Jump to content

Matt Wilson

Members
  • Content Count

    269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Matt Wilson

  • Rank
    Junior Member, just joined the forum !

Profile Information

  • Location
    Keller, TX
  • My Project Cars
    1949 Dodge Power Wagon

Converted

  • Location
    Texas
  • Interests
    Dodge Power Wagon

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Matt Wilson

    Split header - dual exhaust - reduced torque?

    Aah, yes, I've seen that video. Didn't make the connection that this was the same car I was talking about in my post above.
  2. Matt Wilson

    Split header - dual exhaust - reduced torque?

    I agree, he is fortunate to be able to do what he does. I wasn't entirely sure how much he was doing these days. I only know that one time when I spoke to him a year or two ago, he was still doing some of that. He mentioned having just completed a race engine for a younger guy in his seventies - a 230 for a vintage race car. When I spoke to him last Friday, I didn't ask him how much engine building he was doing. Apparently he's still doing carbs, manifolds and cams, as he asked me if I needed any.
  3. Matt Wilson

    Split header - dual exhaust - reduced torque?

    I think George Asche still build engines for guys who race them. Tim Kingsbury may actually be racing sometimes.
  4. Matt Wilson

    Manifold Stud Replacement

    Ok, I think I'm starting to get convinced to at least try replacing those couple of corroded studs. Depending on how those go, I my tey my hand at the others. Good idea on the welding. I have a welder. I've also heard of a technique whereby you heat up the area around the stud and hold a candle or other wax item up to the base of the stud and if you have heated the area enough, but not too much, the wax will wick into the microscopic gaps between the stud and the parent part (in this case the block). The wax provides lubrication to allow the stud to come out when no other technique will work. Some guys swear by this technique. It's also reported to work for removing other types of corroded threaded fasteners.
  5. Matt Wilson

    251 block 265 crank

    Sometimes people true up the surfaces on the intake and exhaust manifolds themselves. Not sure about the surfaces on the block where the manifolds mount. If you did that, it would of course require removal of the studs. The crankshaft main bearing bores/saddles occasionally require line boring to get them all to line up with each other, but that's not a must on every engine. It just depends on the condition of those bores. I don't know of any other surfaces on the block that are routinely machined (aside from things you probably already know about, such as cylinders, valve seats, etc.). If a gasket surface, such as the ones you mentioned, is damaged, of course the shop can machine it to correct the issue, assuming it's not too badly damaged. There is another thread on this site (can't recall which thread), where the gentleman describes having to braze some damage (maybe a crack?) to the thermostat housing mating surface on the top of the head, and his shop machined it nice and flat again.
  6. Matt Wilson

    251 block 265 crank

    Compression ratio varied for all engines over the years, but if we take a smaller engine and a larger engine having the same compression ratio as each other, then the larger engine will see a bump in compression when the smaller engine's head is installed onto the larger engine. For example, if we take a 7:1 218 head (25" engine) and put it on a larger 25" engine that also had a 7:1 ratio with its own head, the result will be a higher compression ratio. Of course, you also have to take into account any milling of the head that may have been done over the years. I'm using the head off a 251 that came out of an early 60s Power Wagon and putting it on my 265. The manuals say the stock compression ratio for that 251 in the Power Wagon was 7.2:1. When I cc'd the combustion chambers and ran the calculations, I came up with 7.2:1 for that 251, so that all made sense (for this reason and others, I believe that engine had never been rebuilt, by the way.) I then ran the numbers for that head on a 265 and got about 7.75:1. I don't recall if that included boring the block oversize or not, which would have the effect of raising the compression a bit more. Of course, now I've since had the head milled just enough to make the gasket surface flat again, which was about 0.015", and I cc'd the chambers again, but have not run the numbers on compression ratio yet. However, the cc numbers didnt change much (I think they went from around 98cc each before milling to about 94 or 96cc after milling - going by memory), so I expect the increase in compression to be mild, which is what I wanted. I suspect it'll be about 8:1 now, and I don't want it to be up much higher than that. I also had the block decked, but I haven't taken the effect of that into account yet. I doubt it'll be much .
  7. Matt Wilson

    Manifold Stud Replacement

    I'm not particularly worried about new ones leaking. I'm more concerned about old ones leaking if I don't replace them. As for snapping off later, most of them look almost new, so I doubt that's an issue on those, but a couple look a little worse, so could be an issue for those. I just don't want to break any off while I'm replacing them when it might not even be necessary to replace them. That would make a bunch of work for sure. I appreciate all the replies. Still pondering.... Maybe I'll have time to look at it this weekend.
  8. Matt Wilson

    Split header - dual exhaust - reduced torque?

    I spoke to George Asche last Friday and he told me about someone he knew many years ago who got a 265 up to 7200 rpm during turns in races. Stock crank, rods, rod bolts, etc, except the guy had to modify the bearing oiling configuration by cutting grooves in the rod bearing halves and cutting grooves in the main bearing journals (not the main bearings themselves, as they already have grooves, but the main journals). It had some power boosting mods or else the engine wouldn't rev that high, but the engine was capable of taking those revs repeatedly. George also tells a story about cruising from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles in 1953, averaging between 4000 and 4500 rpm for 9 hours straight. Again, there may have been some intake and exhaust mods, but he says it was otherwise stock, and was either a 251 or a 265. He also had a 265 that he routinely took up to 6000 rpm during races, again with power mods, but stock crank, rods, pistons, etc. Maybe not proof, as we're not there to see it ourselves, but I tend to believe George. I've also read about tractor pull competitors using 265s and other Chrysler flatheads and taking them up to 6000 rpm and beyond, with mods of course.
  9. Matt Wilson

    Manifold Stud Replacement

    Thanks, guys. Hmmmm.....more food for thought. Most of the studs are in really good visual condition, with very little rust. It's only a couple that have significant rust, but even those don't look terrible. Anyway, I'll be thinking about what you guys said. Much appreciated.
  10. Matt Wilson

    Connecting Rod-to-Bushing Interference Fit

    Yes, I pulled the bushings out of a couple of 251 rods that I believe have never been reworked and they were steel-backed. They even had the DPCD logo on the back. Interestingly, I found a Hudson flathead six rebuild page online, and it talks about using steel-backed bushings, but then goes on to say they should be burnished in place using a particular burnishing machine. It looks like it's an original factory set of instructions. This seems to contradict what my new machinist told me the other morning. Oh well, in any case, my bronze bushings will be getting burnished, and that's what matters to me.
  11. Matt Wilson

    Split header - dual exhaust - reduced torque?

    I was about to bring up the same point. If dual carbs and dual exhaust didn't make any difference for low and mid-range rpms, Dodge would not have equipped the flatheads in multi-ton trucks with these features.
  12. Matt Wilson

    251 block 265 crank

    I'm doing such a conversion right now. The 265 crank and rods will fit into the 251 block. Earlier 251 blocks need to have clearances ground into the very bottom of the block, adjacent to where the oil pan attaches. Later blocks already had these clearances cast into them. I'm not sure what year separates an "early" block from a "later" block. My block is a "later" 251 block from a 1963 Dodge Power Wagon. I don't know what the crank and rods came out of. I managed to buy them from a salvage yard out of state, and they shipped them to me. All other parts are interchangeable. Be aware that things like timing chains and gears, and pistons (number of rings) and valves (sodium-cooled vs. ordinary), and thermostat housings, can vary across year models or when crossing over from commercial to industrial engines, but not because of any difference between 251 and 265 engines. Some or all of these differences can be seen between two 251s. Using the 251 head on a 265 setup will give a decent bump in compression ratio. On my setup, the crankshaft rear flange bolts right up to the flywheel from my 230, but I'm not sure if they are all interchangeable like this. The rear engine bolt pattern is the same across all flathead sixes. The same water pump will fit, too. Be aware that some blocks have the fuel pump opening near the front and others have it near the rear. Others may be able to add more about this. Good luck!
  13. Matt Wilson

    Manifold Stud Replacement

    Thanks, Jan. Believe me, I know about doing things twice, and I hate it. When you mentioned not having problems with leaking studs, are you talking about studs you've installed? I'm talking about having leaks with studs that I haven't replaced. Not sure if leaving the original studs is a known problem area for these engines, in terms of leakage.
  14. Matt Wilson

    Connecting Rod-to-Bushing Interference Fit

    Got an update. I called a couple of other machinists and they couldn't tell me how much interference there should be. I even found a copy of a 2006 edition of the AERA connecting rod manual, and while it provides this kind of info for some engines, it doesn't for our flatheads. I then called Sealed Power yesterday and they told me the bushings need to be installed with about 0.004 - 0.0045" of press fit. I thought the rep didn't know what he was talking about and so did my machinist. That sounds like a ludicrous amount of interference. So I dropped into another machine shop - a big outfit - and talked to their head machinist, who has been doing engine machine work for 40 years, and he said that was about right for bronze bushings, which is what these are. I thought they were going to be steel-backed bronze, based on the description on NAPA's website, but they are bronze all the way through. I know this because I got a hold of three different parts (three different part numbers - one standard outside diameter and two different oversizes) and looked at the parts myself, and they are bronze. Anyway, the machinist said if the interference is only 0.0015" or so, which is what I was thinking, then the bushings will "fall" out. He also said burnishing them to expand them out against the rod bore is the best way to do it, but not many shops have the setup to do this, but he does. He also said such a large press fit is not needed for steel bushings, nor is burnishing. I got the impression from him that steel bushings only need about 0.002" interference, bit I'm not sure how accurate that is.Further confirmation of the tight press fit for bronze bushings is the fact that when I measured the three different bushings I got a hold of, the ODs were all 0.004 - 0.005" larger than advertised online (again by NAPA as well as other sources). I guess when the OD is stated, they mean the final installed OD, which is essentially the size of the rod ID, but that was not clear from the specs they provided. I think I'm starting to understand how this works, though.Since the machinist I spoke to this morning really seemed to know what he was talking about, I went and picked up my rods from my previous machinist and am planning to take them to this new guy.I'm posting this in hopes it will help someone else at some point, maybe even me
  15. Matt Wilson

    Manifold Stud Replacement

    Yeah, I have a thread chaser I can use on them and maybe I'll leave them. I guess I was mainly trying to get a feel for people's experiences with leaving the existing studs and then having them leak later on. I figured now would be the time to replace them if leaving them would pose a significant risk of leakage. But I also don't want to have issues with studs breaking, etc.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Terms of Use