For all you motor "GURUS" out there.......... What is the ADVANTAGE or DISADVANTAGE of building a motor with a SMALLER bore and shorter stroke?? I inherited this motor with my project. It has a 1960 283CI block with 1968 327CI heads; <nobr>intake manifold</nobr> & Quadrajet carburetor. The builder, supposedly, owned a <nobr>machine shop</nobr>. I don't know if it was purposely done or just had left over parts lying around. I don't know whether the cylinders were bore out either but if they were, I can understand why the change. It will be some time yet before I fire it up for the first time. CAN'T WAIT TO HEAR IT RUN! "remember, there is NO such thing as a stupid question?" Learning something everyday and the HAMB is the GREATEST! Thanks again, LG, Mike
A short stroke engine if built correctly can rev until it comes apart. In the later '60s we used to use 327 turbo fire heads on 283s all the time but they were usually bolted to bored motors. Big bore short stroke is a good equation for lots of revs and HP on the top end of the RPM range, think 302 here (which is what we used to call a 301 before GM built them). There is a chance that your 283 is punched .125 to 301" but you will not know unless you lift a head. The tops of the pistons will be marked with the over size. I doubt that I count as a Guru I am not Smokey Yunic by any means but I have squeezed a lot out of the little engine that could for a long time.
If this is a rod project and not something thats going to race at INDY, Who Cares? I say play the cards you are dealt
I don't understand your apprehension. This is a perfectly legitimate combo if it's not overcammed. Keep the quadrajet; they work well with their small primaries and vaccuum controlled secondaries.
Great combo in my opinion. The short stroke 283 (even if it's stock bore) was always a favorite of mine. I'd guess if it's not bored large it has the smaller 1.94" intake valves, or thwy wont clear the bore on a 283. I've built a couple 283's with the old 1.94" camel hump heads and a decent cam, and they were screamers.
Porkn****** covered the "advantage" side very well. The disadvantage is low end torque, which is needed to get the vehicle moving. The long stroke engine will have more torque, especally at idle, over the short stroke.
This is not a racing forum....its a traditional forum. Short stroke high winding SBCs are cool for us old farts. We build them this way because it is the way it was done back then. Will a longer stroke larger CI SBC beat the short stroke SBC ??? maybe. so what!!!
When we were kids we had a punched 283 (292) that won against lots of larger motors at the stop light drags. We moved it from one body to another until we finally let it get way from us. There is just something about a 283, I am not sure what it is, that makes them a sweet little motor. Give me a 283 and a cheap but solid saginaw any day of the week and I will be happy as a duck in mud.
I have built over 360 SBCs and the 283 is my favourite and in a light car they are a very flexable motor. I dont know why they get rubbished for lack of torque in smaller and lighter cars ! Just dont over cam them. I have 0.125 overbored 283 (301.6) in my 26 T. JW
Using the old air pump theory, they move less air than a similary built bigger engine. So they don't make as much horsepower. But in the same breath, they should get better fuel mileage.
NO, I'm NOT apprehensive...........just curious. I agree with Porkn****** that it is most likely bored out. I rebuilt the Quadrajet and am very satisfied with the entire setup. I just hope it runs......it was built a long time ago and I have had it since Oct. 2008. (I pump oil through it and hand turn it now and then) The heads; intake and carburetor all came off of a 1968 327CI motor. Not know anything else about the motor- ANY GUESSING AS TO THE HP???? It will NOT be raced. It's in my 1930 Sports Coupe Model A with a sweet 4L60 ******. Thanks again for all the knowledge, LG, Mike
Only fly in the ointment is the CCs in the combustion chambers. If those are large chamber heads, the performance will be 'softened'considerably. 7:1 C.R. engines get worse mileage than 8.5:1 engines. (extreme example)
Not knowing the build I would say that if you get into the 250-280 horse range ypu would be lucky. A****er mike mentioned combustion chamber size and he is correct if you compression is really low it is not going to do to well for you. I have a 283 in my Willys/jeep pickup. I fired it 3 years ago for the first time and it had not been run since '82. It fired and fires and runs fine. My rear brakes are locked up now and I can still drive it. It does not launch and haul *** but it does pull away. I don't think that I would count the 283 as a real slouch and as long as your engien isn't locked up I would not be real concerned about it not being run for a while. Something that I may think about doing if it is going to be a long time before you run it is loosening the rockers a little bit, while I have yet to have a stock spring fail it is not good for the valves to sit open.
