Mopar 413/426 Max Wedge block casting number confusion

-
The head gasket has some passages that are clogged with rust, that does not happen in a few miles
Also the gasket is only available NOS, research shows it was the correct gasket, by number for the 426
Unless someone pulled it down and bored it 60 over which I doubt, it would be a 426. The inside of the motor is very clean, and you can barely catch a fingernail on the cylinder ridge. When I pull it completely, the date codes on the bearings should help clarify as well as a Sonic check, 413 to 426 is .0060 over to make a 426, the walls I'm my block will be thin if it is a bored 413
 
Last edited:
Brooks James said:
The head gasket has some passages that are clogged with rust, that does not happen in a few miles
Also the gasket is only available NOS, research shows it was the correct gasket, by number for the 426
Unless someone pulled it down and bored it 60 over which I doubt, it would be a 426. The inside of the motor is very clean, and you can barely catch a fingernail on the cylinder ridge. When I pull it completely, the date codes on the bearings should help clarify as well as a Sonic check, 413 to 426 is .0060 over to make a 426, the walls I'm my block will be thin if it is a bored 413
Click to expand...
The factory would have stamped it on the dizzy pad indicating it was over bore. The factory would sometimes over bore .010, I’ve never seen a factory .060 bore. But it’s not impossible.

What’s more likely is that early in its life, it was rebuilt with factory Mopar gaskets.
Either way, it’s still not a max wedge block. Period.
 
dukeboy_318 said:
Yep.

One other thing to note. All max wedges had TWO different font types on the machine pads. Just like that
Click to expand...
Is the "S" a different font ?

IMG_20221009_132221180.jpg
 
Appreciate your opinion, it may not be, but all outward markings on the block , that can be seen topside (paint over pad) would indicate a max, which is great for me as I want to build a 63 Savoy 426 max wedge.clone. If someone shows up with a borescope or mirror, they won't get near the car, lol
So... Any way you slice it, I'm happy
 
I'm thinking that the builder's had a three martini lunch before engine assembly.
A 62 413 Max block casting number with a 7/25/63 casting date that has a 426 bore !! WTF
A Sonic check will tell if it's a 413 bore 60 over, the the remaining cylinder walls will be thin
 
Lefty71 said:
I thought that not all max wedge blocks had that notch???
A question for Greg Lane if there ever was one.... find any info on his site??
Click to expand...
If, IF it is a max block maybe used in some other application, maybe. If it had maxwedge heads on it, it either has notches or eight bent exhaust valves. (if it was a 413 that is.... )
 
Last edited:
Brooks James said:
Appreciate your opinion, it may not be, but all outward markings on the block , that can be seen topside (paint over pad) would indicate a max, which is great for me as I want to build a 63 Savoy 426 max wedge.clone. If someone shows up with a borescope or mirror, they won't get near the car, lol
So... Any way you slice it, I'm happy
Click to expand...
Depending on how accurate you want to make your 63 max clone.....
you would want the pad to look something like mine, in pic#10 in your other max thread. (A late 62 built for a 63 426 stage one motor)
You will also need some four bolt valve cover max heads, for either a 426 stage 1, or stage two.
The 64s were the first with six bolt covers.
 
Brooks James said:
Appreciate your opinion, it may not be, but all outward markings on the block , that can be seen topside (paint over pad) would indicate a max, which is great for me as I want to build a 63 Savoy 426 max wedge.clone. If someone shows up with a borescope or mirror, they won't get near the car, lol
So... Any way you slice it, I'm happy
Click to expand...
No . NONE of your outward markings indicate it was ever a max wedge. Even the casting number IS NOT a max wedge. Not at all.
 
