265ci versus 283ci SBC?Chevy experts I need help!

The questions are,I have a 265ci small block in my ch***is at present, but I've been offered a 283ci motor for £150( quite cheap).The 265ci is a '56/'57 and the 283ci is '67( block code 3896944). I have read on different websites the power figures for the 265ci ranging from 162hp to just over 200hp and the 283ci weighing in at 195hp.Do these figures sound about right?What is the power out put for your garden variety 265ci motor?
I like my 265ci ,but I know the issues with the cam and dizzy oiling thingy!Are the decent cams avaliable for the 265ci, has anybody got a dizzy for one?The 283ci is in total bits the only things left in the block are the crank and camshaft.It needs work, which my 265ci might need too.I've only removed one of the heads from the 265ci and the bores looked fine and dandy, You could still see the cross hatching on the bores!
I know I might be answering my own questions, but I love the early motor with the staggered rockercover bolts,but I'm willing to for go this if the 265ci is more trouble than it's worth.
What it really boils down to, is the 283ci worth the effort or do I stick with the 265ci.I'm not after m***ive power out puts, just around the 200hp mark will do for now!Both motors need work,but which is the peach and which is the rotten 'er' piece of fruit(What the **** am I gion' on about?)Come Chevy experts, put me outta me missery!
Thanks in advance.
Nick.

 

my choice would be the 283...for the reasons you already mentioned about the cam/oiling/distributor issues and the fact the 265 uses a rope seal on the rear main , the `67 283 will have the two piece seal. that's still not the best seal , but better than the rope

just my opinion , so i guess i really haven't helped you

 

I have a cast iron early distributor, not sure what it is for, the 283 still probly better choice.

 

36-3window, Your opinion counts! I need peoples input to help me see the right choice.
Thanks.

 

.........If you want to swap to another chevy motor, get a 292......

 

The cam notch is no big deal on the 265. They make an aftermarket rear main seal that changes the rope to a neoprene seal. The 265/283 is not that much difference on power. You can notch any cam for the 265.

 

If you really like the looks of the staggered bolts on the pre-'59 cylinder heads, there's no reason you can't use the early 265 heads on the later 283 block.

 

Roothawg, This is the sort info I need.Thamks.

 

HEATHEN, I had wondered if this could be the way forward.

 

Not that much difference between the 265 & the 283. Just stay away from the '55 version, it doesn't have a full flow oil system. Heads, manifolds and most of the externals are interchangable. I have found that the 283 bored .060 over makes better power than a 301. I like the early motors, they are reliable and can make some decent power. The 283 came out in '57 with fuel injection, first engine to make 1 horsepower per cubic inch.

 

I believe the 345 Desoto hemi with dual quad was the first production engine to make one horsepower per cubic inch. The 1957 Desoto Adventurer was the Daytona 500 pace car that year. Tom

 

"I have found that the 283 bored .060 over makes better power than a 301".

You got some 'splaining to do son. There has to be a qualifed answer to a statement like that. Care to share?

Frank

 

Frank, are you askin' me explain something,If so what?
If not SORRY!!!! My BAD!

Nick.

 

When I redid the 283 in my old 40 Ford ... I just bored it .060 ( making it a 292 ). I have read ... that the cylinder walls will stay more round in a sixty over 283 that a 125 over 283 ( 301 ) ... so the rings will seal better and make more power. Truth or fiction ... I do not know but read it in one of the many Hot Rod articles I read years ago. I do believe a 292 will run cooler than a 125 over 283.

When I did the 283 ... I had it bored with head plates and the guy was pumping 190 degree hot water in the block to simulate engine operating temperature. My machine guy also said that 60 over motors made more power than 125 over motors.

If I was going for a 301 ... I would start with a 327 block and install a 283 crankshaft

 

What about a destroked 327? There you don't have to worry about wall thickness.

Doh....disregard. I se your last statement now.

 

CACK! I've just noticed somebody else posted the comment, about 283/301! I'm a ****!

 

if ya' bored the 283, 1/8" over, that would make it a 302 (4x3x8).
I thought the early small blocks could only be taken out .1195" (which makes it a 301).
I think most people just round up and call it .120 over.

Anyway, if you don't build it too stout and drive it like a normal human being, a 301 will be ok to use.
When things like Cylinder Wall Stability come into play, you've either bored the cylinders too far to be reliable (for any length of time, anyway) and/or are pushin' it way hard all the time (i.e., full out racing), in which case, as Deuce Roadster pointed out, just go for the extra cubic inch and do up a 327 or 350 with a 3" crank.
....unless you start with a 292 inline Six. A 60 overbore will yield a reliable motor that would then displace 301 cu.in.

As for the original question, if 60Shotrod isn't having issues with his 265, then just run that engine.
Sounds as if its just gone through a fresh rebuild, so he'll be fine.

BTW, if 60ShotRod is still running the old cannister-style oil filter, he would probably be interested in a bolt in adaptor made by RAYCOR that changes that to a more "modern-ish" spin-on oil filter.
Very easy install and it works very well.



6narow

 

60ShotRod,

Forgot to address the HP part of your question.
When the 265 was introduced, it was rated at 162HP.
That's 2-bbl & signle exhaust.
It was Zora-Arkus Duntov who proposed the idea of factory, "off-t******lf", performance parts for that engine.
One of the first available was what was known as a "power pack". This used a 4-bbl. carb and manifold and dual exhaust.
It was rated at 180HP and was the base motor for the 'vette.
The standard 2-bbl. single exhaust 283 was rated at 185HP.
The "Power Pack" version was rated at 220HP, IIRC.
The F.I. version of any SBC made in the 50's and 60's were always the "top dog" version of those motors and there were many other variations available to the buying public at that time, as well.



