Are 413 Engines really all that special?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

That article is a good example of where everything is well-written and appears to have merit -- if you only take it at face value. However, it does not address opposite compromises/perspectives.

As an example:
He mentions that ring friction is the greatest loss in an engine, which we all accept to be true. He mentions that a shorter stroke has less drag of ring friction -- however he does not quantitatively discuss the 'longer' rings required in a larger bore. Based on a simple circumference calculation, a 440's bore/ring is about 3% longer than a 413 - so there is higher friction with a larger bore.

True. However, any power loss due to friction would be more than offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement.

Quote:

Larger bores take advantage of larger valves � but they weigh more. Running larger valves, and at higher RPM, requires stiffer springs to maintain control � with all else equal, there is increased inertia & more friction in the valvetrain.

Also true. However, that point is moot for this discussion which suggested a heads up comparison of 413 and 440 short blocks with all other variables being equal.

Quote:

Larger bores have more area and therefore require more time for the flame front to travel. This theoretically requires more ignition timing, and advanced ignition timing permits more heat to be lost to the cooling system. Ideally, ignition would start at TDC. Larger bores also have more surface area at the cylinder walls that hold cool end gasses that contaminate the next intake charge.

Again, any power loss due to these factors would be more than be offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement. If this were such an issue, Ma Mopar wouldn't have produced anything with a bigger bore than a RB 383 in the first place.

Quote:

�My subject is racing engines, not street motors, so I'm not concerned with torque at 2,000 rpm. In my view, if you are building an engine for maximum output at a specific displacement, such as a Comp engine, then the bores should be as big as possible and the stroke as short as possible.�

I read that. To me it means that a bigger bore 440 would have the advantage in a race against a 413.

Quote:

It is known that an engine is most efficient at its torque peak, so you increase power by creating more torque pulses/unit time, however they become less efficient individually as RPM increases.

Yeah, if you don�t care about fuel usage and you want to run an engine at max RPM (and don�t care about the higher expenses involved with high-RPM durability), then his statements have more merit.

Again, the issue of stroke is moot with a 413/440 comparison. What he does hit on is bore size and power, which is why I posted the link.

Quote:

It�s all a compromise. Whomever suggested a scientific test of identical 413-440 builds hit the bullseye.

I agree, but I doubt that anyone will bother.

90% of all the information placed by you, Reggie,
is TRUE. But Ma MOPAR increased th bore size from
413 to 440, basically to increase displacement
without altering engine dimensions. To be able
to use the largest Chrysler mill in just about
ANY Chrysler rear-wheel drive chassis. Why? To
save from building different K-Members, and to
keep up with the "Joneses" in the horsepower
game. GM rushed to get a head start with the GTO
and 2 years later Mopar countered with the big
block Coronet option 67' 440 GTX, which formed
the basis of Famous Road Runner. Big bore motors
were the rage back in the late sixties, early seventies. Till longer stroke motors took the
spotlight away. More power, less rpm/engine wear,
more torque/better economy. The 440 sadly left us
in 78', due to more efficient mills of economy and
environmental designs.
AS for the Quotes on the 440, I've been saying it
for a while now, if you are class racing or All
out racing then the 440 IS for you. Street, street
strip racing, in my book 413's get the nod for me.
Ther may be "NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT, but
at the "LIGHT or TREE, Torque RULES and a 413 has
an AMPLE SUPPLY right where it's needed LOW-MID
RANGE WHERE IT COUNTS. 440 RUNS BEST in a light weight chassis, where the 413 can run as well
with slightly more weight.

I can't believe some of the arguments going on here.

why didn't ma just keep the 413 bore and stroke the motor? you would need the same number of new parts. 413->440 (with the 426 wedge in between) required new pistons, rings, & block.

ma mopar stroking the 413 would have only needed a new crank and pistons, or crank and rods.

there's other issues with stroking vs. boring to increase displacement. there's worse rod ratio, causing more side loading which could increase bore wear and wastes energy robbing potential horsepower. rod ratio also affects piston velocity and acceleration. but what is optimum? it depends on intake port volume (typically bigger ports like a lower rod ratio....BB mopar wedge heads are typically undersized for their displacement, so they benefit from a longer rod)....

