CC 283 for Riva Ariston

by **mfine** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:23 pm

I don't recall anything from the 60's and I have only the feintest memories of the 70's.

by **jfrprops** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:15 pm

As a cruiser guy I look at lots of big old boats for sale on various sites. Admit I would like a 64 or 64 38 commander. I was about to leave on a LONG road trip a while back to look at a super example of that great boat. Got the owner to send me more pics. Sent a shot in the cabin showing an overflowing ashtray on the dinnette table...END OF MY INTEREST.

It is amazing how many people trying to sell a boat leave deal killing stuff like that visible in pics.

John in Va.

by **Peter M Jardine** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:31 pm

Based on a stock 283F, 300 hp would be a little bit of a challenge, but not much. Keep in mind this engine was produced with hp ratings between 185 and 283 hp in it's day, and lots of things can be improved internally. First, substituting an aluminum rod, and a high performance piston with a balanced rotating assembly would be an excellent start. Some head work with roller rockers, blueprint all the intake and exhaust surfaces, index the plugs, put a higher lift camshaft, and change some main jets in the AFB, and voila, 300 hp would probably be pretty close.

For what it's worth, rebuilding one of these old engines without balancing them internally is a waste of rebuild money in my opinion. The 7 to 9 hundred dollars spent on balancing is money that should be spent.

My question would be how the old HF7 paragon could be modified to handle that amount of horsepower. They were not rated to handle that much... the was HJ or HJAC territory.

by **Don Ayers** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:59 pm

I do know that Van Ness did many of the things you describe. I would hate to get things wrong so I will not attempt to detail.

I know it was fully balanced and blue printed. All moving parts including the fly wheel.

There was some kind of special work done on the crank and rods

I know he uses very high quality pistons etc.

He used bigger values

Special Cam profile he developed

Special carb jets to increase air/fuel flow and mixture

Compression Ratio of 9 to 1 or a little more

I don't know much more on the technical stuff.

I'll post the video as soon as I can

by **Peter M Jardine** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:09 pm

If rods were not replaced, he would have shot peened them, then cleaned them up (filed all the casting marks, lighten the beam portion of the rod) Keep in mind the worst part of these old engines was how crude the assembly was. This would not have been so bad had the parts not been so crude to start with.

In my rebuild of the 431 lincoln, two of the connecting rods were 8-10 grams heavy in the beam. I had to send another 4 rods to the engine shop. We have fond memories of these old engines, and they were the best of that period.... but very crudely built. Just observing top level engine building practices will result in huge gains in performance, as well as reliability and longevity.

Don, that 283 of yours will run as smooth as silk now. :wink:

by **mfine** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:27 pm

Peter, keep in mind that 283 now displaces 350 cuin. That helps a lot.

FWIW, I came across the CC 283 power curves today and noticed that they had 175 net hp at 3600 rpm, so I wonder why the Riva was rated at 160 hp at 3600. The only thing I can think of is that it was propped to get to 185 hp at 4000 rpm like the Chris Crafts, but they used CC's recommended max cruising RPM of 3600 for the marketing material, and depending on the prop choice, 160 hp was probably about what they were really pulling. Now the question is why would anyone in marketing not pick the highest numbers to use?

by **Peter M Jardine** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:44 pm

I did kind of go on by that 327 block change. 300 horse would be no problems at all with a 327 with 327 heads.

There always has been some hocus pocus on HP figures over the years, depending on how and when that horsepower was measured. When an engine is dyno'ed they measure horsepower and torque with out any accessories except the water pump. The engine is connected to the dyno without any of the parasitic loss normally associated with it's intended use in a car or boat. The real horsepower figure is the one that is measured at the shaft, or the rear wheels.

