By the way,I myself had a 78'Chev Malibu,sold it in 96'.Wish I hadnt.They are a unique style.Lot's a tales bout that ride.Had a custom cut crank.Back then none were on the market like today.Took an LT1 bootom end,offset the rods.020"out,rewelded,rehardened.Didnt want a cast crank.Couldnt take the rpm.Tellin ya this incase tis a route u may need 2 go 4 rod clearance@ the skirts.My old friend(he's over 75 now)used this method to strokem back in the day.A big plus,no need to take a bunch of block out of the rails 4 rod 2 block clearances.Cost in 94' was round $300 for crank work,so with todays new products may not b worth it.Just Food 4 thought.  

Ok well the car may not see a 400 crank, only cuz I want to keep it as a street machine. I was told that I need to machine the bottom end to clear the lobes on the crank itself. Also I  am definitely not goin all out with a blower, although THAT would be fun. I was told by a coworker that I will have trouble keeping an idle if I Stroke the engine like that, of course he think I'll need to put a bigger carburetor on my engine if I put 283 H.O. heads on it. I know when I step on my gas to the floor, as the speedo goes up, the gas guage goes down, so I doubt I need a bigger carb. I think my carb is too big for that engine already. If I keep my foot out of it though it'll get about 16-18 mpg. I was getting that with the stock configuration, just the car didn't accelerate as well when I pinned it. I don't think that is bad fuel economy for a V8 at all. If I was getting 12mpg, then Iwould be concerned.  

I thought it would b overcarbed a bit.I believe 500cfm would b ideal.However in my time I have yet to c a big stroke effect an Idle.Matter of fact in 66'or so GM played with I beleive a 509"cid V6,YES V6 stroker.It had some crazy out in space stroke like 5.5"or 6.5".My dad had one pulled from a graintruck.Very low  HP,but could pull a house,had so much torq.It was a small bore big stroke engine.Point is even the way hangin strokers dont effect the idle that badly.Carbs,heads,cams yes,but I've not seen a mild cam stroker idle badly if properly tuned.Matter of fact thats exactly what newer chevy's 5.3 liter 327 is,essentialy a 305 bore,with a 3.75"stroke.Ive sure heard lots of good bout them.On the 283 heads,they flow bout the same as 305's heads on intake cc's.But the smaller valves fit ur bore hasle free,having no effect on cfm requirements of the engine.Less of forced induction values,volumetric efficiancy requirments are what they are,and are determend by cubes,not the heads or carb.500-600 cfm should work fine for carb(correctly tuned).And torq will improve mpg.  

Ok well if Clyde or anyone else knows,What are the valve sizes(int/exh) on those 283 heads? Also should I go with shorty headers or like a longer more standard size? My current project is to install an edelbrock performer series camshaft(idle-5500rpm) with a .420 int. lift/ .442 exh. lift and 204/214 duration @.050 respectively. How will this affect my current powerband and any idea of where my estimated HP peak and torque peak will occur? With the stock camshaft, which has obviously an EXTREMELY low lift and duration, my peak torque occured at 2400rpm with 210 ft-lbs, and 125 HP @ 3800rpm. Since I put the 600cfm carb and manifold on, the car has gotten quicker. Also will that cam greatly affect my idle, or should I still be able to get a nice smooth idle as it isn't really racey. Lastly, Clyde if you're out there, will the 400 crank make my compression higher??? I currently have 8.4 to 1, but I don't want to go over 9.0 to 1 this way I can hopefully still run the car on pump gas.  

Considering that you don't want to swap engines in the first place. Why would you want to put in an Olds motor? The reason that I ask is because the Olds fit is going to use different motor mounts.  My suggestion is to find a good running 350 Chevy from a yard or donor vehicle and mate that to the 2004R trans. The 200 4R has the dual bolt pattern bellhousing and a nice low 1st. gear. This is an easy swap though in my eyes. Does your car currently have a 2004R in it? I would imagine it does considering what mill your car has right now.    

chevyguypaul:
Considering that you don't want to swap engines in the first place. Why would you want to put in an Olds motor? The reason that I ask is because the Olds fit is going to use different motor mounts.  My suggestion is to find a good running 350 Chevy from a yard or donor vehicle and mate that to the 2004R trans. The 200 4R has the dual bolt pattern bellhousing and a nice low 1st. gear. This is an easy swap though in my eyes. Does your car currently have a 2004R in it? I would imagine it does considering what mill your car has right now.  

OK well since you are new and probably scanned through my posts. I'm not putting a 350 in it simply because that is what EVERYONE does. I just want to see if I can get a little over 200 HP on pump gas with only street rated modifications. Meaning a mild cam, a smooth dual-plane manifold, headers on the exhaust, etc. I am not trying to create a 10 sec street/strip car that has to tow a gas pump behind it. Also you name indicates you are a chevy enthusiast, so I'll fill you in on a little known Chevy SB that was produced from 1979-1982. It is the 267 cu. in. 4.4L overhead valve V-8. Desinged for lower emissions and economy of a
V-6, while still retaining the driveability and smoothness of a V-8. It has a 3.5 in. bore and a 3.48 in. stroke. I believe it has 76cc combustion chambers and probably 165cc intake runners. I haven't found much information on the cylinder heads. The important thing to remember is the stroke. It is identical to a 350 chevy. Also it is mated to a THM-350 transmission with a possible 3.08 axle ratio at the rearend.  

