The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Driveline Drive Line help

Hello All,

I need to do some work on my 59 Apache truck but I want to get the most out of what is already there. I have a spare 283 to build, sticking with stock bottom end and power pack heads. I am going with a slightly warmer cam and some hydraulic lifters. I will only do machine work if it is needed. Will top it off with a tri-power and put in some dual exhaust.

I am sticking with the stock rims 15" 6 lugs, sm420 and the 3:90 rear diff.

Which stall converter would make the most sense?
How reasonably tall a tire can I get on stock rims?
What diameter exhaust is the best size?
Anyone know if corvette larger exhaust manifolds will work on an apache or are there better ones?

I am not looking to drag race but I am looking for some get up and go. I have a decent amount now but my tired 283 needs some love.


I won't do a 350/350 even if I get brand new ones free

Any info is greatly appreciated,

Thanks!

I can answer some of this for you.
No need to worry about what toque converter to use, that's for automatic transmissions (it would come into play with a 350/350 combo, though). With the SM420, all you need is properly adjusted clutch and pressure plate.
On tires, the stock wheels are going to limit you on size. 215/75/15 is about the largest modern tire that will work on them safely, they're right at about 27.7" tall on average, which is pretty close to the OEM 6.70-15. Anything larger will lead to foul handling due to lack of sidewall support.
I would think that 2" would be sufficient for a 283, or even a mild 350. Especially if you're running duals. For the manifolds, look for the rams Horn manifolds, they're probably one of the best factory designs, and were used on virtually all of the Power Pak and Fuellie cars.

Bill Thanks for all the info!
Looks like the only thing that needs changing is the exhaust manifolds.

Thanks again,

Angelo

If the truck has the stock 283 it should already have the 2" center dump rams horn manifolds unless someone changed them out for something else. The 2 1/2" Corvette Manifolds would also work well but are generally a little pricy.
Fred

Buy a good fire insurance policy. Tri-Power setups on 283's used to keep the firemen busy putting out burning vehicles 50 years ago- - - - -no reason it wouldn't still happen today. I can't think of a small enough 2 barrel carburetor that a 283 would perform well with three of them. Maybe a matched set of three Stromberg 97's from a flathead Ford V8 would work, if you're willing to spend a LOT of money on them. Keep the cam duration down to about 270 degrees or so, and instead of Power Pack heads that have probably been rebuilt 3 or 4 times already, get a set of 58CC combustion chamber 305 heads. They're 40 years or so newer, have better valves, and make the same compression pressure as the old style heads. Run a QuadraJet carburetor calibrated for a 305 Chevy engine, and a set of 2 1/2 inch rams' horn exhaust manifolds if you can find them. Good luck!
Jerry

Thanks Fred,
I scored a 283 with the rams that was going to the shredder, I have to make sure they are the correct ones.

Jerry Thanks for the tip on the 305 heads and the duration.

I heard about tripower setups burning but from what I understood it was from guys using rubber fuel lines. I'm going with full stainless tank to carb and a fire extinguisher just to be safe. I am hoping that should be ok.

For my tripower I am using rochester 2gs. I will be running off the center full time. The two outers will work as dumpers only on the rare occasion I am WOT. I have modified bases for the outers that eliminate the idle circuit and remove idle parts. They will also have smaller jets so I won't flood. I already have it just need to do some blasting and painting to make it look pretty.

The fires were from people insisting on opening up three times the carburetion the engine needed, suddenly, causing a drastic lean condition and a horrendous backfire that blew fuel out of the float bowl vents all over a hot engine. Since those same guys were smarter than all the GM engineers and also used steel tubing headers instead of exhaust manifolds, a fire was inevitable. These aren't rumors- - - -I grew up around a bunch of idiots in the 1960's who needed to be designing cars for GM- - - - -every one of them was a legend in his own mind where fuel systems were concerned! Good luck with your project!
Jerry

Edit: If you insist on using 2G carbs, jet the outer ones WAY rich. They won't flood, and if you suddenly open up two small-jetted carbs you'll create the ultra-lean conditions I've described. Jets can only respond to air velocity through the venturis, and dumping the throttle plates open quickly drops the venturi velocity so low that there's no vacuum to draw fuel from the jets. You get a super-lean condition and a backfire that makes a 12 gauge shotgun sound quiet.
Jerry

Jerry, this type of thing is exactly why I am still a student here. However I am confused a 2g should run at 280 cfm totaling out at 840 cfm. A quadrajet should run at 680 cfm and some 283s ran dual quads from the factory. How did they get it to run more than 1300 cfm without issues?

