To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 7 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Solutions to the great compression/engine rebuild dilemma
From: Jonathan Sacks <jwsacks@xxxxxxxxx>
2. tach in a C clock
From: Chris Davis <pngkid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
3. 57 C Convertible in a local NJ museum
From: Brian Hagen <brian.hagen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
4. Re: Solutions to the great compression/engine rebuild dilemma
From: c300c@xxxxxxx
5. Re: Solutions to the great compression/engine rebuild dilemma
From: Mike Apfelbeck <moparmike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
6. Re: Solutions to the great compression/engine rebuild dilemma
From: Mike Apfelbeck <moparmike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
7. hemi interchange
From: "Owen & Jo Grigg" <ram300@xxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:37:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Jonathan Sacks <jwsacks@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Solutions to the great compression/engine rebuild dilemma
Hi all,
Okay, so most (hopefully all, but we'll see) of the
hard miss/compression problems have been worked out of
my newly-rebuilt 413 in my '66 300. You all might
recall that it was the topic of numerous emails around
Christmas on the network. I promised I'd let everyone
know how it all worked out. So here goes...
First order of business was to address electrical
issues. For some reason, I'd changed the whole
electrical system except for the coil. I guess it
seemed to be working fine, so I left it. Anyway,
changing that and the resistors made a bit of a
difference in the run in the engine.
Next, addressed vacume issues. Specifically changed
the brake booster, and that of course had a huge
effect on the run of the engine, as the old booster
was bleeding quite a bit.
But still, compression problems remained...
So we pulled the valve covers and had a look at the
rockers and the pushrods. Noticed that two of the
pushrods (cylinders 4and6) were not spinning like the
others, and the tops of those two cylinders appeared
to be slightly higher than 2 and 8. So we had a chat
with the gentleman who machined and assembled the
engine and he said there's a very good chance he had
to grind those two cylinders more than the others, as
they were particularly badly worn. Also, as was
pointed out by the club, the push rods were old while
the lifters were new, which could present a problem in
itself. So...we decided to take a little off the two
offending pushrods - somewhere in the neighborhood of
.020 - and sure enough, after installation of the the
two new rods, the engine smartened right up.
As regards new versus old pushrods in a rebuild, we
went to the book and it appears that the new pushrods
are exactly the same as the old in height. Still, I
don't know if I trust the book and it's measurements.
Something tells me that new pushrods might end up
being a little shorter. And so my question is...can
anyone weigh in on the pushrod question? If I've got
new lifters, would it behoove me to replace the old
push rods, or if, after shaving the two offending push
rods the engine seems to be running okay, should I
just leave it be?
And speaking of the engine running, the idle is
perfect, she's got plenty of acceleration, but for
some reason the top end just feels like it doesn't go
as high or as smoothly as it used to. Maybe it's just
me. Or maybe it could be the transmission (it wasn't
rebuilt). But she seems like she's working too hard at
70. Could this be related. Again, it could just be me,
and the engine's not supposed to go much past 80.
As for thanks, credit goes to the whole club, as this
was a complete group effort! Naming the individual
members who's advice was particularly helpful would
keep me here all day. Almost every email I recieved
was carefully considered and most turned out to be
spot-on. I can't thank the club enough for it's help.
Suffice it to say my membership was the best $20 I
ever spent!
Until next time,
Jonathan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:03:06 -0600
From: Chris Davis <pngkid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: tach in a C clock
We have and extra clock for the C and I was planning to put a tach in
one as I have seen this done before. Has anyone on the list done this
before? If so what tach did you use and what diameter is it?
Thanks,
chris davis
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 13:47:56 -0500
From: Brian Hagen <brian.hagen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 57 C Convertible in a local NJ museum
I saw in my local paper (NJ Star Ledger) that a new auto museum was opening
in Somerville NJ. The cars are from one persons collection and one of them
is a 1957 300 - C convertible (Black). I was curious if the owner was a
member of the list?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:45:44 EST
From: c300c@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Solutions to the great compression/engine rebuild dilemma
Hi Jonathan!
