posted
I believe I'm going to drop a 283 into my 65.
I've been researching to figure out how I want to build it. The motor I'm planning to use has 60cc chamber power pack heads. They appear to be in pretty good shape. I'll replace the seals at a minimum. The motor turns over great and the cylinders are real smooth. The engine has been stored.
I'm going to take the block in to have it magnafluxed etc.. Hopefully it won't need bored. If it does, I'll be getting a complete rebuild kit with pistons. I may end up replacing the pistons either way.
I'm not looking to make this a high HP engine but I do want it to have some pep. This needs to be a "budget" build.
Here's my current list of items:
-Edelbrock 500 cfm carb -Edelbrock Performer intake -Summit K1102 Cam and lifter kit (Advertised Duration 262/272, Lift .420/.442) -Roller tip rockers -Headers -Double Roller Timing Chain and Gear Set -New water pump -New oil pump -Re-Ring kit or Master rebuild kit (if pistons needed)
I already have a nice Mallory HEI distributor, starter, alternator, brackets etc..
posted
I like the 283 for your car since it is a little lighter than the 66 and newer cars. I would build the engine with at least 9.5 to 1 - 10.00 to 1 compression ratio. That way it has some pep plus you can get more out of a gallon of gas as well.
I have used that cam before. Eldebrock sells the same exact cams for a little more money. I have a .442 .398 lift in my 305 that is in my 83 T/A it runs pretty strong but only has 8.25 to 1 compression so it could use some more of that.
Carb: yes
Intake:: no Save your money. My 283 lost bottom end power
Cam: yes Great cam for a 283. No valve train noise.
Rockers: no Save your money. Not worth the money.
Headers: yes. Small tubes for sure. Gas milage maker.
Double Roller chain: yes
New Water pump: yes
New Oil Pump: yes
Re-Ring Kit: yes
I would not spend the money on those heads if they need valve guides, seats and all that stuff. If they only need seals and they are perfect that is a different story.
I am thinking the SR Torquer 305 heads would have a lot better flow and plus they have 58 cc chambers. They have a more modern combustion chamber as well. Your also getting 1.94 1.50 valves. Screw in studs and guide plates. The money you save from not buying those rockers and intake would help purchase those.
-------------------- Larry Grigsby Founding Member # TSC-010 ACES Member #3635 69 SS 396 (454) (Cloned) Posts: 1169 | From: Huber Heights, Ohio | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seen the Corvette haeads have angled spark plugs. The picture shows that they have roller rocker arms as well. Are those the ones with 58 cc combustion chambers??? That is a good deal on those heads though.
I would make sure that either of those heads work with your 283 for sure. The only thing about the 283 I have heard is that 1.94 intake valves might have problems with the cylinder wall.
On the intake though I don't think it is worth the money on the 283. I think a regular cast iron 283 intake or a stock 305 aluminum intake would run just as good as the performer or better. A lot of guys on the Thirgen.org website say they wasted their money putting a Performer on their 305.
I figure that the 305 would have a little more torque than a 283 since it has that 350 crankshaft in it. You need all the low speed torque with a 283 that you can get unless your going to wind her up about 7000.
There are lot of guys that used to launch 283's at 8000 rpms and run them over 9000 rpms and not worry about any torque. They would use 5.13 gears or more though to get them to pull. I have seen a couple that used to run down in the 10's in 67 Camaros.
I like your build though. I think I would rather build power and use the money on a good set of cylinder heads instead of intakes and rockers.
-------------------- Larry Grigsby Founding Member # TSC-010 ACES Member #3635 69 SS 396 (454) (Cloned) Posts: 1169 | From: Huber Heights, Ohio | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found a guy on Ebay that refurbishes and sells heads. He's near Mansfield, OH.
He's going to refurbish a set of 305 heads (3 angle valve job etc.) and sell them to me for $150 (for both!). 58cc with 1.84/1.5 valves. Probably from a 305 HO engine but I can't say for sure til I get the casting number. Sounds perfect for what I'm doing and will cost much less than the new SR heads.
[ May 22, 2008, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Tod ]
posted
A lot of people think the L69 305 HO heads are different than the LG-4 heads but they use the same castings from 1983-1988. Those 58 CC chambers should help you out really good for the compression.
