250 CI engine Versus 265 CI Engine

[keithb7]

Local classifieds have revealed a Mopar 250 CI flat head engine. No SN provided (I asked seller to provide). Just a photo shown and claims that it is a Mopar flathead from the 50's. The price is reasonable at $148 USD or best offer. It's all there except the carb they claim. It does read "Spitfire" on the cylinder head. Maybe this offers some clues?

 

I am interested as I am wondering if this could make for an interesting spare parts engine for my 53 Windsor Deluxe. It has a 265 CI engine.

 

Comparing the two engines it seems that the bores are identical at 3 7/16". The Stroke on the 250 is 4 1/2". The 265 gets 4 3/4". I wonder if the block and head are the same? Compression ratio is listed the same at 7:1. It seems to me that the 250 was used in earlier 1950 Chryler Windsors. Up to 1953 Desotos too. I happen to have a 1949 service manual. I see that the 1949 C45 Royal and C45 Windsors are listed with the 250 CI engine. The 250 is rated at 116 HP & 208 ft lbs of torque.My 265 is rated at 119 HP & 218 ft lbs of torque.

 

Some points I am interested in learning more on are: Crankshaft maybe the same just 1/4" shorter rods in the 265? 

Cylinder Head and block the same? I would need to confirm cylinder head length. I suspect both are the 25" long heads.

For the price. It could make for a good spare parts engine. Thoughts? Thanks.

 

Here is a pic of the claimed 250 for sale. If I'm lucky it could actually be a 265.

 

 

[keithb7]

This just came in. C54. Meaning? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HotRodTractor]

Crankshaft and rods are different between the two displacements, everything else is more or less the same. I can't really help you on the C54 number, except to postulate that it is about a 1954 Chrysler. Only way to know for sure the displacement is to measure the stroke of the engine using the plug over top the #6 piston.

[keithb7]

Thanks. Right! The rear plug. A small wood dowel would do it, if It I can bar it over. 

[Plymouthy Adams]

that C54 code is a bit perplexing, every book I have references it back to a V8 engine.....

[keithb7]

Seller says engine is not seized and will bar over. I think I'll take a few times and go measure the stroke. That will tell me what I need to know I think.

 

My 1953 265 engine SN starts with C53.

[Ajgkirkwood]

It's totally worth getting for cheap. The head could be sold for around that

[Ajgkirkwood]

Plus it appears to have the valuable full flow oil filter!

[Ajgkirkwood]

Could I buy it and have you ship to me

[Dodgeb4ya]

I have a C54 265 I pulled out of a 1954 Windsor.... means 1954..

I also have a C53 265 i pulled out of a 53 Windsor in 1974... put it in my 52 PU. in 1974.

[keithb7]

On my way now go inspect. Need to somehow ensure has rear block oil passages for engine fed torque converter. 

 

Will report back. Excited to go see this. 

[Ajgkirkwood]

if it doesnt work out, have it shipped to the niagara region of ontario please

 

[keithb7]

Well, I measured the stroke. Indeed it was 4 1/2" making it a 250 CI sized engine.

I looked the rear of the block. There were no oil ports for the engine fed fluid torque drive. So I assume this engine was married up to either a 3 speed manual,  or a sealed fluid drive unit, or maybe even the automatic? I need the engine fed type. I passed on it. Another buyer was right behind me and planned to take it if I passed. Odd though, the black stamped number, left side rear of the block on my car read 1400229-1. The exact same number was stamped on this 250 block.

 

These Mopar guys, I wish they'd used the same monikers, year over year for the types of drives offered. I am looking at an original sales brochure here from 1953. 

This is what they said in 1953:

 

Transmission: 

Windsor Standard Transmission, Manual.

Windsor Deluxe Fluid Matic with hydrauliclly operated transmission. (Is this implying the sealed fluid drive, non actual torque multiplier type?)

NY'r & NY'r Deluxe: Fluid-Matic Drive, with Hydrauliclly operated transmission. (Is this to implying the fluid drive, non actual torque multiplier type?)

Custom Imperial & Crown Imperial: Fluid Torque Drive

 

Then the brochure goes on to say: New Chrysler Torque Converter, with hydraulically operated, controlled type transmission, standard on Custom & Crown Imperial.

Available on other models at extra cost.

 

It seems to me my '53 was built with the Fluid Torque Drive. Engine Fed actual torque converter. Factory option. An extra cost option.

The specs and options on the transmissions are still unclear. What is the difference between Fluid-matic, and Fluid Torque Drive?

 

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by keithb7

[Los_Control]

I always liked Christmas packages .... Cant believe you went there and did all your mathematical calculations ... why not just buy it for that price and drag it home?

I feel sorry for the seller trying to get rid of his junk.

[keithb7]

Why would I buy something I don't plan to use? It's not like I could just pop in the back seat, take it home and throw it in the basement if I never used it.

There was a guy lined up behind me to buy it. Why feel bad for the seller?  The seller was unsure what he had. I let him know. He was grateful and thanked me. 

 

In my experience an informed buyer is a smart buyer. I don't have the space nor inclination to buy large components to store around my house just incase some day I can jimmy-rig something together.

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by keithb7

[Ajgkirkwood]

you could have used the head and the oil filter, the oil filter alone would have gotten you money back, you could have used the cam, u could have taken the oil pump and made a primmer out of it, you could have had a spare water pump, motor mounts, the spitfire head would have been boss to have. extra starter, distributer. etc, grab whats useful and small and scrap the rest if you really wanted.

[keithb7]

Tough crowd here...I’ll keep it in mind for future posts. 

 

I realize what I could have horded off that engine. Then scrapped the rest. I could have taken if from the buyer who actually needed it for his old Mopar. I could have scrapped the block. 

 

Kinda selfish isn’t it?

[Ajgkirkwood]

1 hour ago, keithb7 said:

Tough crowd here...I’ll keep it in mind for future posts. 

 

I realize what I could have horded off that engine. Then scrapped the rest. I could have taken if from the buyer who actually needed it for his old Mopar. I could have scrapped the block. 

 

Kinda selfish isn’t it?

I suppose your right. My bad for how I acting. It was such a good deal, surprised you past it up.

 

I wouldn't have scrapped it personally because I'm a horder plus it's a good block due to it having the oil filter mount. It's not often you find a deal like that and I'm jealous for that. I'm surprised the seller had a hard time getting rid of it. Same as another poster when a guy was about to scrap a desoto because no one wanted to buy it. Best of luck finding a motor. I know my block had a fluid drive attached to it but I cant recall seeing an oil passage?

[Ajgkirkwood]

My motor was from a 54 Chrysler windsor with the fluid drive I was told. 

[keithb7]

7 hours ago, Ajgkirkwood said:

My motor was from a 54 Chrysler windsor with the fluid drive I was told. 

 

Fluid drive, and fluid torque drive are two different systems. Fluid drive is a sealed fluid coupler. It's not a torque converter. Fluid drive does not multiply torque. My '53 Windsor Deluxe has a Fluid Torque Drive system,

 

The Fluid torque drive (FTD) torque shares common oil with the engine oil. Oil travels though passages in the engine block, out the rear. Into the torque converter that does actually manipulate torque. Oil returns and is dumped in to the engine oil pan. Constantly circulating and cooling the oil. It takes about 13 quarts of oil at a service. The FTD block cannot easily be substituted with a non-FTD block. If the torque converter was removed, and the car converted to either a fluid drive, or the tranny also removed and a 3 speed installed, that block could be used in my car. I am not prepared to do that.

[Mike36]

9 hours ago, keithb7 said:

Tough crowd here...I’ll keep it in mind for future posts. 

 

I realize what I could have horded off that engine. Then scrapped the rest. I could have taken if from the buyer who actually needed it for his old Mopar. I could have scrapped the block. 

 

Kinda selfish isn’t it?

Hi Keith, I understand and agree with your decision on the engine. Why buy what you don’t need and can’t use? Regarding your tough crowd comment, you experienced why I seldom post on here anymore. Case in point; in the very recent past two separate individuals inquired about info on installing a V8 in their old Plymouth. Mr Plymouthy Adams referred them to the Hamb site where more of this info is available. Not a disparaging comment was made that I saw. However, several months back I made exactly the same recommendation (with different wording) and was jumped on hard and repeatedly. I have never been afraid of a fight but this is not the place for that. There are a few on here that are very knowledgeable and helpful. I both respect and enjoy the advice of Plymouthy and Dodge B4ya. But there are others on here who seem to more concerned with impressing us with how much they know rather than using this great site to lend a helping hand. 

[Ajgkirkwood]

Again with my comments. It was me being excited at the find of that motor. I was confused as to why it wasn't picked up. Only after that it was explained that it would be useful to someone and be greedy to horde did I understand. These are things that I never think about. Hopefully in time I learn more is these lessons as I'm still young

[55 Fargo]

23 hours ago, keithb7 said:

Seller says engine is not seized and will bar over. I think I'll take a few times and go measure the stroke. That will tell me what I need to know I think.

 

My 1953 265 engine SN starts with C53.

Note your stamping not quite straight.

Factory or a rebuilder stamping on numbers?

The C54 engine nice straight stamping.

C54 is not identified as a Chryslsr 6 engine on the T137 registry.

For some real accurate identification I suggest you PM Bill Watson or Tim Kingsbury. Most on here are only guessing.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2019 by 55 Fargo

[timkingsbury]

On 4/20/2019 at 11:36 AM, keithb7 said:

This just came in. C54. Meaning? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Serial Number is for a 1954 Chrysler Windsor which engine was made in the Windsor Ontario Engine Plant and the car came from the Windsor Assembly plant. It was a 265 ci motor when it left the factory .    3 7/16" bore and 4 3/4" stroke   That being said the serial as 55 Fargo point out on another one, was not applied at the factory.  The factory used a jig which held all numbers,  letters and any special character together so when the serial number was applied they were absolutely in a straight line.  This is a restamped block.   1954 was the 1st year the Windsor had a v8 in it, although at least in Canada the 265 was an option.

 

 

On 4/20/2019 at 12:29 PM, keithb7 said:

Seller says engine is not seized and will bar over. I think I'll take a few times and go measure the stroke. That will tell me what I need to know I think.

 

My 1953 265 engine SN starts with C53.

 

On 4/20/2019 at 7:17 PM, keithb7 said:

Well, I measured the stroke. Indeed it was 4 1/2" making it a 250 CI sized engine.

I looked the rear of the block. There were no oil ports for the engine fed fluid torque drive. So I assume this engine was married up to either a 3 speed manual,  or a sealed fluid drive unit, or maybe even the automatic? I need the engine fed type. I passed on it. Another buyer was right behind me and planned to take it if I passed. Odd though, the black stamped number, left side rear of the block on my car read 1400229-1. The exact same number was stamped on this 250 block.

 

These Mopar guys, I wish they'd used the same monikers, year over year for the types of drives offered. I am looking at an original sales brochure here from 1953. 

This is what they said in 1953:

 

Transmission: 

Windsor Standard Transmission, Manual.

Windsor Deluxe Fluid Matic with hydrauliclly operated transmission. (Is this implying the sealed fluid drive, non actual torque multiplier type?)

NY'r & NY'r Deluxe: Fluid-Matic Drive, with Hydrauliclly operated transmission. (Is this to implying the fluid drive, non actual torque multiplier type?)

Custom Imperial & Crown Imperial: Fluid Torque Drive

 

Then the brochure goes on to say: New Chrysler Torque Converter, with hydraulically operated, controlled type transmission, standard on Custom & Crown Imperial.

Available on other models at extra cost.

 

It seems to me my '53 was built with the Fluid Torque Drive. Engine Fed actual torque converter. Factory option. An extra cost option.

The specs and options on the transmissions are still unclear. What is the difference between Fluid-matic, and Fluid Torque Drive?

 

 

 

The part number that is cast into the block -1400229-1  was actual a part number used for the 238, 250 and 265 ci engines and was a block number casted from oct 1951 until 1955 actually.   If you looked inside the block you would notice its been carved on the side which allows for the long stroke 265 crank and rods to have clearance. That same carving was

done in advance of it being known which ci motor it would be.

 

If you look closer to the oil filler tube, but down by the oil pan you will likely see a Letter (likely a D  and then a number (1 or 2 digets) and then another number (1 or 2 digets) .

That will allow us to figure out when the block was casted.

 

You can also look up a little higher and see a clock face cast in the block and a code for what shift it was casted on.    The USA engines are a lot easier to determine the 

casting date that the later Canadian 25 1/2" engines,  but thats a long story that really doesnt help in this discussion

 

 

On 4/21/2019 at 11:53 AM, 55 Fargo said:

Note your stamping not quite straight.

Factory or a rebuilder stamping on numbers?

The C54 engine nice straight stamping.

C54 is not identified as a Chryslsr 6 engine on the T137 registry.

For some real accurate identification I suggest you PM Bill Watson or Tim Kingsbury. Most on here are only guessing.

 

 

 

Good eye... 55 Fargo your 100% correct.  while the t137 is an excellent resource it really is, it is not without its gaps and Canadian engines are often part of that gap.

 

A classic example would be looking at a 1949 Plymouth you will see a p18 shown as a 218.   Without getting into a big debate,  it really was known within Chrysler as a 217. The Canadian 25 1/2" engine was a 218.   However the real point is  I have a 1949 Plymouth that my great aunt bought brand new.  Its a p18 serial number.    It was neither a 217 or 218... In canada they were 228 ci 25 1/2" blocks.   On the t137 site it would show the 1954 chrysler 6 cylinder as c62 and that is correct...    Correct for engines which were shipped to the USA for assembly into a 1954 Chrysler.   For engines that were going to the Canadian assembly plant in Windsor, they were marked c54.    

 

Hope that helps

[keithb7]

Excellent info! Thanks so much for taking the time to write it up and educate us.