Anyone know any hp and tq numbers for a 1961, 283. The guy who has it said they were in the corvettes.

 

There were different versions. And, the methods of measuring were different in those days.

They had 195 gross flywheel HP 2bbl wonders, 4bbl with about 225 HP (I believe that was the base Vette engine), dual quads with around 270, and mechanical fuel injection with around 285. Cams & heads varied between the different versions.

You really have to know more about the specifics of the engine to know for sure what power it might make.

FWIW, lowly LG4 makes as much or more real power than all but the higher end 283's. The L69 & LB9 are highly superior to any factory 283.

Before the flames start, I was cutting my mechanical teeth back when you still saw those cars on the road. Don't try to give me some rose-colored fish story that your daddy or grand uncle tells about the "good old days".

 

Ya gotta remember too that the factory's "ratings" were even more flagrantly distorted back then than they are now; and that if you take one of the better of those old motors and put modern gasoline in it, you'll have to back the timing off quite a bit to keep it from detonating. For instance, that "283 HP" 283 with the Rochester FI, is slower than the exact same motor with a single Holley 4-barrel; and by modern ratings methods, that 4-barrel motor would do about 180 HP. So even if somebody gave you the "rating" for some motor in 61, the number is near about meaningless.

Like five7 said, the myths and legends grew by leaps and bounds during the years of total HP starvation in the 70s. I have to number myself among the old geezers that was there at the time too. It's been almost humorous to see the romantic fabrications among the starry-eyed youngsters sprout up since the cars were new. You hear of course abotu "well I saw a 69 Camaro run a 10.20 at the track last weekend"; it didn't leave the showroom floor that way, even though they somehow equate race car performance with stock performance.

 

Base 283: 230hp
dual 4bbl: 245hp
dual 4bbl: 270hp
Mech FI : 275hp
ho Mech FI:315hp

all ratings in gross hp.

So there was quite a few available in '61. Might want to find out which one it is.

 

And don't forget, just because some 283s "came in Corvettes", doesn't mean that the one he has did; or, that it made any difference. The "from a Vette" line is just about the oldest sucker bait there is in the whole field of hotrodding. Wear your stainless steel underwear when you talk to this guy, and don't bend over to pick up the soap, he's obviously shooting some missiles at you.

The numbers are meaningless as raw numbers. That is, a "280 HP" '61 283 doesn't put out twice as much power as a "145 HP" '82 LG4. In fact, if you took the 280 HP 283 and "rated" it the same way the LG4 is "rated", it would probably have trouble beating the 200 HP mark.

 

Ok, thanks I didnt know the ratings where different. The 283 is a single four barrel carb engine.

 

There is no replacement for displacement - a 283 is a displamentally challenged SBC.

 

Most early '60s 283 blocks can be bored to 4", which would give you a nice 302 to build up... just food for thought.

 

then why are built 5 liter mustangs running equivalent times to our stripped, and 406 powered f-bodies? oh that's right, they have RPMs on their side. revs can win races too you know. if there is anything that our rival ford has taught us it's that the old no replacement for displacement myth is exactly that. case in point, the GM 403 motor.

 

Granted there are good motors (ford 302) and bad ones (olds 403). but a general ruel of thumb is more cubes is better. If that wan't true then why are "we" running 406 sbc in our stripped out race cars and not 302s? BTW there is one replace ment for cubic inches and it is cubic money .


And mustangs are flyweights. F-bodies aren't.