265 Chrysler Industrial Project Engine

[James_Douglas]

One of the places that loose oil pressure, and many people ascribe it to the came bearings, is the rear of the cam. On these engines there is not bearing at the rear. Just the cast iron block. That area wears over time and when a reground cam is put in, with the rear journal of the cam cleaned up, the clearance can be too much. The oil pours out the back. There were aftermarket companies that made restriction plugs to try and help with this.  The best thing to do is tell your machinist to make sure that the clearance is within spec. I will on the 265 have then machine out that spot on the block and press in a hardened steel bushing. A good tight fit will keep oil from pouring out the rear.

 

James.

[Matt Wilson]

On 11/1/2019 at 7:36 AM, Loren said:

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.

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.

[kencombs]

Here's a pic that may help the discussion:

 

I'd hazard a guess that anything other than stock 265 shape will require machining the rods' bolt head seat to accommodate  them.

 

But if the selected head shape and size is a portion of circle an old fashioned mill should handle it.  If not, CNC may be needed. 

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by kencombs

[Matt Wilson]

Great info, Ken!  Thanks!

 

Loren, my apologies, I didn't mean to hijack your thread.

 

Matt

[Loren]

I think item "C" is close to the football shape. I am not sure it would be appropriate for 265 rods. I have to think Federal Mogul knew what they were doing when they re-manufactured the rod (see photo in earlier post).

On the facebook Plymouth Club page there was posted a link to a youtube video of dealer salesmen training for 1952. Pure propaganda! If you like your Plymouth it would put your teeth on edge. You could stop a Ford salesman in his tracks by comparing a 265 rod (or a Plymouth rod) to a Ford V8 rod. The bolts on the V8 rod are part of the rod they can't be removed or replaced. Also the web strength is much less. (I should post a comparative photo)

 

Sleeving the rear cam bearing is an interesting idea. Model T Fords had a brass sleeve pushed into the rear of the block which was then line bored off the other cam bearings. (even brand new blocks from the factory had an un-finished rear cam bearing) It would not be a big deal to find an existing cam bearing to use then line bore the rear bearing bore to fit. Then you'd have a white metal bearing for all the cam bearings and it would be replaceable. (I am sure this was done back in the day)

I think the Model T used brass because it was easily removed and it was easily reamed to size. If you think a Model T crank looks like a bent piece of baling wire you should see the cam. I heard a story that Ed Winfield calculated the twist of a T cam at the rpm he desire to run his engine, then ground progressively more advance into each lobe to compensate!

Speaking of cams, I was thinking that I'd have Isky grind the gear driven cam. He has a well known grind for the Ford V8 that might do the job (Max-1). Any thoughts?

[kencombs]

2 hours ago, Loren said:

I think item "C" is close to the football shape. I am not sure it would be appropriate for 265 rods. I have to think Federal Mogul knew what they were doing when they re-manufactured the rod (see photo in earlier post).

 

And I'd bet that Federal Mogul didn't make a custom bolt.  If one had that part in hand the bolt would  match up to an off the shelf replacement bolt, and the rod could serve as a model for the needed machine work.  I don't plan on doing a 265, but if  I were, that would already be purchased.

[James_Douglas]

In the attached photos you can see the remanufactured Federal Mogul Rod. It appears what they did was to take stock rod bolts and grind the sides to fit in place of the 265 special rod bolts. I am assuming the heads will clear, but until I have the 265 apart and can stick this in and see...it is an assumption.

I do not have a 265 bolt other than what is in the engine to rebuild. However, in the photos I show a stock rod bolt, the modified rod bolt and one of the 351C ARP bolts used in my 251 engine.

 

In red I show the areas we modified my 251 rods. Basically we milled the top and the bottom flat so that the head and nut can sit on a flat surface. I suspect that since the ARP head is not as tall as the stock units and the 265 looks like it has a deeper recess than the 251 (from memory), that if you milled a set of 265 rods and used the ARP 351C bolts one may be good to go.

 

Do remember that I have been using the 251 rods with this modification for over 40K miles in a car that is 5000-5500 pounds. So as long as it is done correctly, being careful to make sure no stress risers or nicks are left to cause problems, this may be a solution to the 265 rod bolt issues.

 

What I will do next spring, if someone does not do it first and post the results is...

 

Take a 237/251 rod and grind at home the head an nut side down, not worrying about ever using that rod again.  Then stick it in a 265 and see if it clears and by how much. Remember stretch. If it looks good then when the engine is rebuilt have the shop do one of the 265 rods and try it. If it clears then do them all.

