Allpar Forums banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I bought a 413 for my 1960 plymouth fury (had been a 361 "Golden Commando"). The seller (over the internet, not a dealer) said it was from a '64 Imperial but everyone who knows engines and has looked at it says it's a truck engine. What's the difference in terms of performance? (One difference in use is that the pushbutton tranny won't work with it, so I had to get a different one and add a floor shifter.)

Thanks.


Harry


Car Vehicle Hood Motor vehicle Auto part



Wheel Car Tire Vehicle Plant
 

· Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
I bought a 413 for my 1960 plymouth fury (had been a 361 "Golden Commando"). The seller (over the internet, not a dealer) said it was from a '64 Imperial but everyone who knows engines and has looked at it says it's a truck engine. What's the difference in terms of performance? (One difference in use is that the pushbutton tranny won't work with it, so I had to get a different one and add a floor shifter.)

Thanks.


Harry


View attachment 91771


View attachment 91774

Some of the bosses on the block are different, as you found out with the transmission. One thing I do remember about truck engines is as far back as the 1930's, dedicated truck engines used sodium filled valves. This reduces valve recession. So if you didn't rebuilt it with hardened valve seats in the heads, you should be okay anyway. Most brackets and accessories, like generators, will work just fine.

As far as performance, horsepower may be less but the cam grind profile is more towards torque, rather than horsepower. Basically, off the line from a traffic light, it's a little more powerful.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks for the info. I've never heard about sodium filled valves, or about valve recession. But a faster jump off the line is fine.

Someone told me there is an identifying number stamped on the metal I can see when I take off the valve covers. If so, it would be worth it to me to do that in order to find exactly what I've really got.
 

· Super Moderator
1966 Crown Coupe, 2016 200 S AWD, 1962 Lark Daytona V8.
Joined
·
17,276 Posts
The 413 was the largest displacement Chrysler engine until 1966 when the 426 & 440 took that spot. The 413 was used in heavy trucks & RVs through the 1970's.
They saw industrial & marine applications as well.
Font Number Parallel Document Pattern

 

· Valued Member
Joined
·
3,676 Posts
I bought a 413 for my 1960 plymouth fury (had been a 361 "Golden Commando"). The seller (over the internet, not a dealer) said it was from a '64 Imperial but everyone who knows engines and has looked at it says it's a truck engine. What's the difference in terms of performance? (One difference in use is that the pushbutton tranny won't work with it, so I had to get a different one and add a floor shifter.)

Thanks.


Harry


View attachment 91771


View attachment 91774
The 413 engine was used in the Chrysler and Imperial car lines from 1959 to 1965.
The 440 engine was started to be used in 1966.
They weren't all truck engines.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
The 413 engine was used in the Chrysler and Imperial car lines from 1959 to 1965.
The 440 engine was started to be used in 1966.
They weren't all truck engines.

Chrysler, like other companies, made versions of it's engine for industrial use. The 241 Red Ram Hemi for instance was often used in air raid sirens. The 225 industrial slant six was used in Yale lift trucks. Not very nimble but it had plenty of power back in the 1970's we had one where I worked and it was a pretty fast little hot rod.

We used Toyota lifts for years that had an industrial version of the 4.3 six banger. When GM quit making those, we went with Lisle lift trucks. These ran an industrial version of a Porsche 4 cylinder. So, the last lift I drove was a Porsche. Smooth little pieces of equipment but a weak second to the larger engines we usually used.

Once they let me order lifts one year, I got air ride seats and air conditioning. :cool:
 

· Valued Member
Joined
·
3,676 Posts
I bought a 413 for my 1960 plymouth fury (had been a 361 "Golden Commando"). The seller (over the internet, not a dealer) said it was from a '64 Imperial but everyone who knows engines and has looked at it says it's a truck engine. What's the difference in terms of performance? (One difference in use is that the pushbutton tranny won't work with it, so I had to get a different one and add a floor shifter.)

Thanks.


Harry


View attachment 91771


View attachment 91774
1964 413 engine was rated at 340 HP with 470 ft/lbs of torque.
Lots of those Chrysler experts don't know what they are talking about.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
1964 413 engine was rated at 340 HP with 470 ft/lbs of torque.
Lots of those Chrysler experts don't know what they are talking about.

The problem with HP figures is there are a lot of factors in how it's rated. In the 1960's, Ford and Chrysler often found themselves factored out of competition. Usually when they were beating GM most of the time. Take the 426 Hemi for instance. It was rated at 426 horsepower. It wasn't until years later some guys started building one to factory race specifications and putting them on a dynomometer. Yes, it made 426 HP, at a certain rpm. This was a matter of the engineers "poor mouthing" their power output to stay in the race. When allowed to run full blast the 426 Hemi put out over 800 HP.