The 300 hp could have been accomplished on a 283 but the build that was done will be an easy 300 hp with high reliability. The 327 was offered stock right up to 365 horsepower in the 60's with GM stock components.

by **mfine** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:54 pm

Chris Craft seems to have used a true net shaft hp rating. The 283 power curve I mentioned had a curve of gross (without accessories) and net (with accessories). The net rating for the 283 was 185 hp at 4000 rpm which is what CC referred to and labeled the engine with. The gross hp peak was about 209 hp. The foot notes mention net hp includes all accessories and attachments including the exhaust pipe.

by **Don Ayers** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:00 pm

Matt;

CC produced a 283M version that had a two barrel carb and was rated at 160 HP. This was a stock CC engine and not that many were made. I have the records on that version to prove it.

by **James** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:05 pm

mine wrote:.....Now the question is why would anyone in marketing not pick the highest numbers to use?......

OK, being a bit of a Riva enthusiast, and with a background in marketing, here is my hypothesis: first, you may note that the brochure is written in French (oddly, all of my SF literature from the '60's is in French!), second, it was the case in the '60's that French cars (and motorboats) were taxed on the basis of horsepower; so.....perhaps that low HP rating was a small attempt to soften the tax impact on the boat owner....

Anyway, that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!

by **Oberon01** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:18 pm

I would like to find the power curves for the 327F - I have one in my skiff. I think this was roughly the same engine as the HP solid lifter version available in mid-60's performance Chevrolet's, with much higher ratings in cars than in boats. Interesting comment concerning net vs. the optimally measured gross HP of the era comapred to net. I am curious about the gross HP of the 327F.

Also, I was at dinner talking about the 430/31 CC/FEL engine tonight. We were discussing the potential of replacing a perfectly good 430/31 with a new Mercruiser SB - I thought it a waste of time. Merc probably has roughly similar net HP (275), less torque, but lighter weight and less fuel consumption, but at what cost? The 430/31 is physically a very large engine, to my eye anyway. I have had one rebuilt for my '61 21' CC Conti and I bet it will just fly.

by **Peter M Jardine** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:19 pm

mfine wrote:Chris Craft seems to have used a true net shaft hp rating. The 283 power curve I mentioned had a curve of gross (without accessories) and net (with accessories). The net rating for the 283 was 185 hp at 4000 rpm which is what CC referred to and labeled the engine with. The gross hp peak was about 209 hp. The foot notes mention net hp includes all accessories and attachments including the exhaust pipe.

I have heard that, but forgive me if I am skeptical of that figure. All the figures I know for the CC 283 in terms of raw components make me think that the 185 hp figure at the shaft would be a stretch. If you factor in the parasitic loss of the transmission,the alternator etc, the engine would have have started at well over 225 horsepower. That would be higher than Chevy claimed for that motor with a stock 4 barrel. For the record, I have never seen a 'stock' 50's or 60's motor dyno at what the manufacturer stated as HP or torque figures.

by **mfine** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:22 pm

Interesting info Don. It seems odd that after they started with the 4 barrel they would then make a two barrel version which couldn't have been much cheaper to produce, no lighter or smaller etc. but James theory on a HP tax or perhaps limits may be the motivator. We have a few lakes in the area that prohibit engines of 10 hp or greater, which lead to the popularity of the 9.9 hp outboards (or 15's with 9.9 covers) and perhaps a similar thing was in play.

by **Peter M Jardine** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:28 pm

Oberon01 wrote:Also, I was at dinner talking about the 430/31 CC/FEL engine tonight. We were discussing the potential of replacing a perfectly good 430/31 with a new Mercruiser SB - I thought it a waste of time. Merc probably has roughly similar net HP (275), less torque, but lighter weight and less fuel consumption, but at what cost? The 430/31 is physically a very large engine, to my eye anyway. I have had one rebuilt for my '61 21' CC Conti and I bet it will just fly.