Well Patrick, I think that you answered part of
your post yourself. We all might be learning a
little more about things that affect power
production from boring and stroking the 413 to
440. Thanks for the tech.

Posted By: Fury Fan

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 02:14 PM

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.

Posted By: 340Scamp

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 03:08 PM

Posted By: Fury Fan

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 03:26 PM

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.

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 04:46 PM

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!

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 04:58 PM

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. . . .

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 05:01 PM

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.

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 05:17 PM

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.

Attached picture 5659077-413300Jstamp.jpg

Attached picture 5659077-413300Jstamp.jpg

Posted By: patrick

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 05:19 PM

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...

Posted By: patrick

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 05:25 PM

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

Posted By: SomeCarGuy

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 05:31 PM

The NASCRAP guys build their 358's based on what track they are running at. A Martinsville engine will have a different bore and stroke than a Talladega build. But still be a 358.

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 06:05 PM

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.

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 06:15 PM

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!

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 06:54 PM

My 1960 383 originally had an AFB

Posted By: max

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 06:54 PM

just in case anyone wants/has to build a 413. here is a list of cast pistons that are available in different bore sizes.

http://www.summitracing.com/search/Make/...tons&page=1

Posted By: patrick

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 06:55 PM

Quote:

The NASCRAP guys build their 358's based on what track they are running at. A Martinsville engine will have a different bore and stroke than a Talladega build. But still be a 358.

that's possibly due more for rod ratio than stroke.

talledega will have basically 500 miles near redline. you want a bigger rod ratio to keep piston speed down.

martinsville you're up/down the RPM range all day. with large port heads, a smaller rod ratio helps by accelerating away from TDC quicker, giving a stronger vaccuum signal, and possibly more midrange torque. it will create more piston speed for a given RPM, though, which can have detrimental effects on engine longevity if held at max RPM for sustained periods of time.

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 07:33 PM

Yous guys 'r doing it rong...!
Don't compare a 413 with a 440, just compare a 413 with a 383.
I see a 413 as a 'better' 383...

440's are good for racing because of the larger bore, but a 413 is just as good of a street-only motor as a 440.

I think maybe it's time for a percentage-wise 413 vs 440 SHOOTOUT !!

A 413 is just a "94% 440".

Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 08:09 PM

Quote:

Hey Runner, why is it that we (the few) are getting this concept and some others like the
hi$$$dollar route?

Building a 413 costs more $ than a 440. Don't you have to go custom if you want a flat top zero deck 413 piston with valve reliefs? Forged 440/413 cranks can be had for pretty cheap, and even the cast 440 cranks are said to be able to do 600hp. Add to that the readily available aftermarket stroker kits and it just makes no sense to buy a 413 to build. Even if you pay $500 for a core 440 versus $200 for a core 413, that price will be made up in the difference of piston cost. So even if that is a wash you're still stuck with the smaller bore size and valve shrouding of the 413. Just makes no sense to run one in anything but a #'s matching car. In a period correct car I would sooner build a 440 and put 413 stickers on it like 383man did on his ride. The 413 has no advantage over the 440. Actually I would rather have a 383 and build it to rev instead of doing a 413.

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 08:42 PM

I guess there are basically two opinions here. Those who'd build a 413 and those who wouldn't. As far as cost goes there no hard & fast way to measure it other than to compare the one single thing that affects the cost of building either, piston cost. If you get the "right" price on a 413 to start with that cost difference could easily be negated to zero $. The other difference is the scant amount of HP difference you'd give up by building a handful fewer cubic inches and MAYBE a few HP due to a wee bit more valve shrouding (really splitting hairs on that one IMO).

So, let's give the HP/TQ edge to the 440 over the same build on a 413. What's it going to boil down to in terms of peak HP? (which rarely gets seen in street use) maybe 20HP? Who knows until someone actually does a build off, but I'd bet it's not as much as some pro 440 guys would like to think.

At the end of the day if I were given a free 440 core and a free 413 core, I'd build the 440. But the 413 wouldn't just get robbed of it's forged crank and tossed in the dumpster, it would go under the bench as a VERY close second choice for a future project.

Posted By: dOc !