Factoring is why the Plymouth Superbird, Dodge Daytona and Ford Cobra and such only were allowed one or two model years. They were too fast and GM had a fix in.

In 1972, everybody complained about smog engines being so weak. Actually that didn't happen for a year. In '72, power output was changed from Gross HP to net HP. Gross is a bare engine on the dyno. Net is the engine will all accessories installed and operating. Alternators, water pumps and such suck a lot of power before it gets to the wheels.
 

· Valued Member
Joined
·
3,676 Posts
The problem with HP figures is there are a lot of factors in how it's rated. In the 1960's, Ford and Chrysler often found themselves factored out of competition. Usually when they were beating GM most of the time. Take the 426 Hemi for instance. It was rated at 426 horsepower. It wasn't until years later some guys started building one to factory race specifications and putting them on a dynomometer. Yes, it made 426 HP, at a certain rpm. This was a matter of the engineers "poor mouthing" their power output to stay in the race. When allowed to run full blast the 426 Hemi put out over 800 HP.

Factoring is why the Plymouth Superbird, Dodge Daytona and Ford Cobra and such only were allowed one or two model years. They were too fast and GM had a fix in.

In 1972, everybody complained about smog engines being so weak. Actually that didn't happen for a year. In '72, power output was changed from Gross HP to net HP. Gross is a bare engine on the dyno. Net is the engine will all accessories installed and operating. Alternators, water pumps and such suck a lot of power before it gets to the wheels.
I ran one of the performance / race engine dynos at the Chrysler Tech Center in Highland Park from the 1960's to 1990.We did what were called "Rating Runs" back then that went from the "Bare Gross" to the "Bare Net" power numbers of the engine. Lots of the advertised HP numbers of our high performance engines in the late 60's and early 70's were put out to fit into certain "drag racing" categories where we knew we would be competitive in. There was no purpose to advertised the Hemi at it's "real" bare gross numbers because it would serve no purpose. 425 HP was all that was needed to be put into the Super Stock category.

When 1972 came around all that happened was instead of advertising the "Gross" HP number we used the "Net" HP number to appease the insurance companies. In general the "Gross" HP numbers really didn't change from 71 to 72.
 

· Super Moderator
1966 Crown Coupe, 2016 200 S AWD, 1962 Lark Daytona V8.
Joined
·
17,276 Posts
These B & RB engines were torque monsters. They made a full-size car feel 1000 lbs lighter than it actually was. ;)
The heavy-duty truck engines were the 413-2 & 413-3. They had special materials for valves, hardened valve seats & positive valve rotation.
High-strength metals (drop-forged) and manufacturing processes (shot-peened) for longevity under hard work and high temperatures. There were industrial & marine versions as well. They were the flagship engine in the early '60's.
Sorry that this is a poor copy & may be hard to read (from Devos garage car/truck brochures).
Motor vehicle Font Art Automotive lighting Classic car


Like the Beach Boys song, 'Shut you down' (from the wiki):

The song details a drag race between a Super-Stock 413 cu. in.-powered 1962 Dodge Dart and a fuel-injected 1963 Chevrolet Corvette Sting Ray and is derived from a longer poem by Christian. The song is sung from the perspective of the driver of the Sting Ray who brags that he will "shut down" the 413. (In hot rod racing slang, to "shut down" someone means to beat that person in a race.) While the implication is that the Sting Ray will win the race, the song ends before the end of the race with the 413 still in the lead, with the Sting Ray closing the gap. Although the race is often interpreted as having an inconclusive outcome, the lyrics in the outro refrain do state, "Shut it off, shut it off/Buddy now I shut you down", clearly indicating that the narrator, in his Corvette Sting Ray, has in fact won the race, as he tells the Dodge 413's driver to "shut off" the car's engine and accept the fact that he has just been "shut down". It must be said, however, that many classic car enthusiasts and experienced muscle car drag racers have suggested over the years that in actuality, all things being equal (i.e. drivers of equal skill), an early 1960s SS Dodge Dart (most likely the 1962 Max Wedge variant) with its 413 cu. in. engine with twin 4-barrel carburetors ("dual quads") and ram-air induction, producing 410–420 horsepower, 460–470 torque, would have most likely easily beaten a 1963 Chevy Corvette Sting Ray with its fuel injected 327 cu. in. engine producing roughly 350–360 horsepower, 352 torque. Also, the narrator even says that his "slicks" (tires) are starting to spin (lose traction) near the start of the race, and that the Dodge is "really digging in" with good traction, further suggesting that it is highly unlikely that the Sting Ray would have been able to catch up and overtake the superior powered and tractional Dodge Dart 413 in a ¼ mile drag race, even if the narrator did power shift and ride the clutch enough to burn the pressure plates.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
GM owners have bragged about a lot of things over the years that weren't quite what they said. The 1957 Chevy Corvette with fuel injection was the first car available with an engine putting out 1 hp per cubic inch. Well, the '56 Chrysler 300B with the high compression heads beat it by a year. A Chevy had 1 hp per inch as stock, well, no. That was the '57 DeSoto Adventurer.

