341 hemi in 1970 dart

-
No. He started with the 331 since it was well before the 392. You really should read his book. You might learn something. Not that solid? The 331 shares the same bore centers, water pump, timing cover, fuel pump, intake, valve covers, oil pan, intermediate shaft, lifters, timing chain, balancer, flywheel and I'm sure I am stopping short. It's a VERY solid link. Much the same as the low deck big block to the tall deck big block. You should learn more before spouting squirrel ****.

The 331 was the first engine Garlits ever used Nitro on. Read the book. That's all I can tell you. Your information is wrong. Did you even read the link I supplied? I could give you enough to read for the next solid year.

tubtar said:
I'm pretty sure Big was referring to 392 cranks , which they used stock , welded and offset ground etc. etc. and had a lot of success with.
The soft crank / forged connection means what ?
Forging definitely provides a denser core , but it is the surface hardness that I am referring to.
The issue was caused by ( here is my best wild assed guess ) insufficient oiling , bearing materials that were 1952 quality , leading to material embedding in the crankshafts , resulting in trenches where there once was a well machined bearing surface.....because once they started to turn , they dug in and .......I am not shitting..........050" deep trenches on the rod journals.
If it was just one , I'd go " hmmmmmm" , if I had built them all , I'd go " aw , **** ". But it was on three of them.
And ( this was in the early 80's ) some of the old timers told me to expect a lot of this. I can't pin down a year , but the 354's ( 1956 ) seemed to be
when it became less of an issue.
Comparing a 331 to a 392 is like comparing peanuts to squirrel ****. There is a definite link , but it is not that solid.
Click to expand...
 
I did read the link and it was pretty cool.
Ask your self this.......when did top fuel cars pass 1200 h.p.
The time line doesn't support your reasoning that the 331 cranks were holding together for this.
Well into the 392 days I'd say.........certainly a couple years in.
They all ran what they had and as better stuff came along , there was a lot of latest and greatest parts destined for shop walls.
JP1 , anybody ?
The journals ? I had three of them that would have a hard time seeing the truth of your statement.
You seem to want to worship them.
Have at it.
They are what they are. Heavy , cool looking engines with varying degrees of reliability depending on just how much money you want to throw at them.
I'm still confused as to why it is small block tech , but I find them to be pretty cool to look at and very interesting from a historical stand point.
You'll never convince me that the early Gen 1 Hemi's aren't entirely different animals from the 392's. They are significantly different.
Don't let sharing water pumps fool you.
Anyone who wants to run one should do it I say. It certainly can be done and is probably a blast for a cruiser or mild piss pounder.
If you think you can keep one together at elevated h.p. levels with stock parts , I wish you nothing but the best.
 
RustyRatRod said:
They're not soft.
Click to expand...
Can we be clear on what we are defining here ?
Are they hardened or heat treated beyond normal production practices ?

They are not........except for some industrial and Chrysler 300 pieces that from what Adams says " might " have been nitrided.
The " soft " term is in reference to surface hardness of the journal area.
You say they were fine , I say they were not on some of the early small displacement Hemi's.
Who's right ?
I guess if service records were archived publicly and I could point to a spike in crank shaft related warranty work , that would support what I have heard and seen.
Pointing to Big , or any other guy who had the seeds to run fuel back when it was truly a black art tells you part of the story , but I seem to recall that they all ate parts like they were free. Steep learning curve for sure.
And they tried and used every bell and whistle to try and get more than a week end out of a motor.......including nitriding , chroming , enhancing oil passages. To imply that they were right out of Grandpa's DeSoto is a bit of a stretch.
Again , if you want to run one , I wish you nothing but the best.
But I am not making this up just to keep a lively debate going
 
tubtar said:
If it was just one , I'd go " hmmmmmm" , if I had built them all , I'd go " aw , **** ". But it was on three of them.
Click to expand...

3 journals or 3 crankshafts?

Either way, that's nothing to base a comment that the early crankshafts were soft. I have owned nearly 30 early hemi's, including half a dozen each of the early Dodge's and DeSoto's. None have any issues with crank journals like you mentioned. NONE. Not that half a dozen DeSoto crankshafts is enough to say none of them had issues either. But 3 is a pretty small number to be spouting off about.

