|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: HYPER8oSoNic]
#62410
12/10/09 02:55 AM
12/10/09 02:55 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,861
Riverside, Ca
R70RUNNER
master
|
master
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,861
Riverside, Ca
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing wrong with a 413, BUT the market has forgotten it. That said, I'm glad the letter cars exist, they were a milestone, and so was the model T ford, doesn't mean I want a T 4cylinder engine.  Why pound on a dead horse? IF I could buy pistons for the 413 I have lying in my shop now I would have built it  But I'm not going to invest $800+ into custom pistons and still net 30 cubes less then a 440 with $300 pistons, and have shrouded valves from the TINY bore  I seriously tried for over a year to FIND pistons for the 413, no luck... It's now donating it's crank to a 446 build. Fire away 
Thats why you don't need to get those 1500+ dollar
eddy heads or victors. You can stroke a 413 and
gain even more torque and have a great street motor. You can't just rev on it like a 340 or 383
because it isn't the same as one. Power is down
low, so gear up the car accordingly to run well.
Besides you made the first smart move to put the
413 crank into the 440. Chances are the original
440 crank was cast. Now make another smart move and put a 4.15" stroker arm in the 413. Costs
just as much to stroke a 440, no excuses. Beat on
a dead horse? Beat on this one and it will take
you on a wild ride!
 No fancy crap on this build. Used 902's with big valves, $450 clearance Ross pistons and a moparts found racer brown solid cam! Should be plenty stout with minimal $$$ ... FWIW, Do the math, if you use 383 pistons and a 4.15" arm, the pistons are proud in the 413... already tired that.
Current cars: 2000 Dak Quad Cab, 2012 Challenger,1970 Road Runner, 1994 Firehawk
1966 Coronet post sedan, 1988 Corvette, 2005 Magnum RT all SOLD
R70RUNNER<---VP Inland Empire Chapter of the MPM
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: R70RUNNER]
#62411
12/10/09 03:07 AM
12/10/09 03:07 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,994
Oregon
AndyF
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,994
Oregon
|
Quote:
Nothing wrong with a 413, BUT the market has forgotten it. That said, I'm glad the letter cars exist, they were a milestone, and so was the model T ford, doesn't mean I want a T 4cylinder engine. Why pound on a dead horse? IF I could buy pistons for the 413 I have lying in my shop now I would have built it But I'm not going to invest $800+ into custom pistons and still net 30 cubes less then a 440 with $300 pistons, and have shrouded valves from the TINY bore I seriously tried for over a year to FIND pistons for the 413, no luck... It's now donating it's crank to a 446 build. Fire away
Exactly. Why would anyone waste money on custom pistons for a 413 only to have the tiny bore size, shrouded valves and limited displacement? Rebuilding a number matching vehicle is one thing but otherwise it is just a poor choice.
Hopefully most people who read this thread will think straight and see that a 413 is the least capable of the RB motors. Just like the 350 and 361 are the worst possible B motors for a performance project.
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: R70RUNNER]
#62412
12/10/09 03:11 AM
12/10/09 03:11 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
HYPER8oSoNic
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
|
Hey Runner, why is it that we (the few) are getting this concept and some others like the
hi$$$dollar route?
"Stupidity is Ignorance on Steroids"
"Yeah, it's hopped to over 160" (quote by Kowalski in the movie Vanishing Point 1970 - Cupid Productions)
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: AndyF]
#62413
12/10/09 03:33 AM
12/10/09 03:33 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
HYPER8oSoNic
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing wrong with a 413, BUT the market has forgotten it. That said, I'm glad the letter cars exist, they were a milestone, and so was the model T ford, doesn't mean I want a T 4cylinder engine. Why pound on a dead horse? IF I could buy pistons for the 413 I have lying in my shop now I would have built it But I'm not going to invest $800+ into custom pistons and still net 30 cubes less then a 440 with $300 pistons, and have shrouded valves from the TINY bore I seriously tried for over a year to FIND pistons for the 413, no luck... It's now donating it's crank to a 446 build. Fire away
Exactly. Why would anyone waste money on custom pistons for a 413 only to have the tiny bore size, shrouded valves and limited displacement? Rebuilding a number matching vehicle is one thing but otherwise it is just a poor choice.