 

Best, James

Edited November 3, 2019 by James_Douglas

[James_Douglas]

I did some digging through my decade old photos and I could not find a good photo of the head six of the rod modifications. I did see that the machinist beveled the ends of the rod bolts and you can see that a good photo.

 

I suspect that the rods can be made to use the ARP 351C bolts for a lot less money that to have bolts made for the 265 or the 251.

 

James.

[Loren]

Hi James, the ARP bolt shown in your photo is the "football shape" I was talking about.

The idea with those is that most bolts use a straight cut across the rod for the head. This creates a stress point in the rod, so while the bolt doesn't fail, the rod does.

The football shape is actually a radius. The cut for the bolt head is a matching radius and therefore creates no stress on the rod.

Worrying about the bolts is wise. I read of analysis done by Ford which indicated that most rods can stand plenty of cycles, the failure point is the bolts and what causes them to fail is improper torque. Too tight or too loose...They have to be carefully torqued to achieve the longest life.

Before I'd spend big money on rod bolts, I'd order custom rods. That way you know what they are made of and that they haven't been abused in their lifetime.

CNC machinery has made manufacturing connecting rods so cheap, for some engines it's the best way to go.

I am anticipating someone calling up SCAT and getting them to make 265 cranks and rods. SCAT makes Mercury cranks for Ford V8s and all sorts of flavors of Model A, T and B cranks and rods. Needless to say there are pages of SBC products in their catalog.

Of course a Merc Flathead is 255 cid while a Chrysler is 265. I know a lot of Ford Flathead guys and it wouldn't take much trash talk to find out which has better performance.

[Matt Wilson]

12 hours ago, James_Douglas said:

In the attached photos you can see the remanufactured Federal Mogul Rod. It appears what they did was to take stock rod bolts and grind the sides to fit in place of the 265 special rod bolts.

 

 

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.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Matt Wilson

[James_Douglas]

All they did was grind a stock set of bolts to fit the existing hole. I will do what I did on the 251. Flatten the top and bottom and use the ARP 315C bolts. Worked so far for 40K plus miles...

[Dodgeb4ya]

9560E is the FM 265 rod bolt number.

[Sniper]

9560E doesn't show up as a valid number

 

https://fme-cat.com/PartInterchange.aspx?pn=9560E

 

[Sniper]

 

Might try the freewheeling Tony Smith.  He does serious quality work on our old stiff and I know he rebuilds rods. 

 

https://www.facebook.com/thefreewheelingtonysmith/?eid=ARB8r2CCK_UQRQQxR44IF_auuPG2ODs3r357vJjbCDrmtEmh5N0DTG6Mno8nvR5SCkORxAnYRtAAPjMe

 

If he doesn't have a source for OEM bolts I bet he has a good solution for the issue.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Sniper
added pic

[Dodgeb4ya]

5 hours ago, Sniper said:

9560E doesn't show up as a valid number

 

https://fme-cat.com/PartInterchange.aspx?pn=9560E

 

That # came out of two different 1957 and 1971 Federal-Mogul master parts/bearing books.

[Loren]

I am sending the cam off to Isky today.

The engine came out of some large machine that needed a big engine driven hydraulic pump like a forklift.

The hydraulic pump required a gear driven camshaft as it was driven off the cam gear. A gear driven cam turns the opposite direction than a chain driven cam. Chrysler making cams for both chain and gear drives enabled boat builders to have twin engine boats with counter rotating props. A gear drive cam assembled with a chain drive and a reverse turning starter would happily run backwards.

An easy way to determine which way a cam turns is to look at cylinder number one’s exhaust lobe. The intake closely follows it. So looking on end if the exhaust lobe is to the top right and the intake is to the top left it is chain driven. A gear drive would be exhaust top left and intake top right. A fun factoid to impress your friends!

Chrysler gear drive cams have the gear pressed on the cam and I am loath to remove it, so Isky gets the whole assembly.

With the gear on it this is easily the heaviest cam I’ve ever handled!

The presents of the hydraulic pump forced the relocation of the fuel pump (they moved the eccentric on the cam too)  to the boss towards the flywheel and I am sure an upwards exhaust pipe.

I asked for Isky’s Max #1 Flathead Ford V8 grind. Which should cause no dramatics as the V8 cam is gear driven too.

After dealing with Flathead Fords there sure is a lot to like about this Chrysler! Like an extra 10 cubic inches over a Mercury.

[Sniper]

1 hour ago, Dodgeb4ya said:

That # came out of two different 1957 and 1971 Federal-Mogul master parts/bearing books.

