As I recall, the 55-56 300's had carbs that were hard wired--so using the cold start system, both primaries opened up. In 57, I believe, the carb linkage was progressive, and the rear carb only was the go-to cold start gas supply. That's what I remember. Doug
Doug Mayer Northport, Maine sent from my older iMac
On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:23 PM, John Grady wrote:
Hi Chris, My entire discussion is/was about ram cars, I know nothing personally
of H type quads, although operation strategy is identical to C and D , or any
inline dual quad. ; Maybe this is kind of funny in retrospect , the miscommunication
, I was hearing right or left , not front or back. Sorry; Forgot we are in solidly
H territory, not F , where I live most of the time. While I am not 100 % sure
now that you ask, and I should know definitively, but memory fails, I think the
F had heat riser valves in the exhaust manifold that controlled flow in the (two!—in
and out) ) heat elbows, one on each side. If not, I stand corrected, but IF
not, that is an awful setup. Needs for carb heat are far different cold than
hot for same reasons as crossover type heat valve . That would only add to warm
up miseries to have uncontrolled heat. I have seen the floor of ram manifolds
burned out with a hole into plenum from exhaust , in fact I fixed two pairs of
them with that issue back in the day, which seems to reinforce the heat riser valve
(stuck) . Will check on that... That plenum hole issue helps you with tuning a lot! J and K dual choke cables provided perfect synchronization of
chokes, and fast idle cam, on ram cars . This poor running at start in winter WAS
the major issue behind myriad drivability problems with these cars when new in
60 and 61; as I mentioned ,I was right there when they were new, many 60-61 rams
were pulled, one in a friend’s family in 61 Plymouth 383 wagon ( I tried to get
them) . We tolerate this today, as “part of the brute”, and a non issue in warm
climates. For 62, someone in marketing or service at Chrysler said “no way –no more
of this“; ---note the interim service bulletins on setting up rams, too. Not
just a use up parts problem, a real image problem . By the time J and K were sold, the new short rams only came in
300’s , a mom in a station wagon or Sport Fury was not dealing with 361/383 auto
choke Rams, --which did not work for her. J+K were sold as performance cars to
people with more tolerance for high performance engines...and now with ability
to start up without hassle on cold days, and you can open the choke /unload from
inside if flooded (manual choke!) ---and a loose converter. Big big improvements
right there. . My J gave me zero problems here, unlike the F. That all this is
true is validated by the owners manuals for F / G etc; it calls attention to
rough idle and “solid “ engagement as “characteristic or your high performance
engine” etc etc , trying to defuse some big issues they had . If you flood one
of those 60-61 ram cars , with automatic chokes you are in for a party. I do
not think you can reasonably start them quickly if flooded without pulling air
cleaners and opening chokes, despite WOT unloaders on the chokes. ( my
experience,--- carried ether, two pencils ) and as I mentioned the full club expertise
struggled with the one in Maine, just trying to move it to concourse .Crank
fine, no start. Every time you try to unload choke with foot pedal two more
squirts go into puddle in manifold. WE need to know more tech about the (H? Sport 300? ) that won
NHRA A/SA in 62. (HRM special) Was it front to back AFB dual quads? Huge boost
for Chrysler, faster than all the 409 and 421 GM 4 spd cars , put 727 solidly
on the map. Bulletproof auto trans in drag racing? Never before... John
With all due respect, I feel compelled to offer a few
clarifications regarding the manifold and carburetor set ups on the letter
series Chryslers.
The in-line twin carburetor set up used on the E and H was
designed in such a manner that the front two barrels of the rear
carburetor was the primary fuel supply to the entire engine at start up and low
speed operation. Therefore, there was need for only one choke, located on
the primary barrels of the rear carburetor as Mike describes. The rear
carburetor secondary barrels, and well as the front carburetor barrels, only
opened after the primary barrels were at least one-third to one-half open.
Both carburetors fed all eight cylinders simultaneously.
The cross ram engines differed from the in-line engines in that
each carburetor only fed four cylinders. At start up and low speed
operation, the primary barrels of both carburetors were required to operate,
with each carburetor feeding only four cylinders. As such, two chokes
were required, one for each carburetor. Given that the '60 & '61
cross rams had automatic choke pull offs, and each worked independently of the
other, I can see how a lack of synchronization could really mess up cold start
engine performance and drivability. And I agree that the manual choke set
up used on the J and ram K provided synchronization. The manual choke was
also cheaper to produce, and I think Chrysler was pushing "cheaper"
when building the J and ram K.
