"back in the day...."

[CHEV66JB]

I just got back from a local car cruise where I brought my '66 Malibu- I got to talking with a guy I'd never met before, and I told him when the '66 gets painted, I'm moving directly on to my next project, which all of you here have lovingly come to know as "Project '59". He asked what motor I was going to run in it, and I told him that since that car originally came w/a 283, and since I have a spare 283 in the garage right now from my '66 Malibu, that I would probably go with that (for now)...

At that point he said "well, back in the day, we would take those engines and put 327 cranks into them, making them into 301's.." he continued on by saying that "those motors would really kick @$$" and that he thought that was the avenue I should pursue with mine, since I'm not making it into an all-original car. I love hearing those kinds of details from those of you out there who helped make cars into the hobby that they are today for many of us..

I do have a 327 crank in the garage as well, and wondered if any "old-schoolers" could provide any further details on this engine combination- And MAN, what a beautiful day for a cruise today!!!

Thanks,

Jim

 

[corvettegreg]

never heard of that combination, and if you calculate it out it equals 306 cu in.

The 301's I used to build were 283's bored out to 4" (or a 327 block) which used 327 pistons with the 283 crank and rods. This calculates to 301.5 cu in, and is sililar in specs to the 302 used in the late 60's Z28 Camaros.

These motors ran as strong as a 327 and due to the shorter stroke they would wind up quickly. The last one I built was about 10 years ago and I dropped it in a 63 Nova SS and would that baby run.

 

[corvettegreg]

the more I think about that combination (283 block with a 327 crank) that has about the same specs as the 307 cu in motor used in Novas, Camaro, Impalas, etc in the early 70's. That motor was good for only one thing...a boat anchor!

 

[studiog]

My 2 cents... A 327 crank will not fit the early 283 blocks as they were not clearanced before 1962 like the later 283 blocks were. You will also need a small journal 327 crank (which most are except 68-69) for a 283 block. The 4" bore and 3" stroke is commonly referred to as a 302 CID motor (actual 301.59 CID?)

 

[studiog]

the more I think about that combination (283 block with a 327 crank) that has about the same specs as the 307 cu in motor used in Novas, Camaro, Impalas, etc in the early 70's. That motor was good for only one thing...a boat anchor!

The 307 was a 327 crank and a 283 bore... completely different combo. than a 302 which is a 283 crank and a 4" bore.

The only thing bad about the 307 was that it was relegated to an economy/utility status usually with a 2 barrel carb and a lame cam and low compression.

 

[4 webers]

I have been in the Hobby for a long time , since the fifties in fact . There were and still are a number of the small journal concoctions ie: 301 plus or minus 1/2 cubic inch still running around this neck of the woods . They all rev fast and high and are capable of giving you a good run for the money !


geo

 

[CHEV66JB]

Re:

Looks like I've created quite a stir here!

I actually have a complete 327 that I could put into the '59 (that's where the extra crank would come from), but since my Dad mentioned that the car came stock w/the 283, I thought it might be nice to do what he liked AND give the 283 some ballz.. He swears by the 283's (he's 61, so that was the motor of choice back in his day I believe), and since the '59 is basically being built in his honor, I didn't want to take away the fun of it for him- I think it's great though that you have all jumped in with your input.. God Bless the Internet!

Regards,

Jim

 

[Neal]

Looks like I've created quite a stir here!

I actually have a complete 327 that I could put into the '59 (that's where the extra crank would come from), but since my Dad mentioned that the car came stock w/the 283, I thought it might be nice to do what he liked AND give the 283 some ballz.. He swears by the 283's (he's 61, so that was the motor of choice back in his day I believe), and since the '59 is basically being built in his honor, I didn't want to take away the fun of it for him- I think it's great though that you have all jumped in with your input.. God Bless the Internet!

Regards,

Jim

Although I'm a bit younger (51) than your Dad, I've gotta agree with him. I learned to drive in a '66 Chevelle with a 283, had a '65 Scout that I dropped a 283 in (really screamed with the original rear end, although I blew the spider gears a few times), a '58 Vette back in the mid-70's with a 283 and now have a '58 with a, yes, 283, albeit not original. They are work horses that you can't beat with a stick. I also remember reading somewhere once that an older Vette is worth more with a "correct" engine, even if not original. That was one of the reasons I bought mine rather than two others I was considering that both had 350s in them. A great engine, but it ain't a 283.

