'68 318 to carbed Magnum 5.2: Check my checklist

[cudak888]

Lol, a Duster. :banghead:

It's the poster child of stupid ads: Not a Duster, but a Dart Sport (which cannot be verified by the one lousy picture), "title in hand" yet says year is either 1973 OR 1974, "some rust, not horrible" to describe a car with more foilage in the engine bay than steel, the aforementioned single picture which omits everything from the firewall to the rear bumper, and a 318 of which its presence in the engine bay is questionable.

Did I miss anything?

-Kurt

 

[Infecteddog]

It's the poster child of stupid ads: Not a Duster, but a Dart Sport (which cannot be verified by the one lousy picture), "title in hand" yet says year is either 1973 OR 1974, "some rust, not horrible" to describe a car with more foilage in the engine bay than steel, the aforementioned single picture which omits everything from the firewall to the rear bumper, and a 318 of which its presence in the engine bay is questionable.

Did I miss anything?

-Kurt

Like the ones where they get the year wrong, misspell the name that's clearly visible in the pictures they uploaded and on the car they own, oh and sometimes they throw in mistaking the displacement either in the metric conversion or just in the cubic inch displacement.

 

[cudak888]

Ok, back to the regularly scheduled "Magnum 318 build on the an A-body forum" involving a B-body with an LA 360. Pretty soon, this could turn into its own subforum - "Roller Cam LA Swaps" ;) . Jokes aside, this particular 360 is a bit of a unique breed:

After one day without power, and two without internet access, I have lots of progress to report:

First off, a closeup of the aforementioned Sanden air compressor brackets I was complaining about:

These photos do not even show the additional bracket which fits to the back of the Sanden, further securing it directly to the intake. That'd be fine, but the Sanden tabs are threaded, and there isn't enough room to back the bolts out unless you do some not-so-conventional wrenching. Easier to pull the whole bracket set out, but as you can see, doing so also requires dumping the alternator bracket.

There's a word for engineering like this, and it has the word BULL in it. Hence, the Bouchillon BPE4725.

This is what the power steering bracket looks like for the '89 B-van (presumably the same on '88 through 91; might apply to older LA engines too; Magnums have an aluminum bracket), and is notably simpler than the nonsense used to mount the Sanden compressor. It has its own set of problems though: The rear bracket bolts right through the two left hand timing chain cover bolts - which are drilled right through into the cooling passages of the engine. If you have to remove it, you'll probably make a mess, whether you drain the system or not. Not ideal.

At any rate, I can't mount the original 1968 P/S bracket if I use the later water pump. The '68 bracket pivots on an extra ear on the water pump (note that the water pump in this photo is also the wrong application for '68 - it's the marine water pump which the aftermarket somehow believes is an HD pump for these engines) which is not present on the later aluminum units. I should note this design is also made to clear the pre-1970 water pumps with a driver's side inlet, and the '89 bracket is an (obvious) impossibility with such a setup.

Basic degreasing ended the evening - sans power or lights. Wound up taking everything off with only a forehead LED light to help. Wasn't that bad - on the stand, that is:

Saturday afternoon - the moment of truth. Off came the valve covers and intake manifold for a clear look into the top end to gauge overall condition.

It doesn't get any better than this, junkyard engine or otherwise.

Here's where it gets a bit interesting: According to my Mopar master-tech neighbor (who is often wrong - HAH!), this should be a heavy-duty 360, a.k.a. the 360-2 or 360-3 - more or less similar to the E58 depending on marketing. The exhaust valves rotators seem to indicate this is indeed one of the heavy duty motors.

Whichever version it is though, very little information directly from a Chrysler manual seems to be available on it, though the internet's armchair dragracers have wasted no time filling Google chock-full of contradictory bull$hit as to what actually constitutes the 360-2 from the 360-3, much less the actual specs of either. Most of the good information out there about the HD 360s seem to relate to the late-'70s carbureted examples, and not the relatively short-lived roller-cam, throttle-body injected engines from '88-91 (which seem to be almost exclusively of interest only to Ramcharger enthusiasts). I have the VIN from the van, but it doesn't match up with the post-ISO 3779 VIN from the van: 2B6JB31Z0KK375938.

It does have the exhaust valve rotators associated with the heavy-duty 360s though, so that's a plus. There is also talk of lower compression than an average 360 and different valve sizes for minimizing pinging and maximizing low-end torque adjusted for the era's lean mix requirements, but - again - that's based on carb-era engines that were not built from the factory with 308 heads.

We'll soon find out how far the pistons are in the hole, once the heads come off.