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 08:55 PM

A bigger bore is-the-plan ? .. then you better TALK with the engineers that designed the V-10 motors ...and how about the exotics from Europe ?

I am a fan of the 413 ... since the cyl wall thickness is famous for being best-er than a 440....in general.

Piston availability ? ... I hope to be doing something about that. I am a fan of the RV motor ...which is a feeble piece due to the fuel delivery, camshaft and of course COMPRESSION ratio. Some of those have speced-out to - in the neighborhood of - 6.5 to one !

Some GOOD pistons will help that out.

Posted By: R70RUNNER

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 08:57 PM

And that's exactly what I'm doing Scott. I really think with all the MH and Idust. 413 that are around and being gathered up. Someone. (KB Maybe?) will wake up and offer some reasonable price and performance pistons to warrant using them again

Posted By: dOc !

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 09:02 PM

Quote:

I really think with all the MH and Idust. 413 that are around and being gathered up.

Are you pointing a finger at ME ? ..

I have NINE complete motors.

Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 09:05 PM

Quote:

And that's exactly what I'm doing Scott. I really think with all the MH and Idust. 413 that are around and being gathered up. Someone. (KB Maybe?) will wake up and offer some reasonable price and performance pistons to warrant using them again

Why would they? Core 440's are not hard to find and are not that pricey unless you're going for a late 60's dated block. And most muscle car guys are going to want the 440 instead of the 413 just because of the familiarity and image. Just like most guys will want a 340 over a 318 or 360. I agree, the power difference won't be huge, and likely insignificant on the quarter mile. You guys wanting 413 pistons, well yeah if I was in your shoes and had a 413 or two sitting around, I might be interested too. But if I'm starting with scratch and don't have an engine, I'll just limit myself to 440's and even if I pay a few hundred bucks more, at least I can pick a simple off the shelf piston and not even have to think about it. Also FWIW, I've NEVER seen a 413 for sale around here. Seem many 440's, 383's and some 400's but never a 413.

Posted By: 1_WILD_RT

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 09:14 PM

Why would they make 413 pistons.. They don't even make 383 pistons the right way... Over 3 million 383's were built but no off the shelf piston is available to make a true 10-1 Quench motor...

Posted By: patrick

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 09:17 PM

Quote:

I guess there are basically two opinions here. Those who'd build a 413 and those who wouldn't. As far as cost goes there no hard & fast way to measure it other than to compare the one single thing that affects the cost of building either, piston cost. If you get the "right" price on a 413 to start with that cost difference could easily be negated to zero $. The other difference is the scant amount of HP difference you'd give up by building a handful fewer cubic inches and MAYBE a few HP due to a wee bit more valve shrouding (really splitting hairs on that one IMO).

So, let's give the HP/TQ edge to the 440 over the same build on a 413. What's it going to boil down to in terms of peak HP? (which rarely gets seen in street use) maybe 20HP? Who knows until someone actually does a build off, but I'd bet it's not as much as some pro 440 guys would like to think.

At the end of the day if I were given a free 440 core and a free 413 core, I'd build the 440. But the 413 wouldn't just get robbed of it's forged crank and tossed in the dumpster, it would go under the bench as a VERY close second choice for a future project.

power difference, with both motors being built identically, I'd expect the 413 to make ~6.5% less power, since it's ~6.5% bigger. so for say, a 450HP/480tq 440 build, I'd expect the 413 to make ~422hp/480 tq.....

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 09:49 PM

Quote:

power difference, with both motors being built identically, I'd expect the 413 to make ~6.5% less power, since it's ~6.5% bigger. so for say, a 450HP/480tq 440 build, I'd expect the 413 to make ~422hp/480 tq.....

Well those numbers go right inline with my blind stab in the dark guess, (your 28hp vs my 20hp difference guess). At any rate it's all guesswork until someone does a build off of both and dynos them both, same day, same dyno, as many constants as you can throw at the test, etc.

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 10:17 PM

Quote:

I have NINE complete motors.

Ah Doc! That's where just about all of the remaining 413's are then...

I've got FOUR of these undiscovered torque-monsters waiting for a good set of cheap slugs to hit the market.
I contacted KB several years ago, but at the time they didn't have any plans of making pistons for the 413.

BTW, here's something to ponder about...
The smaller diameter pistons of a 413 would also mean less ring contact-area in the cylinders, so less ring-drag. Freeing up torqy horses.
If my stone-age calculations are somewhat correct, there's a combined total of roughly 13.8" (!) less ringcontact on a 413-piston compared to a 440-piston.

Smaller piston-tops also mean flame-travel is shorter across the top, meaning faster completion of burn?
Which might also give less chance for detonation (Less area where pre-ignition can occur?).

Or am I jumping conclusions?

Posted By: coronet1966d

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 10:22 PM

i dont think anything is wrong with any of the RB motors. piston availability sucks for the 413 sure but just bore it to 426 and your set! no need to bicker about it run what you have!

Posted By: CokeBottleKid

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 10:42 PM

Being a pre 66 block, aren't 413s lacking the side casting ribs in the block?

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 10:56 PM

The extra ribs started appearing in '69 or '70 I seem to recall.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 11:03 PM

Obviously a 440 fanatic. You need to read Larry
Shepards book also. I will repeat for the
reading impaired, 440's are great motors, but there are performance applications (not just
resto's) to where this motor fits the bill and
makes good power. Cause you have only a 413,
does not mean you can't run. You have to pick
your fights carefully. Sure 440's rule the upper
classes and sub-11 second in doorslammer ET races.
That is great too, but for a good street car that
is tractable and makes great power to have fun with, I would consider a 413 (cheap to build in the long run, more torque where you need it low
midrange), as if I'd consider a 440. To me one
is as good as the other, you just have to build
it a little differently. Final note, as far as
being "special" only the Long-Ram, Cross Ram and
Inline Dual Quads 413's are special. There were
a limited number of each type built. And that is
a true fact.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 11:07 PM

You hit the nail on the head! There is a little
more to making torque than just cubic inch growth,
Good science and machinists math, Big Block.

Posted By: dOc !

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 11:08 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I have NINE complete motors.

Ah Doc! That's where just about all of the remaining 413's are then...

I've got FOUR of these undiscovered torque-monsters waiting for a good set of cheap slugs to hit the market.
I contacted KB several years ago, but at the time they didn't have any plans of making pistons for the 413.

BTW, here's something to ponder about...
The smaller diameter pistons of a 413 would also mean less ring contact-area in the cylinders, so less ring-drag. Freeing up torqy horses.
If my stone-age calculations are somewhat correct, there's a combined total of roughly 13.8" (!) less ringcontact on a 413-piston compared to a 440-piston.

Smaller piston-tops also mean flame-travel is shorter across the top, meaning faster completion of burn?
Which might also give less chance for detonation (Less area where pre-ignition can occur?).

Or am I jumping conclusions?

HermO ... if you have FOUR of those - across-the-pond - that is far FAR more impressive than my nine. BTW ...where did you come-up with those? .. I found most of mine at via eBay or CL.

The piston plans ? .. I have been in touch with a couple of diff people on this. I am looking at REpowering that MH in my avatar and will probably be using a 4.15 crank with the MH heads. This combo will probably net the best compression ratio with those huge combustion chambers of those MH heads.

Your points about ring-drag, flame-travel and a better-burn are very much valid.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 11:20 PM

I agree with some of of your thread, but a 600
anything I'd run a STEEL CRANK. As far as the
small bore/small valves they are on the right path to produce TORQUE. Plus the flame travel
across the piston is less meaning less chance
of DETONATION. More torque in some way offsets
horsepower at the lower and midrange of the rpm
scale.

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 11:28 PM

Quote:

HermO ... if you have FOUR of those - across-the-pond - that is far FAR more impressive than my nine. BTW ...where did you come-up with those? .. I found most of mine at via eBay or CL.

Funny enough I found 3 of them in cars I had bought over time. All of these 3 are resting under workbenches now.
The fourth one was my first 413 which I purposely bought out of a parted out '65 Imperial to replace the 'uncorrect' ticking 440 in my '62 stationwagon. I just thought the wagon should have a CubicInch-numbers-matching

motor under the hood.
The ticking in the 440 turned out to be the solid lifters just needing adjustment...

At the time I had just replaced the timing chain and gears in the 413 and put the motor in the wagon in which it did duty since then. It is getting a little tired now though.

Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 11:35 PM

Quote:

I would consider a 413 (cheap to build in the long run, more torque where you need it low
midrange)

How is a 413 cheap to build in the long run if the only way to get half decent piston is to go custom? Other than that every other aspect of the rebuild would cost the same as on a 440.

Quote:

I agree with some of of your thread, but a 600
anything I'd run a STEEL CRANK. As far as the
small bore/small valves they are on the right path to produce TORQUE. Plus the flame travel
across the piston is less meaning less chance
of DETONATION. More torque in some way offsets
horsepower at the lower and midrange of the rpm
scale.

I challenge you to build a 413 that would beat an identically built 440 can on the strip or on the street. All this tech jargon is good stuff, in theory, but the real world has proven all that to not really make enough difference to affect your timeslip at the track. Detonation control isn't a big issue on a 440 if you know how to setup your engine and I don't think that 413 is going to make more torq in the bottom end, at least nothing that would show up on the butt dyno or the drag strip. The fact is the 413 isn't a bad engine, there's just no reason to run it over a 440. There are a couple 413 devotees on here who just don't want to hear the truth.

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/10/09 11:42 PM

Quote:

There are a couple 413 devotees on here who just don't want to hear the truth.

I think in all fairness, that finger can be pointed in EITHER direction

Posted By: R70RUNNER

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 12:08 AM

Quote:

Why would they make 413 pistons.. They don't even make 383 pistons the right way... Over 3 million 383's were built but no off the shelf piston is available to make a true 10-1 Quench motor...

Your telling me!

Posted By: A47

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 12:25 AM

Quote:

just in case anyone wants/has to build a 413. here is a list of cast pistons that are available in different bore sizes.

http://www.summitracing.com/search/Make/...tons&page=1

yeah was just looking Huges do them also
http://www.hughesengines.com/Index/produ...GV0ZSBFbmdpbmVz

Posted By: scratchnfotraction

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 01:14 AM

I would take a good running used one just to be different and go cruzing

I am gonna run the used 440 I gots cause I got it for 300$ with a tranny,75,000 miles on the clock

the 413 sounds to be in line with the 318,nobody wants one,cant give them away

same with 273 sb,but look at the "REV" and his "class of 65" ,tell me small cubes,short strokes dont work

I beg to differ,street cars are not race cars,so the cool factor comes in and nothing is cooler than standing around in a chevy crowd boasting about a little 413 that some little ol lady drove to church

and is a sleeper 426

blow it up and move on

run what you brung

even if its just on an engine stand fully dressed for the club house

any body want to donate me one

,I give 2$ over scrap price

before the DOC gets em all

Posted By: CokeBottleKid

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 01:33 AM

Quote:

I would consider a 413 (cheap to build in the long run, more torque where you need it low
midrange)

No...

Posted By: 11secondC

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 03:04 AM

I ran a '62 413 in my '67 VIP years ago, at the time, I was in college build consisted of a rehone/rering job, new bearings, 484 cam, cut down 452's I used the MP templates on, RPM and a 750 Carter...14.1x's @ 97...

Buddy at the same time in a '74 Roadrunner did the same build on his 440, same cam, intake, heads etc, both cars were geared with 3.91's and 2500 converters, and with drivers we were within 75 lbs of each other...his best run was 13.8x's@ 98...

On the street whoever hooked first won the redlight fight heh...

Posted By: maundmotorworks

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 03:11 AM

Quote:

Have the chance to purchase a raggity 63 Imperial 4 door with a 413 and pushbutton Trans.

I mainly want the car for the motor.Is the 413 really anything special?

What about aftermarket speed goodies? Does anyone make anything for these motors? Been told Pistons are $$$

Can anyone shed light on this motor?

If you get that '63 Imperial and part it out, PM me....there's a few tings I want for my '63...

Posted By: 1_WILD_RT

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 03:24 AM

Quote:

If you get that '63 Imperial and part it out, PM me....there's a few tings I want for my '63...

