The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop Your thoughts on the 283c.i. Engine?

I picked up a early production (Dec. 56) Bel Air 2 door HT, 1957. It has the original 283 engine in place. It is a “FC” coded engine which is the so called “power pack” with a 4bbl and dual exhaust. Not being “my cup of tea””, I’ve been asking anyone who would listen for advice on this car. Hence, this posting. It has been said that the 1957 283c.i. is a punched out (0.120”) 365c.i. block and a one year only production. Chevy produced a new block from 1958 onward for the 283. The 1957 block can’t be bored out any further if it is tired and needs it. Also, it has been said that it is somewhat prone to overheating. Back in the day a large percentage of this engine were replaced under warranty with the old reliable 265. Some advice is to replace the 283 with a ‘well built’ 265 with the right stuff and I’ll be a happy camper.
Your thoughts on this please.

I have a .120 283 (1959 block)in my T bucket, it equals out to a 301 cu in. Before boring, I had the machine shop check for core shift just to make sure there was going to be enough meat there. I have driven my T bucket around Lake Tahoe in stop and go traffic in the middle of the summer and no cooling problems. You decision to build it should be solely based on what the machinist finds. I am pretty sure the 1957 283 can be bored, some years ago I helped a man restore his belair and his 1957 block went .060 over.

You will get some people who tell you the 283 was a great engine and some who say it wasn't. I believe it depends on when it was built.

I have owned two. One a 1957 just like the one you described also in a 1957 2 door HT Bel Air. When I got it the thing was using oil. I bored it .030, had the crank cut .010, replaced the cam and all lifters and pushrods, valves, guides, springs, head/block decked, etc. One was a 1958 which had never been rebuilt, and I bought that one while in high school...maybe 1963 or 64. The 1958 was a more well-mannered engine, ran smoother, quieter and didn't burn oil. Until it lost the timing chain, I'd say it was an ok engine and I trusted it enough to drive it all over the country. Both engines had quirks, though.

Here are a few the things I remember:
1. Oddball oil filter which no matter how careful you were was prone to leak. In the 1957 engine I finally converted it to a spin-on filter out of frustration.
2. Both leaked oil at the rear main seal. The 1957 was much worse about this. Unlike the 235 no neoprene seals were made that will fit the 1957 and I don't know about the 1958. The prior owner (a good friend who owned an auto repair shop here for 50 years) said he bought it in 1960 and told me you could slow that leak down, but probably not stop it for very long.
3. The 1957 ran hot despite a re-cored radiator and added shroud. The 1958 didn't. In defense of the 57, it had A/C and the 58 didn't.
4. Neither of them got decent gas mileage, but the 58 was better. I finally ended up changing the rear end to a 3.08 in the 1957 and that did help a bit.

Now I should tell you a friend owned one of the last of the 283s and it was a really nice and smooth engine. Was the base model with a 2bbl. When he sold the car it had over 100,000 miles on it and during that time, he only had to replace the fuel pump, water pump and alternator.

I wouldn't be afraid of the 283 but it depends on your expectations. My 2 ton grain truck has the original drive train, I replaced the cam, lifters, timing chain and gears due to a wiped out lobe. While I had the motor and tranny out I de-sludged the engine, I did not pull the heads, did not change the rear seal. Put her back together with new gaskets of course. It doesn't leak or smoke. I'm happy the way it runs for a 62 year old motor. One other thing about the small blocks, the cam, lifters, timing set I had on hand because I kept them from another build 20+ years ago. It was a 355 and I went with a different cam after about 2000 miles. Just saying this to note the interchangability of small block parts.

It has been said that the 1957 283c.i. is a punched out (0.120”) 365c.i. block

Disregard anything that person tells you, including the time of day.

If the block can be documented as original to the vehicle, swapping it for another one, even a "year-correct" 283, will drastically devalue the car. I'd do anything necessary to retain that engine, even to the point of re-sleeving all the cylinders back to standard bore if necessary. OEM 57 283's were notorious for cracking piston skirts. Don't get greedy on ignition timing! The problem was with the design of the pistons, not the engine, so replacing the pistons with something like hypereutectic cast ones solves the problem.
Jerry

Many years ago I had a 283 in a '67 Chevelle. It burned oil when I bought it, but did a complete rebuild about a year later (bored .030 over, new cam, lifters, valves and guides etc). The Chevelle I eventually wrecked, but the motor I kept for a lot of years after that. I ended up installing it in 3 other vehicles before finally letting it go when I sold my '63 Chevy pickup (still running sweet).