The oiling did suck, but that had a lot less to do with the oiling system itself and more to do with the old paraffin based oils. After a little neglect all the passages would plug up with sludge, and starve the oiling system. That would cause bearing issues, but not because the cranks were soft.

I also have 331's, 354's, and 392's. The forging quality of all of them is pretty much equivalent. The 392's were not some huge advance in the design of the early hemi's. The best flowing factory heads came off the '55 331. As far as the blocks, they're pretty much identical from '54 on up for the Chryslers, only the deck height, bore, and stroke changed. 331's get a bad rap from the '51-53 version with the extended bell and ultra low compression. The '55 331 was pretty much everything any of the 354's or 392's that followed it were, just a smaller bore and stroke. The '51-'53 cranks had a little bit longer snout on them, and a slightly different look. But from '54 up I have to check casting #'s or measure, they look pretty much the same.

But for that matter, the early '51-53 331's are formidable engines if you raise the compression and change to the later heads. The extended bell is easy enough to deal with if you run a 4 speed, and if you add a hydraulic throw out bearing its even easier. Which is why I have 7 of them. Folks seem to think they're somehow inferior than the later engines, so they sell cheap. :D

Personally, I'd rather build two 54/55 331's than a 392. And for the price of the 392's, you pretty much can.
 
I would never formulate an opinion just based on my bad luck.
3 crank shafts from three motors.
And the word of some old time car club guys who probably knew more than I did.
Maybe I bought an existing problem , but after two , you know I was asking questions.
Again.........they are what they are.
Run one , enjoy it and look good doing it in many cases.
You probably can make decent power with one.......I know you can.
But relative to today's motors , we are right back to " they are what they are."
I'll have about the same dollars in my motor as if I tried a well done 392.
I know what will be quicker.
And though it won't have a belt driven accessory sitting on top of it , it will be unique enough to attract some attention.
Sorry........no holes in the valve covers.
 

Attachments

  • cooling system 009.jpg
    142 KB · Views: 181
  • cooling system 004.jpg
    128.4 KB · Views: 207
tubtar said:
I would never formulate an opinion just based on my bad luck.
3 crank shafts from three motors.
Click to expand...

That my friend is just bad luck. I have seen 10 times that many with no issues whatsoever.
 
If we're done with the pissin contest how bout somebody buyin my 331?
 
Rusty, is that the motor in your avatar that you are selling? What were you going to do with it and why are you now selling it? I am looking for a 4 bbl wet intake manifold for the 331. These are the intakes that came from '54 and earlier 331's. I need one to work on the industrial 354 motor in my '57 Dodge truck.
 
I'm selling it because my wife and both lost our jobs in February. No, that intake came on the 56 D500 it was pulled out of. You're not the first person to tell me that, but it's incorrect, because this is a truck engine. They kinda played by their own rules. lol
 
Powerflite said:
If you weren't so far away, I have a 392 and/or a 331 I would sell you.

I put a 392 hemi into my '68 Barracuda when I was 16. It worked well except for the left rear exhaust was very compromised by the location of the steering shaft. A smaller hemi like a 354 or Dodge 315 hemi would fit a lot better. I pulled the motor out 20 years later and put it into a '56 Plymouth instead.

I will be putting a 331 hemi stroked to 378 in my '70 Satellite with aluminum heads to lighten it up. The last picture is the current state of my 392.
Click to expand...

Nope. 331 354 and 392 are the same size except the 392 deck is an inch taller. They make deck adapters if you want to change your 354 to a 392.
I'm thinking about pulling my 354 and selling it also. My steering combination in my opinion is dangerous. I'm trying to find what others have done for steering but no luck yet, and yes they are heavy but thats with all the stock parts on it. i have mine down to about the weight of a 440. Anybody out there that has done this, I'm open to suggestions on the steering . You can PM me
 
Nope. Vertically, the 392 is approximately 10.5" tall, whereas the 331/354 is about 10.25" tall. Only .25" difference. But the deck height difference is from the crank to the heads - at an angle. That puts the heads taller and wider. It is the width that hurts you. the width of the 354 at the bottom of the heads is 18.5", whereas the width of the 392 at the bottom of the heads is 19 3/16". That is almost 1/2" of extra width on each side that you have to deal with. I'm not saying that the 354 is easy to fit, but it is easier than the 392.

I'm not sure what steering issue you are having. Could you elaborate? You need to use a 392 front sump oil pan no matter which motor you choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top