engine sitting in my garage, to get my '57 wagon gasser on the road. er....Track.

So I stopped by a shop today, and walked out with a dusty box containing a set of forged .060-over pop-up 283 pistons, for a 3.250 stroke crank.

I'll end up buying new rods anyway, because I just don't trust 45 year old rods.

So, the question is: stock-length rods with a 327 crank, or stock 283 crank with .125-longer rods?
Stroker is 317ci. Long rods is 292ci. Both would come out to C/Gas in 1966, which is pretty much what my target timeframe is with the car (given a weight of 3,200 lbs).

No replacement for displacement and all that, but on a more technical level, my questioning runs along these lines: the 327 crank will give it more stroke, while the longer rod retains the short throw; will the 283 rev higher because of that? AND, will the 283 with longer rods have an advantage over the small bore with a 327 crank?

Discuss.

-Brad

Oh...462 double-hump heads with 1.94 valves, probably not much port work done to them at all, tunnel ram. I'm also thinking about knocking down the compression a bit so I can run 91 or 93 octane with a dial-adjust MSD when I cruise it on weekends and take Boy Wonder to school, then timing and race gas at the track. Plus, I don't really want to rev it to 9 grand, because that requires rev kits and shaft-mount rockers and crap. I'd rather NOT spend an arm and a leg on this engine.

 

Don't think a 327 crank will spin in a older 283 block.The counter weights get in the way. I did this way back and I had to try a way later block like a 66>>>>.

 

Good thread, I'll be watching closely, Im looking at a 283 for the truck Im building, probably go .060 over to 292.

 

Have any bearings to try the crank in the block? What dome do you have? The 283 crank will back the compresion off like you want. The 327 rod to stroke ratio isn't to bad to start with. If the pistons are solid dome I would run the 327 crank and cut the domes down a bit, the rotating assembly would need to be balanced for sure if you did cut the pistons though.


More info would halp the decision making process, Like
1) gear ratio?
2) trans. Stick or auto, and if so what convertor?
3) cam specs(if already selected)
4) tire size

 

Gear: 4.30 right now
Trans: Slick shift Hemi 4speed
Cam: will select based on final engine configuration/plan
Tire size: dunno...Right now, there's a set of tall Pie Crusts in the garage, but that'll change. Again, based on engine configuration.

Solid dome, so the dome can be knocked down if I need it to be.

-Brad

 

It's funny that you bring this up right now...I had been banging my head against the wall all weekend with this exact same dillema. Except my situation was/is a little more pressing since most of my machinework has been finished.

First, a short story to explain: I'm building a '56 265 for my Model A Roadster....Eric aka "E.C." here on the HAMB is doing the machinework and the shortblock assembly for me. The block had been bored out to 3.875" (283ci) sometime in the past as the engine had been in a '40 Ford hot rod for a while. So I managed to find and buy some NOS STD 283 Jahns domed pistons on ebay for it. I was just gonna have the block honed and throw it together with the NOS pistons, but I managed to talk Eric into doing it for me, and next thing you know he was totally going through the whole thing.

So I get a call on Saturday from Eric saying that there was a slight problem. He was mocking up one cylinder to see how everything was going to fit and the piston was something like .150" down in the hole! He's using some good I-beam rods and his first thought was that they were wrong, but after measuring he found that the NOS Jahns pistons were for a quarter-inch stroker!

So I was left with a similar decision...find a small journal 327 (3.25 stroke) crank to match the pistons, or go with a longer rod. If you've tried to find any STD 283 domed pistons, then you'd know that new pistons aren't an option, and I didn't want to bore the 265 block any bigger.

After talking to Jimmy White and E.C. for a while, we decided the most logical thing to do would be to get the right crank for the pistons....after all, more cubic inches is never a bad thing right?

The rods I would have had to use would have to be 5.80" or 5.85" length rods, which would actually work pretty well, but they are typically pretty expensive in a small journal rod. The cheapest I found were well over $300, with the cheaper 'name brands' being closer to $500. The 327 crank idea started looking even better.

I had a friend that was willing to donate a good steel small journal 327 crank, so I brought it over to Eric. The next day Eric tried to set the crank in the block, and the counterweights of course wouldn't clear. So disregarding common practice, he turned down the counterweights until it would clear the block (about .250-300). It's gonna take some heavy metal to balance it, but it shouldn't be a problem. He also says that there is going to have to be a little grinding on the block or rod bolts for clearance.

So basically what I'm going to end up with is a 1/4" stroker "306" out of my little '56 265. I know what you're thinking...don't you mean 307? Well, hot rodders have always used the term '301' instead of the factory's term '302' for their 1/8th over 283s.....so I'm going to use "306" for my 1/4" stroker instead of the gag-inducing '307'.