6natow

 

I'm now thinking I might stick with the 265ci?As it's an early motor I like Kudos of it!!!If it carries any that is.Thanks to everybody who has given me advice so far.
Now the next question what is a GOOD cam to run in this motor, I will be running 3x2's on an Offy manifold.I like something with a little PEP in its step!

Nick.

 

i have had 2 different 301's in my nova one was 11:1 comp hydro cam mild thing and this new one 13:1 560 solid cam etc neither of them EVER over heated one time. the hottest the ld ran was 200 the hottest thing one has gotten is 205 after a few hotlaps, but the normal op temp sits at 180. im pretty sure that colling thing was some kind of myth i sware

 

A 265 Corvette motor, '56, had 225 hp. It is real easy to "over cam" a 265. An 097 Duntov is way too much cam. If you can find the 225 Corvette cam it would be perfect. A friend of mine back in the day had a 283 power pack hydraulic cam and it worked good too. (Don't forget to notch the back journal). Re: a 301, I had one and it was a fine motor, never a problem until I slung a rod through the block. A 097 cam works great in a 301. I had a "full race" Montgomery Ward cam in my 265. Solid lifter and it was a good cam too, probably about like a '56 Corvette cam. If you only want to make a little over 200 hp then this will do it. Takes a little compression though.

 

a correction - somebody indicated that the FI 283/283 was "first engine to make 1hp/cu in. That is not correct. Check out any spec book for the 56 Chrysler 300 Letter car engine - 354 Cu In - 355 HP.

dj

 

Customline Vicky,Thanks for the advise.I like the sound of using a Corvette cam.Yes about 200hp is my goal for now!!LOL

Nick.

 

#### Didn't say what cyl heads you decided on. Earlier you stated that you liked the staggered valve covers. If your going to use a 3-2 manifold and a lot of valve timing on the cam your going to need some better heads than the stockers. I've done this before and the engine has a weezing effect at full throttle and would gain speed when at 3/4s to 1/2 throttle. Typical case of over cam and carb. The good thing is the old cyl heads have a ton of iron in them and can be ported to work good and still have the old look >>>>.

 

Engine Pro x5, I will be using the stock heads I think,as the one I removed looked in great shape.I would like to have them ported somewhat as you say.Are the stock 265 heads worth the effort or do you mean get my hands on some better to start with heads and port them?Thanks for the advice,I knew that I would get the help I was after!I don't mind putting some effort in to use the 265 (It was FREE)I paid £1000 for the Coupe body and the motor came with the deal.But the Freeness of the motor ain't the deciding factor!

Nick.

 

In the perfect world I would say to fetch a set of 57 power pack heads. Still on the stagg valve covers and a much better design as the 283 and a couple of years did wonders. Now the bad, the resoration cats will have you paying large dollars for a set of 57 p-pac heads. If you have a cat that can port and cut your heads for larger valves you already own them >>>>.

 

If this motor is for a mild street car you will never know the difference. Go with the 265 if its in the car and running. Buy the 283 to tinker with for a later swap. A good dual ponit GM or Mallory distributor will work just find.

 

Cheers Man.A porting we will go!

Nick.

 

The motor ain't running,but I'd say it needs alot less work than the 283.
I don't think I'll keep the Coupe to long after I've finnished it!Thanks for the advice.I love this place!

Nick.

 

Well, you could stick with your "vintage" theme and run the orignial "Duntov Cam".
Made from '56 to '63 (I think), it was a solid lifter cam that put a lot of ponies into the mill and is fairly easy to live with.
In '56, the lift was higher (.403" / .413", IIRC) and Chevy noted some valvetrain problems once they started racing with that one, so they cut the lift down a little and made it a single-pattern cam (.399" in & out) in '57 and it went on to immortality.
It was also the cam that Chevy used in the 270HP version of the 283, an engine which featured a 3x2 intake / carb setup.
When the 327 debuted in '62, this cam was also used to create the 300HP version of that engine, during that year.
The cam was superceeded by hydraulic replacements in the 1960's.
First one is what is known as the "L-79" cam, which was offered in the 327.
When the engine was stroked to 350 cu.in., they added a little bit of lift and it became known as the "L-82" cam.
All of these cams are single pattern affairs and feature 221 duration @ .050" lift.
They generally increase output by around 50-55 HP and generally works in the 2200-6000 rpm range.

One other cam that's slightly milder but still offers good performance is their "Marine Cam".
From what I've found out, its literally a stock "L-69" cam with .030" more lift.
It generally affects an SBC in the same way an "S" cam affects a Pontiac V-8 (works in similar power ranges and offers similar amount of power increase).
This cam was offered in the 255HP 350 marine engine and the 300HP 350 "crate motor" that became available in the mid 90's.
Lift is .435" / .449" and duration is 212 / 223 (I think) @ .050" lift.
Its worth about 45HP and generally works in the 1200-5200 rpm range.
If you put the marine cam in a car engine, make sure you get the RIGHT handed version, otherwise the engine will run in reverse or not start.

Those were all factory cams that are still available as aftermarket items (of course, if you have a cam grinder available to you, they could easily pop one of these puppies out, too).




6narow