Back to Post
| Username | Post: 283 engine thoughts | |
|---|---|---|
|
I_drive_chevy Contributor Posts 249 |
06-19-12 01:58 AM - Post#2238994
I have a 1963 Chevrolet Impala from the numbers the guys on here says its original most likely 283. What is the thoughts from the guys like me that enjoy these as much I do. Is the 283 looked down upon because there were better options out there the 327 etc. I have a 2 dr now but years back had 4 door, few said be better if it was 2. My thoughts are a classic is a classic if your happy with it who cares. My era started in the 80s I'm young was the 283 looked as a soft engine when it came out? How about now do people respect the engine or is 327 or better? I love the history I can't go back in time so the more I learn the better. |
|
|
arnieg141 Dedicated Enthusiast Posts 6123 
|
06-19-12 03:22 AM - Post#2238999
if the 283 runs good why worrie.if you realy need to please others throw a set of 327 valve covers with stickers on it.unless your raceing it the differance is not that much
|
|
|
I_drive_chevy Contributor Posts 249 |
06-19-12 04:19 AM - Post#2239010
Ya, I could change the covers I realize that understand your post it's right on. I don't care really what others think just asking. Like I said had nice 4 dr one time people kind of put it down I was surprised. What I have now is a 2 door but has the 283 when the 327 is one the most famous motors ever made. The reason behind the question is that era lets say you had the 6 cylinder 283 or 327 engine was the car looked at diffrent? What was the big difference wasnt gas mileage yet to say I take the 6 or the 283 over my horse power. Was it pretty much cost issue? I love that time and history since I have thris motor what was the thoughts on it than? Thanks everyone I love history to learn about the past as much as I can. To be able gas and drive must been great era. |
|
|
Delray_58 Contributor Posts 685 
|
06-19-12 06:03 AM - Post#2239049
The 283 was the solid basic V8 of the time, but was overshadowed by its larger successors over the years. I made it a point to keep my 283 simply because it's become a bit of a standout at shows. It also runs really well and has plenty of power of everyday cruising, so it does the job for me. Whenever I mention that I have a 283, guys usually respond with "yeah, that was a really great engine." That's nice to hear, and they're right. If something were to happen to my 283, I wouldn't replace it--I'd rebuild it (in fact, already did that once).
|
|
|
Mad Joe Contributor Posts 392 
|
06-19-12 06:58 AM - Post#2239067
Bought my first '64 in 1967. 2 door hard top with a 283 and automatic. I was in high school at the time and I don't remember anyone making fun of the 283. Keep in mind the 283 had been put in Corvettes also. In stock form they were pretty slow in the full size Chevy, but they could be made to go faster and they were easy to work on. To answer your question, back in the day the 283 had lots of respect. I don't know what people think of them today with all the crate engines out there. |
|
|
DCPTCNZ Forum Newbie Posts 10 
|
06-19-12 07:02 AM - Post#2239068
Agree with this gentleman a 100%. I have heard the same comments from professionals over the years 'Oh you have the 283. That is a solid engine' Also heard that the SS engine of my year was one of the worst originally because they did nothing but Burn oil...and I cannot complain at all 105,000 original miles and my 64 drives like its on a cloud...just change her oil every 2500 miles and I'm the second owner of her for 4 years now and I've never had an issue. So ..I second the fact..stick with your 283....if you want you can rebuild and blueprint it to make it a 302- or 309?...I forget but I remember someone at a car show I went to did this to theirs and got a little bit more horsepower..they also converted it from auto powerglide...to manual...but as far as a cruiser? 283 is just fine  |
|
|
I_drive_chevy Contributor Posts 249 |
06-19-12 07:11 AM - Post#2239070
I don't drive fast at all rather be seen cruising, than blowing by someone with a crate motor and glass packs. I love orig had the engine went through its been rebuilt. Also about to have my powerglide rebuilt next week. Good see people have good things to say about the 283 I know little about them. As far history goes though when someone bought it new they have the 283 or 327 option what was the reasoning to get a 283. Like I mentioned before gas wasn't the issue like it now. Would the reason probably be the person didn't have the money or wanted save few dollars? Or was the 283 what some people liked this era is so intriguing for me pick your engine and not worry about gas must been nice. Thanks everyone for the replys fun to read |
|
|
dcairns "4th Year" Silver Supporting Member Posts 1553 
|
06-19-12 07:40 AM - Post#2239081
The 283 was the sensible engine that most people got. It got decent mileage (for the day) and had adequate power. Gas may have been "cheap" but lots of people still looked at gas as a big expense. My 64 had a 283/Powerglide in it when I got it. Probably just as well that I did not have too much extra power when I was in my 20's  I seem to recall clocking it (via watch) at 9-10 seconds for 0-60, which is still an 'average' kind of performance in a car. I have since upgraded the engine, but in my slightly more sensible 50's, I am a bit better at knowing when to stomp on it and when to cruise I also suspect that if gas prices remain high and go higher, there will be a bit of a revival in interest in the smaller engines. With my rich running 383, just going to a local cruise costs me 2 gallons each way, that is $16. Still worth it, but as the prices go up, one starts to have to pick and choose. On the other hand, your 283 is probably able to get almost twice the MPG I am getting. More miles=more smiles 
|
|
|
55 Shaker Member Posts 1051 
|
06-19-12 07:51 AM - Post#2239084
283 was a great little engine. Very dependable and smooth running.
