265 Chrysler Industrial Project Engine

[Loren]

The idea for this project started in my mind about 40 years ago.

I finally decided it's now or never and I hate nevers.

I acquired a 265 Chrysler Industrial engine that had once powered a Forklift of some kind. It must have been a big one too.

I just got the thing taken apart and I have to tell you it is the most throughly worn out engine I think I've ever seen.

It wasn't worn out once but several times! The bores are .060 overbore with sleeves! The crankshaft is .040 on the mains and .030 on the rods.

The thrust flange on the rear main bearing was gone and each time the operator stepped on the clutch it pushed the crank forward till it ran on the main webs.

It's just plain worn out.

However, sometimes rebuilding something can make it better than brand new.

Cranks can be welded up and re-ground. There is an outfit that makes equipment to weld cranks and they claim they can make them better than new with two different welding wires for the journals and the radiuses. Which is great if your journals are kind of soft in the first place. To bring my crank back to standard size and make all the strokes the same will cost around $1,500.

Forklift engines get abused horribly but they do have an advantage. Because the have to drive a hydraulic pump they have a gear driven camshaft. Zero issues with sloppy cam chains.

The fuel pump is moved to the rear of the engine to make room for the hydraulic pump and the camshaft turns backwards.

I am hoping the gear will fit under the chain type front cover, it would be a shame to give up the gear drive.

The 265 crank can be identified by the number 1400188 and the really deep groove in the center counter weight.

A 237 crank has a very shallow groove and the number 870715. A 251 would be somewhere in between.

In examining the design of this engine, I am impressed. These are very robust and well built. No wonder Chrysler sold them for everything that moved.

[keithb7]

Interesting thread.  I own a 265 in my ‘53 car. Have you tried removing the valve guides yet? If so, what method did you use?  Any nightmares trying to get the water distribution tube out? I assume the piston rings were frozen to the cylinder walls? If its been sitting for 40 years?  This thread would be great with some pics! Thx. 

[HotRodTractor]

I'd love to see some pictures of the fuel pump and hydraulic pump setup.

I also have a 265 Industrial engine (block was cast in 1967). It has a chain driven cam and has a hydraulic pump mounted and driven off the front of the crank (I also have a 230 Industrial that is setup the same way...). I haven't stripped mine down yet - not sure if I will - it has good compression, runs well, and came out of a combine that only had 300 hours on the hour meter.... I kind of believe it too.... the farm that had it must of bought it in 1968, and by 1974 they were bankrupt and sold everything except for 15 acres about 9 of it was tillable ground. They did continue to make some wheat and soybeans up until 2005 on that ground - not sure when they stopped using the combine though, it was several years before that point.

[James_Douglas]

One pays their money and takes one chances when we get an engine...

 

I have been bit more than once. I purchased what was supposed to be a 265...when I took it apart the crank had been swapped and it was a 251.  I recently picked up a 265 from a combine. I took the head off and the dame thing looks like it has a year one it. It has pistons that at STD and the valves look like they have very little carbon on them. Almost no ridge on the top of the cylinder walls...

 

I will pull it apart in March, one I am cleared to bend again, and see what waits for me inside the engine. Preliminary findings look good on this engine however.

 

If I find someone to partner with me on the '54 Windsor in PA, then who knows what shape that 265 is in. 

 

One pays their money and takes one chances when we get an engine...

 

James

 

PS. You can use a 251 block and just swap the crank and rods I am told...But I do not know first hand...

[Loren]

When I bought the 265 I also bought a 237.

Today I got it apart and found that its is in beautiful shape.

The crank is standard and the pistons have the DPCD stamp on the top.

It has sodium cooled valves which I was surprised to see.

Another thing that surprised me is that under the Brass Chrysler industrial tag I found that it was painted silver before it was painted Industrial red.

The purist in my nature wondered if I should repeat this odd situation.

When I get the 265 crank back its going in the 237 block with .010 over pistons.

There's an old fellow nearby who has a pretty incredible warehouse full of NOS parts (for all cars).

I am pretty certain he has most of the parts I need. When I get to talking to him I'll find out more.

[James_Douglas]

I am not sure if the 237 block has the "notch" to clear the longer stroke. I am fairly sure the 251 block has it...perhaps someone can advise if the 237 does as well...

James

[Loren]

These two blocks (the 265 & 237) have the notches. They are the full flow filter type as well. The casting numbers are the same except the 237 is newer and has a -1 after it.