The most useful thing to come out of this thread.... Except it was originally posted Fri May 23 2008 11:48 PM

Posted By: GTX MATT

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 03:30 AM

If anyone has a 413 that you cant stand sitting around I will take it off your hands. Theres a set of high compression 413 max wedge pistons in the for sale section for 250 dollars. Sure theyre heavy but hey they worked back then.

Posted By: SPWC

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 03:41 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Have the chance to purchase a raggity 63 Imperial 4 door with a 413 and pushbutton Trans.

I mainly want the car for the motor.Is the 413 really anything special?

What about aftermarket speed goodies? Does anyone make anything for these motors? Been told Pistons are $$$

Can anyone shed light on this motor?

If you get that '63 Imperial and part it out, PM me....there's a few tings I want for my '63...

Actually,I have passed on that deal. I see the car all the time from the highway when I travel to Tucson.

It was posted in an ad on CL for a little while. I inquired and wanted to see if it was the same car. Turns out it is and the guy wants $1100 for it.

Maybe a smoking deal for the right person,but im just not interested in at that price,especially after what I have read here about the 413. For what its worth,id rather find a 440 and get a fresh start there.If anyone is interested I can try to get pics and more info. PM me.

Posted By: cornucopia

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 05:20 AM

Quote:

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!

I know where TWO of those cars sit side-by-side today...the first 383RBs I have ever seen...but DOUBLE!

Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 05:40 AM

Quote:

Quote:

There are a couple 413 devotees on here who just don't want to hear the truth.

I think in all fairness, that finger can be pointed in EITHER direction

True, but at least the 440's got the aftermarket support going for it as well as the 70's updates to the block design...

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 05:52 AM

Quote:

True, but at least the 440's got the aftermarket support going for it as well as the 70's updates to the block design...

Don't you mean "At least the 440's got more piston choices going for it"? Because that's all it boils down to, all other aftermarket parts currently made will fit and work on either one equally.

As far as the block design, what are you talking about? The cast in ribs? Show me where those make any difference in durability or increase in HP? I don't see any real point in even bringing that into the mix.

Posted By: R70RUNNER

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 05:55 AM

Yep, it really all boils down to piston selection/and cost.

Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 06:40 AM

Quote:

Quote:

True, but at least the 440's got the aftermarket support going for it as well as the 70's updates to the block design...

Don't you mean "At least the 440's got more piston choices going for it"? Because that's all it boils down to, all other aftermarket parts currently made will fit and work on either one equally.

As far as the block design, what are you talking about? The cast in ribs? Show me where those make any difference in durability or increase in HP? I don't see any real point in even bringing that into the mix.

Well that and the larger thrust bearing. Minor stuff I agree, but piston selection being the big one. At least with the 440 you can buy an off the shelf stroker kit and go. 413, again custom and small bore kinda defeats the purpose.

Posted By: SomeCarGuy

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 10:45 AM

Posted By: Fury Fan

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 12:17 PM

Quote:

Maybe a smoking deal for the right person,but im just not interested in at that price,especially after what I have read here about the 413. For what its worth,id rather find a 440 and get a fresh start there.If anyone is interested I can try to get pics and more info. PM me.

If you're planning an RB build for that 65 Fury wagon of yours, don't forget the goofy driverside motormount used on the 65 Cs! Not all RB blocks have bosses for it. B engines tend to, 413s have them, and mid-70s 440s tend to have them.

Posted By: patrick

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 01:16 PM

Quote:

Smaller piston-tops also mean flame-travel is shorter across the top, meaning faster completion of burn?
Which might also give less chance for detonation (Less area where pre-ignition can occur?).

Or am I jumping conclusions?

that's a large reason why dodge went with the V10 for the 3/4 & 1 ton trucks. granted, by the early 90's, most of the big block tooling was scrapped, but they found they had trouble meeting emissions on bores much over 4" while still making decent power, so they decided to add cylinders....

Posted By: SPWC

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 02:15 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Maybe a smoking deal for the right person,but im just not interested in at that price,especially after what I have read here about the 413. For what its worth,id rather find a 440 and get a fresh start there.If anyone is interested I can try to get pics and more info. PM me.

If you're planning an RB build for that 65 Fury wagon of yours, don't forget the goofy driverside motormount used on the 65 Cs! Not all RB blocks have bosses for it. B engines tend to, 413s have them, and mid-70s 440s tend to have them.

The wagon is already equipped with a 383 from the factory,and its staying that way. I was just looking at the 63 with the 413 just to "have" the motor and maybe hang onto it for some other vehicle in the future. Not anymore though.

Posted By: maundmotorworks

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 02:58 PM

I never noticed that this post was so old! These guys are right that the 440 is a better choice to build on the basis that the aftermarket offers more stuff for it. Personally, I'd take a good 413 over a 440 any day of the week! They're awesome!

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 03:23 PM

Quote:

These guys are right that the 440 is a better choice to build on the basis that the aftermarket offers more stuff for it.

If you mean pistons when you say "Stuff" you are correct, otherwise EVERY other aftermarket part made and sold as a "440" part today will also fit 413's equally.

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 03:36 PM

Quote:

If you're planning an RB build for that 65 Fury wagon of yours, don't forget the goofy driverside motormount used on the 65 Cs! Not all RB blocks have bosses for it. B engines tend to, 413s have them, and mid-70s 440s tend to have them.

Not all 413's have these bosses. In fact, I dare to say 'most' 413 don't have these. None of the four 413s I have around have these bosses.
Otherwise my '65 300 convertible would have already had one of the 413s I have lying around.
I bought the car engine-less and it currently has a stock-bore but freshened up 383 I found seperatly for it.
The VIN says it came originally with a 413 so I would like to have a 413 in there some day again.

Quote:

I never noticed that this post was so old!

It may be old but it's still recent, by the looks of it...

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 03:41 PM

I have a standard bore 65 413 block with the bosses under my bench, if you want it make shipping arrangements and it's yours in trade for another good core block.

Posted By: Fury Fan

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 03:51 PM

Quote:

Not all 413's have these bosses. In fact, I dare to say 'most' 413 don't have these. None of the four 413s I have around have these bosses.

The VIN says it came originally with a 413 so I would like to have a 413 in there some day again.

Perhaps the bosses are a difference between car and industrial/truck castings? My book shows 6 casting#s for 413s, far more than I would have expected.

Your 1965 VIN shows an engine code? I thought that didn't start 'til 67 or 68.

Do you mean the fendertag?

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 04:00 PM

'Fender-tag' is more correct.

ScottSmith, thanks for the offer!
But ehm, check my location...

Shipping big lumps of iron across the Atlantic quickly rises above the current 'economical value' of such a 413 motor

By the way, I'm currently working on an engine which might be a nice temporary candidate for the '65 convert.

Somehow part of the coolingsystem got filled with concrete

but no-one will notice that anyway. And when the motor is all done I think I'll just say it's a 413 with a 'helper-pump' on top, just to get 440-fanboys riled up...

Posted By: b54406barrel

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 05:47 PM

This si sad, I'm on a trip and still read this site. Sorry buy 413's are way more special than 440's because there's song about 413's. nobody sings about a 440 diggin in!

Posted By: 62maxwgn

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 06:22 PM

Quote:

This si sad, I'm on a trip and still read this site. Sorry buy 413's are way more special than 440's because there's song about 413's. nobody sings about a 440 diggin in!

And those lowly 62 to mid 63 Max Wedge engins were worthless,couldn't get out of their own way.

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 07:08 PM

Ok fellas, let's add this topic to the top of the official "Beaten Dead Horses" list:
413 or 440
340 or 360
318 or 360
400HP 318
Big Block or Small Block
Stroker or Stock Stroke
Eddy or Cast Iron Heads
Auto or 4-Speed
727 or 904
8.25" any good?
Eddy or Holley Carb
741 any good?
742 vs 489
Green vs OEM Tapered bearings
Turbo vs Supercharger
Clutch vs. Flex Fan
Rubber vs Poly vs Polygraphite
Ported or Manifold Vacuum
Ford 9" vs 8.75"
Internal vs External Crank Balancing
440Source parts
Tall vs. Short Spindles

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 07:25 PM

Any motor that gets 5-pages dedicated to it MUST be special... !
But I don't like to think we're done yet here

Get out your clubs and put another horse on the table

Posted By: Pacnorthcuda

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 07:37 PM

The 413 is to the 440 what the 361 is to the 383.

and the 361 aint no "special" engine.
The answer to the question of this thread is NO.