The 431 is a big favorite of mine, but it is not cheap to rebuild... pistons alone are about 1500 dollars, no exhaust manifold gaskets exist, so you have to make them, plus all the usual stuff, such as new guides, springs, valves, decking the block. On top of that, it's easy for an engine rebuilder to screw up a 430 block because a boring plate is hard to find for this engine. An experienced engine builder can bore the block with a CK10, but again, it's easy to make a mess.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone can throw a modern mercruiser 350 or 454 in something. That doesn't take any imagination.

by **mfine** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:37 pm

Peter, I never dyno'd one, but the ski-jets like mine are nearly as good as a dyno. I calculated the hp applied to the water coming out of the nozzle at 157 hp based on flowrate and velocity. Assuming the 185 hp at the shaft is accurate, it would imply an 84.7% efficiency for the jet unit. Modern jets can get above 90% but there is no way the 1962 version did, and the 85% range seems dead on from my research. The jets have no transmission so that may be missing from CC's numbers, but the true shaft hp output had to have been within a few hp of 185.

by **Oberon01** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:41 pm

Peter - I am with you on the engines. It is just my personal preference, but all my boats have original engines and in the case of the O/B's period correct engines. For me, the original engines are integral to the experience of running an older boat but I certainly understand why others would feel differently.

The rebuilder who has done my 430 (I believe the 431 was simply a thermostatically controlled 430)has been in business for decades and does all the exotic old Packards, for instance, in Portland. I am certain that this was well within their experience and capabilities. I had a Scripps 208 fully rebuilt last year and I figured this would be easy compared to parts challenges with that one. I also bought a complete 430 marine parts engine, so I am hopeful that it the job went okay. The builder wants to dyno it for me at a cost of about $1k. Not sold on the need for that, but given your remarks on pistons and compression ratios,, it might be worthwhile.

by **Peter M Jardine** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:47 pm

We'll just have to agree to disagree then, since I don't see any components that CC used that would give substantively higher performance that the car version. The 283 in the early 60's only achieved it's higher horsepower with either the rochester fuel injection or dual 4 barrel carburetors, along with more agressive cam profiles, and higher rpm ratings.

by **Peter M Jardine** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:56 pm

Oberon01 wrote:Peter - I am with you on the engines. It is just my personal preference, but all my boats have original engines and in the case of the O/B's period correct engines. For me, the original engines are integral to the experience of running an older boat but I certainly understand why others would feel differently.

The rebuilder who has done my 430 (I believe the 431 was simply a thermostatically controlled 430)has been in business for decades and does all the exotic old Packards, for instance, in Portland. I am certain that this was well within their experience and capabilities. I had a Scripps 208 fully rebuilt last year and I figured this would be easy compared to parts challenges with that one. I also bought a complete 430 marine parts engine, so I am hopeful that it the job went okay. The builder wants to dyno it for me at a cost of about $1k. Not sold on the need for that, but given your remarks on pistons and compression ratios,, it might be worthwhile.

I agree with you 100% on the vintage powerplant end... it is part of the 'soul' of the boat.

I would warn you in advance.... unless your builder told you about the expense of the custom pistons, you got flattops. The output of the engine will suffer signficantly. I have done extensive research from every known supplier of 430 pistons, and no one reproduces the correct piston at this time. One of the reasons for that is that the original piston shape varied throughout the history of the MEL engine. In 1958, the original Marauder edition had 11 to 1 compression, which would have been hard to deal with in a marine situation at that time. It dropped to as low as 9 to 1 at one point. With flattops the engine will lose probably 50-70 hp, but will retain most of it's torque, albeit the curve will change demonstrably as well. I ended up with two 430 engines from a 'reputable' rebuilder in NY state, and they butchered them. I have to admit that the 430 engine based on my model is one of the most expensive engines I have rebuilt. With the modifications I have done, it will be in 12-14k range not counting my time, which is considerable. I will confess to the marine conversion of the marauder tripower setup to cost about 3800 dollars by itself :shock:

by **Reginald Down** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:27 am

The factory horsepower ratings in the 1965 Chevrolet Corvette ranged from the standard tried-and-true Chevrolet 327 Turbo Fire V8 rated at 250 hp, then the 300 hp version of the 327 and new for 1965 was the precursor to the famous LT1, a 327 rated at 350 hp.

