Hambers, I'm no stranger to the SBC from a standpoint of how it all works. I've owned many and even rebuilt the one in my '51. NO applause necessary, really. Where I am completely deficient, though, is knowing how to mix-n-match what SBC parts with what other SBC parts - and make it all play nice inside there. My 65 wagon has the stock 283 in it that was sold as not having too many miles on the rebuild. My winter goal is to swap in a 2004r ****** so that I can have the upgraded drivability of 4 gears instead of the 2 in the PG. I planned to also swap in a 4 barrel at that time to pep things up a little and also provide me with the kickdown linkage or the trans. For the carb situation - I've heard everything from "A 600 will drown it - you only need about a 390-425 carb" to "I wouldn't put NUTHIN but a 600 on that baby". The overall consesnus was that the 600 COULD work - but I only if changed a few things. THEN the brainstorm started about wondering "Well if I'm going to be changing things, I might as well change ALOT - or at least look into it". QUESTION = What all SBC combinations can be built starting with a 283 block - and would it be worth it? I'm told that just putting in a stock 350 cam seems to wake things up alot. What about a 350 or 327 crank? What are the issues created with trying to use multiple carbs on a 283 and what would be the afordable options? The easy money answer is to swap in a boneyard 350 on the cheap and call it a day. I'm aware of this and am not really interested since if I'm going to go bigger, I wanna go ALOT bigger! Any and all suggestions related to "just the carb situation" and/or the "whole damn 283 situation" will be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks a ton in advance, Knewbie John
Carb wise a 500 would probably do you fine if you leave it stock, 570 holley or 600 edelbrock if you put a mild cam kit in it(I used the plain old edelbrock performer rpm kit). I'm not totally up on these, but I'm pretty sure most parts will swap around with any other small block except the 400, which is balanced different.
Small block Chevrolet cranks changed in 1967-68. The crank journals got larger, so the only cranks that will interchange in a 283 block are the small journal (pre-'68) 327, which nets you the ever-unpopular 307 long-stroke, small displacement motor. A better option, though not a viable one for a vehicle as heavy as a station wagon, is to get a small-journal 327 block and swap the 283 crank into that, producing a 302.
The 283 has a smaller main journal size than most small block chevys,exept for the early 327 small journal crank. When chevy made the 307 it was the small journal 327 crank in a 283 block.The newer 283 can take up to .125 overbore because most of the newer 283s were based on a block meant to be used with the 4" bore.
I believe the production 307 replaced the 283 in '68, but all factory 307's used the larger journal crank. The 307's 3.25 stroke (same as the '68 large journal 327) is still pretty short. Speed-O-Motive sells a small journal 3.75, 383-stroker crank designed for the early 327. How much money do you want to spend and how much work do you want to do? I say sell the 283 to a guy looking for the perfect period correct small block, and get yourself a crate Goodwrench 350 for cheap.
The killer combinations useta be 301 (bore to 4, shaky perhaps on a late 283 like that), and 352, special 3.5 crank. Way more $ but more interesting than throwing in a 350 or 400.
Why is the 302 not a good idea? No torque? Sorry guys for not remembering to give you some of what I have to work with in the junk heap inventory. Some of the extra parts I have are these: (2) 1957 283 heads - non powerpack (2) sets of 350 heads - prolly should rebuild but understand them to be good (1) blowed up 1961 327 motor. Block needs a sleeve and crank needs a bandaid (1)complete 350 shortblock .030 over with very low miles. I'm told it ran great but wouldn't read as having any oil pressure - so I ***ume the cam bearing is installed at a wrong rotation. (1) 350 block, freshly machined crank still in the bag (1) 350 cam - stock - still in the box (1) set of brand new .030 over 350 pistons in the box Thanks for the tips guys, John
If you want to pep the little 283 up... go with an Edelbrock Performer cam and intake, and a 500cfm carb... if you want to safe some money, the 600 carbs are usually cheaper... slap a Petronix in the existing distributor or get a new HEI from Slummit or Speedway for a $150... some headers and dual exhaust and you'll be happy. If you're going to build a motor... and have a hard-on for the 283's... build it... but if you just want the motor to make good power and torque, go LARGE. Sam.
