Speed-Talk is running on www.Speed-Talk.com

IMPORTANT: Update your bookmarks to https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/
(Right-click the URL and select "Bookmark this link")

283 CHEV BLOCKS?

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

mtkawboy
Pro
Pro
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Billings Mt

Post by mtkawboy »

The no motor mount on the side 283 would be a 57 engine, if its a 3 7/8 bore. A 56 would be 3 3/4 bore. 55's had no oil filters on the blocks. They are all quite valuable to restorers in good condition
PackardV8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6260
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:03 pm
Location:

Post by PackardV8 »

mtkawboy's post about his recollection of the piston slap of his 301" is more corroboration of the cylinder wall flex problem. The cylinder walls were so flexible and deck plates were pretty much unknown, so .009" piston-to-wall was the norm for the forged pistons of the day. Rings were not as good then, either, so with that much piston rock, blow-by was pretty fierce on some.

IMHO, if your customer wants a reliable numbers-matching 283", sleeving is the only way to go. It will be bullet-proof and probably only cost 10 real-world horsepower at most. Set him up with some K-B hypereutectics and the 283" will make more HP than most loose 301" forgings.
thnx, jv.
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
mtkawboy
Pro
Pro
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Billings Mt

Post by mtkawboy »

Solid skirt Jahns pistons with .010 piston to wall, it was a winning stock car motor in its prior life with a lot of race time on it. Did not smoke but we ran 50 wt oil back then too with way too much oil pressure. Hey, I was 18 at the time, 1962, I just thought I was smart, like all teenagers. Im not saying it was a good idea just that I never had a problem with it. If I was doing it today I would go 292 max, .060 over. It was free and already that size, bigger had to be better back then.
Jeff
Member
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:53 am
Location: Michigan

Post by Jeff »

Decided we will do a 327 for it first, and more then likely when I have more time will just sleeve that block since it is the original from the car. 2 engines for a car that will not see 500 miles a summer. :lol:
Jeff
pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9793
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm
Location:

Re: 283 CHEV BLOCKS?

Post by pdq67 »

I bet that if you would go to Jay Croft's Machine Shop in Moberly, MO IF he is still in business that you will find a '57 283 block bored an 1/8th over..

I never picked it up because it didn't have side mounts so I couldn't use it in anything but a tri-5 body.

I wrecked my '57 Chevy and bought a '55 HT Belaire PG that was bone stock. $350 back then.

Dam, I wished I had it back, but I wrecked the HT later and sold the 265 to a kid that blew up his '57 283 engine so I ended up with it in exchange.

I'm talking like '63 or maybe '64 here!!!

I later asked his Dad about the 265 and he said that his shit-head Son later blew it up too..

I told him that the 265 was a good engine and he agreed... Shaking his head..... Like, what the fu*k....

Jay helped me put my old junk301 engine together and all he said was that it would be loose, but fine!!

Wore out small journal early 327 block with 1/8" over FI domed 283 W/JCW cast pistons stock bore and a used '-97 Duntov cam that I coffee canned the lifters..

And it was loose!! Up like 7500 rpm or so!!!

Hell, it had to have had .015" on the pistons! W/JCW cast, el-cheapo $39 jobbers....

An early '60's 301 is one tough engine!! I took it up to I don't know how high many a times!!

pdq67
pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9793
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm
Location:

Re:

Post by pdq67 »

C Stevens wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:44 pm
Look at the underside of the bores, if the area is flat instead of curved, don't even think about a stroker...even 3.25. Don't ask how I know.
IMHO, the curved lower deal is OK for a 3.25" crank. Other wise not. for 3.48" crank or a 3.75" arm.

pdq67
pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9793
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm
Location:

Re: 283 CHEV BLOCKS?

Post by pdq67 »

My how I love the little 3" stroked engines!

Up like above 7 to 8,000 rpm!!

A decent solid flat tappet lifter cam and GO!!

Heck, even the little bitty -097 Duntov is a dandy, but say a Z-30 Isky will really sing.

Imho, even much better than the old 30-30 cam.

pdq67
dondon
Member
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:30 pm
Location:

Re: 283 CHEV BLOCKS?

Post by dondon »

I don't believe a late 283 cast crank will fit in a early 283 block that had a forged crank
jred
Pro
Pro
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:14 am
Location: tucson arizona
Contact:

Re: 283 CHEV BLOCKS?

Post by jred »

1962 is when they changed the bottom of the bore to the scalloped shape steel 283 cranks were small counterweights and cast 283 cranks were the larger counterweight like the s/j 327 steel crank back in the day used to bore them .125 all the time you could make a 301 or 327 using a 3in or 3.250 crank never had 1 sonic tested but never had a problem either..
pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9793
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm
Location:

Re: 283 CHEV BLOCKS?

Post by pdq67 »

I want to say that all the early 283 cranks were forged.

Say like a '67 or newer crank were cast?

But please check me here...

pdq67
engineguyBill
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 1215
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:15 am
Location: Gold Canyon, AZ

Re: 283 CHEV BLOCKS?

Post by engineguyBill »

Early 283s were often bored to 4.000" with no problems, but anything larger than 4.000" for these blocks would be a crap shoot. Not all 283 blocks have the same amount of material in the cylinders. The castings were reduced in total amount of material (cast iron) around 1962 or 1964 and some of these later blocks will not successfully accept 4.000" bore.
Bill

Perfect Circle Doctor of Motors certification
SAE Member (30 years)
ASE Master Certified Engine Machinist (+ two otherASE Master Certifications)
AERA Certified Professional Engine Machinist
Post Reply