I have the major essential bits for a 283 stroker motor -- perfect standard-bore block that has been hidden away since the '60s, an excellent 327 SJ steel crank, and a pair of perfect 461 63cc heads.

The block was fitted with four-bolt steel mains by a pro engine shop in the mid '60s, for duty as a Junior Fuel motor, but was never paid for by the customer. I was given the block about a year ago and have waited to find a good use for it, which I now have.

I want to build it for my '53 Ford F-100 pickup that will serve as the push truck for my '53 Ford F-100 XF/PP (Ford/Mercury flathead V8/Production Pickup) Bonneville race truck.

The Chevy-powered road truck will have a WC T5 connecting the motor to a Ford 9-inch with mid-3 final gears. I'm favoring a torquey cam grind rather than a spinner, in the interest of good fuel economy at highway cruise, and that's one of the reasons I like the idea of the long-arm crank. That's the plot so far.

What I need help with is direction on the rod/piston combo for this stroker configuration. And, I'd also appreciate reasoned comments if I'm headed in a wrong direction with this scheme.

TIA

Mike  

There is really no such thing as "torquey" 307 - which is essentially what you're creating by stroking a 283...

If you didn't already know, GM did this from the factory and it wasn't exactly a hit.

I guess if you don't have high expectations for power and think that a 300 cubic inch engine will do it's job pushing you can go this route but there will be a lot more pushing power available to a larger engine. I guess the extra gear multiplication of the manual transmission will be in your favor...

Ford 9 inch? Talk about overkill! A 320 horse engine with street tires isn't going to break much of anything.  

I would have to agree with you on this. I say save the parts ie. 327 steel crank and 461 heads. Find yourself a good block or bore the 283 and build a "spinner" rather than something with torque. 327's and 283,s are not known for torque, but you can turn them tight. If you want torque get you a 350 bore it stoke it and find some smaller valve heads ie 175/150. I had a 350 with "stump puller heads, 882 castings with 175/150 valves. Went through and rebuilt the 350 bored it,new balanced rotating assembly and new 882 cast heads that were bowl hogged to 2.02/1.60 valves. I lost some torque but believe it or not I gained fuel mileage (about 4mpg) and upper end horsepower. Its half a dozen one way and half a dozen the other.  

You were doing alright until you said to put 1.72" valves in a 350...

Have you ever looked at factory 350 cams? GM was very concerned with low-end output, so why didn't they discover this wonderful phenomenon? Why didn't they gain tons of torque by chokin' off the engine with valves at least 15% too small...  

Thanks for the direction and advice. I'll set the 283 block aside for someone's D class motor and build a 327 instead for the push truck.

Yes, I know a Ford 9 inch is overkill, but I have several truck housings which bolt into the early F-100 without any mods, plus an assortment of good pumpkins; it's a matter of economics and convenience.