The 1972 Chrysler Thread

[73Coupe]

I would think that 1971-1973 exhaust design would all be the same, no? It's the same chassis. What would be different to the point of a 1971 specific dual pipes not fitting a 72 or 73?

Edit: the exhaust manifold outlets included in the above. I would just order a '71 dual set and tell them it's going in a '72.

 

[ayilar]

I’ll have a look at the parts book. My worry is less the engine side than the attachment points or the rear length (as the cars had a facelift).

As well, my car is a T-code so what I need is a dual setup like there was on the T&C with regular RB engines.

 

[amazinblue82]

@ayilar ... just my $0.02.

I am more where @73Coupe said.

i would be stunned if unibody/underside dimensions 71 vs 72 would be materially different. I have been, however, stunned before by hardly visible changes that required a part number change for to allow for fitment.

for exhausts, my only experience with this is the tailpipe clamp part number for my '71 Polara WSP vs. my '72 Fury NJ statie were said to be different. after both were professional done, i didnt see any physical difference between the two cars vs each other or before the replacement vs themselves.

sorry but i don't have any dual exhaust '71-'73 civi-car for fitment/attachment references tho.

all that said, and all stuff I am sure you will/did do and more to get this right: (1) somebody here knows this answer, and/or (2) if they don't weigh in bfore you have to make a purchase, then telling vendor what youre doing before you buy could be helpful to you.

 

[73Coupe]

@ayilar I have a pending order for a stock 1971 dual system from Waldrons....expected to arrive sometime in the next month.....so can provide any dimensions or photos of the parts if that would help. My car is a T-code.

The attachment points on the chassis are only (2) per side - above the axle at the cross member and just in front of the bumper at the unibody "frame rail" member.

 

[LocuMob]

@ayilar I have a pending order for a stock 1971 dual system from Waldrons....expected to arrive sometime in the next month.....so can provide any dimensions or photos of the parts if that would help. My car is a T-code.

They're about to start up the C body blink and you'll miss it production?

 

[73Coupe]

They're about to start up the C body blink and you'll miss it production?

weekend work probably....

 

[LocuMob]

weekend work probably....

We get February for our run of product. They are nice people to deal with, though.

 

[Keith926]

I'm an auto mechanic by trade and do custom bending, my Newport has a dual exhaust I built, 2.5" pipe was tight around the shifter linkage and torsion bar on the driver's side, lots of room otherwise

 

[SGT FURY]

FWIW I have a NOS rear bumper for a 72 NY with rubber guard holes. Any 72 guys interested send me a PM

 

[Ripinator]

I’ll have a look at the parts book. My worry is less the engine side than the attachment points or the rear length (as the cars had a facelift).

As well, my car is a T-code so what I need is a dual setup like there was on the T&C with regular RB engines.

As we well know, there is something different about the later C-Bodies from 72 to 73. IE: the rear shocks are different, so we know something changed toward the rear of the car during that time. I would give Waldron a call and see what they have to say about the '72. Maybe they have a workaround.

Also, a shop near me does custom exhaust work. I know they could bend up a dual setup for you.

Rip

 

[ayilar]

As we well know, there is something different about the later C-Bodies from 72 to 73. IE: the rear shocks are different, so we know something changed toward the rear of the car during that time. I would give Waldron a call and see what they have to say about the '72. Maybe they have a workaround.

What you wrote about the rear shocks is exactly why I am not jumping to conclusions re: any equivalence between 1971 and 1972.*

--> My plan is to call up Waldron, sooner rather than later given their lead time. What I had been hoping, was that someone here has used them (or another company, such as TTI) in the past and could tell me exactly what they ordered, so that I could start from somewhere with Waldron. Not having heard from anyone (yet?), I'll jump in to be the proverbial test hamster and report my experience given that other/future 1972 owners may be interested in the answer.

*: All 1972-1973 Chrysler owners should be advised that the KYB KG5512 rear shocks that work like a charm on 1970-1971 Chryslers and Dodges are too short for the 1972-1973 Chryslers -- see here for more info. In contrast, the same front shocks work on 1970-1971-1972 P/D/C C-bodies.

 

[ayilar]

Switching for a moment to documenting 1972 Chryslers that are still around, here is a beautiful HT8 NYB 2dr that @coco spotted for sale on FB in Ventura, CA. I was interested, either for another member or for myself (I know I know, I want to trim my fleet but I have the disease...), and had a long video call with the owner. I have decided to pass, and so has the other member.

CS23T2C126889 looks almost exactly like a movie car available for hire in New York, and for some reason the CA owner used the photos from that other car in his ad. Don't ask me why he used those other photos, he never answered that question.