Pulled off the rest of the front accessories. By this point, the engine had been sprayed and scrubbed quite a few times by this point. My Performer 318/360 intake arrived as well, and I'm using it here to keep the valley free of any what-nots flying around the workshop:

Today's work order called for removal of the oil pan for safe (and simple) removal of the timing chain cover and oil sump, plus, I wanted to swap valve covers so I could begin prepping the '68 valve covers for installation. Now, I'd only popped the left valve cover on this engine before, and it was pretty ugly inside - but this was the first time I'd ever opened up the right side. The sludge in this engine is NASTY:

Something tells me that a previous owner of this car believed that oil changes fall under the category of "optional extra." Idiot. Ironically enough, I have more experience with ridiculously abused Mopar small blocks than I have with decent ones, as these two engines were preceded by a '98 Ram Van's 3.9L that was handed down through the family; also the victim of the van's previous owner's attitude to oil changes, long before it ever reached us, though I firmly believe the problem was accelerated by the common intake manifold plenum gasket leak (one of the reasons I was leery of digging up Magnums in the junkyards to begin with). This was at ~125k:

Of course, the Satellite isn't quite as bad...but it's bad. Who knows - maybe the lifter valley will prove to be the real horror show:

At any rate, I'm going to have those valve covers hot tanked. No amount of scrubbing will get the sludge that's behind the baffle. I tried (not shown) and gave up.

But back to the 360. This is the original, factory double-roller timing chain (remember - this is a HD 360-2 or 360-3), loose like the t!ts on a goose. The slack surprised me for a moment - seeing as this engine looks to have really low miles on it - but it seems as if this is par for the course on Mopar small blocks. Whatever the case, I ordered another Cloyes factory double-roller to replace it with, along with the Magnum 3.9 tensioner. Here's hoping the Cloyes stock replacement is not a retarded timing set either...because I don't want that. (I also take offense to paying an $100 premium to get the same exact timing chain set with a few extra slots cut in the crankshaft sprocket. If there's one thing I've learned, the not-so-much-different-than-factory performance parts market - especially for Mopar - is a complete and utter ripoff).

This is the truck-style rear sump screen and pickup pipe on the 360 (and presumably the 318 as well). Nothing like the rear sump on the 3.9, I noted. At any rate, I pulled the oil sump, ready for it's Melling center-mounted replacement pickup:

My floor is now a world of parts which may or may not make it back onto this engine:

Next steps will be to replace the timing chain and tensioner before pulling the heads and inspecting the cylinders - and whether they ride too low in relation to the deck or not.

-Kurt

 

[Infecteddog]

Here's where it gets a bit interesting: According to my Mopar master-tech neighbor (who is often wrong - HAH!), this should be a heavy-duty 360, a.k.a. the 360-2 or 360-3 - more or less similar to the E58 depending on marketing. The exhaust valves rotators seem to indicate this is indeed one of the heavy duty motors.

Whichever version it is though, very little information directly from a Chrysler manual seems to be available on it, though the internet's armchair dragracers have wasted no time filling Google chock-full of contradictory bull$hit as to what actually constitutes the 360-2 from the 360-3, much less the actual specs of either. Most of the good information out there about the HD 360s seem to relate to the late-'70s carbureted examples, and not the relatively short-lived roller-cam, throttle-body injected engines from '88-91 (which seem to be almost exclusively of interest only to Ramcharger enthusiasts). I have the VIN from the van, but it doesn't match up with the post-ISO 3779 VIN from the van: 2B6JB31Z0KK375938.
-Kurt

We took apart an '88 360 and it also had the rotators and dual pickup dizzy. Don't know exactly what the timing chain looked like- the E58's have more cam to them but I can't say there's a ton more obvious differences between them and their contemporary 360s. The old "HD" 360s (E55 in cars, not sure if offered in trucks/vans) seemed to also have the big cam even if they had the 2bbl. As you mentioned, there were different head cast numbers and they were rated as having lower CR than the "regular" 360s but had more HP and TQ.

The roller cam motors from '89-'92 have a lot of appeal for other enthusiasts however the 318 TBI motors have a much more limited audience since there were many year 318 roller cam carb motors and 318s are less common the focal point of a premium build. I've seen two motors that good- one was a 240k mile 318 the other with less than 10k on the build.

 

[cudak888]

The '68 valve covers went out to American Industrial Motorworks for hot tanking. They'll squeeze them into their jobs and have them ready by the end of the week.

