Machining work 516 heads port work/bigger valves/hardened seats??

[Sir Dodge alot]

Hello and greetings all, I'd like to get a conversation or either a consensus on what I can do with a pair of 516 heads, port work/valve job/bigger valves.

I'm not going to be too critical on hardened valve seats, (ok I'm going to be a bit critical)
As I for 10 years of daily driving my Dodge with 516 heads without hardened seats have not seen any valve recession, so I can't really vouch to putting in hardened seats is worth it, hell I've heard more problems with seats falling out and ruining a good engine from stories I've heard)

Anywho, I digress.

In the recent weeks I have begun my first engine rebuild -a Chrysler big block 361 is my current project.

Both 516 heads are disassembled minus the guides still in place, main things I'd like sorted out are.

1. If I was going to get bigger valves, how is the machine shop going to cut a new "seat" into a head that doesn't even have seats?

2. Is it even physically possible to install the 1.74 valves in place of the 1.60 exhaust valves?

3. Let's hear any reasons why I should NOT install bigger valves (exhaust valves in this case)

4. Heard from many folks that installing bigger exhaust valves helps for a "free breathing" engine. What does a "free breathing" mean exactly? Is it just as it says where the engine doesn't suffer from asthma basically?

5.wild card, pro's and con's of an iron heads compared to aluminum heads.
(obvious one would be weight, but anything else?)

6. If you have ran 516 heads, let's hear some of your success stories, (if you can't tell already, I'm a big fan of iron heads)

7. Any "special" valve jobs I should apply to the 516's? (3 angle, 5 angle valve jobs, back facing valves)

8.What are the minimum port/bowl work I would need for the 516's to flow as good as 915's? (915's are great, but they are made of unobtanium lol, and I'm not quite interested in 906's if it drops the compression ratio somewhat, but let's hear any 906's being used anywho)

9. Leave the 516 heads as is due to some problems associated with "core shift" that 516's are known problems with these heads.

.10 on the 516's, if there is a specific area I need to be aware of where I'm likely to hit a water jacket, while porting the exhaust/intake ports, if so, where?

11. Is putting $$$ into a set of 516's a waste considering it's going on top of a 361?

Thanks, and I eagerly Await hearing from the FCBO,FBBO,FABO community. Get your head out of the clouds and let's hear it!

 

[CBODY67]

Before you get all excited about "bigger valves", look at what the common 327 and 350 Chevy engines use for valve sizes. 1.94" intakes and 1.50" exhausts, with 2.02" intakes and 1.60" exhausts on their LT-1 and Z/28 heads.

IF you had a 383, with its larger bore, going bigger on the exhausts might be good, but for a 361, even with "a cam", 4bbl, and dual exhausts, how much time will you spend at an rpm level that would need that extra breathing? Not that much time spent at WOT getting on that 8-lane highway in that part of the world, to me.

In general, "gasket match" the intake ports to the intake gasket. Using a file or power tool, remove the casting flash in the ports and bowls, if any. Intake and exhaust.

IF you have no significant valve seat recession, you might delay the hard seats for a while, or longer. Most issues of valve seat recession happen when the engine is under high loads for long periods of time, like in towing a heavy trailer up an incline. A side issue might be that with time, miles, and heat cycles, the cast iron in the cyl heads might have become "work hardened"?

ONE advantage of aluminum heads is that the car's heater will get hotter quicker in cold weather. Plus the lighter weight and generally improved combustion chamber designs. BUT, they typically do not have the heat crossover passages in them, which means any heat getting into the intake manifold, on a cold start, will have to MIGRATE there as the engine warms up. Even with an electric choke, drivability for that first mile or so can be tricky to re-learn, from my experience.

Many of the "desired" B/FB heads are based on the 906 open chamber castings. When you get into the higher price ranges, you get the more modern "swirl with quench" heads of similar chamber volumes. $2k per head, for example. Even with those heads, full disassembly and cleaning is advised, so that's extra. "Mopar Joe" YT vids on this. Aluminum heads ALSO mean you will need composite head gaskets as the old steel shim gaskets will "wear" a groove in the head surface, over time.