Then came the most powerful carbureted 327, rated at 365 hp and for true performance the Ram-Jet Fuel-Injected 327, made its last appearance in 1965 with 375 horsepower.

by **Oberon01** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:09 am

Reg - do you know which of these 1965 or earlier 327's had solid lifters? I would think perhaps the 300HP version, not the 250HP engine. I guess I am trying to equate the solid lifter 327F CC engine with the most comparable Chevrolet engine.

Peter- I will ask them to do a compression test before I accept it back. I confess to a "relaxed" approach on this engine, as they have had it for over a year, never contacted me about decisions or choices, but never presented a bill either. I do not know if they had to replace pistons, though I would consider it likely. The shop has a very good reputation and does a great deal of "specialty" engines, so I hope I am not in for a problem. I would not accept a 430 (or any engine for that matter)putting out less power than is expected, and any drop in compression and consequently HP due to incorrect pistons would be unacceptable.
I would be fine with the original 430 producing 275HP and whatever the torque should be - probably around 400 ft. pounds, and don't see a need to increase that. It should be ample in the boat it will returned to.

by **mfine** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:15 am

Oberon, I am pretty sure I have power curves for at least one CC 327, probably the Q but I'll take a look.

by **Reginald Down** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:26 pm

1965 was the peak year for Chevrolet in terms of the available (production) horsepower for the 327 small block.

According to the chart below, in 1965 the only (production - automotive) Chevrolet 327 that was offered with a mechanical (solid) lifter camshaft was the higher compression, higher RPM, Holly carb L-76 327 V-8. All other (automotive) 327 configurations in 1965 utilized hydraulic lifter camshafts. The 350HP L-79 327 was legendary in the early / mid 1960's.

The lower horsepower / lower RPM (automotive) 327's utilized the Rochester four barrel carb (Q-Jet) which I assume was the standard (baseline) marine application configuration at the time.

by **Don Ayers** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:17 pm

Correction, I just looked at the 283M docuemnt and they are calling it 150 HP.

by **quitchabitchin** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:51 pm

The carbs were WCFB or AFB, or in the 327Q case, AVS. The AVS and AFB are nearly the same with a small exception in the secondary opening mechanism. The AVS is a Air Valve Secondary in which Airflow opens the secondary whereas the AFB utilizes a counterweight system. These are the base models for the current Edelbrock carbs. I believe the Quadrajet is a Rochester.

by **mfine** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:41 pm

The quadrajet was indeed Rochester and it was their later 4 barrel. The late 50's through mid 60's Chris Crafts with Rochester 4 barrels used the 4G series or 4-jet. The quadrajet was designed to improve fuel economy in automotive use and is in my opinion and experience a fantastic carb to avoid using in marine applications where the benefits of the spread-bore don't outweigh the carbs other issues.

by **Reginald Down** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:53 pm

Sorry guys - I stand corrected on the Rochester Q-Jet note. I knew that but...

Correction also made in the earlier comments.

by **Don Ayers** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:21 pm

Got my video downloaded from Van Ness on the engine running.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xLz1Bu5 ... e=youtu.be

by **dustoff135** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:45 pm

That sounds so great. Reminds me of starting my engines after a rebuild. Always a glorious moment to hear them come to life the first time.

by **Peter M Jardine** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:04 pm

Sounds nice and quiet and smooth, just like it should. :wink:

Lots of oil pressure I see :shock:

by **quitchabitchin** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:56 pm

Don,

I am very curious to the camshaft specs as I am in the middle of a rebuild project and have been researching cam choices. Can you find out if Dave used a stock cam, and if so what is it, or had one custom ground, again what is the lift and duration? I would like to get 300 HP out of this motor and I know it's not hard out of a 350, I just want a cam that will idle well and have plenty of low-mid range torque. Many aftermarket cams don't make power until 2500-3000 RPMs which is too late to start making power when your max RPM is 4300.

CC 283 for Riva Ariston

Who is online