Now I need to touch for a moment the subject of the "exhaust
heat riser valve". To be clear, this special valve was a
thermostatically operated butterfly valve installed just before the exhaust
flange on the passenger side "log style" exhaust manifold. The
purpose of this valve was to temporarily restrict exhaust flow from the right
side of the engine and force a portion of the exhaust gases from the right side
of the engine through the right cylinder head, then through the base of the one
piece intake manifold, then out through the left head. This allowed the
exhaust to quickly heat the intake manifold for quicker warm up and better cold
start drivability. On engines with intake manifolds and carburetors
installed between the cylinder heads, only one "exhaust heat riser
valve" was installed on the right exhaust manifold. The cross ram
engines did not have carburetors mounted between the heads. The cross ram
manifolds included blocker plates that capped off the upper center exhaust
ports in each cylinder head. As a result, exhaust gases did not flow from
head to head on a cross ram engine. Therefore, no "exhaust heat riser
valve" was required or installed on the ram engines. Each ram
manifold receives exhaust flow from the respective exhaust manifold below it on
a continuous basis.
Hopefully we are all on "one page" now. I welcome
any comments or differing opinions.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Grady <jkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Michael Moore' <mmoore8425@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Chrysler300 <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, Jan 29, 2014 1:20 pm
Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] Manifolds and carbs
Only one carb was connected to
your setup? So you started on 4 cylinders..? The J setup manual choke split in
two if I remember right , made both carbs do exactly the same thing.. What you
want ...
They should have had one choke
control and cross link the carb fast idle and choke mechanically. Not
sure why they did not do that. Would have cost less and worked right..
What they do matters less ----than they do it together.
Exhaust heat riser valves both
have to be in sync too. Or you get loping idle , stalls when you push D on cold
days, equals starting it 5-6 times . If you had manual choke on both, (J) ,
it just let you raise idle high enough manually when cold to cover up all
this. But still harsh D engagement was the norm. Tests that fine front U joint
on 60 -61, too!!. “Clang” !!---J had a little looser converter, not as harsh maybe.
And they are a bear to start if
they get badly flooded , not sure why..My .02: = maybe gas sits in a deep
puddle at bottom of ram under carb till it is good and ready to evaporate out,
(no other way out) but a squirt of ether and away you go. On regular manifold,
that gas would run down into ports.
Despite working on these on and
off for what 50 years now, I admit to lots of suffering along the way.
Can do in minutes what used to baffle me for a day. One key thing I found is
that many, if not most of the carbs have destroyed adjusting needles by now ,
due to all the playing with them..if you see a ring or step worn
circumferentially around the needle, no question -- it is junk. Cannot be
adjusted right. That ring comes from “golden screwdriver “ and going too tight
into hole, prior to “backing out 1.5 turns” . I found new Edelbrock needles
(spare parts from them) are beefier and fit and work even with possible damage
in carb body..taper is slightly different. .# 1 thing you can do about
frustrating drifty funky idle setup. ..that changes by itself every time you
look at it. I mistakenly junked several “untuneable “ ‘defective” carbs
before knowing that, After careful rebuilds, still the idle problem remained
.....
I have owned my 300H since 1965
or so. When I got my car, it had a very nnicely installed manual choke. It was
a very clean installation, which I thought was factory for a while, using
one of the unused round knobs beneath the dome of the instrument panel. The
unused knob had a set screw and was used to connect to a choke wire which went
to the rear carb. It was actually, I thought, much more useful than my curent
electric stove choke.
I only removed it because it
would gradually creep into the choke position as the engine vibrated, so I
frequently had to push the choke back in. Sometimes, on a long trip, I woujld
only notice it when I realized the engine wasn't running right and would find
the choke fully engaged.
Otherwise, I thought the
car started easier as I could momentarily choke the crap out of it
if it was cold and as soon as it fired start coming off of choke.
Another aspect of this was very
poor choke pull off on ram cars ; one side pulls off before other even today .
Certain types of cutomers would not deal with this in 60 , 61. I was there ,
one person i know had rams pulled off 383 61 plymouth wagon over terrible idle
/cold start /warmup stalling isuues in Boston ... New car .
J and K (?) had manual chokes to
ensure syncrony . Ram cars are cut a lot of slack today , but remembet at meet
in maine it took 5 club membets half an hour to start a perfect flooded F
N
On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:00 PM, kmaniak@xxxxxxx
wrote:
The following is my "two
cents" on the subject based on years of observation and intuitive theory.
The 1955 through 1958 cars were
equipped with A-block hemi's. The high performance intakes for these
engines were in-line 2 x 4 barrels.
1959 saw the introduction of the
new B-block and RB-block engines equipped with wedge heads. Immediately
the in-line 2 x 4 barrels intakes were installed on the E and other high
performance MoPars. And in Chrysler tradition, they ordered a large lot
of in-line manifolds to use over the next several years.
Meanwhile, the engineers at
Chrysler were experimenting and perfecting the performance potential of ram
induction. For the 1960 model year, Chrysler introduced their first
version of ram induction by unveiling the crossram induction system as standard
in the 300-F and optional in Dodge, DeSoto, and Plymouth, on both B-block and
RB-block configurations. The crossram manifolds came in two designs, the
30-inch long ram manifold, which developed maximum torque at 2800 rpm on the
380 horsepower engines and the 15-inch short ram manifold, which developed
maximum torque at 3600 rpm on the 400 horsepower engines. Again,
following tradition, Chrysler ordered production of large lots of both style
manifolds to use over the next several years. My guess is up to 3000
pairs of long ram manifolds and up to 1000 pairs of short ram manifolds were
produced during 1959 & 1960. The power brake system used on the 300-F
and 300-G, was a system using a f irewall mounted master cylinder and a bellows
type power booster mounted on the firewall above the master cylinder.
This style of power brake did not create a clearance issue with the ram
manifolds.
1961 saw a major shake up in
corporate management. The biggest change from management was the end of
large lot parts production and stockpiling. Chrysler used up the current
inventory of long ram manifolds with 300-G and other Dodge and Plymouth engine
options. The large stockpile of of short ram manifolds still remained
since these were part of an option that was not too popular. Also, a
stockpile of in-line manifolds still remained from 1959.
Let me digress for a
moment. Have you ever wondered why the side trim on 300-C's through
300-G's looked the same? That's because it was all the same. Most
likely it was all manufactured at one time in a huge lot to be used up over the
course of several years. New Chrysler management moved to use up all the
excess inventory of trim by creating and building the 1962 Chrysler 300 (aka
sport). Another new feature on the Chryslers in 1962 was the used of the
firewall mounted power brake booster with integral master cylinder, which was
most likely cheaper to produce than the older power brake systems. Since
all the long ram manifolds were used up and there was a clearance issue with
the new power brake boosters, Chrysler installed the in-line 2 x 4 barrel
manifolds on the 300-H and even built a few sport 300's with this engine as a
way of using up the old inventory of in-line manifolds. The 400 hp short
ram engine was offered as a deal er installed option only in 1962, but demand
was very low. A large stock of short ram manifolds continued to collect
dust on the parts shelves during 1962, approximately 727 pairs.
In order to use up the last of
the short ram manifolds, Chrysler built a special 390 hp engine with reduced
compression ratio, solid lifters, special cast iron headers with exhaust fed
carburetor heat. (Note, the 400 hp short ram engines from 1960 through
1962 used coolant carburetor heat). This engine was the only engine
available in the newly redesigned 300-J. Given the clearance problem
with the firewall mounted power brake booster and the ram tubes, a special
remote booster was used with a firewall mounted master cylinder.
Chrysler may have hoped to use up all the 390 hp engines in 1963, but alas,
only 400 300-J's were built, reducing the carry over back stock of short ram
manifolds to 327 pairs.
To capitalize on the letter
series reputation and guarantee using up all the short ram manifolds, Chrysler
offered the 300-K with a standard single 4-barrel engine and offered the ram
engine as a option. Not only did Chrysler finally used up all the short
ram manifolds, I spoke with former Chrysler dealer employees from 1964 who
swear that their dealers received one or more 300-K's at the end of the model
year with factory equipped in-line 2 x 4 barrels.
Hopefully this gives everyone a
glimpse at why I think things were the way they were with regards to the letter
cars.
I've been following the thread on
the '62 Chrysler 300 (H?) and now wonder why C300, B, C, D and E had a 2x4 bbl.
intake manifold and the F, G, J and K (option) had ram induction. What was
Chrysler's logic for this on-again and off-again aspiration? Just curious.
By the way, I will have a '64 K
360 HP engine in running condition complete with correct carb and air cleaner
up for sale this Spring. Asking $500. Buyer picks up. Please advise if
interested.
__._,_.___
To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or
go to http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join and select the "Leave Group" button
For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang
![]()
__,_._,___
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap