Has anyone out there put a 350 crank into a 1964 Chevy 283 block? [Actually the crank is a 3.562 stroke Eagle crank ] Besides the journal sizes what are the problems one would get into with this swap? Would there be a balance problem with the 2.100 rod journals using a 6.00 rod? I have found from a machinest that a 3.75 400 crank would need to have the weights turned down to get a 400 crank into a 283 block and mucho dollars. Just trying to build something different. Jerry

How come when I ask for exact information I usually receive none. When I ask for opinions I am flooded? Come on. You are better than this

Has anyone out there put a 350 crank into a 1964 Chevy 283 block? [Actually the crank is a 3.562 stroke Eagle crank ] Besides the journal sizes what are the problems one would get into with this swap? Would there be a balance problem with the 2.100 rod journals using a 6.00 rod? I have found from a machinest that a 3.75 400 crank would need to have the weights turned down to get a 400 crank into a 283 block and mucho dollars. Just trying to build something different. Jerry

Balancing should not be a problem but grinding down the mains that far some times will move the oil holes near the radius instead of keeping the oil holes in the center, The bottom of the cylinders will need clearancing and the webbing of those old blocks is not very strong compared a 350 block but we have installed splayed caps on those blocks before.

Very good info. I do thank you. Jerry

how big of an engine would you end up with?
my "auto math handbook" is packed away somewhere in the basement.

I have experience stroking two different SJ blocks.

The first was a '59 CU code 283. I had the block bored out to 4.00". Then had a 3.75" 4340 GM crank with 350 sized mains turned down to fit the block. The counterweights had to be turned down. The machinist used 6.00" 350 sized rods, instead of the 6.00" SJ rods he was supposed to. The rods required minimal clearance. The crank's counterweights had to be turned down to clear the block; this required a lot of mallory metal to balance. The block was studded (in hindsight, I probably should have gone with 4 bolt splayed main caps from Program Enginering).

There was a tap on start-up. Turned out to be a rod knock. Didn't really get to drive the car. Most expensive engine I ever had built, and we missed taking the car on our honeymoon because of it. (It's OK though, I feel good knowing the guy that built the engine went scuba diving the weekend I pulled it back out!) Anyway, used every machining operation the schmuck recommended, top shelf parts, and had to suffer through several versions of the guys' "you get what you pay for" BS. Apparently you do... he's had the engine back for a year, and he just got my crank back from the shop last week... says it will be done by the end of Feb. We'll see.

Since I started the stroked 283, Speed-o-Motive began selling SJ stroker crank kits. This would have been a cheaper way for me to go, and I would have had the cranks been available when I started my project.

My second experience is with stroking a 1962 327. This engine is currently at Johnson Machine Services, and will be done soon. I got a 3.875 Callies crank from a guy I know that had spun a bearing; it was mine for the cost of having it machined down from 350 rod/main sizes to those of the early SJ blocks. Ordered 6.00" SJ Manley rods from Wolfeplace. I had the block set-up with program engineering's splayed 4 bolt main caps. Pistons will have to be custom made; I think the machinist ordered Ross... I deferred to his judgement.

The free 3.875" stroke added considerably to the cost of this project. The SJ stroker kit from Speedo would have probably been a better investment, given our intended use of the engine.

BTW, I believe another TC member, DZAUTO, put a 350 crank into a 307 (same bore as a 283). 307s may have the same sized rod and main journals as a 350 though, I dunno.

BTW, I believe another TC member, DZAUTO, put a 350 crank into a 307 (same bore as a 283). 307s may have the same sized rod and main journals as a 350 though, I dunno.

I've never put a 350 or SB400 crank into a 283 block. Although, it's my understanding the later 283 blocks (mid/late 60s) have sufficient clearance. I have put 350 cranks into small journal 327 blocks simply by having the mains cut down (as well as a little cut off of the flange between the rear main and rear seal journals). And of course, EVERYONE is familiar with a 400 crank into a 350 block (makes a 383). A 350 crank into a 307 is a too easy drop in. With a .030 bore and a 350 crank, this makes about 336 from the 307, which is only 14inches smaller than a 350, thus you would build one of these just as you would build any other 350.

Earlier I mentioned that the later 283 blocks had more clearance (for crank counterweights) than the earlier 283 blocks. I believe this increased clearance in the later 283 blocks occured when the 327 was introduced. The 327 blocks do require more clearance, and so when they were cast the molds for the 283 blocks were changed which gave them the same (or similar) added room for a bigger crank.
Also, I personally have never put a SB400 crank into a a 283 block, but the machinist that I use says he has had customers who have had him machine a 400 crank to fit into a 283 block. So, obviously, it can be done. Also, I have helped a friend build a 383 using a small journal 327 block and a 400 crank. The 400 mains were cut down to 350 size, then the 327 block was line bored to the bigger main bore size of a 350 block. Actually, it was a rather straight forward process. The 2 bolt main caps were retained but the longer 350 bolts (actually studs) were used. Made a good engine! This engine was specifically built this way so that he could retain his original matching number 327 in his 66 Vette. His engine did have one easy give away, it had a 400 balancer on it!!! At the time, he didn't know about using Mallory metal to do an internal balance so that he could have also retained his 327 balancer.
A few years ago, I built a SB400 for my 56 Vette and had it internally balanced specifically so that I didn't have to use that 400 balancer (which is a dead giveaway that you have a 400 (or 383).

The size would be somewhere around 360 inches. The easier and cheaper route is to use a 327 or 350 block but this defeats my purpose of keeping my matching numbers 283 engine in my one owner numbers matching 64 Chevelle SS convertible with a factory 4 speed. Jerry. Thanks for the help

Thanks so much for your interesting info. You say Speed O Motive sells stroker kits for the early 283 and 327 blocks? If this is the case then I am on my way which would let me skip Jail and go directly to home plate. Many thanks Jerry

Many many thanks guys. You have so helpful and all of you have been positive which is very refreshing indeed. Jerry

Seem to remember that "back in the day" there were MANY 327 based engines running around as '354's or so...............

Seem to remember that "back in the day" there were MANY 327 based engines running around as '354's or so...............

Oh yes, quite true. I've built a couple of these. A small journal 327 block, bored .030, turn down the mains on a 350 crank. VOILA, you have a 355! :thumbsup: In addition to turning down the mains of a 350 crank to fit the small journal block, it is also necessary to slightly turn down the flange between the rear main jorunal and the the rear seal journal of the 350 crank. The reason is because the groove in the block/cap of a small journal block is slightly smaller than the groove in a 350 block. Toooooooooooooo easy!

A "round-bottomed" 283 block should be fine b/c it's basically a 327 block!!

And didn't GM use the same casting number on all four blocks, 283/302/327/350????? And in '67, just bore the 350's mains out to medium journal size???

pdq67

You say a round bottom 283 block? I do not know this term. Please tell me more. Jerry

When the 327 came out, they rounded the bottoms of the cylinders so it's crank counterweights would clear is all b/c they are bigger in dia than the old 265 and 283's.

Look in the block's lower end from the "bottom up", (straight down if she's up-side-down on a stand), and if they are flat, it's an earlier 265 or 283.

Rounded down in there and it's a later 283, 302 and 327 block.. And I figure, also a '67, 350 that's just had bigger main saddles machined in it.. But I can't prove it..

pdq67

PS., and I do figure that a "round-bottomed" 283 block should bore safely to .155" over just like a .030" over 302 and 327 and probably .185" over b/c there have been MANY a .060" over 327's made through the years that ran fine!!

But in doubt, sonic check the thicknesses of all the cylinderwalls so you will know for sure and not waste a bunch of money on too thin cylinders before boring her out to the MAX................

I had my 59 283 sonic checked before boring it out to 4.00". I was told it would safley go another .030"

I've never put a 350 or SB400 crank into a 283 block. Although, it's my understanding the later 283 blocks (mid/late 60s) have sufficient clearance. I have put 350 cranks into small journal 327 blocks simply by having the mains cut down (as well as a little cut off of the flange between the rear main and rear seal journals). And of course, EVERYONE is familiar with a 400 crank into a 350 block (makes a 383). A 350 crank into a 307 is a too easy drop in. With a .030 bore and a 350 crank, this makes about 336 from the 307, which is only 14inches smaller than a 350, thus you would build one of these just as you would build any other 350.

Earlier I mentioned that the later 283 blocks had more clearance (for crank counterweights) than the earlier 283 blocks. I believe this increased clearance in the later 283 blocks occured when the 327 was introduced. The 327 blocks do require more clearance, and so when they were cast the molds for the 283 blocks were changed which gave them the same (or similar) added room for a bigger crank.
Also, I personally have never put a SB400 crank into a a 283 block, but the machinist that I use says he has had customers who have had him machine a 400 crank to fit into a 283 block. So, obviously, it can be done. Also, I have helped a friend build a 383 using a small journal 327 block and a 400 crank. The 400 mains were cut down to 350 size, then the 327 block was line bored to the bigger main bore size of a 350 block. Actually, it was a rather straight forward process. The 2 bolt main caps were retained but the longer 350 bolts (actually studs) were used. Made a good engine! This engine was specifically built this way so that he could retain his original matching number 327 in his 66 Vette. His engine did have one easy give away, it had a 400 balancer on it!!! At the time, he didn't know about using Mallory metal to do an internal balance so that he could have also retained his 327 balancer.
A few years ago, I built a SB400 for my 56 Vette and had it internally balanced specifically so that I didn't have to use that 400 balancer (which is a dead giveaway that you have a 400 (or 383).

Mallory metal? and what do the guys do with it?
The 65 I picked up for my son had an engine that I believe to be a 350 with a 400 crank (with the smaller 350 balancer on it, WHY?) I have yet to tear in to it because I dont know didly about engines...
Anyhow the car had hand painted lettering on the front fenders that said 9/16 with a painted Chevy emblem you know some of the silly stuff guys did back then with Murals and such.

I am assuming a 9/16 stroker from the old days? What ever this would mean? Would this be the same as a 383?

What would this engine be? or what work would have been done to it?

This engine was built more than 20 years ago and I was told it cost alot to build and was all balanced, and would flat out fly back in the day as I remember the sound and speed as I knew who owned it before buying the car from the guy that bought the car from that owner a couple of years ago.

This seemed like a good tread to jump in and ask what I could have... and what parts of this engine could be reused as I had the engine running last year after knowing it has not been running for 15 years, but it has some knocking going on but ran good, and did not smoke at all running around the yard from front garage to back yard garage while doing some body work on it.

The engine is stored in my shed now as it was taken out of the car and is still all intack... I plan to get some help this summer and take apart and see what I have for sure and see if its rebuildable? and again if any thing is worth saving? or reuseing?

DZ or anybody that can give me somemore info about this engine would be great...I mention something about this engine before here awhile back and was pretty much told it was a 383

But for some reason I dont know why but think it could be something little different that a 383.

Thanks for any replys, Dan

Dan,
A little explanation and background first.
ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Chevy V8s, except the SB400 and 454, are balanced internally (all engines are balanced, just as you balance tires, either at the factory or by the person who is building an engine from scratch). Thus, the harmonic balancer and the flywheel has a neutral balance. That means when you spin the balancer of flywheel, it is (or should be) perfectly balanced.
But, for the SB400 and 454, there isn't enough metal on the crankshaft counterweights to balance those engines internally. Therefore, they require a balancer and a flywheel which has an added weight on one side for the purpose of balancing the engine's rotating assembly. This is where the term external balanced comes from, because these engines are balanced by the use of additional external weight. As a result, The 400 and 454 must have their own unique balancer and flywheel even though they will physically bolt onto other engines.
The SB400 and the 454 engines CAN be balanced internally, which will allow them to use a "regular" balancer and flywheel. To balance a 400 or 454 internally, a hole(s) must be drilled through one or more of the crankshaft counter weights and then a "heavy" metal is pressed into that hole which added weight to that counter weight. Mallory makes metal slugs specifically for being added to crankshafts for balancing purposes. Thus, the term "Mallory metal". Also, to convert an external balanced engine to internal balanced, it is (depending on how much Mallory metal must be added) somewhat more expensive than just having a regular balance done, maybe $100-400 ADDITIONAL.
FOR A STREET/PERFORMANCE SB400 OR A 454, IT IS ESSENTIALLY A WASTE OF MONEY TO HAVE ONE OF THESE ENGINES INTERNALLY BALANCED. But, if that is what a person wants to have done to their engine, its their money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with paying extra to have an engine internally balanced and then using a regular neutral balance flywheel and balancer.
The flywheels for both a 400 and 454 have an added weight cast into them (the flexplates for an auto tranny have a weight welded to them). The 400 balancer has a big groove cast into it about halfway around the outer ring (THERE IS NO MISTAKE TO IDENTIFYING A 400 BALANCER!).
The 454 balancer has an added weight INSIDE the inner hub. Thus, it either has to be off the crank to see this added weight, or, you have to get under the car so that you can look up behind the balancer to see this weight (sometimes you can use an inspection mirror to see the weight). Also, if you can get your fingers around behind the 454 balancer, you can feel and tell if it has the added weight.

Of all the engines that I've built in the last 35-40yrs, I've only had one externally balanced engine (one of my own SB400s) converted to INternally balanced. Can't tell any difference!
Hope this helps.

By the way, I need to slightly modify my above comments. When I said ALL Chevy V8s, that specifically referred to the small blocks up through 85 and big blocks up through 90. When the small blocks went to a one-piece rear main seal (like a big O-ring) in 1986, then they used an UNbalanced flywheel for balance purposes. The BBs (454-502-572) still had flywheels with an added weight.

I have two 283 engines that for sure are 64 model engines. Both were made in Flint in Sept 1963. This is pure fact not something someone told me. What is the minimal thickness of the cylinder walls that I can safely run in a normal high performance engine. I am keeping the compression below 10-1. Your comment is not the first that I have heard about maximum overbore on the 1962, 1963 and 1964 283 blocks. Several old timers like me have said they have safely bored these 283 engines out to 4 inches then bored them again to 4.030. One problem I have encountered is most people who I hear and those who talk and email me are the 350, 383 or 400 fellows and a 327 or 283 is so ancient they feel I am beating a dead mouse. I am retired and 60 yrs old. The persons who know about these old motors are nearing retirement also. Some of the younger fellows who work in machine shops know what can and cannot be done. I have had some of the best information out of this last series of contacts through Team Chevelle. It is remarkable that so many knowlegeable people have taken time to give me their advise and share their own personnel experiences. Again many thanks and if any more of you Chevy fans have anything to add to my 283 big inch mouse engine please get right in there. PS Brodix has just finished my 461X heads. They fully ported and gave these heads the works including large valves. The next trip is taking these humper heads to another machine shop to remill the double humps into a rectangle with a steeple point on top just like the 283 power pak heads. I could use some 3.562 pistons and 6 inch H rods. I am not certain of the bore and journal size but if you have any I will keep your number untill I can get the sizes sorted out. Thanks much Jerry

Dan,
A little explanation and background first.
ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Chevy V8s, except the SB400 and 454, are balanced internally (all engines are balanced, just as you balance tires, either at the factory or by the person who is building an engine from scratch). Thus, the harmonic balancer and the flywheel has a neutral balance. That means when you spin the balancer of flywheel, it is (or should be) perfectly balanced.
But, for the SB400 and 454, there isn't enough metal on the crankshaft counterweights to balance those engines internally. Therefore, they require a balancer and a flywheel which has an added weight on one side for the purpose of balancing the engine's rotating assembly. This is where the term external balanced comes from, because these engines are balanced by the use of additional external weight. As a result, The 400 and 454 must have their own unique balancer and flywheel even though they will physically bolt onto other engines.
The SB400 and the 454 engines CAN be balanced internally, which will allow them to use a "regular" balancer and flywheel. To balance a 400 or 454 internally, a hole(s) must be drilled through one or more of the crankshaft counter weights and then a "heavy" metal is pressed into that hole which added weight to that counter weight. Mallory makes metal slugs specifically for being added to crankshafts for balancing purposes. Thus, the term "Mallory metal". Also, to convert an external balanced engine to internal balanced, it is (depending on how much Mallory metal must be added) somewhat more expensive than just having a regular balance done, maybe $100-400 ADDITIONAL.
FOR A STREET/PERFORMANCE SB400 OR A 454, IT IS ESSENTIALLY A WASTE OF MONEY TO HAVE ONE OF THESE ENGINES INTERNALLY BALANCED. But, if that is what a person wants to have done to their engine, its their money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with paying extra to have an engine internally balanced and then using a regular neutral balance flywheel and balancer.
The flywheels for both a 400 and 454 have an added weight cast into them (the flexplates for an auto tranny have a weight welded to them). The 400 balancer has a big groove cast into it about halfway around the outer ring (THERE IS NO MISTAKE TO IDENTIFYING A 400 BALANCER!).
The 454 balancer has an added weight INSIDE the inner hub. Thus, it either has to be off the crank to see this added weight, or, you have to get under the car so that you can look up behind the balancer to see this weight (sometimes you can use an inspection mirror to see the weight). Also, if you can get your fingers around behind the 454 balancer, you can feel and tell if it has the added weight.

Of all the engines that I've built in the last 35-40yrs, I've only had one externally balanced engine (one of my own SB400s) converted to INternally balanced. Can't tell any difference!
Hope this helps.

Thanks for replying DZ,
This block is a earlier than 85 010 350 block with a 400 crank as mentioned before. IT must have been internally balanced years ago as it has the 350 balancer with no weight on the flexplate...
Do you think it is possible for me to reuse the crank and pistons or either or am I just reaching for speed in a stupid place trying to save money I dont really have.
Could it be possible for me even reuse the block and all maybe with a rering and also reuse the crank also with some machine work and different bearings and maybe get lucky?

Or is this whole engine a boat anchor with no chain that I should just throw overboard? Thanks for an honest opinion if you will.
Dan

Dan,
THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW if any or all of the engine is re-usable is to tear it down, take it to the machine shop and have your machinist check it for wear.
GENERALLY speaking, you like to have about .003-.004 clearance between the pistons and cylinder walls. IF, JUST IF, the cylinders can be lightly honed enough to clean them up, you COULD get by with as much as .005-.007 piston clearance. That much clearance for the pistons is MORE than ideal, but it CAN be done.
Same with the crank. Your machinist will need to measure it for wear. It is possible that it may not have significant wear and can just be polished (which is much cheaper than having the crank turned).
If either or both of the above should be what you have, then it would be possible to lightly hone the cylinders, polish the crank and put it back together with new rings and bearings. THAT IS THE BEST CASE SCENARIO------------------but don't plan on it!!!!
From there, it may need to be bored, which means BOTH new pistons and rings. The crank could have lots of wear, which means it will need to be turned and then new undersize bearings will be required.
Most assuredly you will need to replace the cam and lifters, timing chain and gears, and, if you have the block vatted, new cam bearings and freeze plugs will need to be pressed in.
Can the old cam/lifters be re-used? Yes, IF the cam lobes and bottoms of the lifters are in near perfect condition--------------------AND, IF YOU MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE TO PUT THE LIFTERS BACK ON THE SAME LOBES THAT THEY WERE ON BEFORE REMOVING THE CAM. To save lifters for re-using, I use a 2x4 board, mark an arrow on one end (to indicate forward), drill two rows of 8 holes the size of a lifter and then as I remove each lifter (ONE AT A TIME) I place it into the corrosponding hole in the board.
If the oil pump has been maintaining good pressure, you can re-use it. But new oil pumps are cheap and it is a good idea to install a new one.
All of this stuff adds up, a few dollars here, a few dollars there, a few dollars somewhere else. Before you know it, you've spent several hundred or maybe $2000-3000 to rebuild an engine. If you are on an extremely tight budget, then it becomes necessary to decide where to cut corners. Some decisions are tough, some decisions result in unwanted problems because you cut one too many corners.

Finally, to get around to answering your initial question. Is the engine useable?
As long as the block doesn't have a serious problem, such as a bad crack, or, if it has already been bored to the max, and, if the crank is in good shape and hasn't been turned beyond what you can still get bearings for, then yes, it certainly is useable. Machine shops can generally correct most conditions that are a result of normal (or even abnormal) wear.
If the engine hasn't had a lot of severe abuse and spent all of its time in a hardcore race car, then it is VERY probalbe that the rods are in good shape.

When buying parts for rebuilding an engine, I FIRST find out from my machinist how much the block needs to be bored (if needed) and how much the crank needs to be turned (I ALWAYS have him measure it to see if it can just be polished). Once I have that information, I buy all my parts from the discount mail order houses, such as Jummit, Jegs, etc. BUUUUUUUUUUUUT, I've been building engines long enough to know EXACTLY what to order. So, if you go that way, be SURE you know what you're ordering. Machines shops, just like ANY business, are there to make money---------------that's only fair. But I don't like to give up any more of my hard earned money than I have to. For example, if the engine is a running engine, the heads are still bolted on and it hasn't ever blown a head gasket, then it is EXTREMELY PROBABLE that the surfaces of the block are just fine. Machinists like to surface the block for you to true it up (additional money for them). There is nothing wrong with that, but in 35-40yrs of building engines, I've maybe had TWO blocks that needed to be surfaced!!!!!! One out of 4-5 cranks could be polished instead of turned. BUUUUUUUUUT, heads usually need work. They need a valve job, sometimes new guides, I always have new springs installed and on older heads that don't have hardened exhaust seats, I buy stainless steel valves (I no longer have hardened exhaust seats installed).

Dan,
THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW if any or all of the engine is re-usable is to tear it down, take it to the machine shop and have your machinist check it for wear.
GENERALLY speaking, you like to have about .003-.004 clearance between the pistons and cylinder walls. IF, JUST IF, the cylinders can be lightly honed enough to clean them up, you COULD get by with as much as .005-.007 piston clearance. That much clearance for the pistons is MORE than ideal, but it CAN be done.
Same with the crank. Your machinist will need to measure it for wear. It is possible that it may not have significant wear and can just be polished (which is much cheaper than having the crank turned).
If either or both of the above should be what you have, then it would be possible to lightly hone the cylinders, polish the crank and put it back together with new rings and bearings. THAT IS THE BEST CASE SCENARIO------------------but don't plan on it!!!!
From there, it may need to be bored, which means BOTH new pistons and rings. The crank could have lots of wear, which means it will need to be turned and then new undersize bearings will be required.
Most assuredly you will need to replace the cam and lifters, timing chain and gears, and, if you have the block vatted, new cam bearings and freeze plugs will need to be pressed in.
Can the old cam/lifters be re-used? Yes, IF the cam lobes and bottoms of the lifters are in near perfect condition--------------------AND, IF YOU MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE TO PUT THE LIFTERS BACK ON THE SAME LOBES THAT THEY WERE ON BEFORE REMOVING THE CAM. To save lifters for re-using, I use a 2x4 board, mark an arrow on one end (to indicate forward), drill two rows of 8 holes the size of a lifter and then as I remove each lifter (ONE AT A TIME) I place it into the corrosponding hole in the board.
If the oil pump has been maintaining good pressure, you can re-use it. But new oil pumps are cheap and it is a good idea to install a new one.
All of this stuff adds up, a few dollars here, a few dollars there, a few dollars somewhere else. Before you know it, you've spent several hundred or maybe $2000-3000 to rebuild an engine. If you are on an extremely tight budget, then it becomes necessary to decide where to cut corners. Some decisions are tough, some decisions result in unwanted problems because you cut one too many corners.

Finally, to get around to answering your initial question. Is the engine useable?
As long as the block doesn't have a serious problem, such as a bad crack, or, if it has already been bored to the max, and, if the crank is in good shape and hasn't been turned beyond what you can still get bearings for, then yes, it certainly is useable. Machine shops can generally correct most conditions that are a result of normal (or even abnormal) wear.
If the engine hasn't had a lot of severe abuse and spent all of its time in a hardcore race car, then it is VERY probalbe that the rods are in good shape.

When buying parts for rebuilding an engine, I FIRST find out from my machinist how much the block needs to be bored (if needed) and how much the crank needs to be turned (I ALWAYS have him measure it to see if it can just be polished). Once I have that information, I buy all my parts from the discount mail order houses, such as Jummit, Jegs, etc. BUUUUUUUUUUUUT, I've been building engines long enough to know EXACTLY what to order. So, if you go that way, be SURE you know what you're ordering. Machines shops, just like ANY business, are there to make money---------------that's only fair. But I don't like to give up any more of my hard earned money than I have to. For example, if the engine is a running engine, the heads are still bolted on and it hasn't ever blown a head gasket, then it is EXTREMELY PROBABLE that the surfaces of the block are just fine. Machinists like to surface the block for you to true it up (additional money for them). There is nothing wrong with that, but in 35-40yrs of building engines, I've maybe had TWO blocks that needed to be surfaced!!!!!! One out of 4-5 cranks could be polished instead of turned. BUUUUUUUUUT, heads usually need work. They need a valve job, sometimes new guides, I always have new springs installed and on older heads that don't have hardened exhaust seats, I buy stainless steel valves (I no longer have hardened exhaust seats installed).

Thanks DZ thats the EZ kind of information I was wanting to hear from a TCer that cares and likes to help folks!
Thank you for your time!!!

Sorry to butt in on a tread that I did not start:o but I felt it was a tread that I could get some answers to my ?s and I did:)

Dan

. PS Brodix has just finished my 461X heads. They fully ported and gave these heads the works including large valves. The next trip is taking these humper heads to another machine shop to remill the double humps into a rectangle with a steeple point on top just like the 283 power pak heads. I could use some 3.562 pistons and 6 inch H rods. I am not certain of the bore and journal size but if you have any I will keep your number untill I can get the sizes sorted out. Thanks much Jerry

I like what you're doing with your heads. The 461X heads can be made to flow some decent numbers.


Here is a link to some 461X heads I had done by Mike Stark at CFM Performance in Indiana. Scroll down for the flow sheet.
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=12432617&uid=649897

I have two extra pairs of 461X heads in the garage. I would like to build a pair and have the humps turned into a rectangle like the #550 heads on my 59's 283. I will then have bosses made so I can run a staggered pre-59 valve cover.

The next trip is taking these humper heads to another machine shop to remill the double humps into a rectangle with a steeple point on top just like the 283 power pak heads.


You mean like this?

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/DZAUTO/headpyramid1.jpg

These are the 462 heads (1966 2.02 heads) on a SB400 in my 56 Vette. Back in the "old" days, we called these "cheater" heads, for example, running them on a 57 Chevy in pure stock class.
I've built this SB400 to closely resemble a 57 FI 283---------------including having bosses welded to the heads so that I can use 9-fin, staggered bolt pattern valve covers.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/DZAUTO/dualholes.jpg


http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/DZAUTO/FMside.jpg

Please sidetrack just a bit guys..

What heads were the '55, 265 heads that had the "other" shaped deck water holes and no sparkplug water trough??

pdq67

sitting here home sick in bed and bored and i see this thread.
wow . painted valve springs and everything. hmm wonder how them bearings are faring in all that ground up paint. . anyways if its all numbers matching leave it alone and let the investement grow. nothing more need be said. dont trash the block and heads :noway: just drop some turn key sbc stroker in it and shelf that engine. or pull that entire engine as pictured in this thread and i will buy the complete engine from you if you want money to invest in something with more punch in it.

hmm wonder how them bearings are faring in all that ground up paint. . .

I paint ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL my engines, inside and out, prior to assembly. Ever since I built my first engine 44yrs ago, I've NEVER had a problem with paint in the bearings. Also, several of the other guys here also paint the inside of their engines.

Here's the inside of the SB400 in my 70 conv, 6yrs after I built it (had to pull a head that had a pin hole in the the water jacket).
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/DZAUTO/0091031-R1-020-8A.jpg

Here is the 420SB that I just rebuilt for the boat. I install an old cam and lifters prior to painting.
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/DZAUTO/enginepaintfrt.jpg

And here is the block that had been in the boat (for about 8yrs). Had to replace it with the new block above because it had a crack in the lifter valley.
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/DZAUTO/100_0081.jpg

Anybody have any info on the old '55 265 head?????????

And bttt, I always paint mine all together, the very last thing done.

pdq67

And bttt, I always paint mine all together, the very last thing done.

pdq67

AFTER final assembly, BEFORE the misc hardware and accessories are installed, I then do final touchup painting.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/DZAUTO/100_0174.jpg

I'm still looking for a 55 head. To the best of my knowledge, there was only one head (2bl or 4bl carb) for the 1955 265, and it just had the flat symbol on each end of the head with no bars, points or humps-----------just plain.

AFTER final assembly, BEFORE the misc hardware and accessories are installed, I then do final touchup painting.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/DZAUTO/100_0174.jpg

I'm still looking for a 55 head. To the best of my knowledge, there was only one head (2bl or 4bl carb) for the 1955 265, and it just had the flat symbol on each end of the head with no bars, points or humps-----------just plain.

Were any of the 57 Chevy heads the same as 55 as I know we have several packed away in the garage not knowing what the heck to do with them! Did the 57 Chevy also come with the 265? as we parted many 57s out many years ago.
Dan

I think I found it, the '55, 265, -460 head that had the round water holes and no sparkplug trough.