IF you had a 383, the exhaust valve size would be easier to answer, as Chry went to 1.74" exhaust valves in 1968. With the smaller bore of the 361, the larger valve might be shrouded more, which would hinder flow out of the cyl? To me, it might be better to check out "undercut stem valves" rather than let "somebody" hog-out the ports and lose port velocity in the process. Just making the ports bigger, for higher flow numbers, is NOT always the best thing for a street motor. How things end up relies heavily on the porter's ability to "see" flow rather than size. Invest some time in watching many of David Vizard's YouTube videos on such. It really is a science to get it right.

In a Z/28 forum, it was mentioned (by an experienced engine builder, that, for example, AFR 195 heads on a mid-range 350 would "drive" better on the track than the AFR210s would, although the smaller heads would be down several horsepower at peak rpms (about 6500 rpm, I suspect). Higher velocity for better cyl filling, for example, yet less total flow at the high lift numbers. Yet those higher rpm levels and higher total flow numbers typically "blind" people such that the don't normally "see" what the power figures at lower rpm levels are telling them.

SO . . . gasket/port match the intake side of the heads, clean the casting flanges out of the ports, smooth the transition between the bowls and valve seat backsides, etc. DO get ALL of the valve guides worked, then the seats refurbished, paint the desired color, and be done. And watch the Vizard videos on cyl head porting. THEN you'll know what to look for in later cyl heads! Vizard is a fan of "quench"/squish action to increase mixture turbulence in the hamber for best power. Which we might perceive that the "open chamber" design is not as good as it was touted to be, to me. Especially after Hughes began selling "quench dome" pistons to make an open chamber head into the smaller, prior combustion chamber type.

By observation, the bulk of B/RB performance upgrade information is related ot the larger-bore 383, 400, 413, and 440 engines. Relating to valve sizes and such. In more recent times, it has seemed that most of the modern engines are using bore sizes of 4.00" rather than larger. Which relates to the flame front speed through the chamber being better with the 4.00" bore range, using stroke to make up the difference in engine displacement, with loner strokes.

Take care,
CBODY67

 

[Big_John]

Hello and greetings all, I'd like to get a conversation or either a consensus on what I can do with a pair of 516 heads, port work/valve job/bigger valves.

I'm not going to be too critical on hardened valve seats, (ok I'm going to be a bit critical)
As I for 10 years of daily driving my Dodge with 516 heads without hardened seats have not seen any valve recession, so I can't really vouch to putting in hardened seats is worth it, hell I've heard more problems with seats falling out and ruining a good engine from stories I've heard)

Anywho, I digress.

In the recent weeks I have begun my first engine rebuild -a Chrysler big block 361 is my current project.

Both 516 heads are disassembled minus the guides still in place, main things I'd like sorted out are.

1. If I was going to get bigger valves, how is the machine shop going to cut a new "seat" into a head that doesn't even have seats?

2. Is it even physically possible to install the 1.74 valves in place of the 1.60 exhaust valves?

3. Let's hear any reasons why I should NOT install bigger valves (exhaust valves in this case)

4. Heard from many folks that installing bigger exhaust valves helps for a "free breathing" engine. What does a "free breathing" mean exactly? Is it just as it says where the engine doesn't suffer from asthma basically?

5.wild card, pro's and con's of an iron heads compared to aluminum heads.
(obvious one would be weight, but anything else?)

6. If you have ran 516 heads, let's hear some of your success stories, (if you can't tell already, I'm a big fan of iron heads)

7. Any "special" valve jobs I should apply to the 516's? (3 angle, 5 angle valve jobs, back facing valves)

8.What are the minimum port/bowl work I would need for the 516's to flow as good as 915's? (915's are great, but they are made of unobtanium lol, and I'm not quite interested in 906's if it drops the compression ratio somewhat, but let's hear any 906's being used anywho)

9. Leave the 516 heads as is due to some problems associated with "core shift" that 516's are known problems with these heads.