The 265 had a small serial number pad (but no number) and the 237 has a large one with the number on top in stead of the side. The rods have very different bolts. The recessed head on the 265 is to clear things.  There is a substantial difference is the weight of the crankshaft. The 265 is much heavier. When you look at the 237 it looks plenty robust, but 265 looks like it came from a diesel. Without question the 25 inch engines are very strong.

[James_Douglas]

19 minutes ago, Loren said:

...The recessed head on the 265 is to clear things...

 

Can you post a photo of this ?

 

On my 265, the head looks just like all my other heads. (I think as I have not looked at it in a while)

 

James.

[Tony WestOZ]

Is it possible to show a pic of the notches in the block to be able to fit the 265 crank.

I`d like to see if the blocks we got over here are capable of taking the 265 crank and rods.

 

Tony

[Loren]

Okay here are photos of the connecting rod bolts and the shaved area to clear the inside of the crankcase with 237 & 265.

Next the block notches in casting 1400229 & 1400229-1. Note the indent at the pan rail.

Note this is the 1400229-1 block that had the 237 Crankshaft. The 265 is the same inside.

The head casting numbers from the file found on this site are: 1120805, 1120806, 1120903, 1632430. I have one that is not listed but it's exactly the same as 1120805, it's number is 1532092.

[Tony WestOZ]

Thanks for the pic`s very informative.

 

Tony

[Matt Wilson]

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.

[Loren]

I am going to have these rods "re-sized" and checked out by an automotive machine shop.

I am certain they will know what to do. ARP (and others) make high quality rod bolts for just about everything.

On one of my foreign car engines they even drilled out the holes and put bigger bolts in, so I am not worried.

[Tony WestOZ]

Its taken awhile for the penny to drop but these look to be similar.

 

 

From a post 57 American (I believe) 251 engine.

I will have a look in the shed tomorrow the engine is in bits so I should be able to get some better pics.

 

Tony

[Tony WestOZ]

I don`t know that these are of much use as my Canadian manual quotes a different part numbers between the bolts on the 250 and 265.

 

 

The 3 250`s I have all use this type of bolt.

 

Tony

[James_Douglas]

I checked with ARP and they will make them...but I have not priced it out yet. I was planning on sending one to them insured for enough if it got lost to pay for two sets :-)

 

I suspect that if a few of us wanted some the unit price would go down.

 

Interesting in that I purchased a rod of ebay that is supposed to be a 265. It has the "cut" on the side of the rod but the bolt is from a 251. However, the bolt head has been recesses deep into the rod so that I suspect it will clear. The Rod is in a Federal Mogul Reman box.

[Matt Wilson]

4 hours ago, Tony WestOZ said:

I don`t know that these are of much use as my Canadian manual quotes a different part numbers between the bolts on the 250 and 265.

Tony

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.

[Matt Wilson]

5 hours ago, James_Douglas said:

I checked with ARP and they will make them...but I have not priced it out yet. I was planning on sending one to them insured for enough if it got lost to pay for two sets ?

 

I suspect that if a few of us wanted some the unit price would go down.

 

Interesting in that I purchased a rod of ebay that is supposed to be a 265. It has the "cut" on the side of the rod but the bolt is from a 251. However, the bolt head has been recesses deep into the rod so that I suspect it will clear. The Rod is in a Federal Mogul Reman box.

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).

Edited November 1, 2019 by Matt Wilson

[Tony WestOZ]

Arrr got it around the wrong way. Still good to learn the differences. We never got the 265 here.

 

Tony 

[Loren]

The current solution to the bolt head issue in other cars is a football shape.

It wouldn't be to hard to re-machine the bolt head pocket for those.

One other thing I discovered.

Near the oil pressure regulator there is the "second chance" flow diverter valve.

Full flow filters were a new thing at the time and the Chrysler engineers were worried about them plugging up.

So they put in a fail safe device. Of course it didn't take too long before the filter makers put the by-pass valve in the filter. (along with anti-drain back valves)

This renders the "second chance" flow diverter valves redundant. The 265 which had been rebuilt several times had an interesting variation. The steel plug for the valve had been replaced with a brass one. When I backed it out there was a long extension to it that went up into the passage blocking the flow. This was not a shade tree item. It was purpose manufactured. Either Chrysler made it or one of the aftermarket outfits and it was added during a rebuild.

Automotive archeology.

[Tony WestOZ]

Is this the type of plug?

 

[Loren]

That’s it!

Got anymore?

While on the subject of oiling systems, I want to restrict the oil flow to the cam bearings.

