Here's another post with information on a SJ 327 crank in an early 283 block. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=284958&showall=1
There were some late model 283s with small journals and large counterweights that would hit in an early 283 blocks that had the flat bottoms on the crankcase end of the block, whereas the late 283 block was dished in the crankcase on the lower end of cylinders. I ran into this in the early 70s on my tow truck. As to 302s, the very early, 67 IIRC, had a small journal crank. Sometime later the 302 went to a large journal crank. I was running in a class on dirt ovals that had a 305 cid limit and always used the early small journal 327 blocks and small jounal 283cranks for lower friction and less rotating weight. Dave
Sounds like TP's right. I've got a later truck 283 w/the same crank and your block does seem to have deeper bores. The cheapest plan is probably another set of pistons for the stroker crank.
Late cast 283 wont turn in an early 283 block without some clearancing, also some guys in the past have put 327 cranks in the 283 blocks to make a 307 but you still need to do some grinding. If you have a 327 crank you will need to use 5.7" SJ rods with 307/283 pistons.
Thanks again for all the help. Learned a lot. Never assume anything, 283 had 2 style cranks and 2 different block designs, found out I have a 327 crank in a 283 block with what looks to be 307 pistons. I am about ready to give up on the 283 and just build a 350. It would be a whole lot less of a headache.
The 307 is from the large journal era, but use the 327 stroke/283 bore. 307 crank will not fit the 283 block if for no other reason but the mains are larger. Why not just freshen up what you have? Is it broken?
not to complicate any furtherer , but I was wondering if anyone here has had the factory 283 crank offset ground. I was thinking of using a 6.200 honda rod 1.889 journal with a .927 pin with a 3.905 ls1 type slug with a 1.310 C.D. I know I would have to deck a little , just wondering if anyone here has done anything like this. the offset would only make the crank like 3.010 if I remember. sorry for hijacking !!!
307 used the same bore If it is a 1/4 stroked 283, what about switching to 307 pistons??? Should work, and there is nothing wrong with a 307 exept all the factory ones sucked
If you want to do it for curiosity sake, then go ahead. But you can build a 383 for a little over a thousand bucks in parts that will run with a big block, and be visually identical to your stroked 283. The other issue with the 283/307/305 motors is the relatively small bore. All of the aftermarket heads that you will want to use will not work on a bore smaller than 4". Displacement rules.
i know a 383 would be cheaper, but not near as cool. the first motor i ever built was a 13 to 1 283 that was a screamer. no matter what you you do you cant make your 383 sound like a 283 i promise. and on the small bore dilemma you can notch the deck into the bore to clear the bigger valves or offset guides. the last motor we built was a 598bbc with a prock fogger so im not new to making hp. this would be just a fun little screamer. oh, the 598 on one small stage in a drag radial stock suspension mustang goes 5.30 132+mph in the eighth.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Thats what I was doing. The block I was going to use was the early 283 which had a steel crank and and a std bore. The crank that was in it had been balanced and smoothed out at one time when they smothed out the crank they took off the casting numbers off the crank, so I couldnt identify the crank and therefore I assumed it was all 283. Well I had the block bored due to some pitting. Ordered new 40 over flattop pistons. when we started to assemble the motor I found That the new pistons would hit the counterweight and extended about an 1/8" past the top of the bore. This is where I decided that this was probably a 327 crank which was originaly set up with a short piston. Well I had another fresh 1966 283 crank but when I went to install it it would not sit down in the bearings, counterweights hit the block. This is where I found out that there must be 2 styles of the 283 crank and 2 different 283 block castings. In the meantime I have found a late 283 block that my crank will fit but will have to get new pistons to match its bore. Looks like i will sell my early block and pistons. I will be building a later 283. Thats my story and I sticking to it.
I was going to mention the piston as the possible problem as well...the counter parts guy may have made a mistake when pulling the pistons off the shelf. Could also be a mistaken crank too... I checked your casting number and it's the same block I have that was rebuilt about 10 years ago, run for a year or two and has been shelved and pickled for the last 8 years. Great blocks...this one is going in my daughters '58 Chevy pickup.