As far as performance is concerned, I'm expecting to pick up peak HP and have a broader (more usable) torque curve with the extra 23 ci. The engine is still going to have the same capability to rev like there's no tomorrow, but I'm guessing that the peak HP will probably come in about 500 rpm lower than the 283's.

My goal for the engine was to build a fairly 'period-correct' small block that would fit into the 1959-60 era. Stroker cranks were pretty widely in use by that time, so it'll still fit within my goal.

You're probably going to get a lot of people saying that the 283 bore/327 stroke (307) combination is a turd and doesn't work, but 99% of them are basing that opinion on the '70s smog era 307 that really was a bit of a turd because of the cam/head/intake package they were sold with....that and all the accessories that were tacked on them coupled with a big heavy car to lug around made them a pretty big dissapointment. But if you use the right parts, you'll end up with a motor that still can rev to the moon, but can also make good low and mid-range torque out of a lightweight/small package.

Either way you go will still net you a neat small block with plenty of power for a lightweight car. It really just boils down to how and where you want to make power. Since you don't want to have to rev it to 9 grand to wring the most out of it, I'd go with the stroker (327) crank. If the pistons have about a 5cc dome, you'll end up with right at 10.5:1 compression with 64cc heads. I think that you could live with that compression on 93 octane if you get the timing right.

 

To quote Performance Tuning for the Restorer - Chevrolet's of the 60's, which is a reprint of an article from the early 1960's : "Increasing displacement of older engine by substituting new 327 crank, although relatively simple, calls for some machine work. Larger counterweight of 327 shaft must be trimmed."

Further down it says "You could quickly convert your older engine into a 327 by substituting the crank straight across were it not for the fact that the counterweights won't clear the block, so it is necessary to machine them to clear. This is the best crank to use for longer strokes, offering a little more pin overlap."

I have a 1957 283 block with a small journal 327 crank in my Model A.

 

Cool info. Thanks.
I can't help but think it'd be better to trim the pan rail and the bottom of the bores, rather than shave down the counter weight. I could be wrong though...that's happened once or twice.

Keep it coming guys--this is good stuff.

-Brad

 

A 327 crank will fit a lot easier in a '62-up 283 block than a '55-61 block. As far as I know, Chevrolet gave the crank some more room in the block in '62....same year the 327 was released I believe.

From Super Chevy Magazine:

"The '62-and-later 283 blocks can be bored 0.125 over and have enough crank clearance to run an early 3.25-stroke crank making them 327 cid. Pre-'62 283 blocks CANNOT be ground for 327-crank clearance due to the water jackets.An early 327 crank swapped into a standard-bore post-'62 283 block yields 307 cid. "

How do you like it?

 

How do you like it?[/quote]

I like it a lot since the engine's block, intake and carb's age and crank modification fits the era. But, I can tell you more after I tune the 2 4v Carter WCFB's (running too rich) and get some decent gears in the rear (2.89 freeway flyers behind an M-21). Once I get rolling it has good power, but I've gotta slide the clutch a lot to get her going.

 

I would not machine the block for the fact that the main webs are pretty thin in that area. I know because I just turned the counterweight down .285 just for the crank to spin without any clearance. And then went another .065 for min clearance total of ( .350 ) Then there is the Heavy Metal party with the crankshaft which is not cheap and your average machine shop will be fuckin lost maybe not. The block will need clearance for the rod bolt but thats no big deal. All in all stroking a 283 is hot rodding.

-E.C.

 

(Quote Bass)
A 327 crank will fit a lot easier in a '62-up 283 block than a '55-61 block. As far as I know, Chevrolet gave the crank some more room in the block in '62....same year the 327 was released I believe

That's always been my understanding.

The balance issue may not be as bad as you think. You are running lighter pistons, so you may be closer than you think. Two more options, besides heavy metal would be to 1) drill the first crankpin to remove weight from the other side. And 2) add or remove weight to the harmonic balancer.

I would do the first option of drilling the crank if it was me. You can do it in a drillpress with the cheak of the crank on the bed and a short drill bit on the front crankpin.

I posted this idea before, but since we are on the topic of strokers, I had thoughts of taking a 307-283 bore, 350 crank, 307 pistons, and 400 rods. All stock parts, and you it would come out to 321cid with a standard bore. I would love to do it with a 265 block I have, but getting everything swinging in that early block scares me a little... Simple in a 307, but I wanted a draft tube and no sidemounts for my coupster. Won't happen for a while now cuz I picked up a hemi for it now
Jeff

 

could always just bore it .125 over have a screamin 301.

 

With .350 off all the counterweights there is no way around Heavy Metal.
Drill the crank pin is not even an option because it would not effect the balance enough, and if you hit the oil holes you fucked up a good crank.
No since in adding or removing weight from the harmonic balance because then its nothing but a HACK JOB...Leave it internal bal so you can run any flywheel of balancer if you mess one up. I know because I have already spun a turned downed 327 crank and tried all my options as a Balancing Guru..

