Matt Wilson

So these are photos of one of the 265 rods modified by Federal-Mogul? The bolt head recess in the upper half doesn't look modified at all compared to a stock 265 rod (I'm holding one in my hand right now). That is, unless F-M modified the spotface in the bottom of the recess to accommodate the shape of the new bolt they used. But maybe they didn't have to. It kinda looks like the head of the new bolt is tapered on the underside. Maybe it fits the tapered bottom of the recess in the rod? Speaking of which, I think I was mistaken when I previously said the stock 265 bolt head has a hemisperical underside. Looking at it more closely, it may just be a sloped/tapered/chamfered underside. I have to wonder what stock bolt F-M used? I think I would want the underside of the head to fit well to the rod. If the underside of the head is flat, not tapered, then it's going to contact the rod over a thin ring at the outside edge, unless the spotface in the recess is modified to be flat instead of its current taper. And of course, in grinding material off the bolt head, one must be certain not to overheat the bolt at all. If you measure the thickness of the modified bolt head, I can measure the thickness of one of my stock 265 bolts and see how they compare. Or we can compare thickness from the rod parting line to the top of the bolt and see hiw thise dimensions compare. This would give us a good idea of whether the modified 265 rod will have adequate clearance when installed.

Great info, Ken! Thanks! Loren, my apologies, I didn't mean to hijack your thread. Matt

So if I were to call ARP and give them the dimensions of the stock 265 bolts (the various diameters and length and whatever else they want), and tell them I want a "football-shaped" bolt head, you think they may be able to recommend something for me? I'm just asking because I've never heard of a football-shaped bolt head, but that doesn't mean much - there's plenty I've never heard of. I just want to be sure I understand what I'm asking for. Thanks.

Well, I ended up buying a set of springs from Andy Bernbaum this afternoon - just ordered straight off their website. I'm guessing they are NOS, but as long as they were preserved properly, they'll be fine. They were $4.00 each. I had thought Summit's price was $3.99, as I posted earlier, but I must have been looking my screen cross-eyed, because when I went back to the Summit website later, I realized they are actually $5.99 each. Thanks to everyone for your input! Matt

If you look at the cam bearings, you will probably find that #2 and #3 have two holes in each bearing. George Asche (well-known Chrysler flathead six guru) says he installs the bearings so that the smaller hole lines up with the oil hole in the block, thereby restricting flow to the cam bearings to keep overall system oil pressure up and to direct more oil flow to the crank bearings. He says the cam bearings still get plenty of oil this way.

Great info! Seeing what a rotator looks like, I can say confidently that there were no rotators on any of the valves (intake or exhaust) when I disassembled my engines.

I actually checked with ARP a couple of years ago, had a few discussions and even sent them a 265 bolt, and they said they could probably make them, but when I asked the price, they didn't come up with a specific number, but said it would be at least a few thousand dollars. That killed the deal for me. As you said, if several of us were to go in on it, it might become more palatable. Of course, by the time they would complete their development, it would probably be too late for me, as I hope to have my engine assembled in a few months (of course, that's what I said a few months ago....and a few months before that...and before that...). As for your photos, the p/n of your rod is the same as my rods, so I know it's a 265 rod. It's interesting to see how someone has adapted the 265 rod to accommodate the 251 bolts or vice-versa. I have a set of 251 rods and had thought about doing something like that, but I was concerned about whittling away on the rod to do so. After seeing your photos, it doesn't seem so bad. I suppose a machinist would need to machine out the socket to eliminate the hemispherical shape and just make it flat inside to fit the 251 bolt, and maybe open up the diameter of the hole, as the 251 bolt head may be bigger in diameter than the 265 bolt head. I wonder how one would hold the bolt stationery while torqueing up the rod nut? Anyway, this is certainly food for thought. It does look like it would have adequate clearance inside the engine. If Federal Mogul remanufactured it, that certainly gives the idea more credibility. As a point of comparison, here is a photo of a 265 rod with a 265 bolt installed. Note that the bolt is not snugged up all the way, so the head is not as flush with the rod as it normally would be in service (you can see a bit of a gap between the bolt head and the rod).

Yes, the bolts in the 265 are different from the ones in the 251. Here are a couple of pics of a 265 bolt. They're flat on top and have kind of a hemispherical shape on the underside of the head, where it fits into a socket/recess in the rod. It has a nub sticking off the side of the head, which fits into a keyway in the rod to hold the bolt stationery when the rod nut is being tightened or loosened. Also, here are a couple of pics showing the portion of the rod where the bolt fits.

Thanks for the info. I'm thinking that even if I were to buy the springs that are meant to be used with rotators, and even if I could find the rotators, I bet they are meant for use with sodium-filled exhaust valves, and wouldn't fit my valves. It's sounding like I just need to buy (Qty 12) VS-304 springs and call it good, unless someone else knows of a reason not to.

This is interesting, indeed. I looked at the catalog at your link. For Dodge engines (presumably Dodge car), it shows 12 of each spring, either VS-304 (w/o rotocaps) or VS-506 (with rotocaps), making it appear that it's optional to use either kind. For Desoto and the some Chrysler car engines (through 251 cid), it shows six of each, although it doesn't specify which kind of spring goes on the intake and which goes on the exhaust. For the 265 Chrysler car engine, it goes back to saying 12 and 12. For the 218 Dodge and Plymouth marine applications, it only calls out the VS-304 (Qty 12). Then for the Dodge 230 marine engine, it's back to 12 VS-304 or 12 VS-506, and same for the 236 marine. But then for the 265 marine, it only lists the VS-304. For the 218, 230 and 236 Dodge truck engines (light-duty), it calls out 12 VS-304 or 12 VS-506. Then the 251 light-duty Dodge truck engine calls for six of each spring, and actually specifies that the VS-304 goes on the intake and the VS-506 goes on the exhaust. I have to wonder if they really have everything specified correctly in this catalog?? In any case, I wonder if it would be worth it to buy the rotocap type of spring for my exhaust valves. I suppose they are intended to make the valves last longer? I don't know if the rotocaps come with these springs, or if the springs will even fit the standard valves that I have.

I don't know that the Power Wagon engine had rotators. The only thing I recall seeing when I disassembled this engine is the same thing I saw when I was working with my 230, which was the valve spring retainer on each valve. There wasn't anything I would call a rotator. I guess I'd better be careful of what I end up purchasing.

The application I entered is a 251 from a 1963 Dodge Power Wagon, since that is the basic engine I'm using to convert to a 265.

Tue 265 bolts are unique to this engine, as far as I can tell. It's too bad there aren't other rod bolts that can be adapted to fit. Those of us with 265s keep relying on used bolts, which seem to be ok for the most part, but I sure would feel better with new bolts.

Hmmm.....interesting. Sure makes me wonder why Sealed Power makes two different parts (or at least two different part numbers) for the intake and exhaust springs.

As it turns out, Summit Racing has intake springs (Sealed Power VS304) for $3.99 each, so if I decided to buy intake springs, I could get them for cheaper than the exhaust springs, although I would buy the VS506 springs for the exhaust, just to be on the safe side.

That's good info, thanks.

The part number on RockAuto is Sealed Power VS506, which appears to be the same p/n you posted (except your link has BDBR in it). RockAuto lists it as an exhaust valve spring. Other websites, such as NAPA, also list it as the exhaust valve spring, and they also list VS304 as the intake valve spring. Like you, I have noticed that some sites, such as Vintage Power Wagons, show only one p/n for the valve spring, applying to both intake and exhaust.

Is there any reason the exhaust valve springs can't (or shouldn't) be used on the intake valves? Reason I ask is because RockAuto has exhaust springs for pretty cheap, but no intake springs, and the other sources I've looked at are asking more for their intake springs. Edit: By the way, this is for a flathead six (265 in particular, although I think most or all the DPCD flatheads use the same springs

Hot water and dish detergent does a decent job of removing it. You could let it soak for a while and then go after it with a skinny brush on a long handle

Yeah, I was getting a little worried that this was going to turn into one of the 2-year deals that I read about on a couple of other forums. I actually asked him about that before taking the crank to him, and he said he's only done that in instances when he knew the owner had a very long project and didn't need the crank back anytime soon. Still, I was worried for a while, and am glad it didn't take as long as that. Armando is known for taking a long time, but everyone said he's the best of the best, so that's what eventually won me over in deciding to use him for this work. I made sure to call him just about every week, just to let him know I care. He's always polite, a very nice guy and I treated him the same way. He admits that he's not good at schedule matters. I still have a little more stuff to do before I can reassemble the engine, so his timeline turned out not to be a big deal. A couple more months and I think it would have been. In any case, here is a photo of my crank in my garage this morning. If you (or anyone) is interested in seeing an up-close pic of anything, let me know. I guess I could take some close-ups of a couple of the journals, particularly the radii.

Hey John! Thanks for the input. Yes, I agree that the readings are probably not 100% accurate. I have a set of snap gages (telescoping gages). Maybe I will try getting the clearances by using those, although I have found them to be somewhat subjective as well, requiring care and a sensitive touch to get a reasonably accurate reading. As for Armando....funny you should ask, because I just got the crank back from him last night. He had it for about 4-1/2 months (since mid-May). I was beginning to get a little nervous about how long he was taking, but it's all good now. I haven't double-checked his measurements, but I plan to. Based on his reputation, I expect everything will be 100% spot-on. The only thing he was not able to do was repair the damaged pilot bushing bore. He says his lathe is not large enough to accommodate the 265 crankshaft, or he would have done that, and would have made a bushing for me. I'll have to take it somewhere else to get that done. Thanks for asking!

Well, that's interesting indeed. Your manual says the dial indicator reading is to be divided by 2 to achieve the clearance. My manual shows the same figure, but says the dial indicator reading is the direct measurement of the clearance and says nothing about dividing by 2 or otherwise modifying the number to get the clearance. Interestingly, there is a section of one or more of my manuals, where it talks about using a dial indicator to measure the clearance between the valves and their guides, and it involves multiplying the dial indicator reading by 0.5 for the intake valve and by 0.44 for the exhaust valve. This is with the dial indicator against the valve head and the valve head sticking up above the block a certain amount, where the motion would be exaggerated, so the true clearance is smaller, as indicated by the multiplication factor. In light of this and the clearances listed in your manual, which look like valve stem clearances, rather that lifter bore clearances, I have to wonder if, when your manual was being written, someone erroneously copied the valve stem section into the lifter section. Seems like too gross an error to be the case, but it does seem to look that way - either that or my manual is wrong. In any case, your total reading of 0.0018" in a good-running engine is not terribly smaller than the largest of my readings, which is about 0.0025". So again, it seems to point toward my clearances being ok Thanks again! I really do appreciate the help.

Wow, 0.003 and 0.005 are lifter-to-bore clearance limits? Three of my manuals say the wear limit on this clearance is 0.0015". I wonder if you might be looking at the valve stem-to-valve guide clearance? Those numbers (0.003 for inyaoe and 0.005 for exhaust) match what my manuals state for that type of clearance. With so many engines under your belt, and so many other people who have worked with them, and not a single person, as far as I can tell, has ever mentioned this to be a problem, I'm leaning toward letting it go.

Yes! That image from your shop manual is exactly like the one from my manual. You mentioned that you checked your 413 with the lifters in the low, middle and high positions. I suppose the 0.0015" reading was with lifter in the low position? That's how it appears in the photo, and I think that's the position that really matters, per the image in the shop manual. With the lifter any higher than that, the clearance will look larger, assuming the dial indicator is raised higher accordingly.

Well, I certainly appreciate the response! I really don't want to put anyone out by asking to have more clearances measured, but if it's not much trouble, then go ahead; Otherwise, please don't worry about it. By the way, do you know what diameter those lifters are? The larger the diameter, the greater the clearance can be (and should be).