|
|
Regular
Posts: 62
| Anybody know the details?
I am trying to find the following...
Static compression
Head chamber vol
Open vs closed chamber
Cam specs
Thanks!
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1506
 
Location: Colo Spgs | Hola Michael
.. 1960 Chrysler 383 Cam Specs are close to nuthin --- when comparing them to a era solid unit. The spec's have been "super-ceded" so many times it is hard to located. There is now a Hydr Cam Shaft at Rock Auto or NAPA that is a Hydr Version that is close to a pre-1965 Hi-Performance Solid unit.
***
The same Hydr Cam Shaft was used in every 2 bbl or 4 bbl 361- 383 and every basic 413.
***
.. The Static Compression Ratio was close to: 9-1 for your engine.
.. Your 1960 Heads are the same part number for every 361 - 383 or basic 413 ---- of the same era.
*****
Your two Bbl Manifold is the same as a 413 Truck Engine's.
*****
If you are going to seek a 4 bbl Manifold ---- look at any 1959 to 1965 413 or any 1966 440's.
After 1967 The Carb Mating Ports became a different size for the 440's.
Rodger & Gabby
Colo Spgs |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 7393
  
Location: northern germany | 2bbl cam: 252° duration, .389 lift, 30° overlap, 111° lsa. all fl bb heads had closed cambers. compression should be around 10:1. |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 62
| Appreciate the info. At this point, it is more academic, as I am not going to hot rod the engine, but it is nice to have an idea of what to expect. A closed chamber makes me happy although I bet the piston design leaves a bit to be desired.
If you guys have any more detailed info, I am all ears.
If I end up needing to rebuild it I wonder if I could use 340 Pistons and some oddball rods depending on dimensions... 4.030. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 3775
Location: NorCal |
All BB heads prior to '68 are closed chamber. The factory chamber volume spec is 73.5 CC's but anybody who has measured the actual volume knows they are usually in the 76-78 CC range. |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 7393
Location: northern germany | 57chizler - 2017-01-05 1:01 PM
All BB heads prior to '68 are closed chamber. The factory chamber volume spec is 73.5 CC's but anybody who has measured the actual volume knows they are usually in the 76-78 CC range.
heads with 1.95 intake valves (350/pre61 361/383RB) or 2.08 valves (post60 361,383B/413)? iirc the smaller heads raised the compression when used on 383B/413 engines?
Edited by 1960fury 2017-01-05 2:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 2002
Location: Branson, MO | 1960fury - 2017-01-05 1:26 PM
57chizler - 2017-01-05 1:01 PM
All BB heads prior to '68 are closed chamber. The factory chamber volume spec is 73.5 CC's but anybody who has measured the actual volume knows they are usually in the 76-78 CC range.
heads with 1.95 intake valves (350/pre61 361/383RB ) or 2.08 valves (post60 361,383B/413 )? iirc the smaller heads raised the compression when used on 383B/413 engines?
In '68 when the heads changed, the heads were "dished" and had a round/circular look to them. The valves were larger but the increase in head volume reduced the compression. The pre '68 heads had a "D" shaped chamber instead of circular and had less volume which produced higher compression. I believe the changes were made to meet pollution standards as much as anything.
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1740
Location: Alaska | Does anyone know how much (approximately) the compression will increase when using the older closed chamber heads on a newer engine that was originally open chamber? |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1506
Location: Colo Spgs | Hola
The quickest and easiest "Bang for Your Buck" items to do is to fist remove your hard mounted - four blade Engine Cooling Fan ( 1735 939 was the original number ) and replace it with any 1976 or newer unit from any MoPar 318 ---- with the 1976 or newer Silicone Clutch Drive Unit.
.. This will improve your Fuel Usage Ratio.
Rodger & Gabby
Colo Spgs |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1506
Location: Colo Spgs | Hola
The 1963 Factory Service Manual ( FSM ) will show you on Page 9-4 the Hydra Cam Shaft Spec's from 1959 was still being used in every 361-383 with either manifold or exhaust system and basic 413's.
Rodger & Gabby
Colo Spgs |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 3775
Location: NorCal | 1960fury - 2017-01-05 11:26 AM
57chizler - 2017-01-05 1:01 PM
All BB heads prior to '68 are closed chamber. The factory chamber volume spec is 73.5 CC's but anybody who has measured the actual volume knows they are usually in the 76-78 CC range.
heads with 1.95 intake valves (350/pre61 361/383RB ) or 2.08 valves (post60 361,383B/413 )? iirc the smaller heads raised the compression when used on 383B/413 engines?
My data is from the blueprint specs that Chrysler supplied to the NHRA and other sanctioning bodies...it shows no change in chamber volume prior to '68....of course, the Max Wedge being the exception. |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 62
| 57chizler - 2017-01-06 1:03 PM
1960fury - 2017-01-05 11:26 AM
57chizler - 2017-01-05 1:01 PM
All BB heads prior to '68 are closed chamber. The factory chamber volume spec is 73.5 CC's but anybody who has measured the actual volume knows they are usually in the 76-78 CC range.
heads with 1.95 intake valves (350/pre61 361/383RB ) or 2.08 valves (post60 361,383B/413 )? iirc the smaller heads raised the compression when used on 383B/413 engines?