 

[CHEV66JB]

Re:

Neal,

Thanks for the info! Every time my Dad points out a 283 in a car at a show, his famous line is, "those suckers will fool ya".. He's mentioned how his 283 beat many a car on the street back in his day, but now at 11PM I can't remember a one of them!

Jim

 

[vetteman64]

Your 283 w/327 crank will then be a "307" but keep in mind that the "junk" 307 used the same block as the "good" 283 but with different casting #'s. If you just want an original look you could even use a 400 CI, dressed to the 59 Corvette look. Oops, did I just give away my "secret" 59 Vette engine ! Keep that in mind if you see a white 59 w/red coves, it might just also have a T-56 and wider tires/wheels.
C Ya, Joe
Frankenstein 59

 

[1KULC7]

Rember this, the original Hemi was a 301 CI engine. Before the appearance of the 327 in 1963 many people punched out the 283 to a gas injected 301 CI engine, especiall some of the new drag cars we called RAILS. If I remember correctly Mickey Thompson used the 301 for drag racing, often enlarging the oil lines and it was one of the first engines to use aluminum pistons. Now if I remember correctly it was not the 283 block used, but it was the 265 CI block that was bored out to 301 Ci and used the 327 crank....if y ou do the math, the 283 does not bore out to a 301. DEBBS AUTOBODY who had one of the fastest shoebox chevys had a 265 bored out to a 301 with gas injectors....eight of them.

The 265 was a very powerful small V8 that was used for drags as well as the track...can anybody back me up???

 

[Ken]

The first Hemi was a 331cid engine: Model: C51-8; Year: 1951; Car Line: Chrysler; Fuel Delivery: 2-bbl; Comp. Ratio: 7.5:1; Horsepower (Power Pack): 180.

However, for 1955 there was a 301cid Poly head engine: Model: WE55; Year: 1955; Car Line: Chrysler; Fuel Delivery: N/A; Comp. Ratio: 8.1:1; Horsepower (Power Pack): 188.

And yes, the 265cid Chevy small block was drag raced successfully for many years, still is in some classes.

 

[MMM]

As stated in other replies, the "301" had a 4" bore (stock 327 & 350 bore) and a 3" stroke (stock 283 & 265 stroke). I remember reading an article by Smokey Yunick that claimed this combination had an "ideal rod length to stroke ratio" of something to that extent which was the reason it seemed to have a better "power to cid" ratio than other Chevy small blocks. I also recall that he played around with special rods/pistons on larger cid small blocks to create the same ratio. However, the 'home-built' 301's suffered from having to use the relatively weak small journal 283/327 rod. With this engines propensity to rev, rod failures were common. I think the later ('66 & '67) small journal rods are stronger, but still nothing great. If you are really considering this option, I would advise you consider aftermarket rods. The Factory 302's used a high quality large journal rod.
One last point. Ever notice the cid of any 4 inch bore engine is roughly equivalent to the length of the stroke (multiplied by 100). i.e., in chevys, 3" stroke = 301 cid, 3.25 = 327, 3.48 = 350! Only works for 4" bore.
Mike

 

[Ken]

Smokey's books are across the room, but Lingenfelter's is right at hand, so I'll cite information from John's book regarding ideal rod length to stroke ratio.

The ... relationship is expressed as a ratio of the engine's rod length divided by its stroke. The 350's R/L ratio computes out to 1.64:1. As you will see, as the stroke increases it's necessary to lengthen the rod in order to maintain the R/L ratio. An excellent ratio would be over 1.71:1. A 3.48-inch stroke with a 6.0-inch rod creates a 1.72:1 R/L ratio.

The length of a connecting rod does have an affect both on power and durability. The small block Chevy is especially limited with its rather short 9.025-inch deck height, making rod length an important consideration even for street engines. As you've seen in the chapter on displacements, the 383, 406, and 420-inch small blocks typically employ strokes of 3.75- to 3.875-inches. Increasing stroke decreases the available room for the connecting rod even when the wrist pin is moved closer to the ring package. The situation is most evident with the 5.565-inch long rod used in the production 400. This 0.135-inch shorter rod combined with the 400's 3.75-inch stroke tends to increase rod angularity which increases piston loading on the thrust side of the cylinder wall. In essence, this angle tends to shove the piston into the cylinder wall on the thrust side. Shorter rods also tend to accelerate the piston away from TDC more quickly.

