Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical 402 Cubic Inches From A 283?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Speed Gems, Jan 9, 2016.

  1. sunbeam
    Joined: Oct 22, 2010
    Posts: 5,224

    sunbeam
    Member

    When I was looking for a set of 8 rods I found 6 .912 piston pin rods C5TE and a lot of later .975 C5TE rods which I used the later E3TE rods are not as heavy but same bearing and .975 pin size.
     
  2. henryj1951
    Joined: Sep 23, 2012
    Posts: 2,304

    henryj1951
    Member
    from USA

  3. oldolds
    Joined: Oct 18, 2010
    Posts: 3,153

    oldolds
    Member

    How much would the estimated price if a short block done like that be today? One price doing it like they did it, another price doing it with some of the modern parts, starting with a 283 block? The Crower prices above put the crank alone in the $3k range.
     
  4. Harell Los Angeles
    Joined: Dec 26, 2001
    Posts: 151

    Harell Los Angeles
    Member

    What about using the 327 block with a 4 in bore already? Didn't some of them share a casting number with 283?
     
  5. sunbeam
    Joined: Oct 22, 2010
    Posts: 5,224

    sunbeam
    Member

    You can buy a Scat forged 4" crank for around $600 put it in a 350 block And you've got a start.
     
  6. Speed Gems
    Joined: Jul 17, 2012
    Posts: 3,218

    Speed Gems
    Member

    You'd probably need to Buy a new block also because I don't know of any 327 or 350 blocks that won't need at least a little boring before being rebuilt. However an Engine builder friend of mine tells me a 307 (same bore as a 283) can be bored .125 over and they are dirt cheap because nobody want's them but you'll want to sonic check the block first.
     
  7. DDDenny
    Joined: Feb 6, 2015
    Posts: 14,854

    DDDenny
    Member
    from oregon

    Did that.
     
  8. We punched a lot of 307s to 327 over the years.

    The 307 actually has a pretty good crank ( generally) believe it or not, they will take revs way farther then they should with proper setup and balancing. If someone wants to build a short stroke 350 and has a good 400 block or wants to build a 327/331 and has a good 350 block they are a cheap way to go. I would not throw squeeze or boost at one though.
     
  9. Bruce Lancaster
    Joined: Oct 9, 2001
    Posts: 21,682

    Bruce Lancaster
    Member Emeritus

    There was at least one different 400 inch 283 back when...I saw the article on it in one of the small East coast mags. I believe the builder was Iossa here in New Jersey. I do not remember the dimensions, will post'em next time the random havoc of my collection brings me and that magazine together again...
    This one was done with huge bore-out and wet sleeves; the article included a shot of the bore before the sleeves went in, and the surviving metal at the top was essentially a jagged row of stalactites of iron with everything below about an inch down just air. It seemed like a disaster of structural loss to me...I don't know if it was raced or anything. Just a datum point.
    I'd bet there were a lot of beyond-352 283's attempted...by 1957, everyone had realized that the SBC was capable of lots more power than seemed reasonable, and everyone must have dreamed of a really big one!
     
    kidcampbell71 likes this.
  10. As I recall one of the biggest hurdles in building one that big was getting the bore to 4 inches..A lot of the earlier blocks experienced the same problems as Ford flatheads in regard to core shift when casting. A second downside was the loss of potential rpm peak with a long stroke motor. Remember that was what made the SBC so popular;it's ability to rev higher than anything else on the market at the time(V-12 Ferraris exempted).
    As for the price of the billet crank;I remember helping a friend of mine put together a 394 Olds engine(in a 61 Starfire)that featured a 1/8th overbore and a 1/2 inch stroker crank for 475 cubic inches. The crank was a Mickey Thompson nodular iron crank(featuring center counterweights)and the then new Step Lock aluminum rods. The entire assembly cost $645 plus shipping($30) from New England Speed Equipment in Boston.
    It was far from a bolt-in either. One side assembled nicely and the other side the rods not only hit the bottoms of the cylinder walls but the piston skirts were hitting the crankshaft counterweights. Had to pull it back apart and grind the bottoms of the cylinders(thankfully we didn't strike water) and the piston skirts and then have the whole thing re-balanced.
    The thing ran beautifully with a Dempsey Wilson roller cam and Mallory Mini-Mag and two E series AFB's on an Edelbrock Competition manifold. Didn't rev much but had enough torque to pull down large trees. Surprised a lot of people with it back in the Starfire.
    I got the engine years later and installed it in a 50 Olds sedan and surprised a WHOLE lot more people.
     
    kidcampbell71 likes this.
  11. Bubba1955
    Joined: Jul 8, 2013
    Posts: 463

    Bubba1955
    Member

    Adjusting for inflation $600.00 in 1960 had the same buying power as $4,792.08 in 2015. Annual inflation over this period was 3.85%.
     
    belair likes this.
  12. DDDenny
    Joined: Feb 6, 2015
    Posts: 14,854

    DDDenny
    Member
    from oregon

    Bruce, was it possibly Chevy Power Magazine?
    Do you recall the general time period?
    I have a bunch of them, but like you, mine are also in quite a mish mash.
     
  13. Bruce Lancaster
    Joined: Oct 9, 2001
    Posts: 21,682

    Bruce Lancaster
    Member Emeritus

    Long before Chevy power. Probably not far from 1960. I won't know much until I trip over it again!
     