--------------------------------------- First of all, I really believe that when it comes to making power the old adage that "there's no replacement for displacement" holds true. A small engine doesn't just rev higher, it HAS to rev higher to make the SAME power as a bigger engine spinning slower. An engine is nothing more than an air pump and the more air (and fuel) it can pump through itself, the more power it will make. You can increase the volume of air two ways - 1) spin the engine higher- or2) spin it at the same speed but make it bigger. If you're building a race engine where the class rules limit you to a certain displacement, obviously you would want to use the biggest bore and shortest stroke that brings you as close as possible to the maximum allowed displacement and then build the engine to rev as high as possible and make as much horepower per cubic inch as you can. But on the street or for racing where you're not artificially limited to a certain displacement, its the total horsepower that counts - not horsepower per cubic inches. It helps too, to have that horepower over a fairly broad rpm range where you can make the most use of it. I'd build the biggest engine I could afford and then cam it and gear it to rev only as high as necessary to make whatever power level I needed and over as broad a range as possible. A 383 (or bigger) small block is going to give you way more bang for the buck - ie - less horsepower per cubic inch, but made up for by more cubic inches in total and costing fewer dollars per horsepower - not to mention lasting longer, being easier on parts and easier to drive than a peaky, small displacement screamer. That being said, if you are intent on going against the grain and insist on building a small displacement screamer for whatever reason, I can think of a couple recipes that would be a cheaper and more powerful than your proposed 'stroker-long-rod-283' using cheaper, more off-the shelf parts and less machine work. Why not start with a .030 over '62 to '67 small journal 327. block At least that will give you a 4.030 bore to start with , which won't shroud the valves as much and give you more piston area allowing for faster compression rise and more surface area for the combustion pressure to act upon than the smaller bore 283. Then convert the block to some afermarket billet steel 4-bolt mains and then get some common aftermarket .030 over 5.7 inch long rod - 383 pistons. Using a .030 over 327 block with these pistons and a 283 crank will give you 305 inches but allow you to run a 6.45 long rod! A slightly more reasonable combo would be to use a 327 crank and the same .030 over 5.7 rod 383 pistons to give you a 6.20 inch long rod 331. The biggest expense aside from heads and valve gear, for these combos would in custom length connecting rods. *Really good* aftermarket custom length steel rods like Olivers, Carrillos etc aren't cheap, but you could get away with aluminum rods in an engine like this too and just toss and replace them on a regular basis. Both of these combos - with proper cam and valve gear and big enough heads - will rev to the moon and make big power. Mind you, they'll also have to rev to the moon too. Low and mid-range torque is going to be negliable (althouigh still more than your proposed 283-based stroker combo) and your going to need a light car with low gears to make it work. High rpm launches also tend to cause a lot of drivetrain carnage too adding even more cost. Personally, I'd just build a 5.7 long rod 383 - or better still - a 5.7 long rod 400 - and make about the same amount of horsepower (and a lot more mid-range torque) - at lower revs for less money, but to each his own. Good luck and have fun. mart =====================================================
gimme that recipe ......I just scored a 1970 block and rods pulled out of a wrecked ss nova. the kid I got it from took it apart and lost the crank. all I got left is heads , block, rods. gotta buy a crank anyhew. ps the rods have "0" stamped on em....was told these are factory M&Shot'd equiv to pink's ? ? worth building this motor or scrap it ? lil over a grand is apealing to me. block prep will cost 1K if you send it out. curious to see your recipe. thanks in advance
A 283 CAST crank will fit any 283 block. A 283 FORGED crank only fit later 283 blocks like 65-67 but should be checked for counter weight interference. Pat
Very unlikely you ever run into one but a 57-58 Turboglide transmission crank is not drilled for a std trans input shaft pilot bearing. Ask me how I learned that lesson
correction ! ! early 283 engines had forged steel cranks from factory. the later 283's were cast. cast=wide parting line on crank flange forged=thin parting line on crank flange trust me ! I am looking for a early 283 forged steel crank for my 1965 motor right now
You've got that one ass backwards. All sbc crankshafts from 1955-63 were forged so, obviously, they fit early blocks.
The Jalopy Journal