One way to look at rod length is to compare it to the engine's stroke. This is because rod angle is affected by both rod length and stroke. In other words, a 5.7-inch rod creates a much more acute angle in a 3.75-inch stroke engine than it does with a 3.00-inch stroke. This relationship is best expressed by dividing the rod length by the stroke, creating a rod length-to-stroke (R/L) ratio. For example, a 350's 3.48-inch stroke with a stock 5.7-inch rod length generates a 1.64:1 R/L ratio. A stock 400 drops the ratio to 1.59:1 with its longer 3.75-inch stroke and 5.565-inch connecting rod. Conversely, a 302 with its 3.00-inch stroke and a 5.7-inch rod creates a more favorable 1.9:1 R/L ratio.

Like many engine builders, I personally favor a long rod relative to the stroke to reduce frictional losses and bore wear. This is why spending the extra money to put 5.7-inch long rods in a 383 using a 400 crank (requiring more expensive pistons) is a good bet. The least expensive approach is to use the stock 5.565-inch rods, but this tends to place additional pressure on the cylinder walls which also creates additional friction. Longer 5.7-inch rods are a better choice. The worst case small block is the 420 with its 3.875-inch stroke. Even with 5.850-inch rods, the R/L ratio is a short 1.51:1. While this is less than ideal, my 420's are usually aimed at maximizing torque and not high rpm horsepower. Therefore, a shorter R/L ratio isn't a critical problem. In order to create a more comfortable 1.64:1 R/L ratio, the rod would have to be 6.355-inches long! A more typical ratio would be 1.58:1 with this engine using a 6.125-inch rod. Even this would require a tall deck block like the Oldsmobile Rocket block.

 

[bossvette]

Here is what I remember about 283-301(2) I had 3 all together, the first started out a 327-300 small journal block which I put a 283 crank from a 270 hp; it was what we refered to as a 301 it had the Duntov 097 cam or 8&18 a some called it with the factory dual WCFB's and "fuelie" heads

The next was a factory 302 with the large journals bought as a short block to replace the above after throwing a rod
the third was a DZ in a 69 Z-28 all three loved to rev and were quite docile in the lower rpms.

you could quite easily build a 302 or even a 283 using more modern parts (large journal block) and a 68-69 302 crank

but my $.02 is build a 270 clone using the 097 cam and an Edelbrock dual quad set-up either in 283 or 302 and with a nice set of 4:11's you will have a blast and your Dad will think he is in a time machine

 

[Viking427]

I'll just copy/paste from a similar thread (over on CF) and add this;
-all those people "back in the day" boring out shoebox chevy 265/283's to 4.00" were drag racers who built them to the ragged edge, ran the snot out of them on the tracks and retired them shortly afterward (theres a reason you never saw a 301 in endurance racing). Early 283 cylinder walls were quite thin at 4.00" and were usually a hassle to keep cool on the street. Unfortunately, these same race 301's were gaining publicity and are what wide-eyed kids saw tearing up the drag strips, fondly remember, and perpetuated the legend forward to future generations. No doubt they ran like snot, but certainly at the cost of longevity. GM began casting thick wall 283 blocks in the 1964-65 time frame that could stand a 4.00" bore safely for long-term street use without the need for Caterpillar radiators ..or a mop



**************************************
Follow standard rebuild practices, build sensible (275-300 hp), keep the stock power pack heads (1.72" valves), resize/replace the rods and use good ARP fasteners. Stock 283 cast pistons (no 283 ever came from GM with forged pistons) can still be had, or Ross etc. can make a set of forged for you. Forget roller cams and all the other Jegs/Summit go-fast goodies, you'll never see any benefit from them in a sensibly built 283. The motor will rev to 6k with no trouble (like the 302's, 283's love to rev) and you'll be happy. Now if your looking to extract maximum power from the mouse, their are a few points to keep in mind re 283's;

