283 pitfalls

[sstock]

Weren't we discussing a 283 block?

Yes the 283 has a 3-7/8" bore and when coupled with the crank from a 327 which is 3.25" stroke brings it to 307 cu inches
A .120 over bore 283 with stock stroke brings it to 301, someone else stated to watch for thin cylinder walls and getting real close to coolant passages around the bore, this combo has resulted in many a cracked block in the day.
4 inch bore with 3.25 stroke = 327
4 inch bore with 3 inch stroke = 302
4 inch bore with 3.48 stroke = 350

 

[Youngster]

Sorry about the side trip ... yes we where talking about a 283 block and yes I would run one in a heartbeat.

Ron

 

[benT]

I agree with RPM about building the 350 if you don't already have one. It'll be cheaper and more powerful in the long run. But that being said, we just built a mid 60's 283 for our latest bucket build. Its a good runner as it was the engine that came in Dad's '27 when he bought it. So for this build, we dusted it off, disassembled it, cleaned the block, honed the bores, and installed new rings, bearings, seals, gaskets etc on the bottom end. On the top end, it already had aftermarket cast iron heads, so after grinding all of the valves and seats, we installed new seals and replaced a few suspect springs. If it runs as good as it did when it was in Dad's car, we'll be in good shape.

The 283's are surprisingly good runners for the small displacement, and plenty for a smooth running T for cruising!

 

[lincolnuT]

My Buckets both have Ford motors because I want to be diffrerant from most of them Buckets running around out there!!!!!!!!

I am working on a 26 Ford Coupe and it won't have a Chev in it because in my humble opinion that is just wrong......The cost is just not that much more to put a Ford in a Ford.........

See you can't even disscuss a Chev engine without talking about a Ford in a Ford, so I think all you bucket drivers riding behind them other engines are just jealous of us guys running the motor with the distributor in the right place............................. :shrug2:

 

[Telman2]

Back in 66-67 when I was building my bucket all I could afford was a stock 283 (220hp I think). It was a dependable engine and with the light weight bucket it hauled ass. Over time with some horse trading and money I added an aluminum intake and a 4 barrel carb, Crane cam and a Mallory coil and dual point distributor. That engine never gave me a bit of trouble and lasted about 12 years until I got an itch and a deal on a 350 but that's another story.

 

[Mike]

Bear in mind that a 283 is at least 44 years old. The odds are it has already been rebuilt at least once. Some people figure running a ball hone through a cylinder is a legitimate rebuild, but if it has been bored at any previous point... Don't get stars in your eyes thinking you can bore just any 283 block .125", because it won't happen.

The only other consideration I would have in using a 283 would be available power. IF you were capable of building 1 HP per cubic inch (and let's be honest and admit you likely will fall short of that number) you're going to make 283 HP. Build a 350 in a like manner and you suddenly have 67 more HP. The small journal rod uses 11/32" rod bolts, whereas the large journal rod has a 3/8" bolt. The small journal crank will have less bearing speed than the large journal crank. Each one has strong points.

The difference in cost to rebuild both engines won't amount to spit. If I had a 283 and a 350 in the shop, I would rebuild the 350. But I wouldn't give a bunch of extra money to come up with a 350 core, if the 283 was what I already had on hand.

Things like road draft tube woes are easily cured with a freeze plug, so that becomes an immediate non-issue.

Ron, I agree the aluminum cylinder heads will take a bunch of weight off, but people need to bear in mind that if they intend to make more power with an aluminum head, it amounts to a bit more than unbolting the iron head and bolting on the aluminum pieces. The aluminum head can actually be too efficient a heat-sink on a stock shortblock and end up robbing power. Obviously, if you start with a clean slate and build the shortblock to take advantage of the aluminum castings, then it's a different ball game. But I absolutely agree that those early heads are pretty useless when compared to what's available today.

Jay, you are correct in saying prices on quality parts are fairly close in price. But take a look around and you'll find a lot of (most??) people are wish-book shoppers. And when you can buy a complete set of chrome tins for a SBC for 17¢ out of the wish-books, well, you sure can't do that with a Ford or a Mopar. :winkn: If it comes to an aftermarket piston or an aftermarket rod, prices are pretty much the same. The average guy doesn't understand the difference between a Sealed Power replacement ring set and a Speed Pro ring set, other than the difference in price. When they see ACME crankshafts available for $4.79, why would they ever want to spend the money on a better crank? That's the mindset you're dealing with. People will run out and buy those bargain-basement cranks and then pitch a hissy fit when you tell them the crank will need to be ground to get the journals round. If it sounds as if I am somewhat cynical about the price comparison process, I remind you I spent 37 years in the automotive aftermarket. How could we possibly charge $96 to hone a block in a CK-10, when a guy could go buy a ball hone for $25?

