Ok so I have a 283 sitting around (that I got for free) and this plus a 327 equals 302 right? Is there any reason not to do this? I mean I know there were hotter cams and heads and such on the 302 but there are so many parts on the aftermarket to hot up SBCs.
Small journal 327?
In reply to Zomby Woof:
Pre-68 327 stuff right?
You either punch out a 283 to 4.00" which has a 50% failure rate(core shift, sand holes). Or use the 283 steel crank in a 4.00" block, where you will likely need bearing spacers, the later 4" blocks use larger main journals IIRC.
or, a 283 plus a 327 = two decent engines!
they make actual conversion bearings to put the small journal crank in a medium journal block, if that's what we are talking about here... but really, other than the ability (and necessity) to turn 8000+ rpm, you're better off in pretty much every way keeping the "big" parts together in the form of a 327 than you are by putting the "little" parts in the "big" block.
Why would you want a Chevy "302"........trying to relive the original z28? I'd just stick with either the 283 or 327.....
yamaha wrote: Why would you want a Chevy "302"........trying to relive the original z28? I'd just stick with either the 283 or 327.....
Cause from what I understand they like to rev and I like rev happy motors.
93EXCivic wrote:yamaha wrote: Why would you want a Chevy "302"........trying to relive the original z28? I'd just stick with either the 283 or 327.....Cause from what I understand they like to rev and I like rev happy motors.
We've gone through this many many many times, but if you buy decent rods and pistons for the 327, it will rev just as easily as the 302, and have 25 more cubes to work with as well.
tuna55 wrote:93EXCivic wrote:We've gone through this many many many times, but if you buy decent rods and pistons for the 327, it will rev just as easily as the 302, and have 25 more cubes to work with as well.yamaha wrote: Why would you want a Chevy "302"........trying to relive the original z28? I'd just stick with either the 283 or 327.....Cause from what I understand they like to rev and I like rev happy motors.
I hate to admit it, but this......I'm leary of the original 302's due to my experiences with multiples. One had rod knock, one ran right and cool, and the other 3 ran hot as E36 M3.....
If you wanted a rev happy old school engine, go with a 377....
In reply to yamaha:
377?
93EXCivic wrote: In reply to yamaha: 377?
It's a 400 block with a 350 crank, a great trick way to lose 23 cubic inches.
I am really not looking for a torque monster motor. What I was thinking was a rev happy SBC to go in a MGB or TR7 or the like. Unless I can wind it out to over 7k rpm I am not really interested. I had the 283 laying around so I thought I would ask.
Any reason the 283 couldn't be built to rev?
I have a soft spot for 283s.
Clem
93EXCivic wrote: I am really not looking for a torque monster motor. What I was thinking was a rev happy SBC to go in a MGB or TR7 or the like. Unless I can wind it out to over 7k rpm I am not really interested. I had the 283 laying around so I thought I would ask.
377 is a high strung destroker essentially......myself and friends built a 383 and 377 from a 350 & 400.......we didn't use new internals with either, just new bearings/gaskets. The 383 lasted a bit over a year......the 377 is still running in a dirt track car now. Strangely enough, the 377 was faster than the 383 at the drag strip in his third gen firebird. Otherwise same setup.
Also, 283s can rev......
ClemSparks wrote: Any reason the 283 couldn't be built to rev? I have a soft spot for 283s. Clem
There is no reason, these days, that ANY SBC cannot be built to rev. There are excellent parts available in every size imaginable. With good rods, springs, pistons (and wristpins) everything is capable, regardless of cubes. Go for as big as possible within the budget/rules/heads flow.
In reply to tuna55:
Thing is this also needs to be done for cheap. So basically I would be looking for a cheap rev happy motor making around 350-400hp. So whatever the cheapest way to do this would be a big plus. I may end up just finding a LM4 or L33 motor due to weight...
93EXCivic wrote: In reply to tuna55: Thing is this also needs to be done for cheap. So basically I would be looking for a cheap rev happy motor making around 350-400hp. So whatever the cheapest way to do this would be a big plus. I may end up just finding a LM4 or L33 motor due to weight...
In my opinion only:
"rev happy" is an odd term. I don't really agree with it, but I understand what you're after, I think. To get it, one needs cylinder head flow to support the cylinder head size, camshaft profile to take advantage of that flow, valvetrain to support the increased RPM limit you want, and hard parts to live through it. The only thing the 302 has over the 327 is the lower cylinder head requirements. Indeed, a true DZ302 was build with great valvetrain parts and a neat cam from Chevrolet, where I am betting some of its praise came from. The overall package is the deal. The main reason why the 302 (and 304) were created was to suit the displacement rules, not for some benefit. It is true that some 377s were built for that reason, and indeed a 377 will outrun a 383 due to the benefit of the bigger bore which makes the cylinder head more efficient by unshrouding valves more, leading an engine to behave better at higher RPMs. A 302 does not enjoy this over a 327. In my opinion, but the biggest bore you can afford, if that's a 400, fine, if it's a 350, fine. Now pick a cylinder head and cam that can support the rev range you want to work in, remember that a cam to make a 400 work from X-Y RPM will differ from that to make a 350 work from X-Y RPM, same with the cylinder head. If it can breathe well at that RPM, it will be "rev happy", especially if it has a bigger bore than what it's being compared to.
For my money, it's a 400 with better rods, good pistons and AFR heads, but that's a pricey combo. A 350 probably has better stock rods, and there are lots of better GM takeoff type rods around. I am honestly out of the loop on what the hottest head is these days, but for a small block, you can do anything from a "Wheels" circle track ported $75 swap meet find to a set of CNC ported NASCAR leftovers for a few grand. You'll need all this building a 302, 377, 400, 350, or whatever.
That's my $0.04
327's love to rev - build it.
My dad had a 283 in a 38 Chev Coupe and I think he used to take it up to 7500 rpm or so.
you can also get adapter bearings to put the small journal 283 crank in a 400 block.. you know, if you want a really rev happy motor with huge valves to move massive amounts of air.. that comes out to 321 cubic inches according to an online calculator..
You should see what people do to make sub-290ci engines with 4.155" bores.
Me, I like the idea of 4.3 V8 rods and crank in an LT1. 4" bore, 3" stroke, and since the 4.3 and 5.7 share piston pin height for whatever weird Chevy reason, you get mega-long rods out of the deal along with standard pistons.
This doesn't help at all if you're just putting something together, of course. I vote just keep the 327 a 327, fine engine right there.
This topic comes up every so often, I think I had the last thread about it.
Basically, the 302 was built out of necessity to conform to the rules, not that they thought it would be a barn burner.
Build the 327 if you already have it, if not, buy a stroker 327, a rare little motor called a 350.
Can the folks watching this thread check me on the following;
Chevy iron Vortec heads, Edelbrock Super Victor Intake, Holley or Demon 650cfm 4-barrel carb, Comp Cams p/n 12-601-4, something around 10:1 compression.
I believe all this hardware on a 283 block would be rev happy.
novaderrik wrote: you can also get adapter bearings to put the small journal 283 crank in a 400 block.. you know, if you want a really rev happy motor with huge valves to move massive amounts of air.. that comes out to 321 cubic inches according to an online calculator..
I like this idea, a lot. I have a feeling it would sound like a chainsaw on crack.
400 blocks aren't exactly common anymore.
You'll need to log in to post.