I have a 1957 283 SBC in my 1940 Ford coupe. I use a 600 CFM Edelbrock on it. I purchased a kit and rejeted it down two steps leaner. I have a old Weiand aluminum intake and a Duntov camshaft ( factory High performance GM ). I would most likely go with a 500 CFM Edelbrock on the wagon. The short stroke crankshaft ( 3 inches ) limits the torque of a 283. A 301 is doable (with a .125 overbore) but WHY ?? It will never be a quick wagon with a small crankshaft. It would be less expensive in the long run to upgrade to a 400 SBC.When I rebuilt my 283, I just bored it .060 (that makes it a 292 ). The reason is I wanted to leave some metal for future rebuilds....if I had to. With the 200-R4, you will have a lot more 1st gear ( PowerGlide = 1.76 or 1.82 ......the the 200-R4 = 2.78 ) and it will feel a lot better. I would leave the insides of the 283 alone......if it was mine, with a upgrade Edelbrock.
Was the motor bored for the rebuild? A 500cfm AFB will work fine on a stock or mild engine. 2-4bbls were available from the factory, so you could use the Edelbrock setup with 2-500cfm carbs, even though they're bigger than the factory WCFBs - you will just have to tune them. The factory dual quads are expensive for the matched set. You can buy factory manifolds pretty reasonably, but you have to make sure the carbs you use are matched in size, and only WCFB's fit. You can use Tri-Power also, and it will also need tuning. Most people don't know if they're looking at a 283 or a 400 anyway, so spending money to build something that was exotic in the old days doesn't make much sense. Those exotic motors weren't known for long lifespans. I would stay within the parameters of the 283, and improve the breathing (cam/carbs) and oiling capabilities, and enjoy the bulletproof nature of the motor. The money would be well spent on things like roller rockers, balancing, and a good set of rods. Here's a chart of the bearing sizes.. Mutt
Sounds like you've got enough parts to build a 350. Why the Hell not ? If they were available in '57,people would have run them in their hot rods no problems. Performance was everything. Performance IS everything. Tell everyone it's a 283.
There's nothing wrong with building the 301. I have a friend of mine that built one in a 55 chevys w/ a four speed. I've rode in his car and It will haul *** I don't see why you couldn't use one in your car. Hell I have a straight six in my car with a cam thats a little to big for the rearend I'm using and my car is heavy as hell. I drive it everywhere. It all depends on what you like and what amount of $$$ you want to spend. Oh yeah the 55 also has 3dueces and a pretty good size cam in it. The guy that owns it drives it everywhere infact he went to ft. smith this year with a pop up camper behind it full of stereo equipment and it didn't miss a beat.
Thanks guys. I'll weigh my options. It looks like it might cost the same to buy the edelbrock cam/carb/intake for the 283 as it might to throw a 350 together. In which case, since neither with turn it into a real fire breathing sum*****, I think I'd rather tweak the 283. It just seems more right, this time anyways, to run what I brung. Nuther question: Instead of shooting for 283 street cam, can I just use a 350 cam in the 283? Thanks for your patience with all my newbiness.
I also had thoughts for a minute about seeing if one of them 301 Pontiac turbo setups could be easily adapted, but was quickly told that they were turds when they were new and to forget it. Is this the gospel?? Would that intake bolt up in the first place? I know a guy that adapted one to his straight 6 with a 4 barrel. It's pretty sweet and he's had it like that for years. It was just a thought of a way to give a little more OOMPH and not seem so damn cookie cutter under the hood. I've seen them on E-gay that weren't an arm and a leg.
