Chevy 283 or 355 in 57 chevy?

Listen, man, get rid of that intake it's a joke. Fuck that old Holley manifold as well, take advantage of technology to make your ride FAST.

Period correct cars are for shows, dude, real hot rods are fast.

That's what they were meant to be.


Tom[/QUOTE]


ok, i was wrong, youre not just missing the point of his thread, but also the whole point of the hamb........

 

The tunnel ram can be tuned to work for you. If you want to keep it I'm open to sharing my experience tuning multiple carburetion.

I must decline the challenge for me to show you a stock 283 blower combination to make 400 hp. I think I prefer keeping closed minded fellows in the dark. I'll love showing you how all of the parts you hate can exceed hi hp expectations (and yours).

I'm not saying your ideas suck, I'm just saying he can still make the same hp with the parts he wants to use. There are always two ways to skin a cat.

 

Ok im going to take PxTx's advice and start a new thread. ive come to the conclusion that the 350 is the way to go (for the time being) given my money situation. ill write one up ASAP

for those of you that i may lose on the transfer to the new thread, thank you! and good luck on your own builds. i may be young but ive got some insight and im pretty good at diagnosis( first place written exam in new england and 3rd place northern new england hands on(thanks to my partner not checking his fuses,back in high school thats another story) and if i dont know it i sure as hell will try my best to learn it! so feel free to ask or ill check out your posts! thanks again guys! appreciate it!

 

No hate here, Sir, if you look back you will see that I do regret my words.

BUT, there is no way anyone is going fast with 60's technology.

A Viper can trap 170mph now. A Camry can trap 95.

You want to be fast, or do you want to be show?

Be fast.


Tom

 

no disrespect deltuffo. i will keep that thought and REALITY in the back of my mind. and maybe ill wind up down that road but if its possible to achieve similar numbers while keeping it somewhat nostalgic its what ill do. A 2009 chevy cobalt may be faster than a factory 32 ford with a flat head. but what would you rather drive? but if i was only about speed and popularity, maybe id be making payments right now! but the way i see it is that id rather be in a 57 chevy that I know could be a LITTLE bit faster but atleast be period correct. like i said though if im not satisfied with the power, maybe ill spend another 500 bucks and bite the bullet to do your combo. i dont want this to sound like im against you I am still VERY interested in what you have to say and hope you partake in my new thread! but please dont completely rule out old school just like i wont completely rule out Vortec heads and that $300 intake from edelbrock( or 180 at a swapmeet perhaps)

 

that's funny right there

 

Hey guys, just came back and would like to clarify the solid versus hydraulic thing; Solid cams have the ability to rev way past 6800, which is where hydraulics usually fall off. Also, I've run stock 350 short blocks with just cam change and my other bolt-on parts just like you have, camel humps, headers, intake, dual point, and that motor revved to 7500 a lot and lived in my '55 for 2 1/2 years when it was pulled to freshen the heads and it was put in a Camaro with a hydraulic cam and went on down the road. Point being that even with a stock crank and cast pistons a 350 can handle 7500.

Another point; 10,000 rpm's with a 302 Z28 motor would only be possible with some aftermarket parts, now 8500 is possible, hell, even easy with a flat tappet solid, but not the old 030/030, the second design off-road cam would do it with the right springs. Anything higher would be roller territory, and I mean lifters and rocker arms, and also a nice crank and some light pistons, and pink rods, and,,,,,,,, no, I guess that's it!

 

I'd like to add that the old tunnel rams have proven themselves on the street, there is even a large following. In this situation, what he gives up in low end torque (if any, I've heard otherwise) would be made up for with cubic inches, of coarse he does need some steeper gears. I think someone mentioned some 3.36's, and I agree they would be great for daily use, but some 4.11's for the strip, or maybe 4.56, would be the ticket.

I'd also like to thank Squirrel for his input, always right on.

 

You know, you guys may have a point, though this is a serious engine.

Does look like they got the tunnel ram running pretty good on it.


http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/0304_intake_manifolds_contrast/index.html


Tom

 

are 5.13's too steep for my application? thanks unclee

 

Friend of mine had a bow tie blocked 355 in a '69 Vette with a 12 bolt and four link. He ran a 4.11 for a long time. then went to a 5.37 and always regretted it, said it ran better with the 4.11's!

 

deltuffo, you found a great read! thanks for posting it it points out things to both sides of this argument!