-1957 283 blocks cannot be bored to 4.00 inches (+.125")-they're thinwall castings.
-1958 & newer 283 blocks might stand boring to 4.00" ..if the cylinders were centered in the block during casting ..and you don't mind the likelyhood of a hotter running engine.
-Late 1964 & newer 283 blocks will accomodate a 3.25" stroke crank. To save costs, GM intro'd the nodular cast crank this year (for both 283 and 327) that required larger diameter counterweights than the denser forged cranks needed. GM merged the 283 and 327 machining lines & began shaving the main saddles and cylinder bottoms to clear the larger counterweights. GM also changed 283 castings to allow the extra meat for the grinding (ie. don't attempt clearance grinding a pre-64 283 block to clear a 3.25" crank).
-Any SBC head with valves larger than 1.94" will suffer from
"shrouding" (intake valve too close to cylinder wall) if used on the stock 3.875" bore 283.
-Crower (possibly others?) can supply custom 3.25" forged stroker reciprocating assembly with cranks that will clear the pre-64 283 blocks (within their "enduro" product line) ..for about $2500+ last time I checked.

As you can see, you'll be dollars and sense ahead by going straight to a 4.00" bore block (327/350/400) to build a strong SBC without breaking the bank.


283 motor guys: A little theoretical bench racing for fun!
I've been thinking about building up (eventually) the old 283 that my dad has left over. It's just the short block, so I'd have to add heads, intake, etc.

I was thinking about using vortecs for heads and a Perf. RPM intake, but I wanted to know about the bottom end components and cam selection.

Do aftermarket companies have rods and pistons available, or is it just stock replacement stuff. I suppose that prepped stock rods would be okay to use, but considering how long the motor has been sitting I don't know their condition. Ditto the crank and pistons. I'm looking for a 6000 rpm safe redline.

Now on the cam, I was thinking about doing a retro fit for a hydraulic roller, and using the Magnum cam with 206 duration (.050) and .500 lift. The duration should be low enough that it won't be too wild a cam for the small motor. I checked it out with desktop dyno and the power peak was at about 5000-5500 IIRC, but I could always retard the cam some if I need a little more top end.

(This motor would be going in a 3rd gen Firebird w/ a manual trans btw)

Anyhow, I just wanted to see if anybody here had experience with a 283 and could comment on my bench racing combo here!
**********************************************

 

[4 webers]

I built a bunch of the 301's back in the day , and only had one cylinder wall failure . That was after more than two years of rather spirited street driving I might add . 6k + rpm was no problem at all and would have more left .


geo

 

[Tom Bryant]

I never built a 301 but there were a few in town that were real screemers. My best 283 combo in my '56 Bel Air hardtop was 097 cam (Duntov), basically stock short block, mildly ported Power Pack heads, iron 327/300 intake with an E series AFB (625 cfm), set up Vette dual point, old style Headman headers and straight thru mufflers on stock dual pipes, 3 speed with Hurst shifter, a 3.70 Twin Pull out back and 9.00/15 4 plys with not much tread left. I embarassed many a new GTO and SS Chevelle with that car in the stoplight wars. Got a few of them in the quarter too mostly due to the fact that they couldn't get traction.

As has been said these babys like to rev and that was good incentive to keep a good battery in the old Sun tack sender.

Tom

 

[henny496]

Hello
If you have a love for the 283 then you should build one. There is a saying " there is no substitute for cubic inches" so a 350 being 70 cubes bigger, has a head start on the smaller motor. Smaller motors make more horsepower per cubic inch. This is why drag racers use the smaller motors as some classes are at a lb/ per /cubic inch level.
The 283 could use a stronger rod bolt also, I think they are only 11/32.
I do remember a guy (Allan Marsh of Engineered Racing) who had a 60 corvette which ran in modified production(B M/P)? and it was a 311 cu inch motor. He spun it to the far side of 11,000 rpm. That would be back in the early eighties.( not cheap)
Pro stockers(NHRA) also ran in lbs/cu/in but went to the 500 cu in level sometime in the eighties. The IHRA pro stockers run motors up to a little over 800 cu/inches.
A high reving small block has a sound of its own.
take care
Tom

 

[Ken]

A high reving small block has a sound of its own.

Oh yeah!