Ducaire

Was or was not the 283 the smallest V8 engine that chevi ever built?

(I heard that one of my co-workers has a 283 in his S10 and the others say it is a real bad a##...

whitetrash982

incorrect , the 283 is the 2nd smallest v8 chevy ever made , the smallest (production) v8 that chevy ever made was actually a 265 , i know of only the bel air's it made it into , and have no idea what else it made it in to , but if you find one , hang on to em , you think 283's are hard to find , try finding one of thos

OverBoardProject

It's true about the 283 being a real monster for it's size.
Some had well over 300hp.

You really can't go by the claimed power ratings from back then since several companies lied on the low side for insurance reasons. Sometimes by over 100hp I'm told(way before my time)
I'm also told that Ford was the worst lier back then

DavenPa

I believe a 262 v-8 went into Monzas. The rebuild book I have says it had the same stroke as a 305,350, but had the smallest pistons ever put in a small block. I had a 79 Malibu with a stock 267 v-8 also.

dmbrisket 51

that they were... wait, what do i mean were??

jsgold

Do not know if they were used in any Chevys, but, GM did make a 260 V8, which they used in certain mid-late 70 model Buicks. I had one (a 76 I think) back in the early 80's. Smooth engine.

__________________
I used to be indecisive, now I am not so sure.

bruceacarp

The 260 was an Aluminum engine developed by Oldsmobile and was used by Buick and later the manufacturing rights were purchased by British Leland and used in the Land Rover and TR8 Triumph. (I think the basic design is still used in Rover) The aluminum V8 was never used in production Chevrolets.

bruceacarp

I saw them all introduced so here's from a fat ole man's memory:

I think the only Chevy 1st generation small block factory sizes were:

262, 265, 267, 283, 302, 305, 307, 327, 350, 400

The 265 was the first Chevy V8 produced in 1955, it was enlarged and produced in 1956 as a 283, the 327 showed up in 1962, the 302 showed up in the Camaro to meet the production size requirement for CanAm race qualifications (which was the best power/displacement ratio built in its time) but I can't remember the year, 1968 maybe. The 350 and 307 were introduced in 1968 (I think) and the 400 about 1970 or 71. The 262 was introduced in 1975 as a last minute replacement engine for the Monza when the GM Wankel project died and later (maybe one year later) the 267 was stuffed in the same car and was also used in Chevelles and Novas as a reduced size for economy and emissions issues of the time.
The 305 showed up as a cost reduction effort because it used the same rotating components as the 350 and gave a good streetable torque curve for economy. All of the Generation I engines have the same exterior size and respond to the same hot rodding techniques making the 350 the best combination for power and reliability with the highest torque capability coming from the 400 and the highest RPM capability from the 302 and 327 because of the bore/stroke ratio and connecting rod angles.

There were a few other sizes of the engine produced for GMC trucks and Buick/Olds/Pontiac. The marketing size was never quite the same as the computed displacement but I think they always erred on the small side so they were selling at least the advertised displacement.

But then remember, this is a collection of memories over the course about 50 years so I may have missed a couple dates or forgotten a particular size.

OverBoardProject

Look further into the 400. My motorhome was built in 71, and when we looked to see if it was a 400 we found out that they weren't made yet.

I think that it was 72 or 73, and I understand that they were all smoggers.

However they might have used the 400 in the US before they brought it into Canada

bruceacarp

You are right, I forgot that the '70 400 was actually the same engine as the later 402 and was a big block. They changed its name to 402 when they introduced the small block 400 so that would have had to have been at least '73 if not later. I looked for some online history but all I found was an article on the Chevy small truck history. You are also correct that all 400 small blocks were smoggers. That was one reason they were built. Chevy wanted to maintain the torque while they lost power to the early emission controls.

Someplace I've got a book on the small block and all its applications. Now I'm going to have to find it. The young man and his 283 question opened up a whole vault of long unused brain cells in my head.

OverBoardProject

I'm sure that, that book would sure have some intresting facts on Chevy's motors.

Ducaire

Thanks for all your replies. I enjoyed reading them.

TRACYCULBERSON

The 283 was a beast thats for sure .I have a 283 that was in my dads 55 belair when he sold it to a friend which still has the car did not like the 283 because of the cam in the engine was to much .It is a 283 60 over with pop up pistons,steel crank and a very wicked solid lift camshaft i dont no the specs but it is a ground shaker . They told me when i was a kid that the car would pull the front wheels over coke bottles the 7 oz i suppose .
You can bore a 283 120 thousands over it is the most beefiest small block made i have heard

__________________
FAST

eti engineer

Back in the 60's, Buick made an all aluminum V-8 which was the smallest V-8 I know of. I cannot remember the displacement, but it was like 215 cubes, or something. The engine was so small, that if one selected the 4-barrel option, there was almost not enough room between the valve covers to mount the thing. It developed 190 hp in the highest output verson and was used in the Skylark and Special models.

It was a good running engine, but not in the winter time. The all aluminum feature was good for weight, but made it almost impossible to start in Utah winters unless one built a fire under the oil pan and heated the engine first. It was no good for winter, but unlike the Vega engine, it really held up under abuse.

Anyone know the exact displacement for this engine?? I don't remember it.

Later...

eti engineer