|
|
|
DCPTCNZ Forum Newbie Posts 10
|
06-19-12 10:29 AM - Post#2239131
Sad thing is my 283 Gets better gas mileage than my lil Ford Ranger from 2000...lol. Oh lil tip I picked up from some of the older heads. This may apply to more than just my 64 bel air...but if its mileage yer interested in...Do not gas up with the new gasolines..the older engines don't play well with the new mixtures...find the gas stations that still provide unleaded fuel..without the bio mixtures and detergents in them. It will do wonders for your mileage and your seals...or so I was told...don't know the reason behind it but It definitely did make a difference. |
|
|
Kamakazi620 Forum Newbie Posts 60 |
06-19-12 12:30 PM - Post#2239164
You'll need to have the stock heads machined for Hardened valve seats,to work with unleaded gas.Back in the 60's all gas had lead in it to help stop detonation and lubrecate the valves. '62-'64 283's had a thick cylinder walls and could be bored out to 4" to make a displacement of 301.9 (basically a 302)with it bored out you could now use better 2.02 valves and with a huge cam make the little 283 scream,the short stroke allows this motor to rev very quick when built up.In 1957 the 283 was the first production motor to make 1hp per cubic inch in the corvette with rodchester fuel injection,the motor was also an option in the ber air at the time. Ihave owned many 283's and they are my favorite small block,they lack the bottom end torque of their bigger brothers but make up for it in mpgs and top end(when built up)my current 283 is bored .60 over to 292 has 305 iroc heads screw in rocker studs flat top pistons and a solid lifter cam,shes a screamer and likes 7,000 rpms |
|
|
lone star Contributor Posts 108 |
06-19-12 01:59 PM - Post#2239182
my 62 has a 283 with a 2 bbl carb, only thing updated is the HEI. it starts with the touch of the key, idles perfect and purrs down the road without any problems. keep it simple and you will be better off that some guys who throw a bunch of money in high performance stuff and they cant get it to idle right or stop from overheating. |
|
|
Verne_Frantz Valued Contributor Posts 3643 
|
06-19-12 02:13 PM - Post#2239187
You'll need to have the stock heads machined for Hardened valve seats,to work with unleaded gas.Back in the 60's all gas had lead in it to help stop detonation and lubrecate the valves. Not true. Back in the '60s there was lead-free Amoco, known as "white gas". It contained no lead and MANY people with 11.0:1 motors ran it with no issues. Bad news travels fast, and during that time I never heard a bad word about Amoco among car guys in the know. Other additivies did the trick. Paying a machine shop to install hardened seats in older heads is nothing but snake oil. NO need.  Verne 
|
|
|
Kamakazi620 Forum Newbie Posts 60 |
06-19-12 03:38 PM - Post#2239212
So what you Are saying is to run a "lead additive" then??? if not why did they change to hardened valve seats?? |
|
|
del.impala Contributor Posts 349 |
06-19-12 03:51 PM - Post#2239220
This is a good read about the scam foisted on the American people. http://www.lead.org.au/lanv8n1/l8v1-3.html |
|
|
I_drive_chevy Contributor Posts 249 |
06-19-12 04:00 PM - Post#2239224
Great read about lead thanks happy its gone!! |
|
|
Kamakazi620 Forum Newbie Posts 60 |
06-19-12 05:28 PM - Post#2239255
Good link,i enjoyed it heres another http://classicoldsmobile.com/forums/big-blocks/316 ... |
|
|
Verne_Frantz Valued Contributor Posts 3643
|
06-19-12 05:30 PM - Post#2239257
So what you Are saying is to run a "lead additive" then??? if not why did they change to hardened valve seats?? You only need a lead additive if you're racing the piss out of the car, but then you'd be using racing gas wouldn't you???? I"m not trying to be a smart a$$, but if you drive your car normally, and even put it through its paces once in awhile, you don't need hardened seats. If you want to have your car down for 2 weeks and spend a lot of money for nothing, go ahead. And be prepared for the risk that the machinist will hit water when he drills out the old valve seat area. Then you have a scrap set of heads. "sorry, the head had too much core shift in the first place; I've done plenty with NO problem" ha ha ha. Verne
|
|
|
Delray_58 Contributor Posts 685
|
06-19-12 07:50 PM - Post#2239297
Just to add to this: 1. 44k miles since a rebuild on my 283 running unleaded gas. I don't race it, but I don't baby it, either. Just normal driving. No problems at all. 2. Good friend of mine with a '68 Chevelle, stock 307, rebuilt >100k miles ago. It's a daily driver, rain or shine. No problems at all. I've decided not to worry about the leaded gas or additive thing.
|
|
|
Kamakazi620 Forum Newbie Posts 60 |
06-19-12 08:44 PM - Post#2239316
I hear ya,After reading up on it Your Right seems you dont need hardened seats unless your towing,Even then I'd like see the stock valve seats fail,i strongly doubt they would. |
|
|
I_drive_chevy Contributor Posts 249 |
06-19-12 10:02 PM - Post#2239325
What was the price difference in a 283 and 327? |
|
|
fbi9c1 Frequent Contributor Posts 1695 
|
06-19-12 11:05 PM - Post#2239339
I disagree that the 283 was the sensible engine choice. Chevy knew it was too small for the Impala in '58, hence the popular choice was the various incarnations of the 348, at least among people who actually cared about having a decent performing car. I have driven '63 Impala sedans with 283's as the companies I have worked for liked to save every penny they could on fleet cars. I have had a fleet '69 Malibu coupe with a 307. These cars were underpowered, lackluster performers that were not the least bit fun to drive. There.we're millions of fleet cars produced.with these powertrains. Midwestern farmers also had a tendency to buy these cars as well. I couldn't even believe anyone actually bought 6 cyl Impala until.we visited NYC. IIRC the 327 was only something like 135 additional cost when it became available and.was well worth the few extra bucks. It probably got comparable gas mileage due.to greater efficiency in the heavy cars.
|
|
|
Mad Joe Contributor Posts 392
|
06-19-12 11:49 PM - Post#2239347
Plenty of buyers chose to save the money by going with the 283. Some of those same people even chose to save money by not getting a radio. Many bought the 283 to save on gas even those gas was cheap. My parents bought a brand new 63 impala and it had a 283. It was decent power for a family. It wasn't for someone that wanted to race. I bought my 283 in '67 and one of the first things I did was add a 4 barrel carb. I ended up having it bored 60 over, head word was done, 350hp cam, dual point dist, and headers were added. That engine would more than hang with a 250 hp 327. especially after I got rid the automatic and put in a stick and 4:11 gears.
|
|
|
I_drive_chevy Contributor Posts 249 |
06-20-12 02:06 AM - Post#2239357
Wow didn't know anyone thought that little of the 283 as the poster said above that part why I asked the question. Thanks for the input I drive my lackluster 283 in pride though. To the other guy wow you beefed the motor up that would be better than 327. Little work and money and you can build a small motor and get plenty horsepower |
|
|
I_drive_chevy Contributor Posts 249 |
06-20-12 02:11 AM - Post#2239358
I have another question the 283 did it have good durability. As far as longevity as a motor. Is the engine leaky motor from anywhere? |
|
|
DCPTCNZ Forum Newbie Posts 10
|
06-20-12 05:19 AM - Post#2239375
Wow! Thanks for the info See..I knew it could be bored out I just wash't sure how far. IF in the future I'd want to Bore it out what would I Be looking at expense wise for parts? To make it a 302? |
|
|
DCPTCNZ Forum Newbie Posts 10
|
06-20-12 05:29 AM - Post#2239379
No, in fact the 283 of the time was the most Durable and is held in high regard still to this day by a lot of enthusiasts including myself. It is the whole reason I bought one because I was told out of the big body Chevy's of the era it was the best one to start with and I must say with the exception of replacing the radiator in the 2nd year I've owned it and the shift linkage issue popping off because of a bad cotterpin ...I've had no other issues with her.
|
|
|
Kamakazi620 Forum Newbie Posts 60 |
06-20-12 01:27 PM - Post#2239515
When the 62'-64' 283 was new You could totally bore it 1.20 over to the 4" bore Nowadays the water jackets have rusted and i wouldn't suggest it,even after sonic testing.you can take a small journal 327 and destroke it with a 283 crank and have a 302 for cheaper,the factory 302 had large journals.some say small journals are not good for high performance tho. |
|
|
Kamakazi620 Forum Newbie Posts 60 |
06-20-12 01:31 PM - Post#2239519
you'd need to bore 1.20 over (i wouldn't too risky)if water jackets are to thin (from rusting)you could have it sleeved and you'd need 4" bore pistons remember you'll also have to change the heads i'd use 327 camel humps with 2.02 valves. |
|
|
BigCoop64 Senior Member Posts 538 
|
06-20-12 09:00 PM - Post#2239678
i have the 283 in my 64 sport coupe and had it rebuilt.030 over and an "RV" cam put in.i also added a gear drive,holly carb, edelbrock intake and HEI to top it off.it runs great and everyone i talk to at the local shows love that its the original motor. i plan on putting the stock valve covers back on and modifying the intake with the oil fill tube to diguise it even more. the 283 is a solid motor,just give a light bore to clean up the cylinders and replace any needed valve train parts and get back on the road
|
|
|
1oldfuelie Forum Newbie Posts 21
|
06-22-12 01:05 PM - Post#2240218
I had owned every small block Chevrolet has offered, with the exception of 307 & 302. The 283 is Chevrolets shining star from 1957 to 67. Wear it as a badge of honor and be proud of it. Anyone who mocks this engine is grossly misinformed. I presently have an original 100% stock 1961 Corvette with factory fuel injection 283/315 4 speed, 411 rear end that is quicker in the quarter mile then my friends 1962 Corvette with fuel injection 327/360 4 speed, 370 rear end. We have ran each other for several years approximately 6 times in eight years, and he has never won any races. There are tons of old school parts that can wake up the little 283, or just sit back and enjoy the great gas mileage and cruise until the tires fall off. 
|
|
|
100% CHEVY Very Senior Member Posts 5442 
|
06-22-12 07:08 PM - Post#2240321
You're right Verne!And,thanks for saying it! I don't use lead additives in my small blocks. Waste of money. Really,if it was a problem,there would be a constant flow of topics about burned valve seats because of un-leaded gas and I don't remember even one!I mean it's been around since when?1973? I worked at a Amoco station as a young kid and pumped plenty of premium or "White gas".Never a problem and most of the rodders used it exclusively!Including me in my 57 Chevy with a little 283,bored .060 to 292,with the big camel humps,TRW,pop-up pistons,Holley,headers,an d a Muncie 4-speed. Everyone wanted a 327,but they just weren't that easy to get or afford. And one of the new 350's was a dream! Now everybodys got a 350.Pretty dull. The 283 helped put chevy on the map in 57,and was officially dis-continued in 67.That's only 10 years!So,they're going fast,and getting scarce! Mike.
|
|
|
novice66 Frequent Contributor Posts 1117 
|
06-23-12 07:23 AM - Post#2240439
I like my little 283 as well. When I bought my car I didn't know too much about this motor either. And I always heard 350 blah blah blah 350. So when I went to check out machine shops and salvage yards for core 350's every single person told me to hold on to my 283 and rebuild it! I thought this 283 must really be sumthin if all these guys would rather me keep it than make money off me. So like one of the earlier posters said, it's nice to stand out in the crowd with my lil 283.
|
|
|
Red64SS "3rd Year" Silver Supporting Member Posts 333 
|
06-23-12 08:05 AM - Post#2240455
The first 64 SS I bought new in 64 was almost identical to my present one. It was a 327/250 hp w/o AC. This one is a 283 w/factory AC and I think that is a pretty good trade-off. The PO did add dual exhaust, but otherwise it is bone stock, and I love my 283!
|
|
|
4dr 57 "6th Year" Silver Supporting Member Posts 2762 
|
06-27-12 04:20 AM - Post#2241785
The 1st 55 chevy I bought was from a neighbor down the street. He and his buddies had put a 283 from Bloom's 63/64. They said it ran 15.30's at the track in his car. I also bought another neighbors 57 that had a 63/64 283 that had been bored out to 301 cu". The entire engine had been blueprinted, 12.5:1 pistons, duntov cam, stock 283 heads, mallory rev-pole distributor, 4way, etc.with stock (quiet) mufflers. It ate 4 barrell, cammed 327's...beat 'em by bus lengths if we both had the same rear end gearing. I always preferred the 283. Stanley
|
|
|
REBORN55 Very Senior Member Posts 2090 
|
06-27-12 03:06 PM - Post#2242029
283 in my 55 puts out over 300 h.p.--been on the road since 94--never any problems--runs 35-3700 rpms(70 mph) all day long. Runs with a lot of other small blocks in the area. Build it to enjoy
|
|
|
I_drive_chevy Contributor Posts 249 |
06-27-12 10:01 PM - Post#2242151
Good to see people enjoy the 283 I've learned a lot from you guys in this thanks |
|
|
VintageCarryall Member Posts 1585 |
06-29-12 05:50 PM - Post#2242767
One thing that many people (including us) tend to forget is that the PowerGlide was a horsepower and MPG hog due to at least 3:36 gears being needed to give reasonable performance.  I wonder how a 1963 Impala 283/3:36 rear end gears fitted with a 700R4 or even a 200R4 would run, rhetorically speaking? 
|
|
|
Adamo63 Contributor Posts 112 
|
06-30-12 08:14 AM - Post#2242909
I love the 283's. They are a bulletproof, cheap and great little motor. Here's the one I just rebuilt for my 62    
|
|
|
Richard Martin Valued Contributor Posts 4411 |
06-30-12 08:31 AM - Post#2242915
One thing that many people (including us) tend to forget is that the PowerGlide was a horsepower and MPG hog due to at least 3:36 gears being needed to give reasonable performance. I wonder how a 1963 Impala 283/3:36 rear end gears fitted with a 700R4 or even a 200R4 would run, rhetorically speaking? A friend of mine had a new '63 Belair 2-dr. with the 283/man 3-spd/overdrive. The car would out run a 327/250/Powerglide. Richard |
|
|
BigCoop64 Senior Member Posts 538
|
06-30-12 08:59 AM - Post#2242924
nice motor! i see you have the oil fill tube added to the intake,are you using the road draft tube also?i cant clearly see the rear.
|
|
|
Kamakazi620 Forum Newbie Posts 60 |
06-30-12 11:48 AM - Post#2242977
My '64 bel air 283 2brl powerglide/3:36 rear got 16/18 around town and in the 20's on the freeway,taking off wasn't the quickest once it got to 35 it flew to 75 in first hit 2nd and i was gone,also the 3:36's let me peg the speedo at 120 and i wasnt even close to redline. |
|
|
I_drive_chevy Contributor Posts 249 |
06-30-12 02:47 PM - Post#2243031
That's nice motor great great pictures. Why do you guys say bulletproof? |
|
|
Rolland Forum Newbie Posts 2 |
07-05-12 06:09 PM - Post#2244891
The small block chevy started as a 265 cu.in.,(1955) then the 283 came along(1957)-Much more power, extereme durability. It was a overbuilt engine, good castings, great crank, and could be made to make any amount of power without breaking. The 327 that came after it was just as good, just bigger. The 265 could not be hot rodded as much as a 283 or 327, although it was very dependable it was also very weak. The 283 with a 4 barrel and torque cam was used as a stock engine in up to 5 ton trucks, and with the proper gearing did very well. These were a all around tough engine, used in a lot of equipment, boats, work trucks, etc. and did a great job. The 348 and 409 were the big blocks, and are essentially truck engines. High torque, low RPM is what they were designed for, as opposed to the small blocks which loved rpm. I have several 283's and 327's, great engines. Rolland |
|
FusionBB™ Version 2.1
©2003-2006 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.105 seconds. Total Queries: 11 Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0800) Pacific. Current time is 06:51 PM
Top