Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical 283 or 327 or????

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Snegrah, Jul 17, 2019.

  1. I'm looking for answers or where to find the answers. I have an engine on a stand for many years. I was told, way back then, it's a 283. It has 461 X camel hump heads. The domed pistons are stamped .060. If it's a 283 is in now a 292? Are these good heads for this bore? I've attached photos of the block numbers, pistons and heads.

    Thanks for your info.

    Tom
     

    Attached Files:

  2. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 46,902

    squirrel
    Member

    measure the bore, with a ruler, to the nearest 1/32 inch, and you'll know what you have. 327 started as 4" bore, 283 as 3-7/8"
    Are there numbers stamped on the block deck at the front?

    The casting number looks 1970s or later, which means it's neither 283 nor 327. And the best part, is that it's a big block casting number, unrelated to the engine you seem to be talking about.
     
    Stkman, 47ragtop and ffr1222k like this.
  3. Isn't that casting number for a 454 from the 80's?
     
  4. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 46,902

    squirrel
    Member

    yeah, and looking at both of his pics that show the rear of the block, it's obvious they are two different blocks. One is nice orange, the other is dirty old iron.
     

  5. oldsfrench
    Joined: Jan 26, 2018
    Posts: 241

    oldsfrench
    Member
    from France

  6. ^^^^^ The deck is not Big Block. Look at dowel pin in photo provided.
     
  7. 1978-1990 454??
     
  8. Oh, crap. I do have a 454 and I sent the wrong photo. Yes, dirty old iron!!!! The bore measures 3 15/16---ish. It is less than 4".

    Thnx
     

    Attached Files:

  9. oldsfrench
    Joined: Jan 26, 2018
    Posts: 241

    oldsfrench
    Member
    from France

  10. oldsfrench,

    THANKS, it's a 1957-1966 283. Mystery solved! I will keep that info site for future use.

    Tom
     
  11. irishsteve
    Joined: Jan 10, 2017
    Posts: 836

    irishsteve

    If it takes side engine mounts rule out 1957.
     
    27Roadsterguy likes this.
  12. Are the heads 3782461 X a good fit with this 3849852 engine? If the slightly domed pistons are in good shape are they good to reuse? There is zero ridge on the cylinder walls.
     

  13. It has side engine mounts. And a LARGE oil pan.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. DDDenny
    Joined: Feb 6, 2015
    Posts: 13,809

    DDDenny
    Member
    from oregon

    How about a shot of the heads from the front and also the full casting number and date under the rocker cover(s).
     
    Deuces likes this.
  15. 56sedandelivery
    Joined: Nov 21, 2006
    Posts: 6,380

    56sedandelivery
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Maybe a photo of the crankshaft flange too? That'll tell the tale of 283 or 327. I am Butch/56sedendelivery.
     
    Deuces and sunbeam like this.
  16. Mikeszcz
    Joined: Apr 5, 2011
    Posts: 290

    Mikeszcz
    Member
    from Winona, Mn

    Someone send Squirrel a prize for a sharp eye and his Knowledge.
    Good catch!
     
    bobss396, Torkwrench and Deuces like this.
  17. Mike VV
    Joined: Sep 28, 2010
    Posts: 2,066

    Mike VV
    Member
    from SoCal

    Back a few years (1990's +/-)...the 461x heads were VERY sought after in some of the "econo" classes in the NHRA.
    Yes, they were the best flowing "stock" head available.
    Then the NHRA changed the rules to let other and modified heads into the class.

    Mike
     
  18. Can you make sense of the numbers in the photos? I cannot get a straight on photo of the crank flange due to the engine stand. The casting numbers look like:

    8782461 GM3 A122 8782461 GM A52
    11 13 16 2 13
     

    Attached Files:

    Deuces likes this.
  19. Well the numbers didn't quite line up the way I wanted them to. See photo.
     

    Attached Files:

    Deuces likes this.
  20. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 46,902

    squirrel
    Member

    the casting dates on the heads are Jan 5 and Jan 12 1962 (A 5 2 and A 12 2)

    what's the date code on the block? should be something similar to those letter/numbers on the back, not far from the casting number

    no stamped number on the front of the block deck surface?

    the crank looks 283 to me
     
    Torkwrench, Johnny Gee and Deuces like this.
  21. There are now no more numbers I can find:
     

    Attached Files:

    Deuces likes this.
  22. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 46,902

    squirrel
    Member

    1965 model year block, cast in late 64.
     
    Torkwrench and Deuces like this.
  23. Squirrel and the rest of you guys, thanks for the education!

    Tom
     
  24. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 18,739

    Deuces
    Member
    from Michigan

    Is the front of the crank drilled for a dampner bolt????
     
  25. Yes, it's drilled. Do you know what a .060 brings the displacement to?
     
    Deuces likes this.
  26. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 46,902

    squirrel
    Member

    60 over 283 is a 292
     
    Deuces likes this.
  27. squirrel, are the heads a good match for a 292 or should it be the full 4" bore making it a 301?
     
    Deuces likes this.
  28. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 46,902

    squirrel
    Member

    Kind of depends on how deep your pockets are? Every engine should be bigger....but sometimes we do fine with what we have
     
  29. 56sedandelivery
    Joined: Nov 21, 2006
    Posts: 6,380

    56sedandelivery
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Yes, like squirrel said, the crank IS a 265/283 crank, with the completely round, crankshaft flange/NO cutout. If it's really .060 over, then it's a 292; 4", or .125 over, makes it a 301/302 (depending on your math). In the later 60's, a few companies made 350 CID engines using re-welded and machined 283 cranks, and 327 cranks (small journal) to make a 350, so it really needs to be looked at carefully. The 301 VS 302 CID was dependent on your "math", whether you used 3.14 as pi, or 3.1415926535 as pi, or continued out to a million times. Basically, anything "less" than .5000 came up as 301, anything greater than that (.5001) was 302). Basic high school math rules in effect here; I hated MATH by the way, and still do!!! Most likely 2.02 valve intake heads due to the "X"- factor" (Ha Ha), but it's really hard to see in your "angled" photos of` the valves. We need to see the intake and exhaust valves "straight on", to see the gap between the valves Who knows what's been done over the years; new seats with 1.94 valves??? Everything is a SWAG here. My guess would be a 292 CID engine with 2.02 intake valve heads (lots of guys did this); good for a race engine, "whatever" for a street engine. And by that I mean, would you SEE any difference with 1.94 intakes vs 2.02 valves? Nope! What's the camshaft? That'll make more difference than anything. I would "guess" the pistons with a .125 dome would be around 10.50:1; same "style" piston in a 327 was 10.35:1, and with a 1/4 inch more stroke on intake/compression cycles. I am Butch/56sedandelivery..
     
    Deuces likes this.
  30. Fordors
    Joined: Sep 22, 2016
    Posts: 2,993

    Fordors
    Member

    No one has mentioned the oil pan, that is the old, early ‘60’s Corvette six quart hi-perf pan with a trap door, p/n 3820000. It was used in conjunction with a flat baffle that mounted on the main bolts.
    If the pan won’t fit your chassis don’t let it go cheap, especially if it is not damaged much in the sump. Corvette guys will want that pan.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.