We took apart an '88 360 and it also had the rotators and dual pickup dizzy. Don't know exactly what the timing chain looked like- the E58's have more cam to them but I can't say there's a ton more obvious differences between them and their contemporary 360s. The old "HD" 360s (E55 in cars, not sure if offered in trucks/vans) seemed to also have the big cam even if they had the 2bbl. As you mentioned, there were different head cast numbers and they were rated as having lower CR than the "regular" 360s but had more HP and TQ.

When you're referring to the E58s, E55s, and the alternate heads, I take it you're speaking of the pre-'88 carbureted LAs and their variants, correct? Just want to clarify. Far as I know - the roller cam EDIT 360 motors used the 4448308 head almost exclusively - as does my '89 360:

The roller cam motors from '89-'92 have a lot of appeal for other enthusiasts however the 318 TBI motors have a much more limited audience since there were many year 318 roller cam carb motors and 318s are less common the focal point of a premium build. I've seen two motors that good- one was a 240k mile 318 the other with less than 10k on the build.

Maybe no interest in the 318 version of the roller cam engine, but I'm still surprised about the general lack of info on the roller 360's. Magnum 5.9s grow on trees everywhere but in South Florida, apparently.

-Kurt

 

[Infecteddog]

When you're referring to the E58s, E55s, and the alternate heads, I take it you're speaking of the pre-'88 carbureted LAs and their variants, correct? Just want to clarify. Far as I know - the roller cam motors, both 318 and 360, used the 4448308 head almost exclusively - as does my '89 360:

Yes. I'm talking about 1978-1980 motors primarily. As far as I know, the last time 360s had something significant optionally is in '83 when the 2bbl option went away and they all got Tquads/Qjets.

So- the "308" head was used by '89-92 360s. They're open chamber, 1.88/1.60, large port, "swirl port" heads with enlarged pushrod tunnels- alternate part #s for them MAY exist. '85-'91 318s had closed chamber, 1.78/1.50, small port, "swirl port" heads with enlarged pushrod tunnels. There's at least one other part # for those, and 302 is usually common to carbed motors which are '85-'89 car and '85-'87 truck engines. The 318's were a weird deal since all the 318s went to roller blocks in '85 but they didn't all get roller cams- 4bbl cop car motors got 360 open chamber heads and flat tappet cams and trucks prior to '88 got the old flat tappet cam though they had the 302s. 360s prior to '89 didn't ever seen to have the roller spider threading.

Maybe no interest in the 318 version of the roller cam engine, but I'm still surprised about the general lack of info on the roller 360's. Magnum 5.9s grow on trees everywhere but in South Florida, apparently.

No, Magnum 5.9s are fairly rare here but the TBIs 360s are probably rarer. Most people like the TBI blocks since they can build a Magnum or pre-Mag motor with equal ease, by that virtue they're an excellent foundation for a build. Here the TBI 360s usually go for more than Magnum 318s and other LA 360s. Talk of early blocks being higher quality and people not going roller squelches much of the interest in the TBI 360s. I find it interesting myself the lack of widely available information on the later '70s/'80s motors as well.

 

[cudak888]

Some updates; replies at bottom.

One of the party pieces arrived today in the form of 1992/93 (w/late-1991 date codes) Magnum 5.2/5.9 exhaust manifolds. These are the semi-elusive 53006618 and 53006619 large-flange castings:

Note that the Magnum manifolds take notably longer bolts/studs at the ends than the original LA smog logs. Only seller out there is asking $32 for a set of bolts. Ouch:

Quick mockup for amusement:

Melling 72-S2 center sump arrived. Did not want to thread on nicely, but had no burrs. Jut a bit tighter a fit than normal.

The full gasket kit should be here by Wednesday.

Yes. I'm talking about 1978-1980 motors primarily. As far as I know, the last time 360s had something significant optionally is in '83 when the 2bbl option went away and they all got Tquads/Qjets.

So- the "308" head was used by '89-92 360s. They're open chamber, 1.88/1.60, large port, "swirl port" heads with enlarged pushrod tunnels- alternate part #s for them MAY exist. '85-'91 318s had closed chamber, 1.78/1.50, small port, "swirl port" heads with enlarged pushrod tunnels. There's at least one other part # for those, and 302 is usually common to carbed motors which are '85-'89 car and '85-'87 truck engines. The 318's were a weird deal since all the 318s went to roller blocks in '85 but they didn't all get roller cams- 4bbl cop car motors got 360 open chamber heads and flat tappet cams and trucks prior to '88 got the old flat tappet cam though they had the 302s. 360s prior to '89 didn't ever seen to have the roller spider threading.

Makes sense then - and I forgot about the 318 and it's 302 swirl port heads, though I remember reading about their use in the Dippy forums. Looks like I subsequently forgot everything in favor of 360 knowledge.