Your machinist should have known to shorten the valves by grinding off the
stems to compensate for the change in assembled height of the valves. This
precludes the need for changing the length of the pushrods. Once you grind
the pushrods you lose some of the lift on that particular valve, and it can
cause you trouble later if you should disassemble the engine again as the
pushrods are very easy to get mixed up. Hope this helps.
300'ly, Gary Hagy
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 18:23:40 -0800
From: Mike Apfelbeck <moparmike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Solutions to the great compression/engine rebuild dilemma
Jonathan,
There is a spec in the shop manuals for valve clearance for hydraulic
lifters.It is measured between the rocker arm tip and the end of the valve
stem(with that cylinder on the firing stroke, of course).The valve lifter
has to be completely collapsed to do this(you have to put steady pressure
with some kind of pry tool against the rocker arm long enough to squeeze
the oil out of the lifter so that it slowly goes down).I believe the
acceptable range is something like .060 to.120 of an inch.An old Chrysler
mechanic told me once that you want to get all of them as even as possible
to get the smoothest, quietest idle.If you are going to buy push rods, you
might consider a set of adjustable rocker arms to go with them, then you
can set things exactly right.One thing you have to keep in mind about
adjustable rocker arms on a hydraulic cam is that Mopar hydraulic lifters
are .050" taller than solid lifters and need shorter pushrods to keep the
geometry correct.All that stuff is readily available through the
aftermarket if it can't be found at Chrysler.
If you ever have to pull the front cover off the engine(to fix a leak or
whatever)you might consider installing an offset bushing in the timing
gear, to advance the cam timing a few degrees. That will build a little
more cylinder pressure & give a bit more mid-range torque(and maybe a
little more mileage).
Mike
At 09:37 AM 2/4/02 -0800, Jonathan Sacks wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Okay, so most (hopefully all, but we'll see) of the
>hard miss/compression problems have been worked out of
>my newly-rebuilt 413 in my '66 300. You all might
>recall that it was the topic of numerous emails around
>Christmas on the network. I promised I'd let everyone
>know how it all worked out. So here goes...
>
>First order of business was to address electrical
>issues. For some reason, I'd changed the whole
>electrical system except for the coil. I guess it
>seemed to be working fine, so I left it. Anyway,
>changing that and the resistors made a bit of a
>difference in the run in the engine.
>
>Next, addressed vacume issues. Specifically changed
>the brake booster, and that of course had a huge
>effect on the run of the engine, as the old booster
>was bleeding quite a bit.
>
>But still, compression problems remained...
>
>So we pulled the valve covers and had a look at the
>rockers and the pushrods. Noticed that two of the
>pushrods (cylinders 4and6) were not spinning like the
>others, and the tops of those two cylinders appeared
>to be slightly higher than 2 and 8. So we had a chat
>with the gentleman who machined and assembled the
>engine and he said there's a very good chance he had
>to grind those two cylinders more than the others, as
>they were particularly badly worn. Also, as was
>pointed out by the club, the push rods were old while
>the lifters were new, which could present a problem in
>itself. So...we decided to take a little off the two
>offending pushrods - somewhere in the neighborhood of
>.020 - and sure enough, after installation of the the
>two new rods, the engine smartened right up.
>
>As regards new versus old pushrods in a rebuild, we
>went to the book and it appears that the new pushrods
>are exactly the same as the old in height. Still, I
>don't know if I trust the book and it's measurements.
>Something tells me that new pushrods might end up
>being a little shorter. And so my question is...can
>anyone weigh in on the pushrod question? If I've got
>new lifters, would it behoove me to replace the old
>push rods, or if, after shaving the two offending push
>rods the engine seems to be running okay, should I
>just leave it be?
