I_drive_chevy
Contributor
Posts: 245
Reg: 08-21-11
|
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: 6092
Loc: nj
Reg: 10-06-08
|
06-19-12 03:22 AM - Post#2238999
In response to I_drive_chevy
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
| GET ER DONE .. AS I GET OLDER I LIKE FAST CARS I CAN STILL DRIVE. AND VERY SLOW WOMEN I CAN CATCH while still able..arnie garrison |
|
I_drive_chevy
Contributor
Posts: 245
Reg: 08-21-11
|
06-19-12 04:19 AM - Post#2239010
In response to arnieg141
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: 668
Loc: Scotts Valley, CA
Reg: 03-20-10
|
06-19-12 06:03 AM - Post#2239049
In response to I_drive_chevy
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).
'58 Delray 283 3-speed
In the family since new |
|
Mad Joe
Contributor
Posts: 391
Loc: Wichita Falls, Tx.
Reg: 05-09-07
|
06-19-12 06:58 AM - Post#2239067
In response to I_drive_chevy
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
Reg: 06-18-12
|
06-19-12 07:02 AM - Post#2239068
In response to Delray_58
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: 245
Reg: 08-21-11
|
06-19-12 07:11 AM - Post#2239070
In response to DCPTCNZ
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: 1539
Loc: Orange CA
Reg: 11-07-03
|
06-19-12 07:40 AM - Post#2239081
In response to I_drive_chevy
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: 1043
Age: 63
Loc: north central IL.
Reg: 03-13-06
|
06-19-12 07:51 AM - Post#2239084
In response to dcairns
283 was a great little engine. Very dependable and smooth running.
| The older I get, the more dangerous, I am !!!! |
|
DCPTCNZ
Forum Newbie
Posts: 10
Reg: 06-18-12
|
06-19-12 10:29 AM - Post#2239131
In response to dcairns
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
Loc: Portland Ore
Reg: 04-05-12
|
06-19-12 12:30 PM - Post#2239164
In response to DCPTCNZ
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
Reg: 08-24-08
|
06-19-12 01:59 PM - Post#2239182
In response to Kamakazi620
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: 3622
Loc: hightstown,NJ USA
Reg: 08-22-00
|
06-19-12 02:13 PM - Post#2239187
In response to Kamakazi620
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
Loc: Portland Ore
Reg: 04-05-12
|
06-19-12 03:38 PM - Post#2239212
In response to Verne_Frantz
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: 338
Loc: delaware
Reg: 04-13-11
|
06-19-12 03:51 PM - Post#2239220
In response to Kamakazi620
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: 245
Reg: 08-21-11
|
06-19-12 04:00 PM - Post#2239224
In response to del.impala
Great read about lead thanks happy its gone!!
|
Kamakazi620
Forum Newbie
Posts: 60
Loc: Portland Ore
Reg: 04-05-12
|
06-19-12 05:28 PM - Post#2239255
In response to del.impala
Good link,i enjoyed it heres another http://classicoldsmobile.com/forums/big-blocks/316 ...
|
Verne_Frantz
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3622
Loc: hightstown,NJ USA
Reg: 08-22-00
|
06-19-12 05:30 PM - Post#2239257
In response to Kamakazi620
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
| Even a nitwit will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and carry on as if nothing happened. |
|
Delray_58
Contributor
Posts: 668
Loc: Scotts Valley, CA
Reg: 03-20-10
|
06-19-12 07:50 PM - Post#2239297
In response to Verne_Frantz
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.
'58 Delray 283 3-speed
In the family since new |
|
Kamakazi620
Forum Newbie
Posts: 60
Loc: Portland Ore
Reg: 04-05-12
|
06-19-12 08:44 PM - Post#2239316
In response to Verne_Frantz
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: 245
Reg: 08-21-11
|
06-19-12 10:02 PM - Post#2239325
In response to Kamakazi620
What was the price difference in a 283 and 327?
|
fbi9c1
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1661
Loc: Los Angeles
Reg: 08-07-07
|
06-19-12 11:05 PM - Post#2239339
In response to dcairns
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: 391
Loc: Wichita Falls, Tx.
Reg: 05-09-07
|
06-19-12 11:49 PM - Post#2239347
In response to fbi9c1
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: 245
Reg: 08-21-11
|
06-20-12 02:06 AM - Post#2239357
In response to fbi9c1
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: 245
Reg: 08-21-11
|
06-20-12 02:11 AM - Post#2239358
In response to I_drive_chevy
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
Reg: 06-18-12
|
06-20-12 05:19 AM - Post#2239375
In response to Kamakazi620
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
Reg: 06-18-12
|
06-20-12 05:29 AM - Post#2239379
In response to I_drive_chevy
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
Loc: Portland Ore
Reg: 04-05-12
|
06-20-12 01:27 PM - Post#2239515
In response to DCPTCNZ
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
Loc: Portland Ore
Reg: 04-05-12
|
06-20-12 01:31 PM - Post#2239519
In response to DCPTCNZ
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: 530
Loc: Milwaukee,Wisconsin
Reg: 02-19-04
|
06-20-12 09:00 PM - Post#2239678
In response to I_drive_chevy
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
1964 Impala
Original 283.030over
powerglide,edelbrock/holl y
Pete Jackson gear drive
HEI/msd 6al
2.25" exhaust w/50series flowmasters
other cars:2003 Monte Carlo LS
1996 Dodge Stratus
http://community.webshots.com/user/bigcoop64 |
|
|
Gain extra benefits by becoming a Supporting Member 
drtyler (4)
