Has anyone ran a SBC 283 in a Fiero yet? I have the chance to pick up a pair of late 60's for little to nothing, and being an easy 300 hp achievable motor was thinking it sounded like a good ideal. Not much low end torque, high revs and cheep 300hp sounds like a good fit for a Fiero with a 5speed if you ask me.

This question is to Archie. Would your kit work on a 283?

It'll work just fine. All SBC'c are the same physical size with the same mounting points, bellhousing, etc. Any SBC will go in with Archie's kit.

------------------
1986 SE 350 V8

quote Originally posted by sixstringretard: Has anyone ran a SBC 283 in a Fiero yet? I have the chance to pick up a pair of late 60's for little to nothing, and being an easy 300 hp achievable motor was thinking it sounded like a good ideal. Not much low end torque, high revs and cheep 300hp sounds like a good fit for a Fiero with a 5speed if you ask me. This question is to Archie. Would your kit work on a 283?

The 1st engine I ever put in a Fiero was a 327 out of a 1967 Camaro & I loved it.

The only issue with the 283 or 327 could be the original cylinder heads. In the early '60's Chevy mounted the alternator outboard of the valve cover on top of the exhaust manifold with an adjusting arm coming out to it.

Then in 1967 (I think) they started mounting the alternator in front of the left cylinder head. To do this GM put 3 threaded holes in the front of the cylinder head for the new alternator mount.

My Alternator mount uses a couple of these holes. If you're going to run A/C on your Fiero, then you can't low mount the Alternator. So you'll need these holes. Take a look & see if you have these holes.

If you're going to use aftermarket heads you won't have an issue because almost all aftermarket heads have these holes in them.

Otherwise everything else on the engine is cool.

Archie

[This message has been edited by Archie (edited 01-21-2011).]

To run pump gas requires hardened exhaust seats, which your heads may not have. Machine shops can remedy that, but there's a cheaper option: swap on 305 heads.
The best choice is the '081 castings from the '87 LG4 and the '87-'92 LB9. These have the most efficient combustion chambers, which are about 55 cc, and they came with 1.84" intake valves. Having them cut for 1.94" is no problem. But even without that, they still beat any 283 heads. best to sell the 283 heads to guys restoring old Corvettes, you'll easily cover the cost of the 081s and matching intake manifold.

I'm sitting on a nice 1962 327 short block with a fairly fresh .040 overbore. It was really tempting when I was looking at swaps. Not already having a set of heads I went with a 3800 and it was easier.

I ran a 283 for about 6 months before I upgraded to a 350, as Archie said there might be a bolt hole issue for the alternator bracke. It wasn't strong enough for me, so I build a 350 to replace it. To help put this into perspective, I funded my original SBC install (and the 350 build up) with funds from selling a 69 camaro with a 406 (and had a 406 in my 86 Vette for 6 years before the camaro). There is a night/day difference between the 283 and the 406 and I prefered the 406... but they can be hard to come by and it is cheaper to build a 350...

Being old enough to have driven the original 265, 283 and 327 back in the day, I can tell you that the 327 is the screamer of the group.

The 283 though, is a tough little motor. It revs really well and is more than enough power for a street Fiero. The 327 will rev higher, but, the 283 will get better gas mileage by a wee bit. Build it into a stoker though, and you'll be into a race worthy engine.

Arn

The 283 will rev faster than a 327 due to the 3.00 stroke of the 283 as compared to the 3.25 stroke of the 327.
The 302 is a 327 block with with basically a 283 stroke crank and is the real screamer of the bunch with its perfect bore and stroke combo. An oversquare engine that will rev to 8k easily with proper cam and valve train.

283 was built untill 1967. 1968 it beame a 307 (283 with a 327 crank) no holes in the heads. Boy I wish I could find a 283 for a little or nothing !

283s got by far the best gas mileage of any V8 back then. And they seemed to run forever, too. Many more of them made it past 150,000 miles without a rebuild than any other engines of the day. No question.
They all had forged cranks, too.
Many of them got bored to 4", and most people called that a 301. Long before the disaster that Pontiac called a 301.
A 283 is certainly worthy of a set of retrofit hydraulic roller lifters.

[This message has been edited by Isolde (edited 01-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Isolde: 283s got by far the best gas mileage of any V8 back then. And they seemed to run forever, too. Many more of them made it past 150,000 miles without a rebuild than any other engines of the day. No question. They all had forged cranks, too. Many of them got bored to 4", and most people called that a 301. Long before the disaster that Pontiac called a 301. A 283 is certainly worthy of a set of retrofit hydraulic roller lifters.

