Guest Anonymous Posted April 27, 2001 Share Posted April 27, 2001 im doing the seemingly oddball thing of putting a 288 smallblock instead of the monster engines. question do you think a t5 will be sufficient to handle a pretty well buillt 288?? im hoping over 300hp so im not really sure about the torque it would make? any suggestions../? also is their anyway to easily find out what im looking at for comp ratio if im boring a 283 .030?? im trying to figure what size chambers im gonna need. thanks DAn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavyZ Posted April 27, 2001 Share Posted April 27, 2001 The T5 shuld be able to handle a well built 283 (288). It really comes down to torque--and the T5 is limited in that area compared to a T56. However, the T5 was able to successfully move around a much larger, heavier Camaro with a slightly larger engine. My money is on the bet that you will have no problems. As far as compression ratios are concerned, there are tables out there to be sure, and Kevin Shasteen. Talk to the people that sell pistons like Summit Racing or PAW. They should know. Also, if you know the cc of your heads, look in a Summit Catalog in the piston section--they should have compression ratios listed by the piston-types. Hope this helps. [ April 27, 2001: Message edited by: DavyZ ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Shasteen Posted April 27, 2001 Share Posted April 27, 2001 283z, I'ld echo Davy's sentiments & ask "WHY" a 283? As far as 283's nomenclature-I havent any. I wish I could help you regarding compression for a 283. All my books I buy deal w/69 vintage and later. That was the Corvette's engine in the early 60's; so beefing it up shouldnt be a problem. If its any help; I believe all the early SBC's used the 5.7 connecting rods; what this means to you is the difference in compression from one small block to another will be in the "compression height" of the piston-this is measured from the top of the piston down to the middle of the piston pin center. Knowing the "Compression Height" of your piston will allow you to know your block deck to piston top clearences-this is the first step into knowing your compression ratio. For instance; your 283 has a stroke of 3.000. My problem is I dont have any #'s for deck height for a 283 so I'll ASSuME its the same as a current SBC amounting to 9.025; deck height is measured from the center of the crank to the top of the cyl. bore deck surface. Block Deck/Piston Top Clearence = Stroke/2 + Rod Length + Piston Comp.Height Now lets take the 283 stroke & work w/the other numbers to find alledged deck clearence. 3.000/2 + 5.703 + "x" = Deck/Piston Top Clearance This leaves you upto 1.825" for a Comp.Height on your pistons: if you wanted a higher comp.ratio you could use a piston w/a dome but then you'ld subtract dome in cc's & things tend to get a little more confusing regarding comp.ratio's. Talk to an engine builder & let them know what your plans are. My only quesition is why a 283; is it a matter of convienence-you could find a 350 for peanuts if you only took a Saturday of scrounging the bone yards(?). If its a small stroke you want then look for a 262 Cu.In. engine; they were only produced for one year '1976' and found in the "X Bodies" or better known as the Nova, Omega, Ventura & Apollo. Slap the 3.1 crank into a 350 w/a 4" bore & you'll get a 311cu.in that will rev like there's no tomorrow(?). Rethink the 283 thing..not that you cant do it...but 350's are so plentiful & "CHEAP"! Have fun & remember that Hot Rodding is like eating at McDonalds, "You can have it Your Way!". Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner) [ April 27, 2001: Message edited by: Kevin Shasteen ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 27, 2001 Share Posted April 27, 2001 The 283 is a decent little engine. With the vette heads (double hump) and a more modern cam grind I don't 1 HP per cube (or more)is impossible just as it was in the late 50's when it came into being. Thats respectable, and the dimenished torque from the 283 will be a little easier on the driveline in general not to mention the T5. No, it won't be a monster street engine, but it'll be quick, get slightly better mileage. During the 60's a popular combo (and I'd be lying if I said I knew how they came up with the size, maybe .060 over or something) was a 283 taken out to 292. Many a highboy used this combo with dual quad afb's or tri-power. Regards, Lone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 kevin in reply to your message question about why a 283? most people say that. i understand every chevy guy i've asked about the 283 look at me like im crazy for even considering it. the way i look at it is if they could get 283hp back in 57' i think over 300 should be pretty easy nowadays. even considering the difference in how horsepower readings have changed im running 411 gears right now out of an 85 200sx turbo via brian little's suggestion. im running a 280zx motor right now and as usual the power was good for a while but got old. even with th 411 launching capabilities. i guess the choice of a 283 was the fact of the 3" stroke meant i could rev it probably better than my current six (which is the reason i liked the 6 so much) im contemplating boring it straight to 4.0" and making a nice little 302. im afraid of running a 350 because of im afraid of overtorquing the body and the inherent need for a stronger tranny, strengthening the body which isnt only expensive but adds weight, unconditionally having to run a lsd rearend, and in turn new rims for fatter tires! it all keeps adding up.! i figure with my 73 which doesnt weigh crap plus the 411s and a 6500 rpm making 325hp, life would be good. lauches would be easier, mileage would be better, i could still maintain my spare wheel well and use a small cheaper exhaust( 2 1/2") it just added up well to me.. i figure with that power and even with a 370 in the back 1/4 would still probably be in the low 13s. i may be dreaming but i think itll work. even a extremely low torque chevy smallblock still outdoes any l series by a good 60 to 100 ft lbs. ive never ridden in a v8z so this is a lot of hypothesis. please let me know if im way off thanks! oh and thanks for the info about the comp ratio! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RON JONES Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 I had a 283 with a th350 in My Frist V8Z for a couple weeks.I hurt the Super charged 350 that was in the car and had to take it out for a little fix up.So while the 350 was out,A friend of Mine talked Me into puting a 283 He had in it just for fun.He claimed the motor was a screamer.He was right and boy was I surprised.I didn't get to take it to the track but just driving it around on the street was a blast.It ran far better than I would have guessed.I Would like to see you do this swap.I think it will run fine.And I like Your reasons for using this combo.The 283 I ran Had a 461x heads (Camel humps) after market aluminum intake(I don't remember what it was) and it ran great. [ April 27, 2001: Message edited by: RON JONES ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drax240z Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 283Z, your reasons are sound as far as I am concerned. I think that would make an excellent Z engine. Yes you can get 350 parts growing on trees, but there is something to be said for being a little different. Besides if the power bug bites you later on, there are lots of ways to get more power and torque even out of a little 283. Remember, technology is the only replacement for displacement. BTW, I've never heard anything bad said about the 283, from all accounts its a good design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Shasteen Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Drax240z: BTW, I've never heard anything bad said about the 283. The only thing I know of that might be considered bad & if I remember correctly is also the reason GM redesigned the crank in their SBC was due to Cracked Crankshafts from high rev's on the pre-69 SBC's(?) due to their smaller main journal diameter; that's the only reason I was suprised about you doing a 283-I fully understand the lessor torque, ext, ect and yea-that would be more curtailed to a Z than a monster SBC regarding street manners. Dont get me wrong-I'm not trying to talk you out of it as the only article I have in any of my books about a 283/327 smaller journal engines concerns Jack Lufkin pushing the 200mph barrier at the salt flats in 62 in his convertible corvette while averaging 193 mph...even still-his crank was a stroker crank specially built & a forged unit and his final cubic in's reached 374.97 to fall under the 375 class limitations. My only concern is to spend all that time/money on an engine only to have the crank snap one day after a hard run at the 1/4 mile track or while you were trying to lay the smack down on some street chump; that'ld be a pitty. If your worried about too much torque from a 350 you dont have to build a monster-you could build a healthy mild 350. If you do go for the 283-I wish you all the best...just be leary about the smaller crank journal & dont over rev it/know your limitations is all I'm saying. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner) [ April 27, 2001: Message edited by: Kevin Shasteen ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavyZ Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 283Z, I think your reasoning behind using the 283 motor is sound, and it will make a good swap. Your Z will live long and be reliable. Don't build a 265 since they have no provision for an oil filter... David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 Yeah I believe the 265 used a front engine mount slightly different? (thats what I recall, it was created a couple years before I was born after all. (not many) haha..). The large journal crank was introduced I believe because it spins (in relation of the journal to the bearing shell) at a slower rate making the oil and bearing shells live longer, a side benefit was of course strength (or vice versa, I don't admit to being privy to why GM did anything). The small journal will work fine unless its turned under very far, I've seen them snap at the back main if the car is hooked real well (in this case it was slicks and a small journal 327 powered anglia). Those are the only caviates, the early 327's were used in racing for many many years including sprint car duties of 600 hp on alcohol. No argument here, just a counter-point. Regards, Lone [ April 28, 2001: Message edited by: lonehdrider ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl327 Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 what davy said...remember that a camaro weights about 3500lbs, z with v8 about 2600-2800 depending on year, and the t-5 for the 305 motor those years had 300lb rating, which kinda scares me, i want to run one but dont want to end up killing it really fast, but im sure with a mildly built 283 youll have second gear scratches for a good loong while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zfan Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 I had a 283 in a chevy11 super sport(1966). Good car, great motor! My father bought a brand new 1957 chevy bel air. He raced it for years. It had a 283 power pac. He modified it from there and has trophies dating back to 1957 from it. He ran low 13's in it and the 57 chevy is heavier than a Z car. Remember that was with yesterdays technology! He still says that car screamed bloody murder and he was hard to beat. He still hot rods today and says go for it. Best of luck and keep us up todate please. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 thanks everyone, ill let yall know how it turns out over the next few months! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pparaska Posted April 29, 2001 Share Posted April 29, 2001 You'd be hard pressed to hurt a good 283 or 327 small journal crank with a 300-350hp goal. Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins won alot of races with just stock 327 small journal cranks - they're forged and "herky" by his account. The 283 would be really cool. One minor drawback to building power with this engine is that the smaller bore size is not compatible with alot of the heads out these days. But since the 305 is close to (the same) bore, some of the aftermarket heads for the 305 would work well. Anyway, the 302 (3" stroke, 4" bore) would be awesome! Sounds like a great plan for building a Z with a healthy amount of horsepower, without all the upgrades being needed as you say. [ April 28, 2001: Message edited by: pparaska ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.