The enlarged pushrod tunnels and lack of roller cams on the early 318s sounds as if Chrysler was tooling for the TBI evolution of the engine and had to put the project on hold (for more than a few years) at the last minute, while the roller 360s showed up out of nowhere.

Sure explains why roller cam 318 discussions seem much more plentiful. Then again, more vehicles of enthusiast interest seem to have come with them, including the M-bodies. It's not as if there's a hoard of people out there with a fetish for crumbling 1980's B350 camper conversions. Ramchargers, D-series, and W-series trucks also seem to be kept either stock or carbed by their followers too.

No, Magnum 5.9s are fairly rare here but the TBIs 360s are probably rarer. Most people like the TBI blocks since they can build a Magnum or pre-Mag motor with equal ease, by that virtue they're an excellent foundation for a build. Here the TBI 360s usually go for more than Magnum 318s and other LA 360s. Talk of early blocks being higher quality and people not going roller squelches much of the interest in the TBI 360s. I find it interesting myself the lack of widely available information on the later '70s/'80s motors as well.

Well, this is the first 360 of any that I could lay my eyes on, so I have no idea what it would fetch (if anything) in our local market (if there is one, besides myself)

Really strange how the old blocks have a bias for strength; seems to be some talk of the 360-3 being of better metallurgy. Then again, I also see an unusual amount of bias towards using either pre-smog or modern aftermarket parts on many of these builds, seeing that a lot of builds are either restorations or street machine/drag builds.

-Kurt

 

[Infecteddog]

Makes sense then - and I forgot about the 318 and it's 302 swirl port heads, though I remember reading about their use in the Dippy forums. Looks like I subsequently forgot everything in favor of 360 knowledge.

The enlarged pushrod tunnels and lack of roller cams on the early 318s sounds as if Chrysler was tooling for the TBI evolution of the engine and had to put the project on hold (for more than a few years) at the last minute, while the roller 360s showed up out of nowhere.

Sure explains why roller cam 318 discussions seem much more plentiful. Then again, more vehicles of enthusiast interest seem to have come with them, including the M-bodies. It's not as if there's a hoard of people out there with a fetish for crumbling 1980's B350 camper conversions. Ramchargers, D-series, and W-series trucks also seem to be kept either stock or carbed by their followers too.

It's not unlikely they added the roller cam blocks and roller cams into the vehicles they did to test the water much like they did with the Imperial's TBI. While the cars certainly weren't premium cars, Chrysler didn't offer anything larger or more akin to a luxury car at that time.

There's little value of all 318s outside of and even within those enthusiast circles, and the majority who care that they have a motor that does anything but run follow along the lines of the older MoPar enthusiasts- they don't care all that much if it is flat tappet or not since the cams are inexpensive. I've seen many a TBI truck with an older motor. That's of note since it's not exactly like any 318s are above or below another. Some folks build strong 318 roller cam motors or strong 318 Magnum motors and part of the reason's due to the 318's value typically meaning a good motor cheap.

Well, this is the first 360 of any that I could lay my eyes on, so I have no idea what it would fetch (if anything) in our local market (if there is one, besides myself)

Really strange how the old blocks have a bias for strength; seems to be some talk of the 360-3 being of better metallurgy. Then again, I also see an unusual amount of bias towards using either pre-smog or modern aftermarket parts on many of these builds, seeing that a lot of builds are either restorations or street machine/drag builds.

-Kurt

I'm not sure how much of it necessarily even has to do with the motors. From what I've heard secondhand- it sounds like the valve seals weren't as good on the smog motors, and part of that impression comes from the fact that like the modern motors, the smog engines have greater recollections among many for having over 300k miles while most of the older cars are a total unknown. Most of the ones that weren't run hard and put up wet had around 200hp. Many of the higher HP 360s really have tons in common with the smog motors- just they're not identical- the E58s and Magnums being in that category.

Some updates; replies at bottom.

One of the party pieces arrived today in the form of 1992/93 (w/late-1991 date codes) Magnum 5.2/5.9 exhaust manifolds. These are the semi-elusive 53006618 and 53006619 large-flange castings:

-Kurt

Think they'll clear the PS and the firewall?

 

[cudak888]

It's not unlikely they added the roller cam blocks and roller cams into the vehicles they did to test the water much like they did with the Imperial's TBI. While the cars certainly weren't premium cars, Chrysler didn't offer anything larger or more akin to a luxury car at that time.

Only thing is, what's the good of testing a roller cam block without the roller cam? Nobody would know except anyone who pulled the manifold.

