Countryking

I have my original 283 engine and transmission sitting in my shop ready to be installed. It’s going to have dual carbs and the factory t shifter. My question is will I regret it. My car is currently set-up with a 350 and a tight Hurst. Its runs great with and seems to have lots of power.

I'm sure the 283 with dual carbs should be close to the 350, my concerns would be the 4 speed Borg transmission! I will be installing the original equipment regardless, I'm just interested in feed back if anyone has gone thought this. Thanks John

Plasticman

It sure will look great, but nothing works like more cubes!

What rear gear do you have? And what cam, etc. was in the 350? Estimate of HP in the 350?

A 350 is more of a torque engine (but still can wind - just not as high, unless you do more expensive work to it), and will not have the rpm capability of a 283 (so you have to turn the 283 higher for good power).

Plasticman

Countryking

I'll have to get back with rear end ratio, I never looked. My existing 350 is a single carb the rest is really unknown to me. I purchased the car with the engine as is. The 283 came with the car and was rebuilt by my engine mechanic. I understand it has been setup for around 245 HP.

DZAUTO

When I bought my 56 in 73, it had a tired 327 which I soon rebuilt. Wasn't enough. Later, I stroked the 327 to 350. Wasn't enough. About 10yrs ago I built a healthy SB400. Isn't enough. The next time the 400 comes out, it will go back in as a much more healthy 420. Maybe that will be enough---------------but I doubt it!

If you want a granny car, buy a Ford Fiesta. If you want to be "lookin' good" in your Corvette, use lots of polish. If you want a CORVETTE, put some HEALTHY CUBES in it! There just is not, and never will be, a replacement for displacement!

Frankie the Fink

I run a 283 solid lifter 2X4 setup with the Borg 4-spd and 3.7 rear in my '61. With a slight cam upgrade (by prev owner) its running about 300HP.
The car has a pleasing strong run-up in the RPM range but its not neck-snapping acceleration. Its certainly not the 'torquey', tire-burning take off of my old '66 Mustang tricked out 289ci....took me a while to get used to the difference.

You could put a shorter gear in the rear for that I guess but I do some highway driving so I'll stay with the 3.7. I think the 245HP 283 will be a nice driver with good acceleration but you won't be burning the tires off of it. Personally I have considered a Tremec 5-speed to get a deeper first gear with lower RPM highway cruising but I'm not sure I'm driving the car enough to justify swapping out a perfectly operating , original, T-10 BW tranny.

I think DZ needs a 572ci.

ghoastrider1

it easier to get 300 hp out of a 350 (and cheaper) than it is to get it out ofa 283. The 350 will have more tourque too.

capevettes

You will notice less low end torque with the 283 as others have said. I went from a 283/230 in my 61 to a 383 stroker. What a blast. I could never go back. I kind of shocked a C5 the other day The stock setup with the 2x4 looks real nice but the bigger cubes are alot more fun

cv67

Torque is king on the street.

67L36Driver

I will go so far as to predict you will be disappointed. Compression, Cam and Carbruation help but is not a substitute.

'Old Blue' went from a plain vanilla 327 to a slightly warmed 427 and now I can start in 2nd (3.36 gears to boot) if I like.

DZAUTO

To add to the above 2 comments, an original (or even an aftermarket) 2x4 setup WILL bolt up to and work with any of the earlier SB heads. For example, something along the line of pre-68 SB heads (no accessory holes in the ends of the heads) with 2.02/1.6 valves and some VERY mild cleanup work on the ports/bowls, bolted onto a 350-383 engine, will be a natural fit. No, of course not, those old 2x4 carbs/manifold won't be the same as a nice dual plane/Holley setup, but properly built and dialed in, they will work GREAT. Looks??? In my book the ONLY corret look for a Vette engine is a Rochester FI or a pair of WCFBs!
With a very healthy (period looking) 350-383 (or SB400 if you can locate one) and a 3.08 rear, you CAN have the best of both worlds: fun on the street for cruisin' and reasonable rpm on the Interstate!

What is your priority, correctness or enjoyment?

MikeM

If the 350 engine in your car is a stock, mid to late 70's slug, you may not notice much difference in power and the 283 could even be a little more responsive. I didn't say faster, but maybe.

With either engine you're describing, you won't be too fast so it won't much matter.

I'd take the 283 for originality and looks. I'd also change the cam and make it a 270 hp instead of the 245. Forget the 350.