.10 on the 516's, if there is a specific area I need to be aware of where I'm likely to hit a water jacket, while porting the exhaust/intake ports, if so, where?

11. Is putting $$$ into a set of 516's a waste considering it's going on top of a 361?

Thanks, and I eagerly Await hearing from the FCBO,FBBO,FABO community. Get your head out of the clouds and let's hear it!

I'm going to give you some advise, based on what I have read in your rebuilding thread. Please understand I'm not trying to downplay your efforts or dampen your enthusiasm.

With all engines, making changes is something that comes in a far second to building the engine correctly, using good parts, good techniques and most importantly, good sense.

I see that you are building your first engine. That's fantastic! I built my first 440 fifty years ago and have done my share since then. In fact, there's a 273 on my stand right now that needs to go to the machine shop, but I digress.

What I think you need to do is stop thinking about a mod like this that will give you minor gains at best and concentrate on building the engine correctly. You're trying to cut corners with not having the engine bored or the crank ground. You're doing a low level "backyard" rebuild that guys have done for years, but I think your expectations are a lot higher. Yea, those backyard rebuilds work, but they usually don't run like they once did.

So, my recommendations are the same as I said before, you have a small displacement, small bore engine that won't benefit from the bigger valves. But I'm going to add on to those recommendations and tell you to concentrate on building a stock engine. I can tell from 1500 miles away that the crank needs to be turned and I can tell you from experience that the engine will need to be bored and with new pistons, the rotating assembly will need to be balanced. Connecting rods resized etc. Doing the engine to a higher standard will give you a reliable piece that will last a long time AND would smoke that 361 that wasn't built to that standard but has big valves.

I want to be as positive as I can be, but I've been there, done that. I had cars that were just put together right and weren't too far from stock that smoked supposedly fast cars that weren't stock.

That's my opinion and there's probably people that will disagree, but I think the serious guys that have done this will agree with me.

 

[Sir Dodge alot]

Before you get all excited about "bigger valves", look at what the common 327 and 350 Chevy engines use for valve sizes. 1.94" intakes and 1.50" exhausts, with 2.02" intakes and 1.60" exhausts on their LT-1 and Z/28 heads.

IF you had a 383, with its larger bore, going bigger on the exhausts might be good, but for a 361, even with "a cam", 4bbl, and dual exhausts, how much time will you spend at an rpm level that would need that extra breathing? Not that much time spent at WOT getting on that 8-lane highway in that part of the world, to me.

In general, "gasket match" the intake ports to the intake gasket. Using a file or power tool, remove the casting flash in the ports and bowls, if any. Intake and exhaust.

IF you have no significant valve seat recession, you might delay the hard seats for a while, or longer. Most issues of valve seat recession happen when the engine is under high loads for long periods of time, like in towing a heavy trailer up an incline. A side issue might be that with time, miles, and heat cycles, the cast iron in the cyl heads might have become "work hardened"?

ONE advantage of aluminum heads is that the car's heater will get hotter quicker in cold weather. Plus the lighter weight and generally improved combustion chamber designs. BUT, they typically do not have the heat crossover passages in them, which means any heat getting into the intake manifold, on a cold start, will have to MIGRATE there as the engine warms up. Even with an electric choke, drivability for that first mile or so can be tricky to re-learn, from my experience.

Many of the "desired" B/FB heads are based on the 906 open chamber castings. When you get into the higher price ranges, you get the more modern "swirl with quench" heads of similar chamber volumes. $2k per head, for example. Even with those heads, full disassembly and cleaning is advised, so that's extra. "Mopar Joe" YT vids on this. Aluminum heads ALSO mean you will need composite head gaskets as the old steel shim gaskets will "wear" a groove in the head surface, over time.