Sounds like you got money for those roller rocker arms now or roller tipped ones. Something you might want to have that guy do is enlarge the pushrod holes just in case you might want to add 1.6 rockers on those heads.
If you get pistons make sure you try to get around 10.00 to 1 compression ratio.
-------------------- Larry Grigsby Founding Member # TSC-010 ACES Member #3635 69 SS 396 (454) (Cloned) Posts: 1169 | From: Huber Heights, Ohio | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless my math is wrong (possible) - with flat top pistons, 3" stroke, 58cc heads and 3.875 bore I should be right around 10:1 compression ratio (depending on head gasket thickness).
What's the cut off point with compression where 92/93 octane is required? Or do I have to factor in the cam as well?
I've read in several places that the Summit K1102 cam is the same as the Edelbrock 2102. The specs look the same with the exception that the numbers listed for Advertised Duration are higher for the Edelbrock. Is the Edelbrock cam worth the extra $40?
Thanks.
[ May 23, 2008, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Tod ]
posted
Save the 40.oo. I think you can get by with 92 octane pretty easily.
-------------------- Larry Grigsby Founding Member # TSC-010 ACES Member #3635 69 SS 396 (454) (Cloned) Posts: 1169 | From: Huber Heights, Ohio | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I contacted a local machine shop (in Brookville). I have no idea about the quality of work or if these prices are good. What are your opinions on having the crank balanced? It's a pretty short stroke (3") - is it worth it?
They quoted me the following prices.
Bore and hone: $195 Install Freeze plugs: $20 (includes plugs) Install Cam Bearings: $28 Polish / Grind Crank: $35 / $85 Install Pistons on Rods: $40 Balance the crank with rods and pistons: $175
posted
Yeah the balancing is probably a good thing especially with new pistons. Those prices seem pretty much in line with what I have seen at other places.
For that 195.00 they are using torque plates on the head surfaces when they are boring I hope???
I would make sure that they match the pistons for each bore. Most pistons are usually close in size but some may not.
-------------------- Larry Grigsby Founding Member # TSC-010 ACES Member #3635 69 SS 396 (454) (Cloned) Posts: 1169 | From: Huber Heights, Ohio | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure if they use torque plates. I'll ask.
Hopefully not a big deal if they don't since it's such a small bore. I read that the torque plates are more critical for larger bore sizes on small blocks.
They do match the pistons for each bore. The two places I spoke with won't even bore a block without the pistons on-hand.
posted
I'm trying to decide whether to go with flat top or dome pistons. Other than compression, is there any other difference? Any advice would be appreciated.
I'm shooting for 10:1 compression. I'm using the following numbers to calculate compression (deck height and flat top relief volumes are assumed):
I used two different online calculators and get (10.2:1 and 10.47) for the dome pistons and (9.18:1 and 9.39:1) for the flat tops. Does this seem correct?
Are .010 for the deck height and 4cc a good estimates for the valve reliefs?
Also, are there limits for compression with stock cast iron heads? Sorry for so many questions.
posted
I like the 10.00 to 1 compression ratio. If those dome pistons can be used at 10.2 to 1 or so that would be Ok with me. With the domed pistons I would use the thickest head gasket I could use. Lot more bottom end torque, more horsepower and more mpg with the higher compression so you can't go wrong.
-------------------- Larry Grigsby Founding Member # TSC-010 ACES Member #3635 69 SS 396 (454) (Cloned) Posts: 1169 | From: Huber Heights, Ohio | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I now have the option of going with a different set of 305 heads that are 53cc. That would get me to the 10:1 ratio with flat top pistons.
Any issue with cast aluminum pistons at that compression?
I think I'm going to stick with flat top pistons. That just leaves me with the decision on whether to use 58cc heads with 1.94 valves or 53cc heads with 1.84 valves. I believe compression will be in the low 9s:1 and around 10:1 respectively.
posted
Flat tops make more power. The only thing about cast pistons to watch for really is detonation. Just don't go crazy with the timing and they should work fine.
That is what they had stock back in the day, but the gas was a little better in the octane department.
If you go with the 58 cc you probably won't have much of that. The bigger valves will help the power a little bit as well.
-------------------- Larry Grigsby Founding Member # TSC-010 ACES Member #3635 69 SS 396 (454) (Cloned) Posts: 1169 | From: Huber Heights, Ohio | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