I could see production of roller blocks a year before rollout, but three years before sounds a bit unusual. Oh well, sure makes it easier for '85-87 owners to go roller cam with the factory spider, if they wish.

There's little value of all 318s outside of and even within those enthusiast circles, and the majority who care that they have a motor that does anything but run follow along the lines of the older MoPar enthusiasts- they don't care all that much if it is flat tappet or not since the cams are inexpensive. I've seen many a TBI truck with an older motor. That's of note since it's not exactly like any 318s are above or below another. Some folks build strong 318 roller cam motors or strong 318 Magnum motors and part of the reason's due to the 318's value typically meaning a good motor cheap.

...and if someone does care about a roller cam, they default straight to the Magnum to get the benefit of the improved heads, thus leaving the TBI engines to gather dust in a small part of the history books.

I'm not sure how much of it necessarily even has to do with the motors. From what I've heard secondhand- it sounds like the valve seals weren't as good on the smog motors, and part of that is like the modern motors the smog engines have greater recollections among many for having over 300k miles while most of the older cars are a total unknown. Most of the ones that weren't run hard and put up wet had around 200hp. Many of the higher HP 360s really have tons in common with the smog motors- just they're not identical- the E58s and Magnums being in that category.

Maybe so, but it still doesn't explain the lack of attention or interest - especially when most builds seem to involve replacing pistons, an aftermarket camshaft, and a desire to seek the best heads possible.

With exception to the heads, that means almost everything associated with a smog block goes in the trash to begin with (except heads, which may be the only reason to seek out one engine vs. another for a budget performance build) thus, what's the concern about the smog heritage to begin with? You're left with a block which is - essentially - no different than the non-smoggers.

Heck, prior to the Magnums, the 308 heads off this 360 were amongst the best to port - and need I mention that it has air injection ports? SMOG HEADS! RUN AWAY! #-o

Of course, this doesn't apply to cases wherein a manufacturer may modify the block rather than pistons and cam - such Ford's own bastardization of the 351C into the 400/351M - and even in that particular case, the rightfully-hated 400 (and that's coming from a fellow who lives on both sides of the Ford/Mopar fence) can be made into a respectable street motor with a proper set of flat-top pistons and a cam.

By comparison, the Mopar builds have it a lot easier - you don't even have to worry about intake choices due to a taller deck height (and therefore wider intake valley).

But, then again, I'm not trying to build a performance monster - so what do I know? I'm just trying to build a nice, streetable LA out of a junkyard motor, with the best "simple parts" I can swap.

Think they'll clear the PS and the firewall?

Well, that is my dirty little secret - the whole swap is going into the B-body shown in my avatar; not the Valiant behind it (nobody touches my slant six!). I just get better advice at FABO ;)

I have more to worry about clearing the 904's shift linkage on the driver's side than anything else. Close clearances at the power steering pump are possible, but it looks as if it should clear with no more issue than the same manifolds in an M-body (which have been documented @ Dippy.org).

-Kurt

 

[Infecteddog]

Only thing is, what's the good of testing a roller cam block without the roller cam? Nobody would know except anyone who pulled the manifold.

I could see production of roller blocks a year before rollout, but three years before sounds a bit unusual. Oh well, sure makes it easier for '85-87 owners to go roller cam with the factory spider, if they wish.

Most of the public market cars had roller cams, lifters, and spiders. The trucks, vans and cop cars didn't- but they were making around 100k vehicles/yr with roller cams in them after 1985. Example- my truck's motor had the spider holes tapped but no spiders and flat tappet cam- a buddy has a 318 roller car motor laying around with everything the same but has the spiders and the cam/lifters. Chances are the trucks/cop cars didn't go roller cam since the geometry was changed and was technically worse- so in their HD apps that were fleet maintained the benefits didn't outweigh the perceived possible negatives.

...and if someone does care about a roller cam, they default straight to the Magnum to get the benefit of the improved heads, thus leaving the TBI engines to gather dust in a small part of the history books.

Yes. The Magnum seems to bone stock pick up around 30hp with no changes- and still a good bit if the LA has 1.6s and 360 heads. The other thing is the fuel system's good for power on the Magnums, so you're not just avoiding costs to make power- you can also dodge costs of carburetors too so an MPI Magnum with more power can be cheaper to get in the vehicle running well.

Maybe so, but it still doesn't explain the lack of attention or interest - especially when most builds seem to involve replacing pistons, an aftermarket camshaft, and a desire to seek the best heads possible.

With exception to the heads, that means almost everything associated with a smog block goes in the trash to begin with (except heads, which may be the only reason to seek out one engine vs. another for a budget performance build) thus, what's the concern about the smog heritage to begin with? You're left with a block which is - essentially - no different than the non-smoggers.