IF you had a 383, the exhaust valve size would be easier to answer, as Chry went to 1.74" exhaust valves in 1968. With the smaller bore of the 361, the larger valve might be shrouded more, which would hinder flow out of the cyl? To me, it might be better to check out "undercut stem valves" rather than let "somebody" hog-out the ports and lose port velocity in the process. Just making the ports bigger, for higher flow numbers, is NOT always the best thing for a street motor. How things end up relies heavily on the porter's ability to "see" flow rather than size. Invest some time in watching many of David Vizard's YouTube videos on such. It really is a science to get it right.

In a Z/28 forum, it was mentioned (by an experienced engine builder, that, for example, AFR 195 heads on a mid-range 350 would "drive" better on the track than the AFR210s would, although the smaller heads would be down several horsepower at peak rpms (about 6500 rpm, I suspect). Higher velocity for better cyl filling, for example, yet less total flow at the high lift numbers. Yet those higher rpm levels and higher total flow numbers typically "blind" people such that the don't normally "see" what the power figures at lower rpm levels are telling them.

SO . . . gasket/port match the intake side of the heads, clean the casting flanges out of the ports, smooth the transition between the bowls and valve seat backsides, etc. DO get ALL of the valve guides worked, then the seats refurbished, paint the desired color, and be done. And watch the Vizard videos on cyl head porting. THEN you'll know what to look for in later cyl heads! Vizard is a fan of "quench"/squish action to increase mixture turbulence in the hamber for best power. Which we might perceive that the "open chamber" design is not as good as it was touted to be, to me. Especially after Hughes began selling "quench dome" pistons to make an open chamber head into the smaller, prior combustion chamber type.

By observation, the bulk of B/RB performance upgrade information is related ot the larger-bore 383, 400, 413, and 440 engines. Relating to valve sizes and such. In more recent times, it has seemed that most of the modern engines are using bore sizes of 4.00" rather than larger. Which relates to the flame front speed through the chamber being better with the 4.00" bore range, using stroke to make up the difference in engine displacement, with loner strokes.

Take care,
CBODY67

Hi again Cbody67, appreciate you took time off of your day to writing this paragraph.
It was very informative, and in some cases, eye opening!

Interesting you mention the 327/350 having similar/slightly smaller valves, big surprise!
I have seen some mild/performance builds (some were slightly home brew rebuilds) where the engine would just beat some stop light to stop light "racers" never stopped to consider that those engines had even then smaller valves. I had just automatically assumed, if the recipe is mild/performance = bigger valves"
The more you know.

I also did not consider how the cam and how much WOT you would have to do just to take advantage of the bigger valves, let alone cubic inches.
I do infact use (used to) the highway from time to time, but I did feel that the on-ramp acceleration was a bit anemic, but now that I think about it, the highway use to normal lower roads percentage was actually pretty low, now that I think about it.

Regarding aluminum heads were another surprise, didn't even know some heads had the exhaust crossover ports blocked from factory.

"Work hardened" I think that is what I'm seeing with the other 516 heads, never a lick of trouble.
I guess it also means I'm not stressing the heads to the point where the valves start receeding, another "The more you know" moment.

Interesting to hear that not much or "radical" port work that needs to be put into a set of heads, just the basics huh? I've seen Mr. Vizard's video's on porting a set of heads, using the flow bench after the port work was pretty neat. You can visually SEE the "science"
Going to watch more On Mr. Vizard's porting "magic"

I can now see why some tend to build stroker's instead, a bit of a modern twist into engines decades old, seems more budget friendly also no?

The quench dome pistons, I figured you'd just mill the heads especially the 906's to make up for the lack of dome on a piston to get the quench back.
Making up for the shortcomings of the heads to transfer some of the quench workload to the domed pistons, intriguing stuff!

 

[Sir Dodge alot]

I'm going to give you some advise, based on what I have read in your rebuilding thread. Please understand I'm not trying to downplay your efforts or dampen your enthusiasm.

With all engines, making changes is something that comes in a far second to building the engine correctly, using good parts, good techniques and most importantly, good sense.

I see that you are building your first engine. That's fantastic! I built my first 440 fifty years ago and have done my share since then. In fact, there's a 273 on my stand right now that needs to go to the machine shop, but I digress.

What I think you need to do is stop thinking about a mod like this that will give you minor gains at best and concentrate on building the engine correctly. You're trying to cut corners with not having the engine bored or the crank ground. You're doing a low level "backyard" rebuild that guys have done for years, but I think your expectations are a lot higher. Yea, those backyard rebuilds work, but they usually don't run like they once did.

So, my recommendations are the same as I said before, you have a small displacement, small bore engine that won't benefit from the bigger valves. But I'm going to add on to those recommendations and tell you to concentrate on building a stock engine. I can tell from 1500 miles away that the crank needs to be turned and I can tell you from experience that the engine will need to be bored and with new pistons, the rotating assembly will need to be balanced. Connecting rods resized etc. Doing the engine to a higher standard will give you a reliable piece that will last a long time AND would smoke that 361 that wasn't built to that standard but has big valves.

I want to be as positive as I can be, but I've been there, done that. I had cars that were just put together right and weren't too far from stock that smoked supposedly fast cars that weren't stock.

That's my opinion and there's probably people that will disagree, but I think the serious guys that have done this will agree with me.

Hi again Big_John
Thank you for your collective inputs on the heads again.

Not at all sir, apologies, I have not considered anything more thoughtfully or looking at it from a bigger picture, I can be a bit stubborn at times. My "enthusiasm/excitement" and misplaced grandeur schemes can potentially lead the project awry, in which case, slow down. Stop. And smell the roses.

As Cbody67, had also mentioned, just some mild port/bowl work and undercut stem valves, nothing extravagant than what I'm used to seeing with some throwing an obscene amounts of $$$ to make a head flow "good"
Doesn't take a lot of work to make the heads to be just good enough.

The big thing I'm understanding from what you have written, build an engine in stock parameters BEFORE going full swing into other modification avenues, perfect the craft, before you tweak essentially.

Going to see if I can take the crank down to the machine shop this week get them to take a few thou off the crank journals.

 

[Big_John]

The big thing I'm understanding from what you have written, build an engine in stock parameters BEFORE going full swing into other modification avenues, perfect the craft, before you tweak essentially.

Exactly!

You do have to look at the big picture and think of the car as a "package" that needs to have everything working in harmony.

just some mild port/bowl work and undercut stem valves, nothing extravagant than what I'm used to seeing with some throwing an obscene amounts of $$$ to make a head flow "good"

I wouldn't bother. While it's good advice for a lot of builds, it's not going to do much if any for you. Are you good with a die grinder? You slip once and ruin a valve seat and you're not gonna be happy (or any of the other six dwarves). Undercut valves are another expense over your stock valves.

Keep in mind... Heavy cars want low end torque.

 

[413]

First answer these questions for yourself and all of us:
What is the car? Year body style, etc? how heavy?
What kind of driving are you going to do with this car?
Are you going to the drags with it?
How big of a camshaft?
What rear end gear ratio?
What will your shift RPM be?

 

[CBODY67]

Going to see if I can take the crank down to the machine shop this week get them to take a few thou off the crank journals.

Thanks for the kind words.

As with pistons, bearings come in variants of .010" sizes from stock. Which means the "next smallest size" is -.010". undersize. Otherwise, they can "polish" the journals.

Take care,
CBODY67

 

[Sir Dodge alot]

First answer these questions for yourself and all of us:
What is the car? Year body style, etc? how heavy?
What kind of driving are you going to do with this car?
Are you going to the drags with it?
How big of a camshaft?
What rear end gear ratio?
What will your shift RPM be?

Hi again 413, pleased to have you on this discussion board.


A bit of a long winded paragraph, apologies.

It's a 64' Dodge custom 880, one of the last cars from Chrysler using the forward look body style.
it's definitely not a racer, 4100LB or there about.
Stock cam is good but a little "bigger" wouldn't be too bad, from information I have gathered here and there,
(and from Cbody67, cheers sir) The cam in this engine currently probably has the 256/256 or 252/252 cam. hopefully. Something similar not interested in rowdy loping cams, I figured a little bit bigger like a 262/262 cam with 113 LSA?
Rear gear I've been pondering on Maybe 2.76 or 2.93's?

But that's another thread or topic as I have not got into the crux of selecting a cam and or hardly can read what the cam card means.
(more homework) But maybe I can reuse the current cam, the lobes are still "egg shaped" and the lifters while not in great condition showing minor convex, while not concave how lifters should be under the lifter.

Really just a bit more torque would be nice.
I know there are stroker kits, but I'm not looking into going that far into "exotic" territory.

But a bit of dipping the power band into the mid range wouldn't be too bad also since driving the Dodge for about 10 years or so, I know where it doesn't shine cruising is no problem, but getting on it to get on the on ramp does leave some to be desired, but I suppose that is the limitations of a 361/heavy car/highway gears/5 to 1 torque multiplier from the A727.

Shifting RPM is stock, 1100? It's going to be behind an A727 that has a 2000 stall converter, should have gone with something like 1200 or 1500 stall converter...

Reason I chose the 2000 converter is to maybe match the 361's smaller cubes to so it will rev higher giving more mid range torque??
This was a shot in the dark when I got the converter, but it feels more broad power range, especially when I need the revs for a passing gear.

This all sounds like a mess I'm sure, a mess of too many chefs in the kitchen.

 

[CBODY67]

A 2000rpm projected converter stall speed will not add more mid-range torque, but get the car off the line quicker. Once past its "stall speed", as the car is moving, torque multiplication is dang near 1:1, rather than 2.0 at start-up.

Cam is probably the 252/252/.390 as the 256/260/.425 did not appear until 1966, as the new "standard cam" for normal 4bbl 383s and 440s.

It might be a bit different with push buttons, but I learned to do part-throttle manual downshifts from 3 to 2 on our '66 Newport 383 2bbl and it worked much better for normal on-ramp acceleration. Even better than if it had the part-throttle downshift valve body in it. With a gear shift, I could to it imperceptibly to any passengers, too. No need to get anywhere near WOT, either, which they would notice and wonder "What's the hurry?"

I'm suspecting 2.93s were standard in that car. Ratio tag on a bolt holding the pumpkin to the rear end housing? 75mph cruising should be no problem.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

 

[Sir Dodge alot]

A 2000rpm projected converter stall speed will not add more mid-range torque, but get the car off the line quicker. Once past its "stall speed", as the car is moving, torque multiplication is dang near 1:1, rather than 2.0 at start-up.

Cam is probably the 252/252/.390 as the 256/260/.425 did not appear until 1966, as the new "standard cam" for normal 4bbl 383s and 440s.

It might be a bit different with push buttons, but I learned to do part-throttle manual downshifts from 3 to 2 on our '66 Newport 383 2bbl and it worked much better for normal on-ramp acceleration. Even better than if it had the part-throttle downshift valve body in it. With a gear shift, I could to it imperceptibly to any passengers, too. No need to get anywhere near WOT, either, which they would notice and wonder "What's the hurry?"

I'm suspecting 2.93s were standard in that car. Ratio tag on a bolt holding the pumpkin to the rear end housing? 75mph cruising should be no problem.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

Appreciate you writing again, thanks.

I did forget to mention a few things, the long block 361 I'm currently rebuilding right now indeed is a 65/66 casting, so the cam that's in there is probably the 256/260 .425 cam, the 361 in the vehicle right now is a 64' casting so that engine probably does have the 252/252 .390 cam.

Another i forgot to mention was, the rear gear in the vehicle right now is indeed a 2.76.

The machine stamping confirms that it's a 66 block and the machine work
(at least to the crank) Is listed.

