Re: [Chrysler300] That's Racin'

Gary and All:

When I was at Jeff Assy, (1978 to 1981) there was no longer an Imperial. There was just the one line. According to my model year charts, the Imperial moved from the Imperial Plant to Jefferson for the 1962 Model Year. That was before I worked at Chrysler, so I do not know about the assy. line arrangement, but it would seem to me the body/frame cars would have to have been separate. Perhaps someone else can answer that. Again, my model year charts do not indicate production plant before 1960 (Imperial Plant), so can't help with the starting date for Warren Assy. Would take a guess at 1957, though, since that Imperial was a much different car than the Chryslers built at Jefferson.

OK---that is enough non-300 stuff for now!

300ly, Gil Cunningham

In a message dated 1/11/2014 10:05:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, moparfan@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

In the mid 1980's I worked in the Engine Hot Test at Chrysler's Trenton Engine Plant. The old timers told me that the engines that passed the test the first time without needing any repairs were tagged as potential Imperial engines. These were not any kind of permanent stamping, just a tag on the rack holding the engines.

Nancy, the Imperials were assembled in their own plant on Warren Avenue from, I think, 1957 to 1966. This is actually in Dearborn, MI but the property abuts the Detroit border. Much of that plant is actually still standing but is now used for producing some kind of ethnic food products. Go to Google Maps (www.maps.google.com) and enter address "8505 Warren Avenue, Dearborn, MI" to see it.

When the production was moved to the Jefferson Road plant in Detroit, they may have had their own separate line separate from the other vehicles being produced there. Maybe Gil Cunningham can speak to that?

Gary Runkel

Canton, MI

I remember hearing something about picking only the best blocks for Imperials.
Don't know exactly when but I think it may have been in the late fifties that this was supposed to be done.
I do not know if it was true.

I do know that in the late fifties and the early sixties too Imperials were supposed to have been assembled on their own line
and only in Detroit. I think I even once heard that they were even given a brief road test before they left the factory.
Anyone know anything else about this?

Regards,

Nancy Kramer

At 06:26 PM 1/11/2014, Ray Jones wrote:

There are others that know more than I do about this, and maybe they will chime in here.
I recall hearing that the early Hemi blocks were cast, then put out in a field for a year to cure.
They were then brought in and machined. This made sure there would be no block distortion after machining.
I don't remember when this practice stopped, not sure if it held over into the 413 HP blocks or not.

Just the ramblings of on old mind...
Ray

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Rich Barber <c300@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I had heard or read that, in 1955 anyway, the 300 blocks were cherry-picked after the cylinders were bored. If no porosity was present they might be sent to be made into 300 engines and stamped accordingly. If porosity was observed, they would be sleeved and put in New Yorkers. It’s entirely possible this same process was used to select Imperial blocks. Otherwise, structure and external cast-in numbers were the same. I suspect that practice might have continued for some time on an unofficial basis. If Chrysler had noted any block failures due to high performance cars, they might have beefed up all the blocks rather than establish a different production process just for the HP engines.

I also recall hearing that some MoPar HP engines were actually assembled on different lines and even by different organizations that were more used to building close-tolerance race engines.

C300K’ly,

Rich Barber

Brentwood, CA

1955 C-300; VIN: 3N551198; Engine stamped: 3NE551098. ’55-’58 hemi engines were individually serial numbered but the serial numbers rarely, if ever, matched the chassis VIN.

From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Moore

Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 7:49 AM

To: therichardsonfamily@xxxxxxxxxxx

Cc: 300 Club

Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Value of correct date block

Curious minds want to know:

What exactly is the dofference in the blocks which are HP and those whci are not? Is it simply inspection (as I understand Imperials once were)?

Mike Moore

300H

On Jan 11, 2014, at 7:45 AM, therichardsonfamily@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

oooops, I meant "V41" block............

From: therichardsonfamily@xxxxxxxxxxx

To: "300 Club" < chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 9:43:16 AM

Subject: Fwd: [Chrysler300] Value of correct date block

Group:

So, is it confirmed that all 1960 F's were not born with an engine stamp denoting "HP"? That certainly would make Shannon's search for a "date correct" block much easier - any 413 will do (dated appropriately). If that is the case, I agree that the added value is definitely worth the effort to find it.

And I keep my interest in the "A41" block out there.....

Dan Richardson

300L Family Heirloom

(w/ a '67 Imperial's 440 in it - funny thing is, I think my original 413 HP is running around Chicagoland in a white '67 Charger! Just can't find it!)

From: therichardsonfamily@xxxxxxxxxxx

To: LabLoverDC@xxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:05:21 PM

Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Value of correct date block

Shannon:

I have asked this same question - I have an L with a '67 440 in it. With my car, I am choosing not to stress out about it too much. A) - I don't have unlimited resources, and B) - an L is definitely the least prized of the Letter cars. Besides that, I'm not too sure how many "HP" blocks you can find out there.

Having said that, an F is much more valuable in general, even more so with the original motor but, with a "date correct" block (as long as it's disclosed) I can't imagine you detract from a "numbers matching" value too much. Just an observation and opinion. If you have the time, and patience, you may be able to uncover the right block.

If you are on a schedule that doesn't allow a year or two to look, perhaps you take a stab at it briefly, and then just move forward. Who knows, maybe a "V41" is the right date code for my early build '65 L and you have me as a customer for yours? Perhaps it would be in my best interest to help you look?

Good luck in whatever you choose, and keep my name in case you do want to sell the "V41" block.

Dan Richardson

300L Family Heirloom

From: LabLoverDC@xxxxxxx

To: chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:25:05 PM

Subject: [Chrysler300] Value of correct date block

Hello All--Thanks to the excellent information offered here, I've determined the block in our 300 F appears to be from 1964 (V41 HP). As nearly as we can tell, at some point prior to our owning the car, a short block was put in. It appears that everything else (ram induction, carbs, heads, etc.) are proper and presumably original to the car.

The engine is out of the car, and we are undertaking a complete re-build of it. My question is, does anyone have an opinion as to whether we should stick with the 1964 block we have, or try to find a 1960 P41 block, which of course would still not be original to the car but would be mostly correct from a date standpoint? Does that add significant value (enough to make it worth it to go through the expense and trouble of finding a '60 block)?

For a point of reference, we are doing a complete, sub-frame off restoration. While we're not necessarily trying for a concours job, especially with detailed correctness in things like wires, labels, batteries, etc., it will be a very high quality restoration, perhaps one step down from concours (at least, that's what we hope to end up with). The car itself is a black/tan convertible with factory air, and all of the options appear to be correct according to the build sheet if that helps.

I would welcome anyone's opinion on this subject.

Shannon

--
Ray Jones. Y'all come on down an see us. Ya hear?