 

maybe in 1971 it was valid.  Today, FM doesn't list it and I find no source for shelf stock.  So unless someone has some squirreled away somewhere it's not a valid number anymore.

[Frank Elder]

A ford v8 grind on a inline 6 camshaft..........I am baffled by your logic.

[Los_Control]

12 minutes ago, Frank Elder said:

A ford v8 grind on a inline 6 camshaft..........I am baffled by your logic.

Is a very valid reason if you want to use ford tie wire for future repairs 

 

I go stand back in my corner now

[Matt Wilson]

9 hours ago, Sniper said:

 

Might try the freewheeling Tony Smith.  He does serious quality work on our old stiff and I know he rebuilds rods. 

 

https://www.facebook.com/thefreewheelingtonysmith/?eid=ARB8r2CCK_UQRQQxR44IF_auuPG2ODs3r357vJjbCDrmtEmh5N0DTG6Mno8nvR5SCkORxAnYRtAAPjMe

 

If he doesn't have a source for OEM bolts I bet he has a good solution for the issue.

Thanks, I will definitely be giving him a call.  I took a look at his Facebook page, and he definitely goes for the vintage iron, including a lot of old Mopar flathead sixes.  He even has a couple of posts about the detailed rework and upgrades he does on rods.  Sure seems like he knows what he's doing!  If anyone can do what I need on those bolts, it looks like he would be the one.

[Dodgeb4ya]

5 hours ago, Sniper said:

 

maybe in 1971 it was valid.  Today, FM doesn't list it and I find no source for shelf stock.  So unless someone has some squirreled away somewhere it's not a valid number anymore.

It would be stupid for FM or any jobber to stock that old #. No market at all.

 At least with any correct part # there is something to start with.

That's how I have found some of the most difficult of all parts to find.

Most old part numbers are not valid anymore. Doesn't matter.

[Loren]

Hi Frank, my logic works like this, a Flathead cam lobe profile and timing doesn't care how many cylinders you have. Long stroke, low RPM, high torque engine pretty much sums up both the V8 and the Chrysler. My objective is to get similar characteristics.

However, digging a little deeper I find that the Chrysler Industrial 265 comes with much more valve lift stock than Isky's full race V8 cam!

In the letter I packed with the cam I said I was open to suggestions, for it is true my level of knowledge pertaining to cams is limited to answering the right questions and then listening to what the experts have to say. I figure they know their business.

Over the years I've come to realize there's not as much magic involved with camshafts as most people think. On one of the cars I raced, I would try a cam, figure out how to get the most out of it by driver technique (shift points) then report back to the cam grinder. I had a lot of cams ground before I had the "perfect one" for what I was doing. But what the hell? It's all about having fun isn't?

[Frank Elder]

Thanks for the knowledge, it doesn't surprise me seeings the ford only made around 60 hp.......Montana boys regrind cams also.

[Loren]

The Ford V8 was called for years the "85" which referred to it's HP.

There was a V8-60 which was a shrunken 85 that replaced the Model B 4 cylinder.

While the flathead Ford has its devotees it had a lot of faults which can be laid on Henry Ford himself's door step.

One biographer quoted an internal study made after his death that said Ford Motor Co. hadn't made any money for 20 years and lost around 45 million or more!

Nobody can say for sure because Henry didn't believe in keeping good books and there is one very good reason: ACCOUNTABILITY.

Henry didn't take criticism well.

For comparison the 1953 Ford had 239 cid from a 3.1875 x 3.750 bore and stroke yielding 110 bhp.

The 1953 Mercury had 255 cid from 3.1875 x 4.00 bore and stroke yielding 125 hp.

The Chrysler had 119 bhp from the same year. The V8 has 3 main bearings for 8 cylinders while the MoPar has 4 mains for 6 cylinders.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

 

I considered the Montana guys but they have not responded to my inquiry as yet.

Ed Iskendarian himself paid a visit to me and my Dad Sept. 16, 2011. I'd been in the same place at the same time with him many times but this was the first time I actually got to talk to him. He's 98 years old and his life is pretty much the history of Hot Rodding. Isky's MAX # 1 is noted for being one of the better street cams for a V8.

[Sniper]

21 hours ago, Dodgeb4ya said:

It would be stupid for FM or any jobber to stock that old #. No market at all.

 At least with any correct part # there is something to start with.

That's how I have found some of the most difficult of all parts to find.

Most old part numbers are not valid anymore. Doesn't matter.

With today's CAD/CAM setups once it's been programmed it can be "stocked" forever.  Just load the program, material and hit start.  That means a part number could be valid in perpetuity.