The galley to them is way bigger than they require and could be restricted to direct more oil to the mains and on to the rods.

I seem to remember reading that some folks were drilling the crank passages a little bigger as well.

Chryslers don’t have a reputation for lower end troubles but its hard to forget the lessons learned from NASCAR racing in the 1960s & 70s.

[Matt Wilson]

3 hours ago, Loren said:

That’s it!

Got anymore?

While on the subject of oiling systems, I want to restrict the oil flow to the cam bearings.

The galley to them is way bigger than they require and could be restricted to direct more oil to the mains and on to the rods.

I seem to remember reading that some folks were drilling the crank passages a little bigger as well.

Chryslers don’t have a reputation for lower end troubles but its hard to forget the lessons learned from NASCAR racing in the 1960s & 70s.

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.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Matt Wilson

[Tony WestOZ]

11 hours ago, Loren said:

That’s it!

Got anymore?

While on the subject of oiling systems, I want to restrict the oil flow to the cam bearings.

The galley to them is way bigger than they require and could be restricted to direct more oil to the mains and on to the rods.

I seem to remember reading that some folks were drilling the crank passages a little bigger as well.

Chryslers don’t have a reputation for lower end troubles but its hard to forget the lessons learned from NASCAR racing in the 1960s & 70s.

Sorry no only have the one full flow engine they are rare in this part of the world.

 

I have a quire regarding oil flow. Restricting oil to the cam bearing to me is not going to send more to other parts of the engine. These engines are running at 40-45 psi and this is governed by the pressure relief valve. Restricting oil to one place is only going to send more oil through the pressure relieve back to sump. Granted over sizing holes and galleries to the crank potentially will increase flow, but without larger bearing to crank clearances oil flow is not going to increase. Increasing pressure to me is the way to send more oil to various parts.

This is of course relative to engine RPM but these engines are known for there long life in day to day operation even if you like to push them slightly over their red line limit.

If you want to push these long stroke babies to extreme RPM ok things will require more flow.   

Back on the original forum there were stories of the guys pushing these engines racing in the day. 5500  RPM was not to much of a problem, 6000 and you went around and picked up the bits you left on the track, went home and started on your next engine rebuild. Lack of oil did not seem to be the problem the strength of the parts spinning at high rpm was their down fall.

 

Tony         

[Loren]

The cam bearings do not require 1/4 inch galleys to supply enough volume to lubricate them.

In a Model T Ford there is no pressure as there is no oil pump, it's all splash. The cams in that engine are not much of a problem. Its the rods.

In the 1960s and 70s NASCAR stock car racers figured out that too much oil volume was being sent to the cam bearings and that was starving the crankshaft bearings.

Not only were the crank bearings starved but they found out they were having problems moving that oil back to the pan where the oil pump could pick it up again.

Windage trays and baffles were designed to help but the one thing that worked were restrictors in the oil galley.

A well known parts house which has a warehouse nearby me sells these items for many popular engines (Summit Racing).

The oil pump is a positive displacement pump. Each turn puts out a known volume of oil. If you can "plug the leaks" that volume has to go somewhere either to the rods or out the pressure regulator by-pass. The pressure regulator keeps the pressure at the level the engineers decided is best. Unless of course the volume of oil pumped can't keep up the losses at places like the cam bearings.

When you think about the path the oil has to go thru to get to the rods, it's a wonder they any oil at all.

The oil has to go across the main bearing and find it's way into the crankshaft to be carried to the rod bearing.

Too much clearance and a lot of oil will escape and get flung to the walls of the crank case doing no particular good.

My guess is you could cut the diameter of the cam bearing oil galley in half and not hurt a thing. You might even go as small as .060 or .070 of an inch which is what the V8 guys use.

In my garage I have a 5 hp air compressor which provides air to a bead blast cabinet inside and a sand blaster outside, plus air tools. When I am blasting the compressor runs constantly but it manages to keep the pressure at around 90 lbs. the max pressure is 175 and the motor starts at 125. The compressor pump puts out a fixed amount of air so the pressure goes up or down with the volume of air released through the blast nozzle and parasitic leaks. You can't have pressure without volume. Confine the volume and the pressure will rise. Yes I could set the max pressure to say 200 lbs and I could have the motor start at 150 lbs but I'd still be blasting at 90 lbs in a short time, because the volume has not been increased. Now if I got rid of any leaks or spin the pump faster, I'd have more usable volume and I'd be blasting at a higher pressure.