oletrucks
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [oletrucks] Question about 283 vs. 350

To: oletrucks@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Question about 283 vs. 350
From: CyrusR@aol.com
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 22:31:26 EDT
In a message dated 4/19/99 9:30:24 PM Central Daylight Time, gadrian@door.net 
writes:

> Randy,
>  Drop the 283 crank in the 350 and you'll have a 302 (I think) That's what
>  was in a few of the Camaros in about '70.  Suckers made amazing power due 
to
>  the big bore and redlined somewhere above 8500 rpms thanks to the short
>  stroke.  That's sure what I'd do, but then I can't seem to leave well 
enough
>  alone.  Another thing you could do with this combo is run incredibly long
>  rods for a long rod ratio - great cylinder fill time, increased dwell time
>  at TDC and BDC plus very shallow rod angle in cylinder walls for a durable
>  engine.
>  
>  Line 'em up!
>  
>  Gary Adrian
>  '54 GMC 427 Street Rod Project
>  cgu11@altavista.net
>  
Gary, 
I think you're right about the 302.  Also, the local machine shop told me 
that I could bore the 283 out to 0.125" (also giving it a 4" bore), use STD 
302 pistons, and have a 302 that way.  The only thing I'm concerned about is 
the abscence of the accessory bolt holes on the heads.  I guess I could use 
350 heads on the 283.  I don't know if the combustion chamber sizes are the 
same.  I might check that option out also.  Thanks for the suggestions
Randy


Randy Underwood
CyrusR@aol.com
Springdale, AR
57 1/2 Ton

oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>