 

well since i have the 5.13's with a spool already perhaps ill just have some fun with them, see how they do and if i can score a 4:11 chuck or something ball park of there for cheap ill grab it.

 

Link to any new thread you start from here, as I am interested to follow along and contribute as I can.

The gearing issue is this. The configuration you want is not ideal for a 4 speed and 3.08 gears. It could certainly be made to work with 5.13, but I suspect since they are only temporary gears the state of tune you will have to do for each configuration will be very invloved in refinind and dialing each, then having to change each time. I would opt for choosing an in-between gear and optimizing with that. The only other compromise I see is maybe some sort of Hone Overdrive/Under or 2nd trasmission to allow you to lower your gear ratios, then raise them for highway cruising. There are some old school solutions to this.

I look forward to seeing how this evolves.

 

heres the link the the new thread

this way we can get rid of some of the other topics in the mean time and maybe go back to them in the future!

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=400992

 

Didnt mean making power over 10k, just holding togather, plenty of people talk about missed shifts and buried tachs on these motors

 

For the price of a Hone over drive, you could probably come close to buying a Richmond 5 speed. Either would solve lots of problems, neither is cheap.
Larry T

 

You're on the wrong forum.
If we wanted to go unlimited fast, we'd be building those Honda motors, or LS Chevy motors, or Ford Modular motors.

We also wouldn't be talking about bias ply tires or 3spd OD transmissions.

I get what the kid is looking to do--so well, in fact, that I'm almost done with a 283 stroked with a 327 crank, double hump heads, a grumpy hydraulic roller cam, and a tunnel ram with a pair of big ass carbs. Exactly the combo you're telling him is junk.

And you're right, to a point. It's NOT the best way to make power. But it IS a traditional way with a period formula and period parts.

I'm putting it in my '57 150 wagon gasser... another vehicle that is NOT the best way to go fast.

Ever heard anyone say "It's more fun to go fast in a slow car than slow in a fast car"?


The difference between me and Junior here, is that mine is a dedicated race car that I'm going to drive to cruise-ins and take Boy Wonder to school in. It's not a street car. The motor will be fun, and it'll be my learning curve for the car while I learn to drive it and set-up the chassis.

A radical 283 isn't a good idea for a street car. A mild 283 will be fine for a commuter, but you can't have both with a 283.

If you've got double-hump heads, open up the valves and put them on your 350.
Or, just change those valve covers and black paint on your current engine, and it'd be damn near perfect.

For a heavy car like a '57 (which really isn't that heavy, but compared to an A or a '32, it is), a 283 isn't going to be that great. A 350, or a stroked 383 or even 406 (400 bored .030) is the ticket.

-Brad

 

I'm curious, too--what are you driving, Deltuffo?

-Brad

 

Brad 54,

perfect closure on the subject! my 350 now has double hump 1.94's on it. when in take it apart ill do the head work and hopefully someone will provide someinsight on how to properly tune multicarb setups

thanks

-Nick-

 

Just trying to help a college student build something fast on a budget.

Like hot rodders do*.

I drive a Buick, Brad, 1987 Turbo T.

14.13 to 11.77 for less than $1500 and my time.


Tom

EDIT - *Or did, apparently.

 

I'm new to the board and was recently told about this by a friend. He described it as being an old school, down and dirty hot rod forum were both cars and technology end about mid 60's- like 65 is pushing it. He said it is pretty fun over here and is more low-brow than most forums.

This was one of the first threads I participated in. I have to say seems pretty cool. Tom, I think you supportd your position well and like Nick said you even went a step further and offered an article to counter your own position. Seemed pretty fair and I respect that. Despite the difference in perspective, I beleive we both had the same intentions- to help a young fellow go fast.

I've got two turbo cars and yes they are fun, like I'm sure your is. The spirit of that kind of performance might not be appreciated by all around here. Like my buddy said, 1965 is pushing it around here.

I look forward to hearing more from your perspective. I appologize if I was an ass in any of the previous posts. I saw you edited one of yours, I'm just being lazy about goin back on the last 4 pages to a review.

 

This is getting kind of off topic, but you do know there were competitive /GS cars running twin turbos in 1964 don't you? You might look up Mallicoat Brothers. Their early stuff might be kinda hard to find since they are still running a supercharged gasser today (turbo's are outlawed for the class now). Several teams ran twin turbo's in the class through 1972.
Just thought I'd point out that 1960's technology isn't obsolete, it's just been continually developed until it's now 2000's technology.
Larry T