  14. bchctybob
    Joined: Sep 18, 2011
    Posts: 3,034

    bchctybob
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Speed Gems and 'Beaner, you guys just made my day. My newly acquired '56 Chebby has a 307 in it, nice to know that when the time comes there may be an alternate plan for it besides being a boat anchor!
    I'm wondering if anyone has done the big bore/long rod/short stroke 350 lately, using currently available parts. Seems like a good idea considering the cost and poor quality of gas these days. With a little update/improvement in the heads and cam that combo should make 450 horses on regular gas. Nice hot rod motor.
     
  15. Speed Gems
    Joined: Jul 17, 2012
    Posts: 3,218

    Speed Gems
    Member

    Was it this one @Bruce Lancaster
     
  16. indyjps
    Joined: Feb 21, 2007
    Posts: 4,163

    indyjps
    Member

    377, 400 block 350 crank with spacer bearings is a solid proven combo that will Rev like mad. Could do the same with a 327 large journal. I've never built one, just worked on a few circle track cars with them, great on tracks with longer straights.
     
  17. Bruce Lancaster
    Joined: Oct 9, 2001
    Posts: 21,682

    Bruce Lancaster
    Member Emeritus

    Just be aware that there are risks, just like with going to 3 3/8 or 3 7/16 in a flathead...
    Vizard said that going to 4 in a 307 carried a 10% risk of sudden death, and of course there was a significant death rate with 4" 283's too.
    No, that's not the article...certainly at least 10 years older, and in one of those East Coast magazines that no one can quite remember the title of.
     
  18. The problem with using a 400 block today is that thick bearings are hard to come by, I think if I rattled enough cages I could probably find a set but that is a crap shoot at best. Spacers work but they have a tendency to make hot spots on the insert. I think you have to make your own these days as well.

    I am not sure that I would go the 307 crank to build a dedicated race motor. I had a buddy @ GMPP back in the '90s that said that some of the 307 cranks were exceptional, normally found in truck motors but he didn't manage to tell me how you could tell which ones were better then the others. That said I would not hesitate to use one for a street/strip motor. Most of the fellas here never spin a motor to 7K and certainly not for prolonged periods of time and properly set up a lower end using a cast crank will work fine for short blasts occasionally.

    Well probably a discussion for another day. I need to double check a thing or two then it is out to the backyard garage to make more insanity. ;)
     
  19. DDDenny
    Joined: Feb 6, 2015
    Posts: 14,854

    DDDenny
    Member
    from oregon

    I guess I can't warm up to the whole 307 debate, mostly because all I can picture is someone's grandma's 69 four door Malibu, unlike "The little ol lady from Pasadena".
    I also understand the logical side of the debate, and the 307's bad reputation is due in part to the sour camshafts (soft) GM used and two barrel carburators.
    Never owned a 307, but it kinda boils down to the numbers, just put the right combination of parts together, understand those parts' limitations' and your level of "risk aversion", and invest the $$$ your're comfortable in losing when it all comes pouring out the sde of the oil pan when those limitations are exceeded.
    Thinking back to when I was just a "lurker" here, I recalled a quite lengthy discussion about the 307 engine and all it's negatives, but the OP of this thread was obviously well versed on this matter and put together a pretty convincing body of evidence touting the virtues of the lowly 307 engine. Not really focussed on the meat of this current thread, but it's still a good read.
    Here:
    http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/puttin-perfume-on-a-pig-307-tech.45615/



     
  20. Bruce Lancaster
    Joined: Oct 9, 2001
    Posts: 21,682

    Bruce Lancaster
    Member Emeritus

    Hmmm...looks like Porknbeaner is trying to push back the margins of Human knowledge and head for the final frontier. My guess...he's realized that the limit of displacement for a 283 is bounded by those 8 little iron circles!
    Limits set by imaginations limited to the insights of Otto and Benz 150 years ago!
    My speculation of what is going on in his secret bunker of mechanical insanity:
    He has burst through the limits by doing his bore job on a huge vertical mill, exterminating those barriers and giving the 283 a SINGLE BORE on each side, a bore measuring (my guesstimate) about 5" by 21"! The cure for all those little circles turns out to be AN OVAL!! The necessary wet sleeve will be made by crushing a city sewer pipe in a hydraulic press! CSC will churn out a special 4" crank, one with all the rod throws in a SINGLE LINE, an army of 4 connecting rods hanging on to each huge piston!! Presto...a V TWIN Chevy, displacing roughly...oops, I drooled all over the geometry page in my manual and can't read the blasted oval formulae.
    Anyway, the available displacement will rock the earth on each power stroke, and lift the car off the ground on the exhaust stroke!
     
    porknbeaner and Speedwrench like this.
  21. oldolds
    Joined: Oct 18, 2010
    Posts: 3,153

    oldolds
    Member

    This thread was an interesting read for the last few days. I guess all that can be said, has been said.
    That was the "jump the shark" moment!
     
  22. blownhemi48
    Joined: Nov 17, 2009
    Posts: 234

    blownhemi48
    Member
    from Bergen NY

    Could the magazine have been Cars?
     
  23. Speed Gems likes this.
  24. Speed Gems
    Joined: Jul 17, 2012
    Posts: 3,218

    Speed Gems
    Member

    I haven't come across the how to stroke a 283 out to 482" inches yet but last night i found this article posted in the heritage Gas thread by @Junior Stock on how to buld a 467" engine from a 283 in the '62 ENGINES magizine.

    001 (2).jpg 002 (2).jpg 003 (2).jpg 004 (2).jpg
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 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.