Tony WestOZ Posted July 20, 2008 Report Posted July 20, 2008 Thanks Bill, great info. Now I have to save for your book. Quote
Johnny230 Posted July 21, 2008 Author Report Posted July 21, 2008 (edited) B-Watson said: . Edited December 31, 2021 by Johnny230 Quote
55 Fargo Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Bill you may have answered this ? before, I have an engine from a 1955 Fargo Truck, engine 3 T335 2184 C, is this a 228 or a 251, it has the Partial-flow oil filter, so I am confused, I always thought the 251s had the full flow filters..........Thanx Fred Quote
Allan Faust Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Hey Johnny, welcome aboard... great to hear from another Quebecer..... you're way out east, and I'm up north...... hope to travel down that way sometime.... where in Gaspe are you? Allan Quote
B-Watson Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Bill you may have answered this ? before, I have an engine from a 1955 Fargo Truck, engine 3 T335 2184 C, is this a 228 or a 251, it has the Partial-flow oil filter, so I am confused, I always thought the 251s had the full flow filters..........Thanx Fred Engine number 3 T335 2184 C is for a 2nd series 1955 Dodge/Fargo ½-ton truck, Model C-3-B/FC3-B. The 1954 and 1st series Dodge/Fargo ½-ton truck was model C-1-B/FC-1-B and had engine number prefix T335. Anyway, the 1954-55 T335 was a 228.1-cid engine while the 1955 3 T335 was a 250.6-cid engine. The parts book I have shows the ½-ton truck engines of 1936-56 used the by-pass valve type of oil filter. Bill Vancouver, BC Quote
55 Fargo Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Thanx Bill, any idea how much HP the 228 had for the 1954 1955 model years. I made a mistake when I typed in the engine # it's T335 2184 C, so mine is a 228 ci............Thanx Fred Quote
Johnny230 Posted July 25, 2008 Author Report Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) Allan Faust said: ... Edited December 31, 2021 by Johnny230 Quote
Johnny230 Posted July 25, 2008 Author Report Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) ... Edited December 31, 2021 by Johnny230 Quote
greg g Posted July 25, 2008 Report Posted July 25, 2008 Rings are usually matched to the pistons. So if your pistons are standard, you would order standard rings. If your cylinders are in good shape and you are not boring them, and resuing your pistons, you order rings for the pistons. If the engine has been bored the pistos will be stamped on top for whatever oversize they are. What ever they are, so go the rings. Usually it is best to mark the connecting rods by using metel stamp. You can use a prick punch and mark both the rod and the cap on the same side with . for #1, .. for #2, ... for #3 etc. Good idea to number the pistons and make their direction in the bore. You can use a sharpie. Quote
Johnny230 Posted July 25, 2008 Author Report Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) ... Edited December 31, 2021 by Johnny230 Quote
mackster Posted July 25, 2008 Report Posted July 25, 2008 Welcome aboard johnny230 or should it be johnny 251???? Quote
Johnny230 Posted July 25, 2008 Author Report Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) ... Edited December 31, 2021 by Johnny230 Quote
Johnny230 Posted July 25, 2008 Author Report Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) ... Edited December 31, 2021 by Johnny230 Quote
Allan Faust Posted July 25, 2008 Report Posted July 25, 2008 Those are the right parts Johnny, except maybe the rod bearings.... it all depends on if they need to be worked or not, because in the auction, they are 0.010 oversize, meaning they are for journals that have been shaved a bit.... if there is no scoring, etc on your crank and it doesn't need to be machined, you'd need regular size bearings.... The gasket kit is the right one, though... you've got the right one for the 25" engine..... when installing it, make sure the water hump is in the right place. Allan Quote
greg g Posted July 25, 2008 Report Posted July 25, 2008 Again bearings go with the application after machining. Machining re reounds the rotating components to a smaller diameter on the chank there for bearings with thincker material are needed to make up the difference between the metal removed from the crank and the blocks or rods, So if the crank needs to be turned .010 undersized to remove wear or scratches, then the bearings are .010 oversized to make up the difference, This if done properly restores the factory clearence between the crank and the bearings for oil pressure and circulation reasons, If all thisng are as they should be the crank should be rotating in the oil film and not even touching the bearings whent he engine is running. Maintaining proper tolerences is important for this to happen. Quote
Johnny230 Posted July 25, 2008 Author Report Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) ... Edited December 31, 2021 by Johnny230 Quote
Allan Faust Posted July 25, 2008 Report Posted July 25, 2008 The gasket has an extra "hole" or "hump along one side.... just make sure it fits on the right way..... that is where some make an error, and it just avoids a replacement.... Kanter, Vintage Power Wagons (I think they may be less expensive there if I remember correctly), the bay, are all places where you can find them... Allan Quote
B-Watson Posted July 25, 2008 Report Posted July 25, 2008 Thanx Bill, any idea how much HP the 228 had for the 1954 1955 model years.I made a mistake when I typed in the engine # it's T335 2184 C, so mine is a 228 ci............Thanx Fred The 1954-55 228.1-cid T335 had BHP of 105@3600. Bill Vancouver, BC Quote
55 Fargo Posted July 26, 2008 Report Posted July 26, 2008 The 1954-55 228.1-cid T335 had BHP of 105@3600.Bill Vancouver, BC Bill here is a pic of the above noted engine, it appears to have a C on an embosssment before T335.............Fred Quote
B-Watson Posted July 26, 2008 Report Posted July 26, 2008 Bill here is a pic of the above noted engine, it appears to have a C on an embosssment before T335.............Fred I believe that is some sort of mark placed by an inspector. Chrysler did use various letters and marking to denote over/under specs for bore, camshaft and crankshaft mains, etc., but the letter C was not one of them. Bill Vancouver, BC Quote
Tony WestOZ Posted July 27, 2008 Report Posted July 27, 2008 As Bill has said that "C" has nothing to do with the engine number. You should find 6 of those little metal nobs down the side of the block. On most occasions the letter stamped in them should be the same, but there are occasions were the could be the odd one out. When the engine was machined the bores could be slightly over size. (usually associated with tool wear in mass production) To compensate for this pistons that were slightly over size were fitted. How far the bore was out was carried a letter value. I have an English made 251 that had D stamped into these nobs. I have an article somewhere that explains these variations, I shall try and find it and post it. Quote
Johnny230 Posted July 31, 2008 Author Report Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) ... Edited December 31, 2021 by Johnny230 Quote
Allan Faust Posted July 31, 2008 Report Posted July 31, 2008 Allan, thanks for the heads up on the head gasket hump. Can't see why that could be missed being right out front though! ............................. Is this a good way to check a block for cracks? I have passed the hone in Cyldinder 1 - It looks like the oil ring had made a mark in there, but i wasn't able to take it off! Then it started to look a bit like a crack So i re-installed the head+gasket, capped the therostat housing front water pump housing with steel plates and gaskets, i then took out the elbow pipe and screwed an air fitting in the rear water hose inlet, filled the block with water, then pushed air at 30psi behind it. checked all my cylinders, didn't see any water coming out the walls. For the "crack" get some iron filings and a magnet... spread the filings on the cylinder and put the magnet on the outside... if the filings stand on end, you've got yourself a crack.... best way to be sure is have the block magnafluxed at a machine shop.... As for the gasket.... believe it or not, some people have missed it... i don't know how either.... but.... Allan Quote
Johnny230 Posted July 31, 2008 Author Report Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) ... Edited December 31, 2021 by Johnny230 Quote
Allan Faust Posted July 31, 2008 Report Posted July 31, 2008 Sent you a PM... LMK how it turns out.... Allan Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.