301 Pontiac was hardly a disaster. Never intended for high performance, they ran right past 200K when that was a pretty good trick. I bought one new in 78 in a Grand Prix and knocked down 24 mpg on the highway. I never heard of anybody having trouble with these motors.

[This message has been edited by weaselbeak (edited 01-21-2011).]

Okay so 283 with 305 Ho heads what would be a good cam? I can get both for around 100.

quote Originally posted by Isolde: 283s got by far the best gas mileage of any V8 back then. And they seemed to run forever, too. Many more of them made it past 150,000 miles without a rebuild than any other engines of the day. No question. They all had forged cranks, too. Many of them got bored to 4", and most people called that a 301. Long before the disaster that Pontiac called a 301. A 283 is certainly worthy of a set of retrofit hydraulic roller lifters.

All good points. One of the overlooked things about pre 1968 Small blocks is that all were "small journal" engines, the crankshafts main and rod journal size was increased on 68 and up blocks to allow Chevy engineers to use cheaper cast iron crankshafts; all pre 68 small blocks 265, 283 and 327, had much more desirable forged steel cranks. Samll journal cranks had not threaded hole in the snout for the balancer either.

A roller cam is a good idea, especially since modern oils lack zinc.

And they were practically indestructable; my dad had one in a 65 Impala and it had 260,000 on the odometer when the junk man came to pick up the car. it still ran, the rest of the car fell apart...lol. I was 15 at the time and my friend and I decided to see of we could blow it up before the junk man came so we drained the oil and started it up. it ran for quite some time so we started tossing small nuts and even pennies down the carb, not unlike a recent Mythbusters (which used a sbc too). it started running bad but still going. The junk man watched for a few minutes and then told us to shut it down, he had to hook it and go.

Another note about the 283, it was the first GM engine to be fuel injected (1956 I believe on the Vette, 57 on the Belair), and the first engine to make 1 HP per cubic inch. The later blocks could most often be bored to 4" to make a 302, with early blocks that could be risky.

[This message has been edited by TONY_C (edited 01-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by TONY_C: That depends. Auto or manual, carb or TPI? I had a buddy who had a 66 Nova with a 283 and back in the late 80's put on a TPI unit on it. That was a great move, it seemed as if that engine was the perfect size for the TPI unit, it didn't seem to stop breathing at higher rpm's like the 305 and 350 did. Got great gas mileage too.

I will probably go carb and I got a 5 speed.

[This message has been edited by sixstringretard (edited 01-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Lou6t4gto: 283 was built untill 1967. 1968 it beame a 307 (283 with a 327 crank) no holes in the heads. Boy I wish I could find a 283 for a little or nothing !

The 307 and 327 shared the same stroke but the cranks were not the same. Counterweights were different and 307 were all cast iron, 327's were forged steel. 1968-69 were that last years for the 327 and they were large journal cranks those two years.

This guy says he has a 69 camaro 350 for 250.00 was there a 69 350

quote Originally posted by sixstringretard: This guy says he has a 69 camaro 350 for 250.00 was there a 69 350

Chevy started making 350's in 68. get the numbers stamped on the block right under the front of the driver side cylinder head. Then look online for what the block was. If it was from a Camaro, chances are good that it's a four bolt main block, another thing chevy did when going to large journal cranks. could also be a forged crank too, most likely

Several errors there, Tony. But they're off topic, so PM me if you want to discuss the late '60s SBCs.
Still can't choose as cam yet, you have to decide what HP or rpm range you want, and how you want the idle to sound.

quote Originally posted by Isolde: Several errors there, Tony. But they're off topic, so PM me if you want to discuss the late '60s SBCs. Still can't choose as cam yet, you have to decide what HP or rpm range you want, and how you want the idle to sound.

Light idle, looking for around 300 hp, and I will be autocrossing and streeting this car so i would like a mid range RPM.

I'd suggest the Comp Magnum 270 roller, 215/215 duration at 0.050", 110 lobe sep, 0.500" lift. It'll have a noticeable idle, but not like race cars. It'll tear your head off from 2000-5000 rpm, driveable from 1500-5500.
Second choice would be Comp's High Energy 260. 212/212 duration, 0.440" lift, non-roller lifters, so you should order it Nitrided. Only Comp offers this, and it is worth it, but then you're close to the cost of just buying Howards' retrofit rollers.
It costs more up front to go roller, but long term you'll recoup it all in not buying ZDDP additives, plus there's NO chance of losing a lobe on break-in.
You can use CP's 98111 springs, but I'd run Comp 982-16s, inverted, with Vortec retainers. This adds the cost of a spring seat cutter, but removes any spring surge, so no surge-caused dips in the torque curve.
Top with an Edelbrock 2604 for best performance.