Hopefully most people who read this thread will think straight and see that a 413 is the least capable of the RB motors. Just like the 350 and 361 are the worst possible B motors for a performance project.
Andy, you didn't read Larry's book yet. Most 350 and 361 were utility motors, basic workhorses. No
440 head would fit the block right. They were not designed for the stretch in bore size, that was
intended later with the 413. Althought the 361
made it to 66', the motor was out gunned by the
383, in many ways. The popularity of 400+ cubes
in the Chrysler motor stable is here for a long time, or until it less expensive to build a
factory 500 inch stroker motor cheaper than the
factory six pack 440. Get the drift?
"Stupidity is Ignorance on Steroids"
"Yeah, it's hopped to over 160" (quote by Kowalski in the movie Vanishing Point 1970 - Cupid Productions)
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: HYPER8oSoNic]
#62414
12/10/09 08:53 AM
12/10/09 08:53 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,180
Detroit, MI
CokeBottleKid
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,180
Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing wrong with a 413, BUT the market has forgotten it. That said, I'm glad the letter cars exist, they were a milestone, and so was the model T ford, doesn't mean I want a T 4cylinder engine. Why pound on a dead horse? IF I could buy pistons for the 413 I have lying in my shop now I would have built it But I'm not going to invest $800+ into custom pistons and still net 30 cubes less then a 440 with $300 pistons, and have shrouded valves from the TINY bore I seriously tried for over a year to FIND pistons for the 413, no luck... It's now donating it's crank to a 446 build. Fire away
Exactly. Why would anyone waste money on custom pistons for a 413 only to have the tiny bore size, shrouded valves and limited displacement? Rebuilding a number matching vehicle is one thing but otherwise it is just a poor choice.
Hopefully most people who read this thread will think straight and see that a 413 is the least capable of the RB motors. Just like the 350 and 361 are the worst possible B motors for a performance project.
Andy, you didn't read Larry's book yet. Most 350 and 361 were utility motors, basic workhorses. No
440 head would fit the block right. They were not designed for the stretch in bore size, that was
intended later with the 413. Althought the 361
made it to 66', the motor was out gunned by the
383, in many ways. The popularity of 400+ cubes
in the Chrysler motor stable is here for a long time, or until it less expensive to build a
factory 500 inch stroker motor cheaper than the
factory six pack 440. Get the drift?
I don't think anyone gets your drift.
Let me sum up what Andy's been saying this whole time
A 440 is superior in every way to a 413 and no one should ever waste their money building a 413 unless they're looking for factory correctness..... /thread
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: Reggie]
#62415
12/10/09 10:14 AM
12/10/09 10:14 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
Quote:
Gee, if the 413 was so great, it's a wonder that Ma Mopar just didn't keep that displacement and forget about the 426, 440. 
They probably would've stayed with the 413 for a bit longer if other people had stayed with their 406, 409, 410, 421, etc, in the mid-60s. Gotta keep up with the Joneses.
And back to the OP:
Is the 413 special? No. But useless? NO!
If this engine is in good runnign condition and is a not a truck engine, it should have a decent CR. Stick in a slightly bigger cam, swap the 'flat' manifold and little AFB for soemthign better, stick on a set of headers, and have a nice-running, torquey bigblock.
If we followed this engine rhetoric to the boxing ring there'd be no middleweight class, fellas.
63 is the last year for the bolt-on rockershaft pedestals on the heads, in case that matters.
Parts I seek:
driver doorpanel, 65 Sport Fury, prefer black, needs to be 7-8 on 10 scale, might buy set
16" x 6" Dodge truck wheel(s), from early 70s?, takes 9" dogdish - need for a research job so cheaper is better.
69-73 C-body caliper brackets and/or splashields
Send a PM.
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: 340Scamp]
#62418
12/10/09 12:46 PM
12/10/09 12:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
ScottSmith_Harms
Mr Wizzard
|
Mr Wizzard
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
|
V = 1964 model year 41 = 413 11 27 = Assembly date November 27th 1963 HP = High Performance Hmmmmmmm  1964 HP 413's only went into 300's with Short Ram intakes, I can't think of any other HP 413's in 1964? That one qualifies as special for sure!
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: Fury Fan]
#62419
12/10/09 12:58 PM
12/10/09 12:58 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
A 440 is superior in every way to a 413 and no one should ever waste their money building a 413 unless they're looking for factory correctness..... /thread
Apparently most folks can't swing a dead cat without hitting a steel-crank 440. Around here the trees are all dead and people are wanting $600+ for cast-crank smoggers that they say 'ran rill guud when we yanked it 10 years ago'.
I'd take a cheap, good-running 413 that I stumbled across over searching for a 440 any day of the week.
A 413 is a 440 with 27 fewer cubic inches. So, all other things being equal, it will have 27 cubic inches less horsepower and 27 cubic inches less torque. Plus there is no good off-the-shelf piston for a 413.
On the other hand, a 413 has 30 cubic inches more than a 383. With a .062 overbore, it would have the same size bore as a 426 Hemi (which no one accuses of having a "tiny" bore), and would have only 14 less cubes than a 440. And a 413's stock bore is larger than a stroker small block with about the same cubes. Finally, ALL 413's have forged cranks.
There are enough 413's still out there that I don't understand why KB or someone doesn't make a decent, cheap zero-deck piston for it, or at least for 426's and 4.25-bore 413's. That one part would make a 413 a much more desirable alternative to a 440. . . .
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: ScottSmith_Harms]
#62420
12/10/09 01:01 PM
12/10/09 01:01 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
V = 1964 model year
41 = 413
11 27 = Assembly date November 27th 1963
HP = High Performance
Hmmmmmmm
1964 HP 413's only went into 300's with Short Ram intakes, I can't think of any other HP 413's in 1964? That one qualifies as special for sure!
Wouldn't the single 4-barrel 360 horse 413 that was standard in the 300 letter car have been considered HP? It had a hotter cam than the 340 horse 413 that came in the New Yorker.
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
#62421
12/10/09 01:17 PM
12/10/09 01:17 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
ScottSmith_Harms
Mr Wizzard
|
Mr Wizzard
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
|
Quote:
Wouldn't the single 4-barrel 360 horse 413 that was standard in the 300 letter car have been considered HP? It had a hotter cam than the 340 horse 413 that came in the New Yorker.
Could be, I've just never had the chance to scrutinize an original one in person to see how it's stamped. The smaller stamping characters do look different (they look to be the same as all other regular production engines) unlike the earlier ram induction letter car engines (which had larger font due to being built on the Marine line).
Here's a pic of my 63 300J engine, notice the font difference.
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: 4boxers4]
#62422
12/10/09 01:19 PM
12/10/09 01:19 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
Quote:
No they are not special. They are in the "can't give it away" category. Also, 413s equally built with a 440 will always have less torque as torque is primarily determined by cubic inches. But what to do with a good 413 block? This is why I developed my recipe for a 472 built on a 413 nearly free block.
Use the stock rods and a 4.15" stroker crank. Bore the engine to fit standard bore cast 383 pistons, the type with compression height about 1.83 or lower. Put it together, it is going to have to be balanced, should be close though.
Use any set of open chamber cast iron heads, the 452s are nice. Use a camshaft with about 230 degrees of intake duration, we are building a torque motor. Use your favorite 440 intake.
R.