The 283's that ran dual carbs used a Carter WCFB. I'm not sure how many cfm they are but I know they are no where near 1300 cfm.

That's the maximum CFM for a Quadrajet, but it's got a spring-loaded air valve over the secondary throttle bores which effectively prevents over-carbureting the engine. It physically cannot flow too much air, and the secondary air valve is spring-adjustable to control the rate of opening. Look at a Q-jet sometime- - - -the primary barrels are tiny, and there's a 3-stack venturi in each primary bore that has a progressive approach to fuel metering. The only time the secondary barrels get into the act is when the primaries can no longer supply the engine with enough air volume, and then the fuel metering is tailored to the airflow.

In short, a properly calibrated Q-Jet is virtually idiot-proof, and there's a smooth progression from idle to full throttle RPM with no flat spots. I started going to Rochester training schools in 1966 when the Quadrajet was a brand new design. I've rebuilt several hundred of them, and taught hundreds of students to repair carburetors in my 30-something years as an automotive instructor. In my decidedly biased opinion, the Q-Jet is one of the best-engineered carburetors out there, whether it's used on a stock street engine or a hotrod. One 460 cubic inch MOPAR tractor pull engine I built made 714 HP on the dyno with a single Quadrajet and Cam 2 racing gasoline.
Jerry

Jerry I don't doubt your expertise one bit. The guys that have been at it a long time are the best guys to learn from. That's why I am asking so many questions. I completely understand your bias, I am partial to Qjets myself mostly because that is what I know how to work on. I have a good understanding and had the opportunity to tune a live single setup 2gc.

I have been told that a 4gc will give me more reliable power than what I am chasing after with the 3x2. However I have already spent all the money on a complete setup and would rather try an massage it before leaving it at the drawing board where it is. I do have a correct 4gc just in case it all fails but I have zero experience with them.

My plan with the jets was 55 on the outers and 56 on the center. What do you recommend?

If that fails what size jets would you put on the 4gc?




Don I wasn't aware of that I just took it for granted that they used 4gs.

Thanks again for your input, it is definitely appreciated.

Back in my street racin, drag racin and terrorizing teen age days, I had a tripower set up on my 283, with a Duntov cam and powerpack heads with dual point ignition and Mallory coil. As I recall it was a Weiand manifold and Rochester carbs with progressive linkage. Only center carb had idle jets and the outside carbs were dumps. Worked fine. When they came out with the Modified production class at the drags, only 2 carbs were allowed. I traded the 3-2s for a stock Corvette dual quad setup, which was troublesome for me. I remember it used to flood out going around corners. Sure wish I had that set, worth a fortune now! Later on I put a single AFB carb on which worked out good. That tripower sure looked cool with those three little louvered chrome aircleaners!

a 4GC is a nice novelty, sort of a "blast from the past", but they suck like a Hoover upright vacuum cleaner where reliability and fuel economy are concerned. When Rochester decided to jump headfirst into the 4 barrel business in 1953 with the 4GC on the Buick, Cadillac, and Oldsmobile, my father was one of the few people in Nashville Tennessee who would work on them. The factory repair procedures didn't work, because of some severe design flaws. He spent so much time pestering the Rochester field engineer for the Nashville area that the family's little independent shop became an unofficial Rochester research facility. Some of the one-off modifications to the 4GC that he and Dad figured out to make those carbs work were standard on the 1954 production models.

There are two main sticking points to the 4GC- - - -float chamber size, and secondary air valve spring torque settings. With even a slightly too-low float setting, the 4GC empties the float bowls on full throttle acceleration, and the engines surges as the float chamber alternately fills and starves. There are two small air valves located brlow the secondary venturis with snail-shell springs resembling an automatic choke coil, only much smaller, holding them closed. The factory refused to provide the proper torque settings to adjust the spring tension, so if one got out of adjustment the technician was on his own as to where to set the springs.

In my opinion, a 4GC that's probably been worn out, rebuilt, and worn out again before it was 20 years old is probably a very poor choice for a new engine buildup unless you're building a numbers-correct concours show car. It will make a nice shelf decoration in the den, or a really good paperweight!
Jerry

Capnduane my setup will be very close to what you described only my cam grind may be less aggressive than what you had. Do you remember anymore about your tripower setup? Thanks for the encouragement I was thinking I was going to end up down a rabbit hole.

Jerry thanks for the info I will try to find a newer one. I'd really prefer to stick with a rochester if the tripower idea fails.

Could be worse, you could be considering running one of these! That's a Man-A-Fre intake from the late '50s/early '60s. It uses 4 (yes, 4) Rochester 2GC carbs, all 4 open together, no progressive linkage. From what I understand, they didn't perform very well, and were virtually impossible to keep in tune.

All I can remember, (50 years ago) was that the tripower was very smooth running, on my car. I got it used from somebody, and it had been used very little before I got it. Evidently I was very lucky and got a set that had been setup correctly. I know the car was faster with the AFB carb, but had been modified with a 375hp 30/30 cam and fenderwell headers at that time. Sorry I can't help much. Listen to Hotrod, he knows his stuff...

Duane, the tripower was pretty successful on the Pontiacs and the Oldsmobiles since both of those engines had enough cubic inches to make use of the extra CFM. In 1957 Pontiac called the setup "Tri-Power" and Olds called it the "J-2" option. Both factory setups used a very unpredictable vaccum-triggered system to slam the outer carbs wide open when the driver went to full throttle. Most of the serious drag racers canned the vacuum system and went to ball-bearing heim-jointed mechanical linkage and BIG return springs. Nothing like backing out of the gas at the end of a run and finding out the vacuum system doesn't want to cooperate! The Corvair Spyder used a 4-carb setup with a vacuum-dump no idle auxiliary carb on each side of the flat 6 cylinder air cooled engine. That system was a pain in the butt also.

The rate of opening of the outer carbs on a 283 would need to be somewhat gradual to avoid a bad lean spot due to the limited volume available to make the carbs work going to full throttle. That can be mitigated somewhat by making sure the accelerator pumps on the outboard carbs have plenty of stroke and the jets are a bit on the rich side.

All things considered, the QuadraJet looks better than all the other options combined.
Jerry

Why don't you just go with a Qjet on a 350/350. That will be faster than a 283 w/3 two's and a manual tranny. Sell the 283 w/carbs to a T bucket guy.

Capnduane thanks for the info. Wow 375 hp out of a 283 is insane! I will be happy with 250 hp! I am definitely going less radical than you were.

Jerry I will definitely try to over rich the outers. It seems like you think it can be done but it will take some or a lot tuning.

Bartamos I have a loong list of reasons why I won't go 350/350. I know it will make more power and be easier to do. On the short side I already have a 283 with 52k that has never been cut and portably won't need to be. I won't put a 350/350 even if I get a new one free.

I have a 1957 265 v8 and 1996 t-5 5 speed electronic speedometer, is there an easy way to change it to my mechanical original speedometer?

The 375 hp I am refering to is the camshaft I was running. It was used in the 375hp 327 in the Corvette. We used to call it the "30/30" cam, it was the biggest cam a guy could get for his small block back then for cheap, like $18! The valve clearances were .030 on intake and exhaust, (solid lifters) when you had them set correctly, you had a nice lope and sweet lifter music. The really cool Corvette aluminum valve covers were $7 from the Chev parts dept! I was probably lucky if my 283 put out 250hp. Used to do real good street racing until they brought out the GTO, then it was all over for my little shoebox.

A 283 at 6,000 RPM would flow 491 CFM if t was possible to get 100% volumetric efficiency, which can't be done. A more realistic number would be 393 CFM @6,000 which is 80%. Let's round it off and call 400 CFM a reasonable goal to shoot for. With enough carburetion 8K RPM is possible for a well-built 283, but it won't be user-friendly on the street. You'll encounter valve float above 6K unless some sophisticated (translation EXPENSIVE) valve spring and port work is done. A roller cam and a rev kit is almost a necessity to get up into the 7500-8K range with a small block Chevy and keep it together for more than a few seconds. That's about $2500.00 worth of head, cam, and associated hardware work.

I've run "claimer" 350's at the round track to 6,000 RPM on a single Holley #7448 350 CFM 2-barrel- - - - -the manifold vacuum just starts climbing as the RPM goes above the flow capacity of the carburetor. Any good 4-barrel will let the 283 achieve much higher RPM than a 350 can ever see unless the 350 has those expensive tweaks done to it as well. The 3" stroke crankshaft loves to wind up. 350's are like belly buttons and other "holes"- - - -everybody's got one, and some of 'em are pretty stinky! The QJet will simply be the easiest, least troublesome way to get the performance you're looking for, with plenty of volumetric capacity to crowd the top end RPM limit of your cam and lifters every now and then! The tripower will be some nice eye candy at the local show and shine, but the visual "WOW" factor about its only advantage.
Jerry

Capnduane I understand now, so that was the most aggressive grind! I am going for a subtle lope just enough noise when you idle or hit the gas but not noticeable by everyone.

Jerry this all makes perfect sense, I won't get near 6000 and I certainly don't want to go past it either in my truck. The more power the easier temptation can take over. I am going for a stock bottom end, warmer cam and done.

Which 4bbl would you recommend? 60s? 70s? My knowledge of 4bbls is lacking at best.

Thanks again

According to this website, here's a QJet that's calibrated for a 283. I really didn't know it existed, but if it's actually true, it's the best of all possible solutions. The GM part number is 17082222.

http://www.carburetion.com/CarbNumber.asp?Number=17082222

It's got an integral automatic choke, so you won't have to deal with the frustrating little choke coil that mounts on the intake manifold of some of the earlier models. This carb is listed in my Motor repair manual as a 1982 application, long after the 283 was discontinued, so the website information might be incorrect.
Jerry

I would think that a Q-jet for a 305 would work just fine. You should be able to find a mid 70's vintage intake that will work along with the Q-jet. I believe that the 283 blocks have a hole in the rear of the block for a road draft tube. You may want to decide if you are going to use it to vent your engine or if you are going to update to a PCV valve system. Most 283's had the oil fill tube in the front of the intake manifold and used valve covers that had no holes in them. The later intake manifold doesn't have a provision for an oil fill tube. You have a few things to sort out, feel free to ask questions.

I still vote for the trip deuces sooo cool!

Since we all have our own opinion. It's silly for anyone to make fun of a 350 just because everyone likes them. They DO have more torque and more HP. They ARE a newer technology with better casting, cooling, reliability, weigh about the same and more parts availability.. You can't make them a bad engine just by joining in on an adolescent joke about them. If a person has a 283, go for it, but don't think it's anything but more nostalgic than a TreeFiddy. The 283 is very "fitting" for that truck. Personally, I like BBC the best. Build a 283 and 350 with same type components and put them in two 59 trucks and the 350 will blow the others doors off.

Jerry, thanks for all the info and the carb help I will start getting parts for that setup.

Thanks a lot Don I will definitely take you up on that offer!

Capnduane don't fret at some point I might get a 327 and complete the dream

Bartamos, I think the 350 is an awesome engine but definitely not for my application. I could easily remove my scary 800 hp 454/700r/12bolt from my '79 Camaro and drop it all in my truck very easily but I don't want that. As I mentioned in my first post it is just not what I am going for. I am taking a nostalgic approach to my build, no offense intended.

I actually had one of the Man-A-Free 4 carb manifolds that Bill mentions on a 283 in the early 60's. Although I had Stromberg 97's on it. It was definitely a different driving experience but impressive when you opened the hood. It ran OK at 6000 feet elevation at lake Tahoe but really came on when we went down to Reno which is about 4200 ft. They were not great for low end but performed really well at mid range and above. I changed it out for a Rochester Fuel Injection when I rebuilt the engine. It ran better than multiple carb set up's at high altitude.
Fred

I also had a manafree manifold with 97's, on my 55 Chev with 283 years ago. Really fast, but almost undriveable at low speeds. I traded it off after 1 week! Sure looked cool!