Absolutely.

There's also a fascination among many to increase compression as much as possible even though they want mild cam pump gas street motors because they're told they need more compression. Yeah, 9:1's better than 8:1 but 11:1 isn't going to be running pump gas with a 360 2bbl spec cam. More's better, but a keen eye must be kept on what you're build's ending up with.

Heck, prior to the Magnums, the 308 heads off this 360 were amongst the best to port - and need I mention that it has air injection ports? SMOG HEADS! RUN AWAY! #-o

The 308s saw a significant difference from the other 360 heads IIRC- I think they flowed better on the exhaust side as well as close on the intake side.

By comparison, the Mopar builds have it a lot easier - you don't even have to worry about intake choices due to a taller deck height (and therefore wider intake valley).

But, then again, I'm not trying to build a performance monster - so what do I know? I'm just trying to build a nice, streetable LA out of a junkyard motor, with the best "simple parts" I can swap.

Absolutely. I really wish the last stock replacement I did I'dve at least put a 340 replacement cam in it- though that coupled with Magnum heads and 1.7s would've been a nice touch.

Well, that is my dirty little secret - the whole swap is going into the B-body shown in my avatar; not the Valiant behind it (nobody touches my slant six!). I just get better advice at FABO ;)

I have more to worry about clearing the 904's shift linkage on the driver's side than anything else. Close clearances at the power steering pump are possible, but it looks as if it should clear with no more issue than the same manifolds in an M-body (which have been documented @ Dippy.org).

-Kurt

I hear that. I've been wanting another A, but the smog cars are just so cheap that's what I've had for a good while. They pratically all come with the good discs, and it's not the rears grow in weeds.

 

[cudak888]

Just a quick update for the night: Flipped the motor upside down to do the rear main seal. Seal install on the rear main journal went fine, as did the removal of the upper seal.

Installation of the upper seal didn't go as well, for a thin slice of it started to get shaved against the block. I removed it and installed the other half that I had put in the journal in it instead. This time, it installed perfectly - but now I'll need to get another pair of Fel-Pro seals. Oh well...

-Kurt

 

[txstang84]

At least it was a cheap casualty.

 

[cudak888]

At least it was a cheap casualty.

Cheap, yes.

Fingers crossed it doesn't give me any trouble. I'm following Fel-Pro's instructions to lightly oil the mating surface, and I have the thicker, deeper flange pointing into the engine, with the thinner dust flange facing outwards. Already verified it with a photo. This block doesn't use the ears on the upper seal.

The service manual for a 1998 Magnum suggests a 5mm drop of Loctite 518 at two very specific points on the rear main cap to ensure a good seal.

I hope it works, because I sure as hell don't want to have to go back down there again. Also a bit worried whether I should grease the main bearing when I reinstall it, or whether slobbering oil all over it will be sufficient.

-Kurt

 

[cudak888]

Ok, main cap is back in with a proper Fel-Pro lower seal and some Permatex 51813 (Loctite 518).

I got to work on the front of the engine and came up with this quandary - no drilled bolts, but one oil gallery welch plug with a pinhole for oiling, and a matching hole in the cam thrust plate:

Wound up drilling the new tensioner, but I've also been advised to put a drilled bolt on the top right hand side (from driver's perspective) anyway. Is it really necessary, given that the welch plug hole should serve the same purpose?

I thought this was a pretty interesting eye opener. With the factory double roller, this position between cam and crank was straight up. With the tensioner, it's obvious how much slop/slack has been taken up:

And with the chain on was the moment of truth - head removal:

Talk about pistons deep in the hole. Those dished pistons also bring back bad memories of Ford's 400/351M smoggers.

Have I spent all that time buttoning up the bottom end for nothing? Heck, I still don't know what compression this combo is running.

Shame the Magnum 5.9 pistons aren't weighed the same as the LA 360's. Would have been cheaper than KB-107s or H116's.

In the meantime, I'm going to get the heads cleaned up; possibly hot tanked. No sense in re-doing the nice factory valve set since they're sealing perfectly.

-Kurt

 

[txstang84]

If you have a burette and a dial indicator with a magnetic base, you can figure it out for certain. I'd venture a guess you'll be somewhere in the 8.2-8.5:1 range realistically.

 

[cudak888]

If you have a burette and a dial indicator with a magnetic base, you can figure it out for certain. I'd venture a guess you'll be somewhere in the 8.2-8.5:1 range realistically.