My data is from the blueprint specs that Chrysler supplied to the NHRA and other sanctioning bodies...it shows no change in chamber volume prior to '68....of course, the Max Wedge being the exception.
Is that data online somewhere or is it a paper reference? |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1506
Location: Colo Spgs | Hola Michael
You will save a "ton of cash" and a bunch of "sleep-ness moments" if you use a MoPar 400 Engine vs thinking a set of 340 pistons is what you need. You can easily locate a 1978-1972 400 for $500 in The Front Range Area.
Rodger & Gabby
COS
|
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 7393
Location: northern germany | FourFans - 2017-01-05 11:27 AM
A closed chamber makes me happy although I bet the piston design leaves a bit to be desired.
What makes you think so? forged aluminum of excellent quality and design. if your plans are hot rodding the RB 383 better switch to a low deck 383/400 or 413/440.
Edited by 1960fury 2017-01-06 4:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 62
| Rodger - 2017-01-06 2:00 PM
Hola Michael
You will save a "ton of cash" and a bunch of "sleep-ness moments" if you use a MoPar 400 Engine vs thinking a set of 340 pistons is what you need. You can easily locate a 1978-1972 400 for $500 in The Front Range Area.
Rodger & Gabby
COS
I hope it doesnt need rebuilt. But we shall see. I have a 400 i could use, but i would rather keep things stock. I really would like to just drive it, I dont need a pavement pounder in this car.
I like the idea of the 383 rb. Good long rod ratio, long stroke that will push good torque. It really is very similar to a stroked 340. |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 62
| 1960fury - 2017-01-06 2:13 PM
FourFans - 2017-01-05 11:27 AM
A closed chamber makes me happy although I bet the piston design leaves a bit to be desired.
What makes you think so? forged aluminum of excellent quality and design. if your plans are hot rodding the RB 383 better switch to a low deck 383/400 or 413/440.
I havent seen a piston from this era. The old pistons are stout but really heavy. The big thing though is quench height and piston/chamber interface. I bet with some custom pistons and some judicial decking we could get a really good running engine and a bit more compression.
I dont want to hot rod this car. I will keep the 2bbl as long as it works. If the ethanol goves me too problems i will go tbi. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 520
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado | FourFans - 2017-01-06 2:58 PM
1960fury - 2017-01-06 2:13 PM
FourFans - 2017-01-05 11:27 AM
A closed chamber makes me happy although I bet the piston design leaves a bit to be desired.
What makes you think so? forged aluminum of excellent quality and design. if your plans are hot rodding the RB 383 better switch to a low deck 383/400 or 413/440.
I havent seen a piston from this era. The old pistons are stout but really heavy. The big thing though is quench height and piston/chamber interface. I bet with some custom pistons and some judicial decking we could get a really good running engine and a bit more compression.
I dont want to hot rod this car. I will keep the 2bbl as long as it works. If the ethanol goves me too problems i will go tbi.
Get one of the newer dual plane RB designs, you'll be better off all around. It will be lighter too, just run a 600cfm AFB/AVS. If you're putting a new cam in it, look at hughes engines grinds, they really know the rb well. Id be looking at this cam in your shoes. I also posted an intake for you. These should make the car run much better and gain efficiency.
http://www.hughesengines.com/Index/products.php?browse=category&lev...
http://www.hughesengines.com/Index/products.php?browse=category&lev... |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 7393
Location: northern germany | FourFans - 2017-01-06 4:58 PM
1960fury - 2017-01-06 2:13 PM
FourFans - 2017-01-05 11:27 AM
A closed chamber makes me happy although I bet the piston design leaves a bit to be desired.
What makes you think so? forged aluminum of excellent quality and design. if your plans are hot rodding the RB 383 better switch to a low deck 383/400 or 413/440.
I havent seen a piston from this era. The old pistons are stout but really heavy. The big thing though is quench height and piston/chamber interface. I bet with some custom pistons and some judicial decking we could get a really good running engine and a bit more compression.
I dont want to hot rod this car. I will keep the 2bbl as long as it works. If the ethanol goves me too problems i will go tbi.
they were EXCELLENT running engines from the factory. if you are new to mopar big blocks, give them a chance and don't assume they don't run good just because they are old. i'm sure people here are tired of hearing this but i've been running a mopar 383 big block for 29 years almost daily over here in germany with ZERO problems, until now heads never been pulled (57+ years 330+K miles) still revs to 6k, goes to 60 in less than 6 seconds with a 2.93 axle, top speed in excess of 140mph, no noises and perfect oil pressure, perfectly running.
that makes me think if you don't want to hot rod it and want to keep the 2bbl (!) intake, don't worry about piston weight (the RB383 uses the lightest pistons of all mopar big blocks) and i don't think you need or want more compression. |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 62
| 1960fury - 2017-01-06 4:32 PM
FourFans - 2017-01-06 4:58 PM
1960fury - 2017-01-06 2:13 PM
FourFans - 2017-01-05 11:27 AM
A closed chamber makes me happy although I bet the piston design leaves a bit to be desired.
What makes you think so? forged aluminum of excellent quality and design. if your plans are hot rodding the RB 383 better switch to a low deck 383/400 or 413/440.
I havent seen a piston from this era. The old pistons are stout but really heavy. The big thing though is quench height and piston/chamber interface. I bet with some custom pistons and some judicial decking we could get a really good running engine and a bit more compression.
I dont want to hot rod this car. I will keep the 2bbl as long as it works. If the ethanol goves me too problems i will go tbi.
they were EXCELLENT running engines from the factory. if you are new to mopar big blocks, give them a chance and don't assume they don't run good just because they are old. i'm sure people here are tired of hearing this but i've been running a mopar 383 big block for 29 years almost daily over here in germany with ZERO problems, until now heads never been pulled (57+ years 330+K miles ) still revs to 6k, goes to 60 in less than 6 seconds with a 2.93 axle, top speed in excess of 140mph, no noises and perfect oil pressure, perfectly running.
that makes me think if you don't want to hot rod it and want to keep the 2bbl (! ) intake, don't worry about piston weight (the RB383 uses the lightest pistons of all mopar big blocks ) and i don't think you need or want more compression.
I don't think the engine needs much modification either. I really like the cam specs posted above for the purpose of the car assuming the duration listed is at 0.050.
I am far more familiar with mopar small blocks. I don't really think it needs much, but if I do end up rebuilding it, it will get a few minor mods to it. The thing was rated at 305 from the factory, and I don't doubt that will do me just fine if I can get the engine cleaned up from sludge and neglect. If I end up rebuilding it, I will have to do some research on pistons etc. I would probably shoot for 10:1-10.5:1, similar cam, and the only real changes would be to shoot for an ideal quench height with the heads and more modern piston rings.
For now though, I plan on keeping everything as is until I drive it a bit.
The engine is currently sludged pretty bad, low oil pressure and an occasional lifter click at idle. I only ran it for a few minutes and won't run it again until I pull the pan and see how it looks. I have the tool to spin up the oil pump if necessary, and if it looks really bad I will pull the intake and degunk the top end. After that I will run it, cycle through about 5 gallons of oil and filters and hope for the best. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 3775
Location: NorCal | FourFans - 2017-01-06 12:38 PM
57chizler - 2017-01-06 1:03 PM
My data is from the blueprint specs that Chrysler supplied to the NHRA and other sanctioning bodies...it shows no change in chamber volume prior to '68....of course, the Max Wedge being the exception.
Is that data online somewhere or is it a paper reference?
Mine is paper. I'll see if it will post.
 (Head Volumes.png)
Attachments
----------------
 Head Volumes.png (51KB - 139 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1506
Location: Colo Spgs | Hola Michael
If you already have a 1978-1972 MoPar 400 --- then you are better off.
The 1960 Oil Pan and its matching Oil Pick-up assembly may need to be used with the 400 ---- for Engine to Car Frame clearance reasons.
------------------------
I still like the thought of keeping the engine that is in it now. You have pure MoPar History.
Rodger & Gabby
Colo Spgs |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 62
| Rodger - 2017-01-07 3:22 PM
Hola Michael
If you already have a 1978-1972 MoPar 400 --- then you are better off.
The 1960 Oil Pan and its matching Oil Pick-up assembly may need to be used with the 400 ---- for Engine to Car Frame clearance reasons.
------------------------
I still like the thought of keeping the engine that is in it now. You have pure MoPar History.
Rodger & Gabby
Colo Spgs
Ever pull the pan in the car? I need to do this. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1740
Location: Alaska | On most cars, you have to unbolt the lower motor mount bolts and raise the front of the engine to remove the pan. Not sure but on a FL you might also have to drop the tie rod. I normally have done this with a floor jack and a piece of 4x4 on the front pulley. Be careful, a friend of mine was doing this on a Poncho and had his fingers between the oil pan flange and the block and the jack slipped out! It was pretty funny later, after his fingers quit hurting. |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 62
| 58coupe - 2017-01-07 7:33 PM
On most cars, you have to unbolt the lower motor mount bolts and raise the front of the engine to remove the pan. Not sure but on a FL you might also have to drop the tie rod. I normally have done this with a floor jack and a piece of 4x4 on the front pulley. Be careful, a friend of mine was doing this on a Poncho and had his fingers between the oil pan flange and the block and the jack slipped out! It was pretty funny later, after his fingers quit hurting.
Anybody pull a forward look pan? I am hoping lifting the engine wont be necessary. |
|
| |
1960 383 rb specs?