 

[409T]

I believe 307 would be a 327 crank in a 283 block. 302 is 283 crank in a 327 block. BTW, boring a 283 out .125 to 302 spec can find water in some cases, and overheat in many more. .060 (292) is about the safe limit IMHO.
283 is a fine engine in any case. if you can get it for a reasonable price go for it.

Russ

Ya know, it's been so many years since I have done one of these I was thinking that .060 over made a 301. My bad, should have done the math. In my perhaps once again to be wrong opinion, Youngster's idea of a 283 crank in a 327 block is the best.

Jeff

 

[Youngster]

A .060 over 283 (292) makes a great responsive street motor. A .120 over 283's make a quick track motor but most often have problems overheating on the street.

Ron

 

[Screaming Metal]

Good Afternoon, if I can add my .02 on hardened valve seats, if you are building a driver where full throttle and high load will not be an everyday occurance, non hardened seats is really not indicated. Cylinder temps really dont become a factor on a well tuned combo unless you are hot on the throttle hard for 1/4 mile at a time or so. Cruzining around with moderate throttle angles and shy of full load is really a moot point, in fact on a light t bucket, I'd be willing to bet that you could beat on it for next to forever and never sink a valve. The only reason to put seats in is if you are pulling a trailer or using it in a truck with heavy loads, IMHO. I've tore into my share of smallblocks and the hardened seat thing is more myth than truth IMHO.

OK....

http://www.hotrod.com/howto/51058_cylinder_head_rebuild/index.html

If you read down a little, theres a small section on valve seats,....

With the guides and valves qualified, you can next address the valve seats. JGM prefers to replace stock exhaust valve seats on any head with recessed seats, a noninduction hardened seat or a head that has been treated to multiple valve jobs. Chevy began induction-hardening exhaust seats in 1974, but this process only surface-hardens the seat about .010 to .020 inch deep. If the seat has been ground more than once, the hardening has probably been removed. JGM machines out the old seat and installs a new hardened seat insert usually made of Stellite or other hardened alloy steel. This stronger material prevents the seat erosion that occurs from the combination of high exhaust-gas temperatures and unleaded gasoline.

Yes....you COULD run then stock....its not wise, any machine shop out there that will have anything to say about it wouldn't really do it....run with the stock seats.
I'm not trying to be confrontational or anything here.....I just don't want the guy to go and have the seats freshened up and a year from now wondering why his valves aren't sealing off....

Yes, its more efficient for a 350, money to performance wise....but there are a few track records set with the lil 283 with a little parts interchanging going on inside the block.

If he's got a 283....theres really no down side other than its small. Just giving the guy his info. Good motor.

409T and Youngster are perfectly correct....and yes....any motor worth rebuilding is worth having the cyl. walls sonic checked....core shift is a bitch once you start boring and things start getting thin....

GOOD LUCK....

 

[sstock]

I'm not trying to be confrontational or anything here.....I just don't want the guy to go and have the seats freshened up and a year from now wondering why his valves aren't sealing off....

Your not, this is good discussion with differing opinions.
Prior to leaded gas going away, cylinder heads were as cast, machined cast iron. When the leaded gas was mandated to be discontinued and only unleaded would be available, the auto makers started doing an induction hardening process (a heat treat process) to the exhaust valve seat ONLY. This induction hardening only penetrated a very shallow depth into the metal and after one, maybe two, valve jobs, this hardening was removed by the machine shop and the valve seat was back to the normal cast iron condition.
The concern was that there would be valve seat recession after many miles/years of driving without the leaded gas to protect the valve seat.
Was this a scare tactic by the auto makers? No, I don't think so. I'm sure it was a GENUINE concern. And for the older engines without hardened valve seats, there were two fixes. Use a lead additive after the leaded gas went away, or, have hardened ex seats installed in the heads. This presented two issues. The seats had to be cut deep enough to accomodate the hard seats which resulted in a REAL potential for cutting into the water jacket-------------and the head then became a good boat anchor. Or, there was a possibility that in time (and it has happened) the inserted valve seat could come loose. No need to paint that picture!
It's been about 30yrs since leaded gas went away. And for the older engines which have been running on unleaded gas since then, they don't seem to have the EXPECTED valve seat and valve guide wear that was emphasized.
So, bottom line, for the normally driven passenger cars and light trucks, there seems to be enough experience to demonstrate that the installation of hardened exhaust seats is just not necessary but expensive. Yes, back many years ago I did have hard seats installed in some of my heads, and now I regret doing so. The engines that I've built in the last 10-12 yrs DO NOT have hard seats and they are doing just great with no apparent adverse effects from unleaded gas.
Again my .02