Something I always wanted to do was put a 283/302 crank in a 400 block. Just an idea you can kick around. Should work good in a Fiero, good top end power and should have enough torque to cruise around town. Also on the comp cam high energy cam, I had the 260 high energy in a 78 malibu wagon 350 w/headers, 2.74 gear. Had a ton of low and mid range torque plus 20+ mpg average.

------------------

85 GT 3.4
14.9 @ 90 1.9 60' Old TH125/3.06
Unknown New 4T60/3.42

quote Originally posted by Lilchief: Something I always wanted to do was put a 283/302 crank in a 400 block. Just an idea you can kick around. Should work good in a Fiero, good top end power and should have enough torque to cruise around town. Also on the comp cam high energy cam, I had the 260 high energy in a 78 malibu wagon 350 w/headers, 2.74 gear. Had a ton of low and mid range torque plus 20+ mpg average.

That's about 321 cubes. Is there a reason why this is something we don't see?

I do see 400 cranks in 305 blocks, resulting in 334 cubic inches with torque.

[This message has been edited by weaselbeak (edited 01-22-2011).]

It does NOT matter how fast your engine will rev up in neutral. It does matter how fast it'll rev up against a load. And while this 321 and the 3.25" stroke 353 have been tried, by top engine builders, neither can out-perform a 377. That's a 350 crank in a 400 block bored 30 over.
Nascar used to do the 353 thing, but even they moved away from that approach, reducing bore and adding stroke. Then they got the SB2.

This guy says he has a 69 camaro 350 for 250.00 was there a 69 350- '69 camaro 350 4 barrel 290 HP.

quote Originally posted by Lou6t4gto: This guy says he has a 69 camaro 350 for 250.00 was there a 69 350- '69 camaro 350 4 barrel 290 HP.

Well **** why am I even thinking about the 283 when the 350 is what I'm looking for!!!

Stock '69 was 295 HP, but it's the same '929 cam as all the '67-'81base 350s had, whether 2 barrel or 4 barrel.
Be careful it's not the GM 290 HP crate engine, that POS has a real SCR of 7.8:1, it is NOT 8.5:1 as GM claims.

the way I would look at this is will it do what i want and what will it take to do what i want . if you want it to be a high reving engine you will need gears to let it get there and you can have a 283 that puts out lots of power with the right parts but you must rev it higher i had a home grown 302 by boring out a 283 1/8 inch some of the blocks will take that much bore i think they where late 50's to early 60's blocks if i remember right you can be fast with one as long as the whole drive train is set up for it as far as heads i think i would go aftermarket you can get them in 55 cc chambers and they will flow better and be ready to go but if you buy recking yard heads they will need work like a valve job, surfacing and valve guides so by the time you are done you will have about the same money in the heads that are weaker and make less power

quote Originally posted by engine man: if you want it to be a high reving engine you will need gears to let it get there

The stock fiero manual transmissions has all the gear needed to be propelled with a low torque high RPM screamer. A first gear launch with a fiero Getrag is very similar to a RWD car launching with some 4.73 gears (assuming a 2.67 1st gear and the same tire diameter).

I was not clear what i was trying to explain i meant if you want it to pull like a 350 or even a 406 you need more gear due to less torque so you need a higher multiple factor so lets look at the math of it lets say you have a 406 and it makes 450 Lbs of torque and you have a 3.55 gear so 3.55 X 450 =1597 Lbs now to get the same 1597 divided it by what ever the torque is of the 283 lets say that is 310 so 1597 divided by 310 =5.15 gear so the car will pull the same as if it had a 406 but now you must rev it higher to go the same speed as the 406 with less gear

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 01-23-2011).]

If you want to autocross it, and drive it every day, not work on it, get good mpg, use the best tech you can. build it right first time. 283 block, 305 heads, mild roller cam, TPI is great on a small sbc, light flywheel.
If you have to run a carb, a 1972 vega elec. fuel pump will work with a longer peice of hose to mount it. the vega pump was for a carb, 4 to 6 pounds presser. It was GM's first fuel pump in the tank. I just put one in my 88 chevy duelly so i could get rid of the good-old-boy-screwed-up, hacked up, TBI.

Oh, and by the way, a 283 = a 4.6 lt. that will be a suprise when you open the hood and people think you have a northstar or a ford mod motor.
but a 350 will do every thing better, and cheaper.

the 283 was king untill the 327 came out. than the 348, 350, 409, 427,454. But as a "blast from the past" a 283 in a fiero with a stick would be fun. As soon as you get it driving start building a 383 because you are going to want MORE!