Later-E.C.

 

Here's an article from "Souping the Chevy" printed in 1964. There's a photo of a Crankshaft Co. crank which I guess is a turned down 327 crank to fit in a '55-61 block.

 

Back about 15 years ago we got caught up in this cubic inch rule bull-shit and the limit we could run was 315. I got the wild ass idear to build a bored out 307. So I came up with a 312. I can give you a list of cats to call for an opinion of how fast that combo was. The main goal when building off the wall shit is to get the camshaft right. A quote from Smokey "A engine is just a air pump-a really big air pump">>>>. Oh I hate to tell you this now but I have a set of Jahns pop ups in stanard 283 bore. Sorry>>>>.

 

You can balance out a turned down 327 in a 283 without mallory, but you will need pistons. We used 1.12" CH pistons and a aftermarket 6.25" rod. I think the pistons were from Wiseco. 1.12" CH is common on 4" bore strokers.

 

It all depends on the bobweight. A light piston is good, it reduces reciprocating weight. Any weight you take from the piston or top of the rod, you remove half that from the crank counterweight. You remove from the crankpin you take away rotating weight. Rotating weight you remove 100% from the crank. I have a 350 crank I ran lightweight pistons in and drilled 3/4 holes through all 4 crankpins. Instant rpms.

I'm not a HACK. I am simply giving options here.

 

I never said you were a HACK..And the more options the better. Just that some of your options are the HACK way of doing things.. (It all depends on the bobweight) Yes and No.
Get back to me after you turn a 327 crank counterweights down .350
A super light piston would help and so would a lighter rod but not enough to where you could avoid heavy metal.

Adding heavy metal is not bad just not cheap and I know you already know this being that you had a machine shop.


Back on track - A stroked 283 is cool, but a long rod 283 would be a cheaper way with those pistons you have and balancing would not be an issue. Stroking a 283 is not for everybody just Hot Rodders.haha

-Eric

 

I second that!!!!>>>>.

 

Its the only thing I'm good at. haha

E.C.

 

How ya adapting a Hemi 4-speed (A-833) to a SBC? Didn't know adapters were made for that combo....

Got pics of this wagon? Sounds like a cool project for sure!

 

a little of the topic but check these out.... http://www.speedwaymotors.com/p/5088,1047_Arias-327-Small-Block-Chevy-Pistons.html
arias std 327 chevy pistons........

i have some jahns pistons for a .125 over 283 and those suckers weigh like 2 pounds each....... were all jahns pistons so hevy weight?????

 

And married guys!

All really good stuff here...the more the better!

Turns out I have a Chevrolet Performance Handbook by Hot Rod Magazine from 1963. They do mention that the 327 crank needs to be turned down, but another photo says in big inch engines, the pan rail may need to be notched.

I'll have to talk with my engine builder (he's been doing this since they were new).

I'll just have to see what the block will bear. A 327 crank would be easy enough, but either way I'll need to buy new rods...

Can anyone speak to one of my original questions: Long rod 283 versus stroked with 327 crank?

The bellhousing is a Lakewood, and I don't know if the guy I bought it from did the modification, or it came that way, but it's a Chevy bell with reinforced holes at the Chrysler positions, plus a small ear welded to the mating surface for the 4th Chrysler bolt hole that hangs out, then it was machined flat.
the input shaft on the trans was shortened, and as was the pilot, while the bearing retainer cover was turned down .250 to fit the Chevy-spec register bore in the bellhousing.

With the Vertical Gate shifter, I should be able to side-step the clutch and just slam the gears.

-Brad

 

i ran a 1/4" stroker 30 over 327 in my penny anglia....worked pretty good...my 61 has a 1/2" stroker 327 in it....big cheaters... currently looking for some heads for my '01 motor....might body work a pair of vortecs.... brandon

 

Heck why do all that machine work and balancing. just get a stock 307 and use your pistons heads ect. Also on page 14 of how to hotrod small block chevys by H. P. BOOKS by bill fisher& bob waar it tells how to identifty the 1962 283,s that will accept the 327 crank. The bottom around the cyl walls is dished not flat. OldWolf

 

I like the long rod 292.

 

The way i see it the extra stroke of the 327 crank far out weighs the efficiency of the longer rods. Both will rev plenty happy, personaly I'd go for the stroke dude. Broader torque and a little more down low would make a better dual purpose ride... Plus you get to say "Its a STROKER!"

 

I think you'd be dissapointed in the 283 long rod set up. Cubes, Stroker, high R's with the 327 crank - plus the crank would be lighter after it was fit in. A much cooler motor.

 

why not find a crank shop to weld up the 283 crank and offset grind it to the 3.25 stroke.