Does anyone have cam lift for the common 283 4 bbl engines of the 60's? usually 220-240 advertised horspower
1964 283 4 bbl engine
- Thread starter 1958 delivery
- Start date
Greg Reimer
Well Known Member
.398" intake lift,.398 exhaust lift. The '58'61 engine was less, around .334" lift at the valve.As per NHRA blueprint specs.The 250 and the 300 horsepower 327 from '62 through '66 used it, too. The later cam was a .390"-.410" lift.
Last edited:
The first specs seem too close to 097 cam which is .394 .400, I believe the ,334 for a 220hp
I have a power pack 283 and I'm thinking of changing to a 097 and I'm figuring that the stock valve springs should handle the .394-.400 lift without changing. I'm not really trying to make horsepower but just want the sound of the solid lifters
Thank you for the info
I have a power pack 283 and I'm thinking of changing to a 097 and I'm figuring that the stock valve springs should handle the .394-.400 lift without changing. I'm not really trying to make horsepower but just want the sound of the solid lifters
Thank you for the info
I agree with wanting the “sound” so isn’t a couple thousands loose obtaining that. I know where a 61 409/360 is that is couple thousands loose and as Ray says has that cadence.
Robert
I think that's a very good idea, here is some info:
https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/cam-valvetrain/duntov-small-block-camshaft/
https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/cam-valvetrain/duntov-small-block-camshaft/
when solid lifters are adjusted by either of the methods there is a lash adjustment designed by the manufacturer. In the case of the 30-30 cam it is my opinion you will get the sound you want. But in others for instance the 409 solid cam that lash is only 12-20 if I recall. By “loose” I increase that lash adjustment by .002 Thus the term loose lash. Meaning you could recheck and be actually 14-22 lash but that little bit can be heard from outside and not cause engine issues. I am certain the above will create comments but for a street driven vehicle I’ve never heard of problems.
Robert
I thought you were saying to run the existing hydraulic cam loose
097 cam is not the 30-30 but I fully understand lash
loose-tight the cam has a distinctive sound
more later my pc is having issues now
097 cam is not the 30-30 but I fully understand lash
loose-tight the cam has a distinctive sound
more later my pc is having issues now
oK, RE BOOTED PC
Since I'm concerned about stock springs handling the additional .050" lift you might have a good idea to run a "loose" lash which will help with slightly less effective lift.
Right now I haven't convinced myself to do all the additional work of changing cams, especially in a pea shooter 283
Since I'm concerned about stock springs handling the additional .050" lift you might have a good idea to run a "loose" lash which will help with slightly less effective lift.
Right now I haven't convinced myself to do all the additional work of changing cams, especially in a pea shooter 283
Greg Reimer
Well Known Member
Alright, back to cars rather than non-civil civics. The highlighted article cited above by boxer dog hit on some good things regarding the laws of physics regarding engine technology. It's not just the actual lift of a cam that dictates power output, in fact, it can have less to do with max HP than you think. Duration at.050" lift, rate of lift, degrees duration at near max lift, all these things add up. In the event of the 283-327 cam, the lift of the valve is not the reason for the horsepower difference. The cam was designed to also fit a motor with a stock hydraulic lifter valve train. It was essentially a bolt-in replacement part. That was about the only similarity. Duration, rate of lift, lobe center separation, etc. are all variables that came into play that all had distinctive characteristics.
One thing mentioned here in the article was that thermal characteristics, i.e. expansion of parts, can drastically affect valve lash and even the sound of the engine. It's not always easy to adjust valves with the engine coolant temp in the 165-185 degree range, but that, with a mechanical lifter, is actually the correct way to do it. The operating temp is where the engine spends most of its time while running, so we really don't have to care what the lash is cold(room temperature),since we spend as little time as possible at that point. You probably won't hear any difference at that point, but lash could vary as much as .004"-.008" between cold lash and hot lash. As lash decreases, the duration increases, but not enough to be too discernible when driving. Adjust the valves with the engine at that temp and after it has sat for about 10 minutes or so so as to stabilize engine temperature and expansion of parts.
In my early 409 days in the mid-'70's or so, I bought new at the dealer I worked at, a '61-63 409 replacement cam, part # 3830690. It went with the 3814690 heads, the first design large port 409 head. It called for a hot lash of .018" I, .030" E. At that lash, the car sounded like an early 302 powered Z-28 Camaro. I found, also, that tightening valve lash to .014"I and .024"E both made a little more power, and a lot less noise. I ran it with both a 4 speed and 4.88's in my '62, and with a Powerglide and a Stock Eliminator type converter in my '63. It was a pretty good combination for that time frame. The second design cam, the '7735 cam, had more lift and more lash-around .030" I and .030" E. The 583 cylinder head had the valve spring seat machined deeper into the head in order to accommodate the increased lift with out binding the coils of the valve spring.The springs for the second design engine were taller as well. You had to be careful to only use the second design cam with the second design springs and heads. The 583 head would work fine on the earlier cam, but the second design valve spring had to be used. I never ran the second design cam and heads, so I never varied the valve lift to try things.
Back to the 283. Yes,the early mechanical cams were a bolt in for the small blocks, but the valve springs should get an examination as well, since the more abrupt valve train motion will show up a lot sooner on used springs that might not be up to specs. It would be a good idea when you buy the cam and lifters to get a new set of springs as well. There isn't quite any sound out there like one of those cams with the mechanical lifters and the lash. Have a bunch of fun with all this!
P.S. I would pull the intake, leave the heads alone, swap out the cam for the mechanical one, install the mechanical lifters, reinstall the pan and front cover, put on my 4 barrel and stuff, adjust the valves, fire and time the motor, using the used springs to break in the cam and lifters, then put the new springs on and final adjust the valves in that order. Still sounds like a day's work! They have valve spring tools that will work with the heads on that are rather trick.
One thing mentioned here in the article was that thermal characteristics, i.e. expansion of parts, can drastically affect valve lash and even the sound of the engine. It's not always easy to adjust valves with the engine coolant temp in the 165-185 degree range, but that, with a mechanical lifter, is actually the correct way to do it. The operating temp is where the engine spends most of its time while running, so we really don't have to care what the lash is cold(room temperature),since we spend as little time as possible at that point. You probably won't hear any difference at that point, but lash could vary as much as .004"-.008" between cold lash and hot lash. As lash decreases, the duration increases, but not enough to be too discernible when driving. Adjust the valves with the engine at that temp and after it has sat for about 10 minutes or so so as to stabilize engine temperature and expansion of parts.
In my early 409 days in the mid-'70's or so, I bought new at the dealer I worked at, a '61-63 409 replacement cam, part # 3830690. It went with the 3814690 heads, the first design large port 409 head. It called for a hot lash of .018" I, .030" E. At that lash, the car sounded like an early 302 powered Z-28 Camaro. I found, also, that tightening valve lash to .014"I and .024"E both made a little more power, and a lot less noise. I ran it with both a 4 speed and 4.88's in my '62, and with a Powerglide and a Stock Eliminator type converter in my '63. It was a pretty good combination for that time frame. The second design cam, the '7735 cam, had more lift and more lash-around .030" I and .030" E. The 583 cylinder head had the valve spring seat machined deeper into the head in order to accommodate the increased lift with out binding the coils of the valve spring.The springs for the second design engine were taller as well. You had to be careful to only use the second design cam with the second design springs and heads. The 583 head would work fine on the earlier cam, but the second design valve spring had to be used. I never ran the second design cam and heads, so I never varied the valve lift to try things.
Back to the 283. Yes,the early mechanical cams were a bolt in for the small blocks, but the valve springs should get an examination as well, since the more abrupt valve train motion will show up a lot sooner on used springs that might not be up to specs. It would be a good idea when you buy the cam and lifters to get a new set of springs as well. There isn't quite any sound out there like one of those cams with the mechanical lifters and the lash. Have a bunch of fun with all this!
P.S. I would pull the intake, leave the heads alone, swap out the cam for the mechanical one, install the mechanical lifters, reinstall the pan and front cover, put on my 4 barrel and stuff, adjust the valves, fire and time the motor, using the used springs to break in the cam and lifters, then put the new springs on and final adjust the valves in that order. Still sounds like a day's work! They have valve spring tools that will work with the heads on that are rather trick.
Last edited:
I'd shxt can the 283 before I bothered to go through the heads. Which is why I was trying to remember what the stock hydraulic cam size was. I seriously do not think the .394/.400 lift 097 cam is going to cause problems The engine was rebuilt but I doubt it was more then just a re ring/valve job type rebuild. My biggest issue is do I want to go through the hassle of swapping the cam in the car just to have it sound better. My only reason for even considering it is I am definitely changing the intake since someone put a 2 bbl on it. I'm not looking forward to dropping the oil pan to get the timing cover back on
But then again sound can be everything at the right moment
But then again sound can be everything at the right moment
At 70 with 2 bad knees and general laziness, nothing is easy anymore
I was just thinking about 71 and the same laziness. Joints are still OK, but the drive to fix everything I see is weakening, for sure. I do like your plan for the 283. One of my friends has a '32 with a 283/270 hp in it, and that sound and cadence is just perfect.
You don't need to remove the pan. You can loosen the first 4 pan bolts and tap a screwdiver in to lower the pan enough to get the front cover off and on.
Bob
Thanks, that's what my mechanic friend said but wasn't sure if the first few bolts were enough. Wasn't planning on actually dropping it entirely
Not that it matters but now that I'm tearing it apart I found out it has a 1961 block with 1964 (date) power pack heads