>
>And speaking of the engine running, the idle is
>perfect, she's got plenty of acceleration, but for
>some reason the top end just feels like it doesn't go
>as high or as smoothly as it used to. Maybe it's just
>me. Or maybe it could be the transmission (it wasn't
>rebuilt). But she seems like she's working too hard at
>70. Could this be related. Again, it could just be me,
>and the engine's not supposed to go much past 80.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 18:23:40 -0800
From: Mike Apfelbeck <moparmike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Solutions to the great compression/engine rebuild dilemma
Jonathan,
There is a spec in the shop manuals for valve clearance for hydraulic
lifters.It is measured between the rocker arm tip and the end of the valve
stem(with that cylinder on the firing stroke, of course).The valve lifter
has to be completely collapsed to do this(you have to put steady pressure
with some kind of pry tool against the rocker arm long enough to squeeze
the oil out of the lifter so that it slowly goes down).I believe the
acceptable range is something like .060 to.120 of an inch.An old Chrysler
mechanic told me once that you want to get all of them as even as possible
to get the smoothest, quietest idle.If you are going to buy push rods, you
might consider a set of adjustable rocker arms to go with them, then you
can set things exactly right.One thing you have to keep in mind about
adjustable rocker arms on a hydraulic cam is that Mopar hydraulic lifters
are .050" taller than solid lifters and need shorter pushrods to keep the
geometry correct.All that stuff is readily available through the
aftermarket if it can't be found at Chrysler.
If you ever have to pull the front cover off the engine(to fix a leak or
whatever)you might consider installing an offset bushing in the timing
gear, to advance the cam timing a few degrees. That will build a little
more cylinder pressure & give a bit more mid-range torque(and maybe a
little more mileage).
Mike
At 09:37 AM 2/4/02 -0800, Jonathan Sacks wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Okay, so most (hopefully all, but we'll see) of the
>hard miss/compression problems have been worked out of
>my newly-rebuilt 413 in my '66 300. You all might
>recall that it was the topic of numerous emails around
>Christmas on the network. I promised I'd let everyone
>know how it all worked out. So here goes...
>
>First order of business was to address electrical
>issues. For some reason, I'd changed the whole
>electrical system except for the coil. I guess it
>seemed to be working fine, so I left it. Anyway,
>changing that and the resistors made a bit of a
>difference in the run in the engine.
>
>Next, addressed vacume issues. Specifically changed
>the brake booster, and that of course had a huge
>effect on the run of the engine, as the old booster
>was bleeding quite a bit.
>
>But still, compression problems remained...
>
>So we pulled the valve covers and had a look at the
>rockers and the pushrods. Noticed that two of the
>pushrods (cylinders 4and6) were not spinning like the
>others, and the tops of those two cylinders appeared
>to be slightly higher than 2 and 8. So we had a chat
>with the gentleman who machined and assembled the
>engine and he said there's a very good chance he had
>to grind those two cylinders more than the others, as
>they were particularly badly worn. Also, as was
>pointed out by the club, the push rods were old while
>the lifters were new, which could present a problem in
>itself. So...we decided to take a little off the two
>offending pushrods - somewhere in the neighborhood of
>.020 - and sure enough, after installation of the the
>two new rods, the engine smartened right up.
>
>As regards new versus old pushrods in a rebuild, we
>went to the book and it appears that the new pushrods
>are exactly the same as the old in height. Still, I
>don't know if I trust the book and it's measurements.
>Something tells me that new pushrods might end up
>being a little shorter. And so my question is...can
>anyone weigh in on the pushrod question? If I've got
>new lifters, would it behoove me to replace the old
>push rods, or if, after shaving the two offending push
>rods the engine seems to be running okay, should I
>just leave it be?
>
>And speaking of the engine running, the idle is
>perfect, she's got plenty of acceleration, but for
>some reason the top end just feels like it doesn't go
>as high or as smoothly as it used to. Maybe it's just
>me. Or maybe it could be the transmission (it wasn't
>rebuilt). But she seems like she's working too hard at
>70. Could this be related. Again, it could just be me,
>and the engine's not supposed to go much past 80.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 17:49:09 +1300
From: "Owen & Jo Grigg" <ram300@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: hemi interchange
Can someone tell me if the 354 and 392 harmonic balancers are the same. Also do the 331, 354, 392 use the same timing chain(front) cover?
Thankyou for the help.
Owen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap