Tim Keith

There is a Plymouth Duster in the current issue of Car Craft magazine that was built by someone who frequents slantsix.org. It is a remote turbo that is mounted just behind the rear axle with an intercooler. With the remote installation you can practically hide the turbocharger. It was not intended to be a race motor, but the six has 240 percent power increase over stock. Not many attempt to turbo a flathead six but within limits a turbo could increase mid range torque considerably without becoming destructive.

I'm more of the toitoise than the hare, but wouldn't oiling system improvements for 6,000 RPM also work well for a daily driver?

A man named Julian Stahl can take an 18 horsepower Kohler flathead and make more than 100 horsepower with it. The Chrysler six cylinder L-heads are probably better designs. Mr Stahl manufacturers many of the components himself, even casting strengthened cast iron blocks. Its just a lawn mower engine to most people, but Stahl far exceeds the expectations. I think he might have gotten more than 100 hp from simple L-heads. I don't think he experiences much parts breakage. The 1953-69 Harley Davidson KR is also an impressive L-head. There is a lot of potential in the Chrysler flatheads, no doubt about that.

Get a 413 L-head Chrysler. Probably weighs close to 1,000 pounds! There is no replacement for displacement. A maximum power 23 or 25-inch flathead will run on the ragged edge. It would be for drag race, tractor pulling. A member on the inliners.org site can tell you about his results with a competition 230, but he is really a Hudson man. The little 230 did okay in a Custom tractor, I think the 230 could run to 6,000 RPM. It might be fun to talk about this, but it can get really expensive. The thread on Inliners.org is 'Lets Talk Flathead Modifications', there are others over there that are relevant to your query

A roller camshaft might benefit a flathead with a higher compression ratio because the valves can open quicker and remain at a specific lift longer(flatter). High compression in a L-head leads to restricted airflow ... diminishing returns. Maybe that is the goal? Other than that the only benefit to a roller camshaft can be reduced friction which likely doesn't amount to much power loss. A flathead potentially has the most efficient valve train compared to anything else but experiment electric actuated valves, because everything is direct acting and can be very light weight. A roller camshaft might accentuate those advantages, maybe a little more power with high compression.

George likes to talk and he might exaggerate a little, he truly admires the Chrysler L-heads. His build will stick to fundamentals. He didn't seem to think the aftermarket alloy heads help with power output. He told me the 265 can safely sustain 4,500 RPM all day. He said that he suspects that those motors which threw rods were in poor shape or had insufficient oil level in the pan. These motors are known to run in wounded condition and provide little feedback that that rings are broken. George willl only say good things about these motors. A conversation with George is almost like talking with a teenager who has built a hot rod. George mentioned a 218 that someone had installed a turbocharger and said it ran almost like a 318 V8, but he didn't know the long term outcome, but said it sure was a lot of fun. I would think you want to improve crankshaft oiling and make sure the cooling system is in good shape. I am curious about the short stroke Canadian 218 and how it might work in a T bucket or something else that was very light; It would seem that the 25-inch 218 would turn higher RPMs. But if a 265 can safely turn 4,500 RPM, then that is the motor I'd consider for power as it was built for heavy luxury Chryslers when the 331 Hemi was the power option. With an overdrive or a 5 speed the 265 can cruise without coming close to its red line, and could be dropped down to a lower gear and probably feel almost like a 318. On the HAMB there is a current thread on "Homemade Roller Cam for Flathead Six". The discussion is beyond my comprehension.

I'd recommend that you call George Asche. I think he might be one of the few who can answer your questions. Earl Edgerton has raced these motors, call him. If you've got the bling you can make power from almost any motor. I kind of know what to do, but my bank account won't let me. I think George said he can make 200 horsepower from a bored 265.

It is the Edgy F-head conversion. I think only one was built. The valve covers look like those on a Cummins 6BT.

These are good motors. With better head gaskets the compression could probably be increased for a daily driver, but I'd focus on matching the gears to the torque and installing in a light car. With todays motor oil and improved metallurgy for the pistons you can expect to see greater longevity. I think George Asche told me he had a '51 Plymouth with 218 that has over 200,000 miles on a rebuilt motor. Most of us don't drive these old cars on a daily basis, but you could do that. That's the kind of performance that interests me.

A 265 with a .125 overbore is 283 cubic inches

These flathead motors are capable of producing good power. On the street they're more limited in compression than an OHV motor, L-heads are not thermally efficient and will blow head gaskets when you push the limits of compression. Respect their limits and they do better than most would expect of them. In a lighter vehicle the low-mid range torque gives good seat of the pants response. If they only had the displacement of the Hudson 308....

I have a late model Denso starter on my 230. Its compact and cranks the motor like a new vehicle. The man that I bought my truck from is an engineer. He built a hundred or so of the Denso adapters and had a hard time selling them. He said that he lost money on the project. The starter body is the same as on many newer vehicles, only the nose that mounts to the motor is unique. I might contact him and see if he has any unsold adapters. It was a good idea but did not catch on with the traditional old car owner.

I might use plywood for a work floor, not for long term storage. Wood is a more comfortable work surface than concrete, but the industrial linoleum is expensive. I plan on building with used lumber. This week local contractors used 3/4-inch plywood for concrete forms for a retaining wall. Used plywood of this nature is generally okay and might be about $8 a sheet. At that price use two layers with overlapping joints. As a base rolled crushed lime mixed with some cement and sprayed with water is almost like concrete. The crushed limestone naturally fuses together, the cement need not be a great quantity.

That could be a Nissan KA24E, I have one. The KA24 is a tough (and kind of heavy) motor that is often turbocharged. In the stock form its no powerhouse, the twin cam 'DE' version is a little more powerful. Actually these motors were rated at about the same output as the na Porsche inline four of that era. These are good motors that have some aftermarket support. I'm not sure if its a KA24, but those could achieve the 250 hp if they were turboed.

If I were considering a late model swap I'd look at a Jeep 2.5. Its not powerful, the ones in Cherokee only had 140 hp, but its a capable motor within its limits. Same as the 4.0 with two fewer cylinders. Actually the 2.5 came first. It does have a GM bell housing pattern so some of the T5 bell housings ought to work. I'm not obsessed with power, I guess. The Jeep 2.5 is built for low and mid range torque, good for off road use. There is little aftermarket support for the 2.5, 140 net hp, is better than the 103 gross hp of the 230. The 2.5 does respond to turbo charging, but those kits won't produce the 250 target. Compared to the GM 2.5 "iron Duke" the Jeep 2.5 is powerful. Another love it or hate it motor is the GM 3500 Vortec in the Atlas family. This five is relatively powerful but has harmonics that some find annoying, best with a quiet muffler some say. The Inliners.org would have information on the 3500

Another option is the VW TDI turbo diesel. Stock these motors don't have the power that you want, but there is aftermarket support to increase the output. The diesel Jetta weighs 3,200 pounds as well, and can get 45+ MPG. There is considerable aftermarket for these motors to make them into hot rods. The older TDIs from the late '90s and early 2000s can be more easily modified than the newer VW diesels. The Acme kit uses a Toyota transmission, costs about $650 for flywheel and adapter. The Toyota R154 transmission is bulletproof.

The SRT-4 in the Caliber is inferior to the Neon version, somewhat downgraded compared in quality compared to the Neon version, not the same motor. The bell housing and transmission used with 2.4 Jeeps ought to work with either turbo motor. The SRT-4 motors are often modified and thrashed. Another option, rarely pursued for swaps is the inline sixes of the BMW 3 Series. These are refined motors. The Toyota and Lexus inline sixes are also good choices and have less costly aftermarket support than the BMW six. The 2JZ might be a bit too long, I think it is closer to the length of the slant six. The older 7MGE would easily fit where a 230 flathead was removed, but good used Supra motors are getting hard to find. JDM motors might still be available. The 7MGE has the same bore spacing as the 230 flathead, and should be more narrow in the bottom of the block as it is overhead cam. The Toyota R154 transmission is excellent, very strong. I'm partial to inline sixes, as is BMW.

Wayfarers with the original motor have good value. Its your car do what you want. If the car is in relatively good shape otherwise, I'd keep the flathead six. After you've spent thousand of bucks, a new Kia would out handle the car, and likely have as much or greater power after you've done the motor swap. Do what you want, for me an old car is a refuge from the gadgets and the technology that I deal with all the time.

I'm also old.

Rock Auto lists wheel cylinders and master cylinders for the '47 De Soto but no brake drums.

If you can afford the 6.4 you can find a way to make it fit. Its not easy to make even an older 5.7 work in an older car, at least it does not seem so to me. The new motors are even more complex. But I think crate motors are sold that are made to work with a carb, haven't paid much attention to Mopar crate V8s lately.

I would like to have '57 heads for the 8:1 cr. But I think milling the heads is about the same

The Hurst shifter is the same but one shift lever on the transmission is on backwards and one rod is different. Its not hard to make the missing rod. You can get new four speed shifter rods but not the complete overdrive set. Brewers is a good resource on these transmissions. The 3rd gear is actually the overdrive, 4th is straight through - the original 3rd gear. I used a Hurst shifter from a 340 V8 Duster, with the lever flipped. Years ago the Chrysler dealer ordered 1 of the missing rods for my overdrive 833. The people on Slantsix.org can answer questions about these transmissions. http://www.brewersperformance.com/

The Hurst shifter is costly, but new ones are available. I like the 833 but prefer the non overdrive version. It is considered to be the strongest four speed ever used in a production automobile. I think an underdrive might be better, but don't want to get the Gear Vendors. In an underdrive the final drive is direct 1:1, which is more efficient and less wear. I don't know of an alternative to the Gear Vendors, or whether a Laycock can be converted to underdrive. For these cars I think its good to get an R-10. I came across an R-10 this week but I have to buy the entire car to get it, seller wants $300 for the '54 Plymouth.

The input bearing retainer is 5.125-inch, the same as many GM truck manual transmissions. In fact, some GM trucks used the 833 overdrive transmission from 1981 through 1986. The gear splits are said to be about the same as the 700R4 automatic, but without the benefit of the torque multiplication the OD 833 is not as flexible as the automatic