Leo and Doc,
Read an article in one of the Mopar performance type mags addressing the thin wall 440 myth (hope I'm remembering this right). They tested and measured several random post '76 blocks against earlier blocks as controls. They found some wall thickness variations among the later blocks, but of more consequence was that sample chunks removed from the post 76 blocks invariably had a lower hardness as measured on the Rockwell scale. Would lead one to believe the later blocks were cast with less nickel content.
They came to the conclusion that the newer blocks weren't worth working, not because they're thin, but because they're soft (kinda makes you think of a bar room scene, don't it!)....
There's a consensus out there that the 70-71 440's have the best blocks, a lot of them with steel cranks. Start combing the junkyards for a station wagon.
Steve in Korea
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:22:22 -0700
From: Leo Jormanainen
Subject: Re: IML: Price of a 67 or 68 440?
Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
It's not worth the expense, the structural integrity of the block
is lost. The bores will "shift" and do all kinds of neat things.
Leo
QCI
At 03:10 PM 11/06/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Couldn't you sleeve those and maintain bore size? D^2
>
>Quoting Leo Jormanainen
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > '76 and later 440 cyl. blocks are throw away blocks, thin wall
> > castings.
> > Max. over bore is 0.020".
> >
> > Leo
> > QCI
|
From: "DR CHALLENGER"
Subject: Re: IML: Price of a 67 or 68 440?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:21:57 +0000
Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nope, that is just a myth. I have seen tests results showing there is no
date cutoff, thin casting
s are just random in all year 440s.
>From: Leo Jormanainen
>>Hi,
>
>'76 and later 440 cyl. blocks are throw away blocks, thin wall castings.
>Max. over bore is 0.020".
>
>Leo
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:58:49 -0700
From: Leo Jormanainen
Subject: Re: IML: Thin Walled 440's
Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
How to Rebuild Big-Block MOPAR Engines by Don Taylor,
pages 51,52 and a Caution on page 69. Quote;
"The 1976-'78 400 cid (and 440 cid) was a thin-wall casting
and as such should be bored no greater then 0.020-in.over"
Leo
QCI
At 01:25 PM 11/06/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Well then;
> May it was an error on the magazine's part but I definatelly remember that
>they said it was from a 77 New Yorker. I will find the article again and
>check it. I find it hard to believe that they would bother to change the 440
>casting
that much that you could only bore it .020'', you can bore out a 360
>more then that. Do you have proof of this or is this like the myths about
>Chrysler products stalling over a bridge.
>Best Regards
>Arran Foster
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Chad Brown"
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network