The real biggie that keeps getting pushed is the 1964 GTO was the first factory muscle car, being a medium sized car with a larger car engine. GM did build it, but it wasn't a Pontiac. It was the 1949 Oldsmobile Rocket 88. Olds dropped the engine from the 98 into the 77.
 

· Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
25,552 Posts
FWIW there's a bunch of info at -> RB Engines: Chrysler’s biggest V8s
Two things to remember about horsepower ratings.
1) As someone noted earlier, they were, um, imaginative at times.
2) BHP vs HP - gross vs net power.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
FWIW there's a bunch of info at -> RB Engines: Chrysler’s biggest V8s
Two things to remember about horsepower ratings.
1) As someone noted earlier, they were, um, imaginative at times.
2) BHP vs HP - gross vs net power.


GASP! :eek: You...you...you mean sales people sometimes "tweak" the facts??? Who'd a thunk it?


:D
 

· Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
25,552 Posts
GASP! :eek: You...you...you mean sales people sometimes "tweak" the facts??? Who'd a thunk it?


:D
In this case, marketing people, but... before the 1980s, a lot of power figures were largely imaginary, and especially before 1971, in both directions.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
6,102 Posts
Valve sink, where the valves, usually the exhaust, will beat the valve into the seat because they were too soft and couldn't take the extra heat once lead was removed from gasoline. Ford and Chevy were more prone to this than the Mopars. I have never had a problem with my Mopars having valve/seat problems, whereas I saw many a problem with Fords and Chevys. Just goes to show the quality of the materials Mopars had in them.

ImperialCrown showed the boss that shows the block stamping right above the driver side of the timing cover and in front of the intake manifold at the corner of the head. The other casting numbers, including the date of casting (anywhere from 3 to 12 or more months before installed in a vehicle), are on the driver's side of the block. It won't tell you car or truck, but it does verify casting, engine size, and six digit date, along with a day or night clock for casting time.

Car or truck would be mostly the camshaft profile, something that is not identified on the block, sorry. But, there may be something with the intake manifold and most likely the exhaust manifolds, as trucks used different ones, at least in the later 60s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImperialCrown

· Super Moderator
1966 Crown Coupe, 2016 200 S AWD, 1962 Lark Daytona V8.
Joined
·
17,276 Posts
I've added that 'lead substitute' to the Lark. I don't know if it helps the valve seat erosion. It has mechanical lifters and has stayed quiet. The car may see a few hundred miles per year, so I'm not too concerned about valve seat wear.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
I've added that 'lead substitute' to the Lark. I don't know if it helps the valve seat erosion. It has mechanical lifters and has stayed quiet. The car may see a few hundred miles per year, so I'm not too concerned about valve seat wear.

I had an engineer tell me once that valve seat recession is only a problem under heavy loads. For a fun car driven sparingly, it's not a problem in any real sense. That's why Dodge trucks got sodium filled valves but cars didn't. Before the late 40's, tetraethylead wasn't used.

Now, zinc has been removed from a lot of oils. That might be a problem with flat tappets.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
The real biggie that keeps getting pushed is the 1964 GTO was the first factory muscle car, being a medium sized car with a larger car engine. GM did build it, but it wasn't a Pontiac. It was the 1949 Oldsmobile Rocket 88. Olds dropped the engine from the 98 into the 77.
And the first rock 'n' roll song was "Rocket 88" in 1951 by Jackie Brenston and His Delta Cats.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
And the first rock 'n' roll song was "Rocket 88" in 1951 by Jackie Brenston and His Delta Cats.

Actually, I think "Rock and Roll" came around in the late 20's or early 30's. Even the name came around then. It wasn't sold much because the musicians weren't white. Also the name was sort of ornery for the times. "My baby, she can rock and roll those bones." I'll leave it to you to figure what he meant.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top