Off line response, was: 413 vs 440!

["John Sadowski" <jsadowski@xxxxxxx>]

No, I don't think I'd go that far. I don't think that the 440 is really a bad engine, but given the choice, I'd take a 413 any day. They just don't seem to get as cranky from the heat & don't generally have the hard hot start problem the 440 does.

John

----- Original Message -----

From: clay-deb

To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 7:47 PM

Subject: Re: IML: Off line response, was: 413 vs 440!

Well darn,   I have been  following this thread with interest and waiting
for the 440 owners  to rise up and put this 413 nonsense to rest, .
                   I guess its not going to happen.  Should I be checking in
to a 413 swap for my 67 ?  ;)
                                         Clay Smith  67 Crown Coupe
-----Original Message-----
From: John Sadowski <jsadowski@xxxxxxx>
To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, July 12, 2002 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: IML: Off line response, was: 413 vs 440!


To very briefly sum it up, I think the 413 just plain runs better then the
440. You can make all the improvements you want, but if it doesn't run as
good, its all for nothing.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: D. Dardalis
  To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 7:12 AM
  Subject: IML: Off line response, was: 413 vs 440!


  At 10:12 PM 7/10/2002 -0700, you wrote:
  >I think we've had a failure to communicate here.  It's the exhaust valve
  >sizes that I quoted as smaller.  If there is a difference in intake
ports, I
  >have not noticed it.

  Actually, I thought that these two conversions went together (ie, when the
  intake ports were enlarged, the exhaust valves were also changed at the
  same time).  However, you and Mike both say that your 67 heads are
measured
  similar to the 66.  What might be happening here is that Chrysler came up
  with the new head design in the 67 model year (explaining the automotive
  press reports), but there were several old 915 heads left over.  Also,
  (based on 67 road test of a GTX) it appears that the HP engines got
  priority to the new head design, and the regular 440s got all the old
heads
  till they ran out of 915's.  This is just a speculation on my part, but I
  think it explains the conflict of information.

  As for off-line response, here is an interesting note.  Both my 68's have
  cam upgrades.  The LeBaron seems to have an equivalent to an HP cam
(strong
  low end, but it peaks a bit higher than standard at about 3300-3500 rpm)
  but the sedan has an even bigger cam and a CH4B Ederblock manifold (peaks
  about 4000-4200 rpm).  My 68 Sedan has a lot less torque than the LeBaron
  in the 2000-3500 range, but it also has quite a bit better off-line
  response than the LeBaron!  Confusing?  When wet for example, I can get
  both tires loose with the sedan (has limited slip) but with the LeBaron,
  you can barely get one tire loose (regular differential).  This is done
  without revving the engine with brakes on, just hit the gas.  My guess is
  that the LeBaron would soon catch up due to its better torque, and then
the
  Sedan might pull away again due to its considerably stronger upper end!

  I think the explanation may be in the carburetors, but it gets confusing
  there too.  Both have spread bores.  The LeBaron has an unusual Rochester
  (with fairly small primaries) and the sedan has a "standard" (a bit bigger
  primaries) Carter.  It is likely that the accelerator pump on the LeBaron
  is not properly set, and causes the lag.  Also, there is a spacer to et
the
  Rochester to fit, and may be the spacer kills the low end.  Also, the two
  cars have different torque converters.  The LeBaron has a lock up
converter
  from the late seventies, which seems to be slipping a bit more.  So, the
  LeBaron should have had the edge during the initial take off, but it
doesn't!

  The difference in displacement between the 413 and the 440 is due entirely
  >to a bore change, they are both 3.75" stroke engines, thus the low speed
  >torque is probably not much affected by the displacement change as it
would
  >be if it were due to a longer stroke in the larger engine.
  Dick, very often people claim that a longer stroke will give you more off
  line torque.  I am not sure if this is directly true.  A longer stroke
  engine will usually have smaller intake ports and valves than a short
  stroke engine of similar displacement, and that might give you good low
end
  response, but its not the longer stroke that provides directly this
  "advantage".  So, a 66 440 with the same intake manifold and ports as the
  413 should have a stronger off line response almost proportional to the
  displacement difference...
  D^2




  -----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
  This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
  reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
  shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
  Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm





-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm