I will concur that you need to chase down the casting numbers and casting dates on your 413 block to verify what model year it really came from.
As for the consumer automotive versions available, there were the 340 horse version (4bbl and single exhaust) and 360 horse versions with 4bbl and dual exhaust. There MIGHT have been a slight difference in the camshafts, but I don't believe there was as back then 20 horsepower was usually the difference between a single and dual exhaust system on the same engine.
In about 1968, I found an article in CAR LIFE magazine which was devoted to engine horsepower vs weight vs 1/4 mile trap speed. With correction factors for changing power and axle ratios vs 1/4 mile performance. The KEY thing was a three-piece chart with weight on one side, 1/4 mile trap speed on the other side, and the "horsepower on the ground" line in the middle. As much as I tried to preserve that chart (at a time when Zerox copiers where rare items), there was some wear and tear on it.
So, to really figure things out, using the correction factors, I made note cards on every Chrysler Corp vehicle road test in my car magazine collection (Motor Trend, CAR LIFE, Hot Rod, and others). THEN, I'd take that information and "standardize it" to a 4000lb car with 3.23 axle ratio and H78-14 tires (think C-body from 1966). That way, I could really tell what the engines were producing rather than rely upon factory ratings. The figures I got also looked to be more realixtic than the Mr. Gasketr "Dream Wheel" would produce with less data.
From a Hot Rod Magazine dyno test on a 1968 Chrysler 383 4bbl, I also had engine power numbers. Using those numbers, compared to the road test data, I determined that a Chrysler TF powertrain absorbed about 16.5% of engine power in making the rear wheels turn. Therefore, I could work backward to get flywheel horsepower from my standardized data. I might add that I was aided in this research project of mine by my trusty K+E slide rule.
I had also been collecting the Petersen Engine Annuals since the first one in 1965. These had a complete list of all engine specs. Cam timing was one, for example. Carb sizing, too, as to throttle bores and such. ALL USA brands of the repective model year. Seems like the last one was for 1972?
Now, having followed Chrysler engines for a good while back then, I knew the 413s were good performers, but their road test performances were a bit lackluster compared to the later 440s. Some of this tended to be confirmed when I found an exhaust manifold off of one at a parts warehouse. The exit hole was no more than 2.0", or similar to a small block Chevy of the time. So, "No wonder!", I thought. As I knew the later HP manifolds on the 440/375 were larger, as was the normal '66 383 exhaust manifold, too. BUT, that might not have been the ONLY reason.
So lets take a small side trip to the 1965 426-W Street Wedge. The Street HEMI was not yet in production, but the 413 had grown to 426cid. Basically the same cam as the 413/360 engine with an incremental horsepower increase due to the added displacement. A road test of a 4-speed '65 Monaco 500 426-W was not that impressive, or at least as much as I might have desired, all things considered.
When the first '66 Chrysler 440 road tests came out, I immediately put them into the database and was surprised how much more power the 440 put to the ground, compared to the earlier 413s of similar ratings. Except the base 440 was 350 horsepower rather than 340, with a bit more torque too. But the performance was better than just 10 horsepower and 10 lbs/ft of torque.
The '66 440 had the 256/260 cam as the normal cam. A slight bit shorter in rated duration and a bit less in advertised lift. But the cars still ran better. Adding a dual exhaust and dual snorkle air cleaner bumped things to 365 horsepower from the base 350, with the same 256/260 cam.
When the '67 440/375 appeared in the GTX, it had the 1.74 exhaust valves and the HP exhaust manifolds. Were those two items really worth just 10 additional horsepower over the 440TNT's 365 horsepower?
Now, there was ONE thing which changed with the '66 cars, which was mentioned in several "New Car" ariticles. It was a new torque converter in the TFs which was designed to "reduce creep at idle in gear". In a '65 Satellite 383 4bbl road test, CAR LIFE had clocked that car at 8mph at the end of a 1/4 mile drag strip. Just idling in "D", letting it run as fast it could "at idle". BTW, those pre-'66 TFs were somewhat known for their "tight torque converter", which tended to aid off-idle throttle reaponse compared to Ford or GM automatics. By observation, the '66 TF torque converters were still "tighter" than the competition, but not as tight as the pre-'66 converters.
A "tight" torque converter will load the engine more than a looser torque converter, off-idle. So that tighter torque converter, even with the approx 450cfm 4bbls of the earlier 1960s, could have slowed the initial "launch" of the car a bit, very possibly, making the ultimate 0-60 performance a bit less than it should have been. Which made the '64-'65 Imperials perform more poorly than might be suspected, when compared to a '65 Coupe DeVille with similar rated power.
Now, if you really want to spin your brain . . . compare a '63 383/330 engine to a '70 383/330 engine, much less the '66 383/325 engine in a Fury III, all with factory dual exhausts. Cam specs, carb sizings, exhaust manifolds, head ports, distributor advance specs, and valve sizings.
As to the power a streetable 383 can make? CAR LIFE had a short road test of a '69 Road Runner 383, upgraded with the 284/284 Purple Shaft Street HEMI grind cam (the ORIGINAL Purple Shaft cam from Direct Connection), and Edelbrock DP4B factory part number intake manifold, a Holley 3310 780cfm carb, and headers. Seems like it has 3.91 gears, too? End result, it was knocking on stock Street HEMI (426/425) performance territory. So, yes, a 383 CAN perform. With a few modern additions, it can also do it reliably, daily, too.
Yes, the Chrysler 413s did rule the drag strips in the earlier 1960s, but those drag strip engines were very specialized in their equipment. Especially in the MAX Wedge versions. BUT it was not just the engines which made this possible. It included some great drivers, excellent TorqueFlite automatics, great rear suspension designs (assymetrical mount rear leaf springs, as a Chrysler Corp exclusive back then and later), and well-finessed vehicles in a science-based engineer's approach to things.
Although the Chrysler 300 Letter Cars had the Long Ram intakes and about 900cfm of carburetion, they were designed more for mid-range torque than 6000rpm horsepower. Being one of the first USA brands to have a torque rating of "490", as I recall. Which helped make "two-lane blacktop" passes quicker and safer for all involved.
The unfortunate part of the 413s history involved being a medium-duty truck engine in Dodge D-400 trucks (as a specific truck-designed engine that had unique parts on it, as the water pump) and also doing duty as a stationary irrigation pump engine. No doubt, they were durable in those applications, but they were still there.
ONE thing about Chrysler Muscle Machines (from the first Chrysler 300 in 1955), the cars were "package cars". With more power, upgraded suspensions, brakes and other items were a part of the deal. With the "hot rod" factory engines working well within their vehicles, too. As TFs became increasingly "heavy duty" with the added power, too. A few reasons why Chrysler Corp vehicles were the choice of most law enforcement agencies for many decades from the earlier 1950s.
Yes, the 413 was factory-available in 1965. Yes, it can repkace a 383 in a 1965 car, but there can be a lot of little items which are specific to a 413 vehicle that do not work with a 383, very easily. Can it be done? Yes. Just as you can do anything if you have enough expertise, time, tools, and money to do it. BUT it is economically feasible to do? Will a later potential purchaser be as willing to buy it with an altered-size motor? A 383 stroker might be more saleable? That's your judgment call.
ONE observed issue with Chrysler B/RB motors is their large amount of weight "slinging around" in the crankcase. Piston weight, piston pin weight, plus the related crankshaft counterweight weight. Lighter pistons and pins mean less weight on the crankshaft counterweights, for example. Add in some "knife-edging" of the counterweights for less "wind resistance" as an aid, too.
I like ALL Chrysler V-8 engines, but tend to be a bit partial to B-383s. Especially when I discovered they had the same bore-to-stroke and stroke-to-rod length ratios as the Chevy 302 V-8 and the late-'60s Chevy Can-AM 430cid V-8s, too. In other words, optimum for power production and rev-a-bility. AND having those things from the later 1950s, too! Yes, I ran stats on those things too.
Sorry for the length. Many thoughts and observations over the years,
CBODY67