I have the dial indicator and the magnetic base to place on the deck (two of them, in fact), but I don't have the burette. At least, I don't think I have one. Will have to check.

I can do something like this, if it will suffice: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4oeHs0EYg3E/UNXojunHBzI/AAAAAAAACCk/qtCHqOBkiWY/s1600/IMG_0770.JPG

You sure compression would be that high given the open chambers combined with the dished pistons? That's better than I would have hoped for with this combination, quite honestly. Not that I don't want to improve it though - and dished pistons just make me fearful of pinging and over-rich carb settings to (poorly) compensate.

-Kurt

 

[txstang84]

I can't answer with any certainty of course since I'm not there, but I used some reasonable numbers to calculate the estimate.

Std bore x stroke
0.045x4.15" gasket
0.040 deck clearance
10cc dish
72cc chambers

That netted 8.5, so I think it [and I can't stress this enough] should be about that. Fortunately, you have a 360 not a 318...you have some displacement to make up for those big chambers.

As far as potential for ping, as long as you tune the fuel delivery and timing correctly, and don't lug it, I think you'll be fine. People built up engines similar to this one for literally decades without issues so as long as you're putting things together with due diligence and setting it up correctly, you'll be fine.

That dial indicator setup should work just fine. Also consider since most pumps are selling ethanol blends, they have a better resistance to detonation since alcohols don't ignite as quickly as petroleum based fuels...you just have to tune for it.

 

[cudak888]

I can't answer with any certainty of course since I'm not there, but I used some reasonable numbers to calculate the estimate.

Std bore x stroke
0.045x4.15" gasket
0.040 deck clearance
10cc dish
72cc chambers

That netted 8.5, so I think it [and I can't stress this enough] should be about that. Fortunately, you have a 360 not a 318...you have some displacement to make up for those big chambers.

As far as potential for ping, as long as you tune the fuel delivery and timing correctly, and don't lug it, I think you'll be fine. People built up engines similar to this one for literally decades without issues so as long as you're putting things together with due diligence and setting it up correctly, you'll be fine.

That dial indicator setup should work just fine. Also consider since most pumps are selling ethanol blends, they have a better resistance to detonation since alcohols don't ignite as quickly as petroleum based fuels...you just have to tune for it.

I pulled out the dial indicator this afternoon. Pistons are down in the bore ~0.088", more or less. Assuming that I use Fel-Pro 1008 head gaskets on the existing setup:

Thus:
4.00x3.58 (bore/stroke)
4.18 (head gasket bore)
0.039 (gasket thickness)
72cc (CC volume)
-10cc (dished)
0.088 (deck clearance)

Gives me a CC of 7.77:1. Blech.

I'd be a lot happier around the 9:1 range.

Now, recalculating the above for SpeedPro H116CP pistons:
4.00x3.58 (bore/stroke)
4.18 (head gasket bore)
0.039 (gasket thickness)
72cc (CC volume)
-5cc (dished)
0.027 (deck clearance)

9.07:1. Sounds about right, but I haven't checked whether these pistons are within the same weight range as the stock pistons - I'd like to avoid having to rebalance the crank/rotating assembly.

EDIT: Word seems to have it that the H116's are similar in weight to stock and don't require rebalancing (Rumor? True? False? Anyone tried it yet?)

-Kurt

 

[cudak888]

When I pulled the heads off last night, I was too utterly tired to realize this discovery:

The stock lifters and pushrods are oil-through units:

Despite this, the conventional rockers have no oil hole, as you've seen in the earlier photos. Go figure.

Between this and the oiling mod in front of the engine, I'm starting to think that the late-model, roller-cam 360-3s were somehow testbeds for the eventual Magnums.

I'm going to measure the pushrod length, check those lifter part numbers, and maybe even have a look at the camshaft lift, because I don't trust anything about what's supposed to be in this engine at this point - it's already bucked that trend nicely. Just for the record, it's an LA block all right (block casting 4315830); so it's not some sort of hacked-together warranty short block.

EDIT: Pushrod length is 6.75", and correlates with a roller LA.

EDIT #2:
According to a forum member (67Barracuda), stock cam specs are as follows:
Lift Duration Installed CL
89-91 360 .391/.391 240/240 ???
5.2 Magnum .432/432 251/264 115
5.9 Magnum .410/.417 249/269 117

Intake cam lift on my 360 at is 0.272 at the lifter. Figuring the 1.5 rocker ratio of the standard LA rockers, that works out to 0.408 lift with the setup now.
Exhaust cam lift is 0.258; at 1.5, that'd be 0.387 lift.