what are the spec's on the 350 cam? it may not be more than you all ready have....i'd get a cam from summit , like their #SUM-K1102.....420/.442 lift , 204/214 degree duration...$79 for cam and lifters.. i've used several of them in mild SBC'c and have been happy .. this can all be done with the motor in the car,just pull out you radiator while it's apart , put on an edelbrock performer mainifold with an edelbrock 500 cfm carb
I too have heard the 301 ponchos were turds...but the 301 Chevy is a legend in some circles. They can rev to the moon and make good power....but Bruce Lancaster says it would be shaky with your late block....too much boring...and Bruce knows his **** my friend. Why not take it 30 or 60 over and through on some edelbrock goodies...and I think you can use those cams in the 283....a friend has a 350 horse 327 cam in his 283 and says it runs like a bear! Good luck with whatever you decide! Greg
Thanks guys for confirming that the poncho turbo = turdo. The reason I had been wondering about it is that I was told the 283 could handle loads of abuse - and I figured that I already wasn't running a high compression ratio. I thought that maybe the pontiac turbo units were good, but that the rest of the car was so turd that even a turbo didn't help. The cam I have just came with the rest of the stuff I listed. I got it all in one load from a guy I was in school with who was cleaning out his garage. It' still in the GM box and he said it was just a regular grind cam for a regular stock 350. I'll have to see if the box still has the number and search backwards to get the specs.
[ QUOTE ] ...and 352, special 3.5 crank. Way more $ but more interesting than throwing in a 350 or 400. [/ QUOTE ] Just an observation, but now-a-days this combo would be a waste of time and money on a 283 block, becuase you would basically end up with a stock bore/ stroke 350. The 350 has a slightly shorter 3.48 stroke, but it would be superior to this combo because a .125 over 283 block would almost definitely run super-hot temperature wise....if it'll even take that much of an overbore. I've also seen aftermarket 3.5 stroke cranks that you can run in a 350 to put the piston at the top of the deck and give you the 2 extra cubes, for what it's worth. (I think you can still run stock 350 piston pin height) I'm sure this isn't news to most of you, but just thought I'd add the info. Back to the issue at hand... the deciding factor for me would be that 99 percent of people wouldn't have a clue what displacement your SBC is unless you tell them. You've got all the stuff to do the 350, so dress it up like a 283, put a decent cam in it and either a single 4bbl or even a muti-carb intake, and enjoy the newly added, almost free horsepower you'll get from 67 more cubic inches. Like Unkl Ian says...you could always tell people it's a 283!
I oughtta scan the article I have about turning a 283 into something like 467 cubes. Straight outta the 60's, bro.
TRUE TRUE TRUE - the is no replacement for displacement. I'm allowed some garage time this weekend with the intent of working on the Neverdunn 51. I'll have to spend some of it checking out the realistic condition of my 350 stuff and go from there.
Leaning toward's the 283? Small journal crank's can rev...ARP the rod bolt's. Call a Good cam company w/ all the info: Total cubic inche's, head cc, induction, Vehicle weight, tran's and rear ratio's and your honest driving habit's. Some roller tip rocker's and every once in awhile...let it rev/scream to 7000 RPM, it will put a smile on your face. And some of the old timer's as well.
[ QUOTE ] also had thoughts for a minute about seeing if one of them 301 Pontiac turbo setups could be easily adapted, but was quickly told that they were turds when they were new and to forget it. [/ QUOTE ] ive never seen one on an sbc, but I suppose it would work??? I heard that the pontiac 301s were dogs unless they had the turbo, then they were very respectable. Would a 301 pontiac crank work in a chevy?
I have a sick fetish for small journal stuff. It makes all the sense in the world to build a bigger cube engine when you are comparing apples and oranges. I just can't seem to bring myself to do it.
Since we are talking small Chebbies. I have a 307 in my 49 GMC. It is pretty well stock, bored .30 over, Comp 268 Cam, headers, and 600 AFB on a Torker II Intake. It has always had a dead spot on hard acceleration that I could never track down. Could it be the single plane intake? Would I be better off switching to a Performer intake? I know where I can get one cheap. Thanks, Neal
Hey Neverdunn dude I work in an automotive machine shop and have been building SBC's for years, here's the deal, Do whatever you want! Also sell me the powerglide you take out of the wagon PLEASE. The small engines need to rev more rpm to make horse power because they don't have the cubic inches and are down on low end torque. Since you have an automatic trans I would suggest you run a "RV" or a mild stall torque converter with whatever you do to the little chebby.Oh and the poncho 301 is A TURD. and no SBC parts will fit it. The later seventies Trans Am or Firechicken or what ever that had the turbo on it, even with the turbo produced a whoping 200 horsepower!!! it wouldn't pull a sick ***** off a pee pot! Ran like seventeen second quater mile times in stock trim, quite possibly the worst thing GM ever did!
The Jalopy Journal