I have measured the crank connecting rod journals again and it looks to be 2.3750?
Still confirming if that's the correct reading on the micrometer.

To be honest I don't mash the pedal to even notice if the converter in the transmission now gets the vehicle to jump off the line quicker, just worried I'll break something else, especially in a freshly rebuilt A727.

Edit: adding in the machine stamping from the other thread.

Upon further review, correction, the block is a 65' casting but I'm hoping the 66' cams kind of "bled" into the early 65/66 blocks.

Casting #2658930

 

[CBODY67]

Just looked through the new car sales brochures at www.eatondetroitspring.com AND in 1966 model year, the ONLY place the 361 2-bbl was used was in the 1966 Dodge Coronet/Charger cars. 318 2bbl was standard, 361 2-bbl was the first optional V-8 (which could be paired with a 4-spd manual transmission or TF, no 3-spd manuals for 361s or 383 4bbls), with the "next-up" optional engine being the normal 383 4bbl that year. NO Plymouth B-bodies, just Dodges. No C-bodies, either, as they used the 383 instead.

As the 383 2bbl had the 252/252/.390 cam, I suspect that is what was in the 361 2bbl too, in 1966.

Difference in the 1966 motor mounts and the ones in your 880?

Enjoy!
CBODY67

 

[Sir Dodge alot]

Just looked through the new car sales brochures at www.eatondetroitspring.com AND in 1966 model year, the ONLY place the 361 2-bbl was used was in the 1966 Dodge Coronet/Charger cars. 318 2bbl was standard, 361 2-bbl was the first optional V-8 (which could be paired with a 4-spd manual transmission or TF, no 3-spd manuals for 361s or 383 4bbls), with the "next-up" optional engine being the normal 383 4bbl that year. NO Plymouth B-bodies, just Dodges. No C-bodies, either, as they used the 383 instead.

As the 383 2bbl had the 252/252/.390 cam, I suspect that is what was in the 361 2bbl too, in 1966.

Difference in the 1966 motor mounts and the ones in your 880?

Enjoy!
CBODY67

Hello again sir.

That's pretty neat you have brochures even from the 60's, pretty neat is also the fact that you can search up brochures in today's age.

Yes sir, the long block I bought from the gentleman has also confirmed that the 361 was out of a coronet, so some information is lining up with the brochure.

It's got the "A" body mounts attached, the 361 that's in the 880 right now has got the Chryslers" floating power mounts, looks like a brick of rubber compared to the other mount designs.

I believe the old mounts designs that were used from 1959? 1960? Is still on the 880, changeover design of the mounts changed in around 1965/1966? To fit onto the now C-body platform.

I figure the old mounts designs being obsolete, the same style floating power mounts need to be used to match up to the chassis of the 880.
No new mount designs will work in my case I believe.

I think the company was called "imperial services" they have the floating power mounts except it's made of polyurethane rubber instead of the soft factory rubber, it's a reproduction part, so It's a new part essentially. But it's got quite the price of $200 per mount, crazy I'm going to need to spend $400 alone for a chunk of rubber lol.

 

[496 polara]

If the valves need to be replaced then I would upgrade to 1.74 exhaust if it were mine. A good valve job and some bowl work is sufficient for where you are.

If you are replacing the cam something like this would work well. I consider camming a 361 like a small block. Very easy to go too big.

Hydraulic Flat Tappet Camshaft; 1959 - 1980 Chrysler 383-440 800 to 4800 Howards Cams 720021-11 | Howards Cams

 

[Sir Dodge alot]

If the valves need to be replaced then I would upgrade to 1.74 exhaust if it were mine. A good valve job and some bowl work is sufficient for where you are.

If you are replacing the cam something like this would work well. I consider camming a 361 like a small block. Very easy to go too big.

Hydraulic Flat Tappet Camshaft; 1959 - 1980 Chrysler 383-440 800 to 4800 Howards Cams 720021-11 | Howards Cams

Hello sir, wow what's the chances of you sending me a page link to a cam I have been researching on big coincidence!