Don't get me wrong, I still think the 327 is the idle sbc for the Fiero, but, a 283 at about 300hp is going to be a very good ride. Not so torquey to destroy the tranny, but full of power right through 6000 rpm, which is about right for a streetable Fiero. You can also safely pump up the compression ratio on those engines too.

Arn

quote Originally posted by engine man: I was not clear what i was trying to explain i meant if you want it to pull like a 350 or even a 406 you need more gear due to less torque so you need a higher multiple factor so lets look at the math of it lets say you have a 406 and it makes 450 Lbs of torque and you have a 3.55 gear so 3.55 X 450 =1597 Lbs now to get the same 1597 divided it by what ever the torque is of the 283 lets say that is 310 so 1597 divided by 310 =5.15 gear so the car will pull the same as if it had a 406 but now you must rev it higher to go the same speed as the 406 with less gear

When a mild 350 sbc can break the tires (245/45/16) loose anywhere in 1st or 2nd gear just by mashing the throttle from a roll... you do not need any more gear. Less torque down low will allow you to better use the ratios the fiero manual transmissions have.

The 283's and short stroke engines were favored back in the day largely because the availability of stronger rods/rod bolts were minimal and expensive. The shorter stroke reduced piston speed per RPM and gave you more maximum RPM for the same load on the rods/bolts. So you could safely spin these shorter stroke engines much higher w/o worry of throwing a rod through the pan. Rods and cap bolts have come a long way and now you can build a 406 to spin as fast as the old 283's and we are back to valvetrain being the limiting factor unless you want to go solid.

I have a NA 3800, just over 200 horses, 240 on the torque. I have the 3.65 final drive and the last thing I need is numerically higher. I'd like it better down around 3.20 somewhere. I'll be going to taller wheels and tires to help.

yes the 283 will be fine in the car and i get off track relay but if you could get the tranny to take the power of a 406 and the tires would hook up and you where racing 2 fieros one with a 283 and the other with a 406 the 406 should pull the 283 if they had the the same gear and same HP due to the 406 is going to have more torque to leave on but if you put gear to the 283 to equal the torque out then i think it would win due to it will rev quicker but that is in the world of where the parts can handle the power and it could make it all to the ground . if it was me i would do like a 400 block ans a 327 crank this combo in a 30 over is like 348 inch it will rev it will make HP and torque and the next i would build would be a 377 400 block 350 crank but most will tell you the 400 block will burn up in the middle cylinder 4,6 or 3.5 due to siemese bore but if you use copper head gaskets it allows the heat to be transfered thru the heads but a composite gasket acts like a insulator and lets the heat build up till you get gasket failure

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 01-23-2011).]

Horsepower is for bragging rights, torque is for smiles. I've always found torque to be more fun to drive. But that was always in cars that were 700-1000 lbs heavier than a Fiero. Almost any combo should be scary fast.

idk about all that.. but for awhile half of those (meaning like 4 lol) GT40's MKI's including i think it was car 1056 and car 1057(both dark green with yellow stripes) used 289cu putting out 545hp and revving in excess of 7000rpms.. and im pretty sure car 1057 won 24 hours lemans twice with only a high revving 289... im sure you can get adequite horsepower out of a 283 and still rev higher than any 350 would have ever revved.. plus a high revving 283 sounds nasty when your driving unlike anything you would ever hear... honestly i would stick with the motor and make that beast a monster..


oh and by the way the stock 1969 camaro claim 290 hp out of the 350.. it pushed more like 360hp not 290hp as it says everywhere on PAPER

[This message has been edited by gmctyphoon1992 (edited 01-24-2011).]

We all know of one Fiero that has just the right amount of torque and HP to be fast and it isn't even a V8 it is Fiero X His car is fast due to not to much torque to break thngs but when the turbo spools up it brings the power in just right . There are a few guys trying to use Ls engines but they seem to run into traction or part breakage but if they can get them problems fixed so that shows you that bigger is not better unless you are willing to dump a wheelbarrow full of money on top

Engine Man makes a good point.

Too much torque on the transaxle is a problem at launches. One of the guys with a 2.8 turbo put on some sticky tires and left his spider gears at the starting line. Real embarrassing. But, the lesson is that our trannies have limitations on torque.

If you put a 383 torque monster in the car, you will have breakage. So you have to be prepared to replace parts and pay the tow truck. The 283 would be plenty of engine, not deliver huge torque off the line and be a fun ride.

I think you are onto a good thing, but, there will be guys who just want mo' power and will encourage you to go big.

Arn

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-24-2011).]