Thank's for messing with me....... Right no nothing on the end except a flat rect....

pdq67

Did the 57 Chevy also come with the 265? Dan

Yes, there was a 265 available in the 57 Chevy, 2bl carb only.
As far as I know, ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 55 265s had the flat rectangle symbol. And the 2bl 57 engines also had the flat rectangle symbol.

According to the expert on HybridZ a 350 crank cannot be made to work in a 283 block no matter how much machining you do to it.

http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=105800&highlight=283+block+350+crank

Here's another post of his machining expertise.

http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=109377&highlight=283+block+350+crank

[quote=DZAUTO;1231405]Oh yes, quite true. I've built a couple of these. A small journal 327 block, bored .030, turn down the mains on a 350 crank. VOILA, you have a 355! :thumbsup: [quote]

Couldn't you just bore a 350 .030 & have a 355? :confused:

LK

[quote=DZAUTO;1231405]Oh yes, quite true. I've built a couple of these. A small journal 327 block, bored .030, turn down the mains on a 350 crank. VOILA, you have a 355! :thumbsup: [quote]

Couldn't you just bore a 350 .030 & have a 355? :confused:

LK

LK,
That is absolutely, totally, 100% correct!
Making a 350 from a 327 block was somewhat common way back in the late-60s early-70s. Today, you almost never hear of anyone doing it these days.
BUT, there are a couple of particular advantages of making a 350 from a 327 today (or even a 383 from a 327). First, for the person who has some kind of a genuine matching number car with its original 327 and wants gain a noticeable boost in power. Back in their day, a 327 was a great power building enging-------------------------AT A MODERATELY HIGH RPM. That's no longer quite so practical with today's gas prices. So, with a higher geared rear, or one of today's OD trannys, an engine which makes more torque at the lower rpm range is a real benefit.
Next, for the person who, for whatever reason, wants to retain a somewhat pseudo stock appearance, such as using solid valve covers without any holes for PCV purposes, the 1967-earlier 327 block is the answer. The last year for a block with the hole in the rear of the block for crankcase breathing was 1967. Using a 67-earlier small journal 327 block will permit using a PCV setup, along with an early intake manifold with the provision for an oil filler tube and breather cap is just the ticket.
Making a 350 from an early 327 is tooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy. Making a 383 from a 327 block is a little more involved, but it can be done fairly easy.
As I say, several years ago, or was it many years ago, I built a couple of 355s from 327 blocks. I also helped a friend build a 383 from a 327. Both made nice engines.

I bored the '57's 283 engines block out to 4"s that I traded my '55, 265 for and never picked it up after wrecking my '55 b/c it didn't have side motor mount bosses on it so it was worthless b/c I couldn't use it to make my old junk301 engine for later use in my '67 Camaro!! (I only had like $25 or so in the bore job back then too)....

And I have a '66 round bottomed 283 block out in my garage now to make another old junk301 out of which I will eventually!!

pdq67

[quote=Alwhite00;1235048][quote=DZAUTO;1231405]Oh yes, quite true. I've built a couple of these. A small journal 327 block, bored .030, turn down the mains on a 350 crank. VOILA, you have a 355! :thumbsup:

LK,
That is absolutely, totally, 100% correct!
Making a 350 from a 327 block was somewhat common way back in the late-60s early-70s. Today, you almost never hear of anyone doing it these days.
BUT, there are a couple of particular advantages of making a 350 from a 327 today (or even a 383 from a 327). First, for the person who has some kind of a genuine matching number car with its original 327 and wants gain a noticeable boost in power. Back in their day, a 327 was a great power building enging-------------------------AT A MODERATELY HIGH RPM. That's no longer quite so practical with today's gas prices. So, with a higher geared rear, or one of today's OD trannys, an engine which makes more torque at the lower rpm range is a real benefit.
Next, for the person who, for whatever reason, wants to retain a somewhat pseudo stock appearance, such as using solid valve covers without any holes for PCV purposes, the 1967-earlier 327 block is the answer. The last year for a block with the hole in the rear of the block for crankcase breathing was 1967. Using a 67-earlier small journal 327 block will permit using a PCV setup, along with an early intake manifold with the provision for an oil filler tube and breather cap is just the ticket.
Making a 350 from an early 327 is tooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy. Making a 383 from a 327 block is a little more involved, but it can be done fairly easy.
As I say, several years ago, or was it many years ago, I built a couple of 355s from 327 blocks. I also helped a friend build a 383 from a 327. Both made nice engines.

Me again... sorry I find this tread a good one to get some good answers as is seems to be rockin and rollin!

Would making a 383 out of a large jounal 68 327 be the same as making a 383 out of a 350? What would be the difference from this type 327 and the 350... when it comes to which would be the easier engine to rebuild into a 383 and the difference in the work involved. Hate to be thorn... just trying to learn a little! Thanks, Dan

Yes, there was a 265 available in the 57 Chevy, 2bl carb only.
As far as I know, ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 55 265s had the flat rectangle symbol. And the 2bl 57 engines also had the flat rectangle symbol.

Would the 57 283 head also have the flat rectangle symbol as the 265?
IF yes would the 265 and the 283 have the same cast #?
Also, are the 57 283 heads desirable at all these days... I guess Iam wondering if it would be worth my time to sell some on Ebay... or are these boat anchors also nowadays?
Thanks, Dan

I've personally seen a late 283 stroked with a 350 crank machined on the mains to fit, 400 rods, and 307 pistons. The piston is down the hole about
.035", but it works fine.

[QUOTE=DZAUTO;1235092][quote=Alwhite00;1235048]

Me again... sorry I find this tread a good one to get some good answers as is seems to be rockin and rollin!

Would making a 383 out of a large jounal 68 327 be the same as making a 383 out of a 350? What would be the difference from this type 327 and the 350... when it comes to which would be the easier engine to rebuild into a 383 and the difference in the work involved. Hate to be thorn... just trying to learn a little! Thanks, Dan


A large journal 327 and a 350 are the same. Chevy even used the same casting. To make a LJ 327 into a 383 would be exactly the same as doing it to a 350.