Now if we take those specs and apply them to a 1.6 rocker ratio:

0.272 x 1.6 = .435
0.258 x 1.6 = .412

Well, it doesn't match up to any of the stock specs...

-Kurt

 

[cudak888]

Apparently, each side of this engine must have been built by two different technicians with two different batches of lifters.

All the lifters on the left side of the engine (right side in this picture) has the hourglass-shaped oil hole, while the right side lifters (left in the photo) are of the flat variety:

And then I found the first really bad thing in this engine to-date:

Somehow, I've been blessed by the Goddess of Internal Combustion. The lifter bore isn't scarred at all - that lifter must have had that air pocket in it since it was cast and machined. That line down the camshaft is a reflection of light and is not damage on the cam itself:

One bad lifter. Could be a LOT worse!

-Kurt

 

[txstang84]

Before I read the rest of your posts, I saw something I need to nip in the bud right now, regardless of what pistons you use, the balance needs to be done if you want longevity and even bearing wear. Even if they're supposedly the same or near the same as stock slugs. I've taken stock reciprocating assemblies to the machine shop before that needed to be balanced. To put it in perspective, the next time you install a set of tires on your car, or even just one tire, don't balance it and find out where it hits a bad harmonic. Over the course of 10K miles or more plus variable rpm, those vibrations can turn into uneven wear or damage.

I'll read the rest now...

 

[cudak888]

Before I read the rest of your posts, I saw something I need to nip in the bud right now, regardless of what pistons you use, the balance needs to be done if you want longevity and even bearing wear. Even if they're supposedly the same or near the same as stock slugs. I've taken stock reciprocating assemblies to the machine shop before that needed to be balanced. To put it in perspective, the next time you install a set of tires on your car, or even just one tire, don't balance it and find out where it hits a bad harmonic. Over the course of 10K miles or more plus variable rpm, those vibrations can turn into uneven wear or damage.

I'll read the rest now...

Understood. Not happy about what that entails (drag engine back onto borrowed pickup truck, go toengine shop, spend more money, open bottom end, spend more money, worry whether they did the job right, spend more money) but understood!

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if I would be best off throwing a pair of Magnum heads on it to bump up compression to 8.3:1 and leave the pistons and the rest of the bottom end alone. Particularly so as part of the evening's discovery involved finding out that none of the exhaust valves are sealing well enough to prevent mineral spirits from oozing out through them either:

-Kurt

 

[txstang84]

Yes, the roller engines were the preface to magnums...the 308 heads have the same pushrod pinch because the pushrod angle changed as soon as they introduced the roller lifters which shortened the pushrod length. There's actually a good bit of discussion of this within these forums. The 308 heads supposedly have really good exhaust ports too. The factory roller lifters in every roller engine I've torn down were very good at wear resistance. But if it makes you feel better, a stock replacement set should be available for about $125 or so...or you could pirate them out of a magnum as the part numbers to replace both roller LA and magnum engines are the same...you could also replace any bad singles with over the counter replacements. To be perfectly fair, that lifter-unless it's collapsed-is probably perfectly serviceable.

Now, all that being said, if you're going to the extent of rebuilding this engine because of the really low SCR, you need to define your goals first...what do you want out of the engine? Even a stock rebuild 360 with 8.5-9:1 compression, well built, proper cam and induction, will perform great and deliver years of reliable service...no special gimmicky stuff, no overly expensive parts, see also RRR's thread about hot rod bliss in the general discussion section.

 

[txstang84]

... Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if I would be best off throwing a pair of Magnum heads on it to bump up compression to 8.3:1 and leave the pistons and the rest of the bottom end alone. -Kurt

You posted this while I was replying, a set of magnum heads would improve the CR, and I think they flow better than stock but then you have to swap the intake too, unless you have the heads drilled for LA bolt pattern...plus correct head bolts, pushrods, rockers, etc...

 

[cudak888]

You posted this while I was replying, a set of magnum heads would improve the CR, and I think they flow better than stock but then you have to swap the intake too, unless you have the heads drilled for LA bolt pattern...plus correct head bolts, pushrods, rockers, etc...

Not that much of a problem. There's the Chinese Crosswisefartwind intake, of which a new one will cost no more than the Edelbrock Performer 318/360 that I have now. With a bit of fancy eBaying, I should be able to turn one into the other.

My engine shop should be able to machine the heads as well, if I prefer - and a friend of mine has a Bridgeport mill, though I don't know if I can just up and learn how to use it for this purpose.

Are the head bolts on a Magnum head reusable like the LAs? If so, I might be able to dig up a Magnum 318 at the junkyard with good heads, bolts, pushrods, and the rest of the kaboodle.

-Kurt