What tipped me off was the different top once the video call got rolling, and the fact that the car for sale had the R48 power antenna (the movie car does not). that something was different is that the car for sale in CA but the vinyl top has been painted over (from V1T original to black) and there has been work done as replacement lower body moldings have been screwed on. The interior is in great original shape (a custom stereo has been installed, with huge speakers in the trunk, but the car has not been butchered in the process -- it all looks pretty good).

Here are some photos for records (the FB ad has been pulled); apologies for the poor quality, those are video screen shots.

There are some dimples (rust?) on the RHS C pillar under the black vinyl. Note that the original carb works and comes with the car, but the seller wanted an Edelbrock and has installed one. There is a new radio under the dash, the original is still there. The tan seat hinge covers are off on both sides but come with the car. The S61 tilt rim blow wheel has a crack and the horn does not work. The original wheels are gone and replaced by huge rims, the rear fender skirts have been removed (the seller has another '72 and wants them for that car -- go figure).

 

[amazinblue82]

off topic, but love that movie car man.

---

---

on topic ... I dont have any underside exhaust photos for my three fusie squads '71, '72, and '73 I still own. I did not need exhaust work on the '73.

I do know the dual tailpipes on all three cars have hangers more or less placed where @73Coupe said. two clamps per pipe, above the axle and less than a foot from tip.

the "bends" may be of course be different to account for whatever DID change (NVH stuff, bumper impact standards in 73 MY, flow considerations for emissions, etc) over those years (different arc lengths, bend radii, etc, over the the post-muffler length) on the underside.

I still maintain I would not expect (if you keep the OEM pipe diameter) the pipes to be materially different.

youve got a good plan for your intentions. "break a leg" on that hamster wheel chief.

 

[73Coupe]

We get February for our run of product. They are nice people to deal with, though.

I just got a shipping notice today. Ahead o' schedule!

 

[Boydsdodge]

The TTI systems for C-bodies cover many years, the only change was manifold head pipes over the years. I had only one issue with the TTI and that was fitting the longer Imperial mufflers. Very happy with the system.
Waldron's exhaust should be able to help you. Not saying they will. You could get TTI head and H pipe then tail pipes from Accurate exhaust and supply your own correct mufflers.

(see option box below) -C-Body Basic Exhaust Systems HP or L

www.accurateltd.com

65-73 C-body Exhaust Systems

 

[marty koirtyohann]

As I prepare to further improve Buttercup, the exhaust is next: there is an exhaust leak, and I might as well replace the whole exhaust as I do that. I like Waldron a lot, and have used them for three exhausts thus far. Unfortunately, on their website, they do not offer a dual exhaust setup for any 1972 Chrysler (though they do for 1971).

That does not seem right, as Chrysler offered Newports and NYers with dual exhaust according to this post by @Samplingman -- and Ma Mopar sold 1972 Newports for police duty (see, e.g., the car owned by @m38jeepman which must be CL41T2C257723 -- a Missouri State Highway Patrol discussed in this Sept. 2018 thread and more in this Oct. 2018 thread, @amazinblue82 and @commando1 will remember the car). Indeed, I think that I see dual exhausts in the latter car (I know it's a T-code, but if I understand correctly this post by @USSMOPAR the E99 code overrides it so it could have duals):

Bottom line, while Buttercup was built with a single exhaust, she's had duals for more than two decades and I would prefer to get quiet factory-like duals following a recommendation by @david hill that duals would be the way to go.

--> what company have 1972 Chrysler T-code owners used for duals? Paging among others:

@ricks_RR (I see that your car has greta-looking dual exhaust tips), @saforwardlook @MattfromMaine @Jon O. @schwarzsurfer @21_forever @Tobias74 @Shelbyz08 @marty koirtyohann @Keith926 @fc7_plumcrazy @Georg/DFL (@c-barge , did CP45T2C314443 have duals? same question for @Axel -- I am particularly interested in the front part as the rear exhaust is different between sedan/coupe and wagon models)

my car running in the driveway with flow master 40's

 

[SGT FURY]

For those who haven’t seen Cold War motors. They have several episodes with a 72 Newport.

 

[fury fan]

...for some reason the CA owner used the photos from that other car in his ad. Don't ask me why he used those other photos, he never answered that question.




View attachment 578383

Pics from another car?
WTF does that seller expect when a buyer shows up? That they're gonna fall so-in-love that they're gonna ignore that such shenanigans usually suggest full-core dishonesty?

And I've sometimes fantasized about custom side trim - but fastening it like this pic is what makes it stay at fantasy level. they didn't even use a straightedge FCOL.

 

[fury fan]

The TTI systems for C-bodies cover many years, the only change was manifold head pipes over the years. I had only one issue with the TTI and that was fitting the longer Imperial mufflers. Very happy with the system.
Waldron's exhaust should be able to help you. Not saying they will. You could get TTI head and H pipe then tail pipes from Accurate exhaust and supply your own correct mufflers.

http://[URL][URL]https://www.accurateltd.com/C-Body-Basic-Exhaust-Systems-HP-or-LP_p_353.html

[/URL][/URL]

http://[URL][URL]https://ttiexhaust.com/1-C6573.htm#2. Header-back

[/URL][/URL]

Although not 1972 Chrysler-specific, this is related to some exhaust questions/comments above.
FWIW, I have made exhaust systems on 5 of my cars over the years, each done differently.

In the sequence I did them, IIRC:
'68 Fury - various bends for headpipes on Hedman shorty headers, Summit x-pipe kit, TTI tailpipes (I have never been pleased with how they hang low by the fuel tank and terminate at the bumper).
'88 Lincoln Mark VII LSC - 5.0 Mustang headpipes and cat-back parts, various bends for tailpipes
'70 300 - various bends for headpipes, Summit x-pipe kit, Flowmaster B-body tailpipes #15806 (unmodified)
'65 300L, TTI headpipes, TTI H-pipe, Flowmaster B-body tailpipes #15806 (but I added bends at the bumper)
'88 Dippy copcar - various bends for headpipes, Summit x-pipe kit, various bends for tailpipes that dumped under the quarterpanels (ala 66-67 Chevelle SS).

I mention all of that mainly to show I've done it numerous ways over the years.
One might notice the most common things are the Summit X-pipe kits (on 3 cars) and the Flowmaster tailpipes (2 cars).
And of all the things I've used, the TTI tailpipes disappointed me the most, and that really sucks for me. Why? I used them only once, but on my 'forever' car.
And while I am not suggesting an X-pipe for a '72 Chrysler, I *am* saying that the Flowmaster tailpipes are worth consideration.
You'll notice they are totally straight as they extend to the rear.
I do not recall needing to modify any of the over-axle area, but IIRC they kinda fit only in 1 particular spot (meaning, they must be fitted first and they dictate the muffler and mid-pipes).

DODGE Flowmaster 15806 Flowmaster Tailpipe Kits | Summit Racing

Here's a pic of how they look on one of the cars noted above.
Ignore the paint color, I had to doctor for visibility of the tailpipes. (that note is for @ayilar, who likes to determine color codes and such )
Then, the next photo below that, is what I stumbled across on the 'net, from what I believe would be the guy I sold the car to. (I sold it to a Canadian guy, anyway).
It seems all he needed to do was install those tips straight onto the Flowmaster pipes?

Next:
Here are the same Flowmaster tailpipes installed on my 300L. I cut these shorter and added some Walker 15° bends onto them. (I believe that is what what I used)
They hang down a little further than I'd like (see the 'taillight' picture) but I like this termination FAR better than TTI's 'attempt', which I have on my avatar 68 Fury.
(I know TTI gets raves, but IMO if they were wanting to emulate a factory 'Mopar hook', they failed miserably).

If I were to use the Flowmasters again (and I wouldn't hesitate), I would probably not cut them so far forward (maybe go to the vertical red line instead?), which would move the angled section of the Walker bend to the lime green area, and I would then do an angled cut on it approximated by the 2nd red line. These Flowmasters fit much higher to the framerail, and don't hang down like the TTIs do - and IMO that is the big benefit to them)

As I type this up, re-thinking what I did years ago - just doing the angled cut would probably improve the look a bit.
Or I could cut the elbows off, weld a 2-1/2" ID connector on the current outlet, reverse them, and do the angled cut on the currently-expanded end.
(I'm starting to feel like Austin-Powers-from-10-minutes-from-now: 'oh no I've gone cross-eyed')

 

[fury fan]

I've read thru a bit of this manifold heat stove discussion.
This is lengthy - so not intended for casual readers, but only those for whom the heat stove holds interest.
I will be putting some 'trust' that some of these pics I paste are accurately attributed to the year/carline, but my logic I believe will align with it.

I'm not knowledgable on the post-July-1972 aspect.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- I'll gladly edit anything I post that is incorrect, in the name of future reference.