About a year ago, I was trying to locate the buyer of my old '63 in hopes of getting back my 283. He lived out in the country and I was hoping that it might be sitting out at the family farm. No such luck. I did however recently locate a clean, original looking 283 that was just pulled from a '66 Chevelle. The owner was going to freshen it up and put it in a Model A street rod he is building, but decided to buy a crate motor instead. I have plans for this one.

John

I’ll admit, I didn’t do the math on the 0.120” enlargement. I did think that was a tad much, but guy seemed very informed on ‘57s and I sure don’t know much. Like I stated, 1958 and later blocks don’t apply to this problem. Again, according to my source. The motor started after 35 years which says something for it. Did hear a lot of valve train noise but I will be replacing all of that. As to Jerry’s statement, the engine is not tied to the car in any way other than the build date as far as I can tell. Engine was born in November ‘56 and car built December ‘56. Even the radiator has a build date of November 56. My plan is to keep it as original as possible, just didn’t want to waste effort and money on a boat anchor block.

As for numbers, .120 over on the 265 block is basically 283 cubic inches.

265 bore was 3.7495"-3.7525"
283 bore was 3.8745"-3.8775

Stroke was 3.0" on both.

When we were young bucks I remember being told on the SBC engines a good rule of thumb was you could figure on picking up approximately 5 and a half cubic inches for each .030 over they were bored. Using that, you'd take the 265 to 287, but it was just a guide and not exact.

I have bored a few 265's to 283, so it is possible. It's not a good idea, since the cylinder walls are so thin they're difficult to keep cool. Of course, those engines got driven 1000 or 1320 feet at a time at extremely high RPM, and they weren't expected to last very long. Boring the 283's .125" to 4" was a little more successful. We called them "301" and Chevy cheated half a cubic inch when they called them "302" in the Z-28 Camaro.
Jerry

The '57 283 is a true one year block as it doesn't have side motor mount bosses...1958 was the first year for the side mounts.

Mike B

I've had several 283's over the years. One, original to my 57 coupe, (power pack) and it never gave me any problems but I never rough handled it either. I did to the "301" bore on a 283 and put it in my 56 coupe along with some other engine modifications. It was a beast for its day but died at Shady Side Drag Strip. My brothers took it to the drags while I was in the hospital for an operation. Two of the cylinder walls let go but it was a tough engine for a long time and I ran it to death every weekend......and a couple others 283's. ( I also love the 327's but that is another story for another day)
I currently have a 68 283 complete engine with 67,000 documented miles on my engine stand. Like John Lucas, "I have plans for this one".

I think it was/is a sweet little engine. However, bang for the buck is buy the crate engines, or the 350 route. Still I think they are a nice running economical engine when tuned up good. Maybe a mild duntov, or equal cam if you can find one. Purrs like a kitten and good on the highway.

Only one month's difference in engine and chassis build dates is a collector's wet dream. I'd be keeping that one is as original condition as possible.
Jerry

Thanks for all the input. Will try to make a true survivor out of the car. Will have to see what the motor tells us.

I am surprised that no 1957 Corvette guys have spoken up on this question. I have one with the Power PAC engine. While not original to my car it is dated properly, 2 x 4's, four speed, dual point distributor, good gears in the rear end and Duntov cam or equivalent, the 283 was a monster in 1957. Mine is built close to the original spec's. of 270 hp but a big brother was available that put out 283 hp for the 283 CID. That is how you need to consider the car, the year and the engine. It was the top of the line and would forever be the base of our Small Block Chev. addiction. As mentioned they do have a few "quirks" but my gosh we are all getting older and that was 60 years ago with the engineering of the day. Don't be afraid of the engine at all. This is my 2 cents.
Al

I am surprised that no 1957 Corvette guys have spoken up on this question. I have one with the Power PAC engine. While not original to my car it is dated properly, 2 x 4's, four speed, dual point distributor, good gears in the rear end and Duntov cam or equivalent, the 283 was a monster in 1957. Mine is built close to the original spec's. of 270 hp but a big brother was available that put out 283 hp for the 283 CID. That is how you need to consider the car, the year and the engine. It was the top of the line and would forever be the base of our Small Block Chev. addiction. As mentioned they do have a few "quirks" but my gosh we are all getting older and that was 60 years ago with the engineering of the day. Don't be afraid of the engine at all. This is my 2 cents.
Al