[QUOTE=LKN BCK;1235137][QUOTE=DZAUTO;1235092]


A large journal 327 and a 350 are the same. Chevy even used the same casting. To make a LJ 327 into a 383 would be exactly the same as doing it to a 350.

OK, I think I got now... LJ 327 bore is the only difference from the 350 and not the stroke. And SJ 327 bore and stroke are both different from the 350? Hopefully:hurray:

[QUOTE=chevymad;1235321][QUOTE=LKN BCK;1235137]

OK, I think I got now... LJ 327 bore is the only difference from the 350 and not the stroke. And SJ 327 bore and stroke are both different from the 350? Hopefully:hurray:


All 3 motors have a 4" bore.. But the LJ 327 and all 350s have larger diameter crank main bearings, and larger diameter rod bearings. There is no difference at all between a large journal 327 block and a 350 block. Chevy used the exact same casting number for both applications.

LK,

My '56, 265 -306 trough sparkplug stock heads only cc'd at 118 to 120 cc intake port size!!

The old triangle 283 Power Pack head is supposed to be right at 137 cc intake port sized..

And fwiw, way back before the 327 was King, guys made what they called, "4X4"/283 engines for max. effort!!

They bored them an 1/8th over to 4.00"s and then HEAVILY rweworked a Stude crank and made it 4.00" long to create a 400"/283!!!

Like the Lovely Miss DOlly say's, "It's like 5 pounds of sugar in a 3 pound bag!!"...

He, He!!

And again, fwiw, the 305HO, -601 head is right at 52 or so cc chambered, has 1.84"/1.5" valves and hardened seats, a double -quench chamber not unlike the old ORIGINAL -461, "Fuelie" head and 160 cc intake port size..

They are excellent heads for the smaller engines, imho!!!

I have a set each of the old -306's, the -461's and the -601's in my garage now...

And I want a cast-iron set of LS- heads to play with too onna these days to see just what it will take to install them on my 283 block!!!

pdq67

Sry to jump in but i know a guy that has an old power pack headed stock 283 that he isnt doing anything with and said i could take it for minimal money. Now the only thing i might use is the heads and what would they be worth. Could i get them to work with an eventual twin turbo 283? Also I have the base 195 hp 283. I belive the power packed ones had 230 or so. What else would be useful to take of that motor and throw on mine if it came stock with those heads. Again i apologize to barge in but i dont want to start a new thread for something this small and you all seem to have quite a bit of knowledge about these little monsters.

Blonde,

A 220hp/283 Power Pack engine is a dandy for what you want to do, imho and I will probably get kicked, but I figure the TT lungs will make up for engine size IF you can feed it at max. boost!!! I can see over 600 hp...

I would use at least 1.94"/1.60" valve heads on her and limit cam lift tho to like .470" or so.........

Just use forged flat-top pistons so that you are down around 8 to 1 CR.....

pdq67

Wow over 600hp i was only looking for 400-500. Well i have the 195 hp 2bbl 283 that is matching numbers with the car so what i think ill do is grab the 4bbl power pack 283 and build that to the turbo specs. Drop it in the car and then start with my turbo set up. Would you be able to give me a quick rundown as to wich parts i would have to replace to make it a turbo motor. Also what i can do to help it be more torquey down low so i dont get affected by turbo lag. I been reading up, and will continue too, on this but i would like and idea now so i can start a budget. Sry for the questions ill get outa this post real quick. Sry but one more thing, can i work with the power packs to fit with the turbo or should i get better heads?

Sure, forged pistons and a cam is all!! Everything else is fine except I would use GOOD rod bolts!!

Now for lowend grunt use a 174/177 or a 250/256 Roots blower instead of the TT's is all, and spin it right up there, imho..

And I would water/alcohol mist inject her too so that I could still use good pump gas regardless at boost!!

pdq67

PS., fwiw, these little 283's have been hammered on above 9,000 rpm so they are quite the little motors, imho............

7,500 rpm, no problem at all with good valve springs!!!! Heck, my old used junkyard Duntov stock solid lifter cam did that way back then in my old junk301... As my daily driver too!!!!

Well a blower would be nice but it will be a daily driver and i wanna keep the stock hood. I just want some torque to make up for the turbo lag. Turbo will give me good fuel economy and reliability. Plus wont a custom turbo job be cheaper than a blower with hoog cost in there

Then down size the TT's right is all I can offer here so they come in earlier and create more grunt!

Sorry..

pdq67

No dude u have done more than enough. i appreciate it.

Man I love this 283 stuff!

So if you turbo one and get up over the 500 hp mark, the skinny little stock 283 rods will still work, ya just need better bolts? :eek: Is polishing the beams worth the effort?

And the dinky lil' 2-bolt main caps won't fly apart- maybe just put some studs in there to make you feel better? At some point it would be prudent to put some splayed caps in there wouldn't it?

Man, you'd have to pump crazy boost into that thing to get 600 hp- over 20 lbs. and the result would be over 2 hp/cu in.!

I think the thing about turbos is, you don't need to rpm the heck out of it to make the power like you'd have to if it was naturally aspirated, so could that level of hp be attained with a hydraulic tappet and a 6500 or less rpm redline?

Main thing I don't like about the 283 is the soft, mushy cast iron- no hi-nickel versions... right? I do have a round-bottom truck 283 (it was painted blue) but there are no "hi-nickel" markings as found on 350's so it is probably the same mushy stuff as the rest of 'em darn it. :mad:

Ol' Smokey said if you start making over 500 hp the stock cooling routing is no longer adequate- I wonder if that's for endurance racing engines only? Could a 600 hp street turbo 283 live with stock cooling routing since it won't be making 600 hp worth of heat for very long periods at a time?