 

[Screaming Metal]

Your not, this is good discussion with differing opinions.
Prior to leaded gas going away, cylinder heads were as cast, machined cast iron. When the leaded gas was mandated to be discontinued and only unleaded would be available, the auto makers started doing an induction hardening process (a heat treat process) to the exhaust valve seat ONLY. This induction hardening only penetrated a very shallow depth into the metal and after one, maybe two, valve jobs, this hardening was removed by the machine shop and the valve seat was back to the normal cast iron condition.
The concern was that there would be valve seat recession after many miles/years of driving without the leaded gas to protect the valve seat.
Was this a scare tactic by the auto makers? No, I don't think so. I'm sure it was a GENUINE concern. And for the older engines without hardened valve seats, there were two fixes. Use a lead additive after the leaded gas went away, or, have hardened ex seats installed in the heads. This presented two issues. The seats had to be cut deep enough to accomodate the hard seats which resulted in a REAL potential for cutting into the water jacket-------------and the head then became a good boat anchor. Or, there was a possibility that in time (and it has happened) the inserted valve seat could come loose. No need to paint that picture!
It's been about 30yrs since leaded gas went away. And for the older engines which have been running on unleaded gas since then, they don't seem to have the EXPECTED valve seat and valve guide wear that was emphasized.
So, bottom line, for the normally driven passenger cars and light trucks, there seems to be enough experience to demonstrate that the installation of hardened exhaust seats is just not necessary but expensive. Yes, back many years ago I did have hard seats installed in some of my heads, and now I regret doing so. The engines that I've built in the last 10-12 yrs DO NOT have hard seats and they are doing just great with no apparent adverse effects from unleaded gas.
Again my .02

The hardened seat inserts don't have to be installed IF your valve seats are induction hardened, only after enough valve jobs to get thru the hardening which is about .025 to .050 thick. I didn't say he couldn't run then, just unwise if he's running any time at all.
With the Ethanol put into fuel....its even more of a concern....

http://www.btc-bci.com/~billben/seats.htm

Here just needs to read the info out there and make a informed decision about what he wants to do.....

 

[Corley]

I did some research on this valve seat recession problem some time back and I came to the conclusion that it depends on how hard the engine will work, as to whether or not you need hardened seats. Once you realize what recession is, and what causes it, then you can form an opinion of your own. Recession is caused by the valve getting hot enough to actually cause the seat material to stick to the valve, almost as if it was welded to the valve. This pulls out a few molicules of metal from the head, not much, but over time a little here, a little there and over time, the seat goes away. A little lead cushions the valve so the lead is picked up by the hot valve instead of the valve seat material.

Things were made a lot worse by the fact that about the same time as leeded fuel disapeared, engine started being run much hotter, and there was an effort by the engine makers to move very hot gasses out the exhaust pipe to fire the cat converters they were installing. So, both issues (no lead and cat converters) combined to make the problem a lot worse.

For an engine that is not rodded too much, and is in a light car like a 'T', if it has a decent cooling system, you will not encounter the heat needed to cause valve seat recession for many many miles / years. Start pulling massive HP out of it on a regular basis and you better have hardened seats! Every shop that does heads will tell you to install them for good reason, because they don't know what you will do with the heads and they don't want a call back. Whenever big bucks are involved in an engine build, I'd for sure do it. For a fun time in a 'T' with a stock / mild motor, I'd not spend the money myself. It's not a big deal to go back and do it later if you have trouble, which most likely you will not.

Corley

 

[Buzzard II]

I have a nice standard bore 283 with a steel crank doing nothing but sitting there-looks like I have the first parts for my next project. Someones just gotta make good flattops!