Torque is not about cubic inches as much as it is about stroke(hence stroker kit=more torque). In addition, the factory specs show the 65 413 with 340hp/470tq and the 413 x 2 4bbl as 390/485, The best 440 4bbl is 375/480 where as the hemi was 425/490. Even the 426 max wedge was 415/470 and 425/470 in the 13.5 to 1 comp.(ref Motors manual circa 1969). Therefore the 413 IS very competititive. We used to street race alot in the 80's and could find old New Yorkers with these motors in them that ran well. Blow one up, spend $50~100 and half a day swapping in a new one. Aftermarket parts availability is the limiting factor. 
yes, max torque is primarily a function of displacement. Car Craft did a test a number of years ago with 383 CID LS1's. one was stock stroke, all bore, the other was stock bore all stroke. everything else (cam, heads, compression, induction, exhaust) was identical. I don't remember if they varied the rod length to keep the rod ratio the same... guess what? they made essentially the same amount of HP and torque, the all bore motor actually incrementallys (2-3) more, most likely due to less valve shrouding.
wish I could find that article again...
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: AndyF]
#62423
12/10/09 01:25 PM
12/10/09 01:25 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing wrong with a 413, BUT the market has forgotten it. That said, I'm glad the letter cars exist, they were a milestone, and so was the model T ford, doesn't mean I want a T 4cylinder engine. Why pound on a dead horse? IF I could buy pistons for the 413 I have lying in my shop now I would have built it But I'm not going to invest $800+ into custom pistons and still net 30 cubes less then a 440 with $300 pistons, and have shrouded valves from the TINY bore I seriously tried for over a year to FIND pistons for the 413, no luck... It's now donating it's crank to a 446 build. Fire away
Exactly. Why would anyone waste money on custom pistons for a 413 only to have the tiny bore size, shrouded valves and limited displacement? Rebuilding a number matching vehicle is one thing but otherwise it is just a poor choice.
Hopefully most people who read this thread will think straight and see that a 413 is the least capable of the RB motors. Just like the 350 and 361 are the worst possible B motors for a performance project.
well....there was a RB 383 for the first year or two if it's existence. IIRC it's a 4.03 bore
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: patrick]
#62425
12/10/09 02:05 PM
12/10/09 02:05 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,111
Bowie, MD
Reggie
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,111
Bowie, MD
|
Quote:
well....there was a RB 383 for the first year or two if it's existence. IIRC it's a 4.03 bore
Yeah, Andy probably didn't mention it because it is insignificant in terms of production numbers.
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: Reggie]
#62426
12/10/09 02:15 PM
12/10/09 02:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
ScottSmith_Harms
Mr Wizzard
|
Mr Wizzard
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
|
Quote:
Yeah, Andy probably didn't mention it because it is insignificant in terms of production numbers.
I had one of those once, 1960 Chrysler Saratoga 2door hard top, "Golden Lion" 383 RB engine. That was a cool car!
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: patrick]
#62427
12/10/09 02:36 PM
12/10/09 02:36 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,994
Oregon
AndyF
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,994
Oregon
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing wrong with a 413, BUT the market has forgotten it. That said, I'm glad the letter cars exist, they were a milestone, and so was the model T ford, doesn't mean I want a T 4cylinder engine. Why pound on a dead horse? IF I could buy pistons for the 413 I have lying in my shop now I would have built it But I'm not going to invest $800+ into custom pistons and still net 30 cubes less then a 440 with $300 pistons, and have shrouded valves from the TINY bore I seriously tried for over a year to FIND pistons for the 413, no luck... It's now donating it's crank to a 446 build. Fire away
Exactly. Why would anyone waste money on custom pistons for a 413 only to have the tiny bore size, shrouded valves and limited displacement? Rebuilding a number matching vehicle is one thing but otherwise it is just a poor choice.
Hopefully most people who read this thread will think straight and see that a 413 is the least capable of the RB motors. Just like the 350 and 361 are the worst possible B motors for a performance project.
well....there was a RB 383 for the first year or two if it's existence. IIRC it's a 4.03 bore
Ah yes, I forgot the totally pathetic 383 RB motor. Came with a cast iron carb if I remember correctly. At least the one 383 RB that I saw had an iron Carter carb on it. Evidently the reason the AFB is called an AFB! (aluminum four barrel)
|
|
|
|
|