My Dad always said the same thing. He had a 283 Impala convertible in the early 1960s and he told me that he could walk away from 327 SS Impalas all day long with it. He didn't modify the engine in any way except to have a dual exhaust installed, and his buddy had an otherwise identical 327 car and he said they used to race all the time because the buddy was always convinced he'd win "this time." I am not trying to start a 283 vs. 327 debate, I'm just saying the 283 is a good motor and under the right cir***stances will run just as strong as a bigger one.
They are like a banty rooster, they have no idea that they are small. They are just a s****py little motor.
This is what I was waiting for; someone to comment on the loss of compression ratio due to the heads used on your 283. I agree also on using 305, 1.84 intake valve heads, and personally would use the 601 casting number heads as they have the smallest (53cc) combustion chambers and will have hardened seats. Unless the engine builder used domed pistons, the CR is too LOW on your 283! The intake/carb combination is fine. Butch/56sedandelivery.
there is an optimal engine size or CID vs the weight of the vehicle. My motorcycle is very fast and has just 83 cubic inches. So a 283 would be great in a light car like a Nova or something about that weight. I had one in my 38 Chevy coupe at one time and there's nothing like the sound of 7000 rpm.
283 is a great engine. Mine is a .060 over with 10.5 comp and an 097 cam with rochester FI. Coupled with a 3 spd and 3.70 posi in my 57 it is no slouch. The engine is basically a dead stock 283HP 283 with a .060 bore--AND sounds great and revs quick. Fuely car is in my album.
I'm the type of gearhead who needs to know the specs on everything in the motor so that I can precisely figure SCR and DCR. I would be glad to help you narrow down the build if you could post the casting number off one of the heads (under the valve cover in between the rocker studs) and have a look at the piston crowns through the spark plug holes with a strong light. My first impression, with the ~64 cc heads, is that the motor will be a low compression turd, particularly if the builder failed to match the camshaft's intake closing point to the static compression ratio.
Not to be a downer on the old 283 but Im a little perplexed at why these became so popular in recent years, other than basic nostalgia. Chevy saw their limitations and discontinued them after a few years. Ive had several over the years. They do make great reliable commuter engines, run smooth, and get pretty good mileage but with the small cubes and inferior 1960s head technology; most engine builders I knew never took them serious as a performance engine. A Vortec 350 has great flowing heads, will probably cost less for a good core, and for an equal amount of $ give you a better performance engine in the end. Plus you can dress them up to look like a vintage small block and nobody would know the difference. Not trying to be negative, it's your dough.
283 = whippy and zippy, lots of fun in a light car, good mileage. 350 = more HP more torque but feels sluggish, burns more gas. A 283 in a light car like a roadster or a Nova would be a blast. A 350 would beat it in a drag race, be better for towing a trailer or in a heavy car. If I had a 283 I would use it.
Hi fridaynightdrags, Looking at my notes: I wrote down "D268 3911032" my research at the time came up with 307 & 327 FY 1968 with 70CC chamber made in Canada for the BLOCK, I wrote: D220 GM3756519 I also have written: 1968 Chevelle/Camaro 307CI 200HP int1.72/exh1.50 chamber 69.629 Take into account that I wrote these numbers over 4 years ago. I try to do***ent everything as I go along. This number is real recent...........within last year. The Quadrajet # is 7028212 which corresponds to a 1968 Camaro/Chevelle/p***enger car with a 327CI with either 275HP or 295HP. The carb/intake/and heads are all matched to each other. Tomorrow, I will try the "look into spark plug hole" and see what I can find. Bottom line is that I ONLY want to know what I have. Not for any other reason. It will NEVER be raced and did I say it is in my 1930 Model A Sport Coupe......VERY LIGHT vehicle indeed. If my su****ions are realized, this will be one FINE hot-rod to cruise in. Again, thanks for all the knowledge. LG, Mike
3911032 70cc, 1.72"/1.50" valves, 307/327 Canadian 3756519 '59-'61 283 As was said earlier, this is looking more and more like a motor that was put together with parts that were "available". I'll be interested in learning the piston crown configuration. Did you have any info on the cam grind?
Hi fridaynitedrags, This is my motor: _________________________________________________ Below is what is visible in the #2 piston slot: I ***ume the 40 stands for being bored out .040 over stock. Could NOT see anything in the rest of the holes and this one was very difficult.
The Jalopy Journal