Some things I believe I can call 'facts':
Heat stoves started for the C-bodies (likely A-B-E, too) in 1970 as only the 1970+ rectangular snorkels had provisions for the flex-tube. '69-older oval snorkels did not have such provisions.
The '70 TNT manifold had features cast-in for heat-stove use: heatsink fins, a 'lip' at the area where the front of the stove was located, and bolt bosses. (this heat stove was 1-piece)
I'm 99% the only features cast-in for the standard 1970 log manifold were the bolt bosses. (this heat stove was 2-piece)
-->> From an engineering perspective - the fins on the HP manifold helped it shed heat into the 1-pc stove, while the 'smooth' log manifold likely needed more surface area and therefore more encapsulation, perhaps that's why it was 2-piece)

While I'm 99% positive that 1970 log manifolds only had bosses cast in, I am less sure when the later log manifolds got 'stiffening' ribs cast in them.
1971 would be my guess, as my youthful car-crossing had me attain some 1971 engines, but no 1972+ bigblock engines. (and I still have some ribbed manifolds, so I believe they came from the 1971s I had gotten). But regardless of that, I've not seen 'the lip' cast into any log manifold (Formal manifolds are not in consideration here).

And the pics from @73Coupe in post #94 for a 1973 manifold fits my beliefs on the lip. And he noted his took a 2-pc stove.
The 1972 Chrysler Thread

Whether the 1972 manifold has the lip is up to @saforwardlook to confirm? (if 72 has the lip, it's a 1-year manifold?)
In addition to 'the lip' being introduced in 1970 for the HP, the 70-71 HP's heat stove is installed rearward of it. (my reason for focusing here on 1970 manifolds is related to the reproduction part mentioned by @ayilar )

@saforwardlook
Can you advise if this manifold in post #97 has a cast-in lip hiding under the stove?
IF it has the lip cast into it, it might debunk my theory on the LHS vs RHS FSM sketch noted earlier. But would mean a 1-year manifold for 72, or a 72-74 CA-only manifold (neither of which makes financial sense)
Also - any idea what the red circle might've be used for? Looks somewhat like an unmachined feature that was used for a manifold-to-aircleaner emissions tube used on right-rear of mid-late 70s 318s.

SO - my theory:
Not being familiar with what FSM this sketch is from, and not seeing the rest of the manifold, I think this snip might represent a log manifold on the LHS and an HP manifold on the RHS.
Note the red mark in my snip, I believe this is to represent the 'lip'. The blue line also suggests some curvature - yes it's mild, but the LHS clearly depicts a straight edge, yes?
And the RHS bolts are noticeably longer, and the stove change wouldn't seem to require longer bolts?

@david hill - Is there more to this sketch? Does it show the RHS manifold in its entirety? If so, can you post the full size of it?
It'll either confirm my thought or show I'm FOS. (I'm OK with either outcome)

NEXT:
My 1970 FSM clearly depicts the HP heat stove as 1-piece and with 3 bolts holding it onto the manifold, 1 on top and 2 below.
And the stove is quite short (front-rear) compared to the log manifold stove - the outlet to the air cleaner is between cyls #1 and #3, rather than near #1 for the logs.
(refer to Detmatt's pic on the 'red boards' further below.)

From my wanderings, the 70-71 HP C-body heat stove is HTF and IMHO nobody is going to reproduce it - there's no ROI for it.
It's an uncommon manifold for 70-71, and I believe it's not not used on any C-body in 72+ unless it's a copcar? (and even then, it stopped in '74?)

Pic below credited to @detmatt:

So, with that said, I believe the FSM sketch shown earlier is depicting an HP manifold for a B (and E?)-body due to the apparent curvature in the sketch.
I further think it is for a '72-74 HP manifold, but with the lip thru the bosses not being accurately depicted.
I would believe the artwork would've been verified for 1-pc vs 2-pc, while the long lip might escape the drawing checkers? In addition, the stove outlet is clearly toward the front of the manifold vs the 70-71 C-body 'short' stove (although the angle isn't quite right).

See this pic of this dark-gray manifold #3751068 for '72-74 B&E body. Based on the long lip that runs thru the mounting bosses, I believe this would take a 1-pc stove.
I haven't confirmed a stove to match it, but here's a potential, part# 3751175 noted below.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https://bluestarperformance.com/product/carburetor-air-heater-3751175-400-440-hp-b-body-1973-nos/&psig=AOvVaw1uTrOHbKCymG_ZgNYKNwmi&ust=1676963283105000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA8QjhxqFwoTCOiCwZ_Fo_0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAM

I believe the reproduction stove would fit this manifold noted to be for 70-71 B+E-bodies, which does NOT have the lip running thru the bosses. (it might happen to fit the '72-74, though, but would be coincidence) The repro stove is noted for 70-71 383-440, so that fits my logic noted here. 70-71 383-440 HP Left Exhaust Manifold Heat Stove | Roseville Moparts

My theory on the FSM sketch is unconfirmed as of now.

My 1 conclusion:
My 1970 FSM and Detmatt's pics clearly shows 3 bolts holding the stove on, so the reproduction item noted will NOT be suitable for @ayilar 's 70 TNT (sorry @Ripinator).
The correct stove for 70-71 will be HTF and might require buying a whole manifold to get it.