Appreciate the advice.
The head work I can put into practice, maybe on a junk set of heads and practice on those.

But that cam does look enticing indeed, what would be the minimums for that cam to work in a 361? Is it basically a drop in without needing to modify the stock 1.5 ratio valve train geometry?

But yes I have heard from other folks that it's easy to over-camming a 361.

What does that mean when you over cam an engine? It just doesn't run at all? Or not street able? Too small of an engine cubic inches?
Too much intake?

Anywho, appreciate the link, I've been eyeing that cam, but it feels good to know someone else has also vouched for it.

 

[mr gtx]

the Howards cam would work very nice and would be a big up grade over stock. I am running 1.6 valves with 915 heads and 2.94 gears in a Newport with a 440 engine. off idle response is great and will still pull to 5200 rpms.

 

[CBODY67]

"Over-camming" is just that, "too radical" as when the CID decreases, the same cams that work well in a 383 or larger, "get larger" in relation to the CID of the motor. This all happens kind fo on a sliding scale, gradually, until you get to an "on-off" area on the curve. Manipulating some valve open/close events and durations can mask this or make it worse, so that "best mix" is sought.

As to the lobe centerline numbers, a stock LCL is usually in the 114* range. Many aftermarket cans can be in the 110* range. As others are in the 107-108* range. 110* is supposed to increase the mid-range power as the higher numbers can have better idle vacuum and smoothness.. And there is Vizard's formula which ends up more in the 108* range.

There are some YouTube videos on this subject. Everybody seems to know of what they speak, but say different things. So I look at the dyno curves of their engines! In one test, where the three LCLs were tested (same duration and lift numbers, different LCLs), there was a lot of difference in low-rpm torque, but by 3200rpms, the three curves converged and were the same until the tests' highest rpm level. The higher LCL number = highest torque, 110* was in the middle, with 107* the lowest low-end torque. Many cam grinders have different things they want their came to do AND talk highly of what they have done, in all cases. Many people have their favorites, which is fine.

WAY back in the later 1970s, when I knew I wanted to upgrade the cam and intake on my 305, I devised a "cam factor" formula, related to engine size, intake and exhaust duration (separately), and then intake and exhaust valve sizes (separately). ALL using my trusty slide rule. Using this tool, I could take a "good running" 350 and downsize the cam for a smaller engine size. In some cases, changing valve sizes would do it. Still, it generated numbers I could look at and understand. So I went with a cam one notch smaller than the popular 350-engine cam for my 305. A complicating factor was the 31mph/1000 rpm gearing and tire size. So that is when I came to the conclusion that I wanted "a torque motor that would rpm", with that gearing.

When looking at cam specs, they are usually more-optimized for the popular engine sizes. In this case, 383s and 440s, rather than smaller. As the 361s and 413s are, by comparison.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

 

[mr gtx]

actually the Howards cam is better than the 2 bbl cam with it's higher lift and just a little up grade over the 4 bbl one.

 

[Big_John]

the Howards cam would work very nice and would be a big up grade over stock. I am running 1.6 valves with 915 heads and 2.94 gears in a Newport with a 440 engine. off idle response is great and will still pull to 5200 rpms.

I've driven @mr gtx 's car and it runs great! Pulls hard.

 

[Sir Dodge alot]

the Howards cam would work very nice and would be a big up grade over stock. I am running 1.6 valves with 915 heads and 2.94 gears in a Newport with a 440 engine. off idle response is great and will still pull to 5200 rpms.

Hello sir, thank you, that's great to hear, I've have been looking for a cam that's not too radical from stock, and not too much lope, how does your engine idle though? Is there a noticable lope?
I mean I think I can make a compromise here with having a little lope.

I say this as the cam card says 111 LSA but it says smooth idle. Is that even possible to have a narrow LSA and it to idle sound smooth?
I'm a bit confused.