The powerpack's carry 1.72 Intakes/1.48 exh.valves and as memory serves a 158cc or so intake runner. No,the 3.75 stroke wont give more comp with the correct matched pistons.The Edelbrock kit is a great choice for you.Youll get good atomization at low rpm,and since its a design for a 350,the lesser cid will be able to gain some high end as well.I put some numbers together on the thing a couple weeks ago.If you tune it right,you will be quite content.Around 180- 210hp and 280-300+lbs torq.Thats nice numbers if you get'm there.Should be if tuned correctly.  

Of course the extra stroke would increase compression. If your compression ends up at more than 9:1 I wouldn't be worried even on 89 octane, 9.00:1 is a little conservative...  

Ok Gib,to more be specific you're right.The comp wont be effected enough to be a concern I should have been my statement.My apologies.  

Alright, now that I read through the thread I figured I might as well join in...

You're really chasing your tail just to be different, but you may already know that. A reality check is in order though because I wouldn't be surprised if a I4 can come close to what you're going to have! You're dealing with a very cheaply put together engine, pushrods, poor valve angles, parallel valves, bathtub chamber, etc, etc. Modern 4 cylinders are going to have technology on their side. Your Bucatti reference doesn't mean jack to you since these engines have a technological advantage money can't buy for a 267. You can't have finesse with 'ol American iron, you need to outpower them! There is a reason larger displacement Chevy's are more common, because it's the smarter thing to do!

That being said it's going to be very difficult to find pistons for this thing that aren't stock replacement. I'm sure there are some hypereutectic flat tops by Silvolite or Speed Pro but these pistons will be strapped to get 8.4:1 compression with a 60cc chamber. If you try to use open chamber 283 heads you should be around 7.5:1 compression. Increasing the stroke to 3.75" will add about a half a point of compression to either situation. This shouldn't be too much of a problem because the 283 heads will really be slightly oversized, the valve will still be small but that's being a little too picky for such a low-po project...  

I think you should put a 305 in that thing.i put a 305 in  4000 pound impala and ran 13.90's.keep in mind i had 4.56 gears and a 3500 stall. that shits drivable though  

Yuck, you had a car you couldn't drive on the street and could barely get below 14's, ouch...

That should be a lesson to everyone (as if everyone didn't already know) don't waste your time with 305's trying to be different.  

yeah, it ran 13's.how many people here have a car that can run 13's?.granted shortly after that i put a pump gas 350 in it and ran 12.30's.still a street car.I dont know how fast your car is but im sure its runs better.

 

GibTG:
Alright, now that I read through the thread I figured I might as well join in...

You're really chasing your tail just to be different, but you may already know that. A reality check is in order though because I wouldn't be surprised if a I4 can come close to what you're going to have! You're dealing with a very cheaply put together engine, pushrods, poor valve angles, parallel valves, bathtub chamber, etc, etc. Modern 4 cylinders are going to have technology on their side. Your Bucatti reference doesn't mean jack to you since these engines have a technological advantage money can't buy for a 267. You can't have finesse with 'ol American iron, you need to outpower them! There is a reason larger displacement Chevy's are more common, because it's the smarter thing to do!

That being said it's going to be very difficult to find pistons for this thing that aren't stock replacement. I'm sure there are some hypereutectic flat tops by Silvolite or Speed Pro but these pistons will be strapped to get 8.4:1 compression with a 60cc chamber. If you try to use open chamber 283 heads you should be around 7.5:1 compression. Increasing the stroke to 3.75" will add about a half a point of compression to either situation. This shouldn't be too much of a problem because the 283 heads will really be slightly oversized, the valve will still be small but that's being a little too picky for such a low-po project...

Thanks for the tip on the pistons, that may come in handy. While I don'thave the cam in yet, what Clyde was saying about me having around 210 HP tops, is right where I want to be. While modern 4 cylinders may have technology on their side, the morons that usually possess them, don't have intelligence or knowledge on thiers. Most of the import and domestic drivers that have a FF I-4 have a stupid body kit and a coffee can on thier car, in my area of Ohio, and that is it. They seem to think that a 10ft spoiler on the rear end of that front wheel drive car will actually make it faster!!!!! Mostly they drive like idiots and advertise, "I saw this on 'The Fast and Furious.'" This is why I only need around 200 HP. In fact some punk with his Honda Civic EX got a taste of tailights tonight. He thought his little body kit and fart can were really fast, until I hit my gas to the floor. His girlfriend was even laughing at him.  

Of course now that I'm done blowing off steam about imports, let me update every one on the headers I chose. I chose 'Flow-Tech' Afterburners. They were advertised to increase low RPM torque with smaller primary tubes, while adding a collecter tube to collect exhaust from 3 insequence cylinders, and a seperate tube for the exhaust on the out-of-sequence cylinder, without sacrificing mid-high RPM HP. So any thoughts on these has anyone used them? I also switched my fan from stock to a clutch fan off of a 77 trans-am. I'm guessing it came off a 400 pontiac, cuz that thing kick out about 10x more air over the engine than my 4 blade fan. This fan has 7 blades though. Any thoughts on that also??? I don't like electric fans and changing to a clutch fan is easier.