33IMP said:
Depending on how accurate you want to make your 63 max clone.....
you would want the pad to look something like mine, in pic#10 in your other max thread. (A late 62 built for a 63 426 stage one motor)
You will also need some four bolt valve cover max heads, for either a 426 stage 1, or stage two.
The 64s were the first with six bolt covers.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing the casting of 7/25/63 was close to the new model year and was for 64, I have 4 bolt covers
 
Brooks James said:
I'm thinking that the builder's had a three martini lunch before engine assembly.
A 62 413 Max block casting number with a 7/25/63 casting date that has a 426 bore !! WTF
A Sonic check will tell if it's a 413 bore 60 over, the the remaining cylinder walls will be thin
Click to expand...
It is NOT a 413 Max Wedge Block. It is NOT A 426 Max Wedge block. Your casting number doesn’t match. You also do not have the AAQA, nor the notching. In other words, you have NONE of the 3 major Max Wedge IDs.
 
Still curious, amd haven't heard a peep.... WHAT exactly came out of the bottom end?? Crank forging number? Oil pan?? What pickup ? What were the rods?? I know I mentioned this stuff before, but it seems there are multiple threads about just this one block...
 
Lefty71 said:
Still curious, amd haven't heard a peep.... WHAT exactly came out of the bottom end?? Crank forging number? Oil pan?? What pickup ? What were the rods?? I know I mentioned this stuff before, but it seems there are multiple threads about just this one block...
Click to expand...
All I know is this, the odds of this being a max wedge block of any kind are the same as my 1973 440 block being actually a 426 Hemi block…
 
dukeboy_318 said:
It is NOT a 413 Max Wedge Block. It is NOT A 426 Max Wedge block. Your casting number doesn’t match. You also do not have the AAQA, nor the notching. In other words, you have NONE of the 3 major Max Wedge IDs.
Click to expand...


Good Grief.jpg
 
dukeboy_318 said:
It is NOT a 413 Max Wedge Block. It is NOT A 426 Max Wedge block. Your casting number doesn’t match. You also do not have the AAQA, nor the notching. In other words, you have NONE of the 3 major Max Wedge IDs.
Click to expand...
And the mystery deepens ...

IMG_20221009_130040514_HDR.jpg
 
Brooks James said:
And the mystery deepens ...

View attachment 1715996972
Click to expand...
Why not mention that earlier?

Okay. You have one of the 3. But by itself, it doesn’t mean much. Gotta have more.

Do you have the notches? We know you don’t have the casting numbers. But 2/3 would lend a bit more credibility to your theory. I will give you that.

The 3R means it’s a later run, so end of 1963 model year, so June-August casting most likely.

What’s the webbing look like? 426 max wedges had extra thick webs that they ended up using in the Hemi Block design in 64 and beyond.
 
dukeboy_318 said:
Why not mention that earlier?

Okay. You have one of the 3. But by itself, it doesn’t mean much. Gotta have more.

Do you have the notches? We know you don’t have the casting numbers. But 2/3 would lend a bit more credibility to your theory. I will give you that.

The 3R means it’s a later run, so end of 1963 model year, so June-August casting most likely.

What’s the webbing look like? 426 max wedges had extra thick webs that they ended up using in the Hemi Block design in 64 and beyond.
Click to expand...
Where are the webs ??
See the earlier pics, AAQA, its there
It's a mystery, the casting block number shows 2 different applications, 59-65 passenger 413/426, and Max Wedge 62 413, depending on where I sourced the info. The casting date is 7/63. I thought 413 max wedge was 62 only. The pad indicates a 413, build date 9/63. It has a 426 bore 4.25. I'll do further research , but it appears the 516 heads are correct for a std 426 63-64 it's "appearance is a that it's a virgin. Valve notches, it appears the max engines had either 208/188 valves or 214/181. With 181 exhaust , block notching not necessary. So..im think that the 208/188 produced more hp so they were adopted for 63-64, and the 62 had the 181,'s, no notching necessary. Once it gets completely torn down , more light will be shed
No phone or email available for Greg Lane , a max wedge guru. Trying other sources. I did read some on his web site info there that the AAQA mark indicated a max block ?
 
Last edited:
Brooks James said:
Where are the webs ??
See the earlier pics, AAQA, its there
It's a mystery, the casting block number shows 2 different applications, 59-65 passenger 413/426, and Max Wedge 62 413, depending on where I sourced the info. The casting date is 7/63. I thought 413 max wedge was 62 only. The pad indicates a 413, build date 9/63. It has a 426 bore 4.25. I'll do further research , but it appears the 516 heads are correct for a std 426 63-64 it's "appearance is a that it's a virgin. Valve notches, it appears the max engines had either 208/188 valves or 214/181. With 181 exhaust , block notching not necessary. So..im think that the 208/188 produced more hp so they were adopted for 63-64, and the 62 had the 181,'s, no notching necessary. Once it gets completely torn down , more light will be shed
No phone or email available for Greg Lane , a max wedge guru. Trying other sources. I did read some on his web site info there that the AAQA mark indicated a max block ?
Click to expand...
AAQA cast all the max wedge blocks, yes. However, they also cast the heavy duty truck blocks. Which is why just having the AAQA by itself without the 730 series casting number means little.

All max wedges, 413/426s were notched. Regardless of valve size.

63 would have been the 426 Max Wedge as the 413 had been retired from max wedge form. However, 413 production continued on for several years in standard form.

The webbings would be on the mains.

516 heads were the only standard big block head during that era. They were used on everything from the 361 to the 426.

As for the casting number, again, only one casting number was ever used for the 413 Max Wedge as verified by the Chrysler Museum. Yours, sadly, is not that. Not is it correct for a 1963 426 max wedge.

That said, the fact it’s in a motor home probably makes it a rather low mileage engine.

When you get it a part, take pics of the rods, crank and piston casting numbers. Those will put the mystery to rest one way or the other
 
I can vouch though I found a 413 in a 67 imperial which the 413 did not come factory in a 67 imperial. The ID pad was blank but the casting number was allegedly the same as a max wedge block I cant recall the year the block was it's been 5 years but i know buyer was very happy a week after buying it and And pulling it apart for a refresh and it was a .060 413..... i dont know how or why it was in the 67 imperial but I've pulled hundreds of engines and i have no doubt it was factory install or someone swapped it in and did everthing 100% correct. not one single hose clamp was wrong or incorrect either. Really wish I would have hung onto that one. I have also found a 340 in a 72 dodge van before. Van looked 100% stock as well even the underhood decals showed it was a 318ci. Makes you really wonder how and why and if these left the factory this way.
 
Josh owen said:
I can vouch though I found a 413 in a 67 imperial which the 413 did not come factory in a 67 imperial. The ID pad was blank but the casting number was allegedly the same as a max wedge block I cant recall the year the block was it's been 5 years but i know buyer was very happy a week after buying it and And pulling it apart for a refresh and it was a .060 413..... i dont know how or why it was in the 67 imperial but I've pulled hundreds of engines and i have no doubt it was factory install or someone swapped it in and did everthing 100% correct. not one single hose clamp was wrong or incorrect either. Really wish I would have hung onto that one. I have also found a 340 in a 72 dodge van before. Van looked 100% stock as well even the underhood decals showed it was a 318ci. Makes you really wonder how and why and if these left the factory this way.
Click to expand...
Anything is possible back then. But this is why most professionals documenting and verifying these max wedge cars go by the rule of three, that being the casting number, the AAQA, and the notches. The dizzy pad usually is looked at after those three because it’s easy to stamp a dizzy pad. Much harder to take a casting number.

Plus, after they left casting, the blocks for max wedges were sent to a special performance engine division to build out. Some blocks were rejected for various flaws that later were corrected and reused elsewhere. So it’s not uncommon to have one with the right casting number but not notches or dizzy pad information.
 
Absolutely, like I said I personally never checked into it. Im going soley off what the buyer told me after he pulled that one apart so I have no proof if it was legit or not since the whole thing was so uncommon it should have been a 440 from factory but clearly wasnt!
 
Josh owen said:
Absolutely, like I said I personally never checked into it. Im going soley off what the buyer told me after he pulled that one apart so I have no proof if it was legit or not since the whole thing was so uncommon it should have been a 440 from factory but clearly wasnt!
Click to expand...
I have seen a couple examples of 413 bored out and sleeved to 440. Also in motorhomes interestingly enough. One of them was a 1970 that my neighbor bought new. Claims to have never had any engine work done. He just parked it after his kids went off to college and left it to rot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top