Re: 4x4s: I'm looking at a May 1960 Hot Rod Magazine article on how to bore and stroke your 283 out to 402 CID!!! :eek: They used Buick rods (.4" longer), special forged pistons, and a billet crank. Surprisingly (to me) nothing was said about strengthening the main caps... I'd think that swingin' a 4" stroke around would stress that small journal bottom end far more than it would a medium or large journal.

Now ole Smokey from Florida is in the game. Now we are really showin our age!!!!!! The things Smokey did to a small block could fill volumes and probably would be a best seller if ever published. I originally asked about puttin a longer stroke crank in a 1963 283 block and let me say the information from the Chevelle Team members has been overwhelming to say the least. Keeping everything absolutely stock looking was and still is my main motive in this 350 or 383 crank into a 283 block. Since it appears I have the good 283 block and if it doesn't take too big a shoe horn to get the thing to fit, just think of the fun me and grandma could have leavin the Sonic or A&W root beer stand! Blast, that was fun back in the funner than heck 60's. If anyone has any specifics on exactly what it is a person needs to do to the 383 crank or the 283 block to get this combo to fly, keep on sending. I am printing out this whole series about the 350 crank into a 283 block. Also doesn't the Scat 383 crank have smaller counter weights than a 400 crank of the same stroke? As one can see I know far more about running a 265- 327 engine and making it go than I do the newer 377-383-400 style engines but boy am I willing to learn. Thanks, Grandpa Jerry and grandma Connie and their 64 Chevelle SS convert [ Baby Blue }

Think about this, but I have NO idea how much it will cost to do it??????????

Use the round-bottomed 283 block and fit a 327 crank in it to see if it fits right which I figure it will!

Then fit a 350 crank in it and check it.

And then measure the OD of the counterweights how much need's to be machined off a 400 crank so that it fit's and then calculate how much Heavi-metal will be needed to balance her..

Then ask a GOOD Machine Shop that can balance her RIGHT how much to do it...

There just may be a way to use significantly lighter rods and pistons to help trim the use of Heavi-metal b/c I know guys are always saying how much weight they took out of their rotating assemblies using such and such lighter parts so double-check this too...

pdq67

[QUOTE=LKN BCK;1235869][QUOTE=chevymad;1235321]


All 3 motors have a 4" bore.. But the LJ 327 and all 350s have larger diameter crank main bearings, and larger diameter rod bearings. There is no difference at all between a large journal 327 block and a 350 block. Chevy used the exact same casting number for both applications.


larger diameter crank main bearings, and larger diameter rod bearings (as in the same size you are saying)? or is there a difference in those sizes between the LJ 327 and the LJ 350 also? Then the only other difference I guess would be the pistons and or rods?
Thanks guys, still trying to learn as I have several of these used stock never rebuilt engines stored in the shed and I am trying to decide what to do with what in the future.
All this info is great help to me!!!

Dan

Main thing I don't like about the 283 is the soft, mushy cast iron- no hi-nickel versions... right? I do have a round-bottom truck 283 (it was painted blue) but there are no "hi-nickel" markings as found on 350's so it is probably the same mushy stuff as the rest of 'em darn it. :mad:


How do you distinguish a low vs hi nickel block?

That little 67 283 Ive got in my garage is getting a lot more interesting the more I read this thread.

In the area under where the timing gear goes, if the block has hi-nickel there will be a 10 over a 20 which means 1% tin and 2% nickel. If there is only a 10 or a 20 there is no added tin and it would have 1% or 2% nickel. No 10s or 20s means no extra nickel at all.

The benefit of nickel is stronger cast iron and better work-hardening characteristics so the bores live longer. I love my '63 283 but the short bore life it experienced after the first overhaul has me kinda pizzed off. :mad:

Unfortunately I don't know if GM always used that identifying system or not. Did they put hi-nickel into any pre-350 blocks? 283 truck blocks? Anybody know?

[QUOTE=DZAUTO;1233745]I paint ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL my engines, inside and out, prior to assembly. Ever since I built my first engine 44yrs ago, I've NEVER had a problem with paint in the bearings. Also, several of the other guys here also paint the inside of their engines.

I have heard that painting the inside of the engine promotes faster oil return to the oil pan, but what kind of paint do you use and how is the block prepped for paint?

Paul

LKN,

Here you go.

Stroke.........Displacement..........Main Dia........Rod dia......Crank Mat'l
3.00"...........265/283/302..........2.30".............2.00"........Cast & Forged
3.00"...........302......................2.45".............2.10"........Forged only
3.10"...........262......................2.45".............2.10"........Cast only
3.25"...........327......................2.30".............2.00"........Cast & Forged
3.25"...........307/327................2.45".............2.10"........Cast & Forged
3.48"...........267/305/350..........2.45".............2.10"........Cast 7 Forged
3.75"...........400......................2.65".............2.10"........Cast only

SJ = early, '67 and older), sizes = 2.00"/2.30"

MJ = later sizes, ('67 350 and all '68 and newer), = 2.10"/2.45";

LJ = All 400 size = 2.10"/2.65"...........



OFFSET Grind 2.100" rod Journals .090" to stroke/destroke and use 2.00" Bearings.

3.00"........2.910" to 3.090"
3.10"........3.010" to 3.190"
3.25"........3.160" to 3.340"
3.48"........3.390" to 3.570"
3.75"........3.660" to 3.840"


And we have three different length rods to play with too.

400" = 5.565" long;
265" later Baby LT-1 = 5.94" long powder rod; and finally
ALL the rest at 5.7" long.


Stock SB engine bores and strokes.

262" = 3.671" b x 3.100" s;
265" = 3.75" b x 3.00" s;
267" = 3.50" b x 3.48" s;
283" = 3.875" b x 3.00" s;
302" = 4.00" b x 3.00" s;
305" = 3.735" b x 3.48" s;
307" = 3.875" b x 3.25" s;
327" = 4.00" b x 3.25" s;
350" = 4.00" b x 3.48" s; and finally
400" 4.125" b x 3.75" s..........

pdq67