Rob-classof'64

Drive cubes on the street, race rpm at the track.

Rob

DZAUTO

That MIGHT be enough!

jkuzzy

Ask any big block guy if he wants to go down in the size of his motor....
A friend of mine has a 496 in his 69 convert Vette with 4" side pipes. It is down right wicked. He cracked the windshield on a launch.
Keep your 283 safe in a bag in the corner of the garage and stuff a 350 into it.

MikeM

That same question could be put to guys that like SBC's instead of the dump truck engines. Not everyone likes to shatter windshields and tear tires off leaving the driveway.

A 283 will run VERY respectably if you don't try to choke it down with real high gearing.




[QUOTE=jkuzzy;1566223325]Ask any big block guy if he wants to go down in the size of his motor....
A friend of mine has a 496 in his 69 convert Vette with 4" side pipes. It is down right wicked. He cracked the windshield on a launch

AZDoug

Don't forget that original Rochester doghouse was made for 283 cubes and is choking a much larger engine once you reach about 3500-4000 RPM.

If you want to actually enjoy the full potential of a 420 CI motor, a Victor Jr manifold is about the smallest that will work, and even it starts to go away about 5400 RPM on 420+ cubes, the raised carb flange (1" taller, IIRC) Victor Jr would be good for another 500-700 RPM or maybe more, but it won't fit under a stock hood, in fact, I don't think a reg'lar carb will fit a low style Vic Jr and still leave enough room for a decent non-restrictive air cleaner under a stock hood.

Doug

DZAUTO

And all of the above are very valid points------------I DO NOT disagree with any of them. Really, its all just kind of whatever you want. A little 283 very definitely can be made to scream at upper rpm's, especially with a lower geared rearend.

It's true, the early FI plenums were made to flow for a 283, not 400+ci. And, on my engine, that has partially been improved. My plenum is one of the Bill Thomas' units that was sawed in half and heavily hogged out. The air meter on my unit is from a 327 (62 unit) which flows slightly more than the 57-61 283 air meters.

Here is a Chinese copy of a Victor Jr---------------a little too tall for a 56-62 hood line-----------------but flows a lot better than an early FI unit!

DZAUTO

And all of the above are very valid points------------I DO NOT disagree with any of them. Really, its all just kind of whatever you want. A little 283 very definitely can be made to scream at upper rpm's, especially with a lower geared rearend.

It's true, the early FI plenums were made to flow for a 283, not 400+ci. And, on my engine, that has partially been improved. My plenum is one of the Bill Thomas' units that was sawed in half and heavily hogged out. The air meter on my unit is from a 327 (62 unit) which flows slightly more than the 57-61 283 air meters.

Here is a Chinese copy of a Victor Jr---------------a little too tall for a 56-62 hood line-----------------but flows a lot better than an early FI unit!




I did several things to the SB400 in the 56 so that it would resemble a 57 FI 283. The heads are 1966 2.02 versions. I ground off the double humps and shaped pyramids to resemble 57 539 heads. I had additional bosses welded (plasma spray welded) to the heads then drilled/tapped for staggered bolt pattern valve covers. This allows the very early 9-fin valve covers to be used. Instead of using the SB400 harmonic balancer (with the BIG notch), I had the front of the crank internally balanced so that I could use a plain (327 finned) balancer. I installed a hole and plumbing in the rear of the block for crankcase ventilation with a home made road draft tube (but recently converted to a PCV setup) to avoid putting holes in my 9-fin valve covers. So, if you want to have bigger cubes (cubes=more low end torque), AND, the look of an early engine, it can be done if you want to go to that much trouble-----------------and I did!
Of course, the NCRS perfectionist FI gurus will notice that it ain't quite right for a 57 FI 283. But do you really think I care???









This PCV valve setup is virtually identical to a PCV on a 63 FI engine, but on the driver side.

MikeM

The stock linkage shifts very smooth and easy if it's in good shape and well lubed. It'll probably still rattle at some speed. The Hurst is stiff, hard to shift and won't rattle. I'll take the stocker any day over the Hurst for daily driving.

You shouldn't have any trouble out of the Borg-Warner four speed if it's in good shape.



[QUOTE=Countryking;. My car is currently set-up with a tight Hurst.
my concerns would be the 4 speed Borg transmission!

Doug F.

Or, as I learnt it 40 years ago; "There is no substitute for cubic inches."