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 08:08 PM

Quote:

The 413 is to the 440 what the 361 is to the 383.

and the 361 aint no "special" engine.
The answer to the question of this thread is NO.

And there you have it!

Posted By: scratchnfotraction

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 08:21 PM

I would still run it even if out dated and slow

just for the cool factor

and a 361 in a 1500lbs rat rod..now thats cool,IMHO

one with the funky heads and water pump on the front swaped in to a rat rod would be interesting in deed...now thats different,you know something like granpa munster would make with straight pipes

now I wish I had one

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 08:25 PM

Funky heads?

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout?

Speaking of funky heads...
Here's another non-special engine, the cheaper cousin' of the early Hemi;

Posted By: R70RUNNER

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 08:31 PM

Quote:

Ok fellas, let's add this topic to the top of the official "Beaten Dead Horses" list:
413 or 440
340 or 360
318 or 360
400HP 318
Big Block or Small Block
Stroker or Stock Stroke
Eddy or Cast Iron Heads
Auto or 4-Speed
727 or 904
8.25" any good?
Eddy or Holley Carb
741 any good?
742 vs 489
Green vs OEM Tapered bearings
Turbo vs Supercharger
Clutch vs. Flex Fan
Rubber vs Poly vs Polygraphite
Ported or Manifold Vacuum
Ford 9" vs 8.75"
Internal vs External Crank Balancing
440Source parts
Tall vs. Short Spindles

Nothing like the winter months on Moparts

Posted By: scratchnfotraction

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 08:40 PM

see how could you not like just the craftsmanship and style of that

thats just even cooler with 2x4s on top

got the hot rod look when transplanted into something else

Posted By: rogue_leader007

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 09:28 PM

the 413, 361, and 318 Poly, all motors that get little respect in the mopar crowd.

I think any of these motors would be great for a first-timer (much like myself). Especially for give-away prices. Just use the extra money you save to build the motors up and watch the competition cry foul.

My buddies re-built Poly is pretty impressive.

Posted By: dOc !

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 10:22 PM

Quote:

Funky heads? Whatchoo talkin' 'bout?

FUNKY heads ? .. gimmme ALL of 'em !

I can NOT believe that no-one has mentioned the MAJOR bennie that the 413 has over the 440 !!

I just MIGHT .... if yous-guyz are really nice ...

...

....

Posted By: minnesota guy

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/11/09 11:56 PM

I used to think so as a younger lad....Hearing about max wedges, and the beach boys 413 song against a belly button...No good pistons for them 15 years ago. They cost more to build than a 440 due to lack of pistons...Had mine in a 69 340 dart...Ran at BIR......stock form--could only get 14.4 qt mile.......cast iron logs however,,..Similar set up with stock 340 and same cam (484's) that ran 13.5 with its logs as well..

I went to 440's---413s have the same steel crank--so take that--and the rods.....Why would you settle for a smaller bore? with no pistons...all things being equal?

440's will out torque them and make more hp--guaranteed....(Not talking max wedges)

413 was great in my 65 chrysler....with 180k miles--could still smoke that rt rear tire...and get about 15mpg....but the heads are the junk 516's and a crappy intake in 65

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 12:00 AM

Quote:

Funky heads? Whatchoo talkin' 'bout?

Speaking of funky heads...
Here's another non-special engine, the cheaper cousin' of the early Hemi;

There's a 57 Saratoga with one of those sitting here in Spokane, big ol' pink 4 door, basically a survivor with a couple isolated rust issues from way back. If he gets real on his price I might buy it, those old "Poly" Hemi's are freaking KEWL engines!

Posted By: zzyzxpat

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 12:14 AM

As somebody who's putting together a 361 for a original car, this has been great entertainment. Old motors are cool... just expensive.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 01:24 AM

Well thank you and I will make you THE official spokesperson for how to build a winning 440.
Problem is you are no Dick Landy, Tom Hoover,
Herb McCantless, Larry Shepard even Ray Barton.
They would tell you every popular performance
mill is worth building. 440's are most popular
with ample cubes, but for a budget-minded person
who has 413's the same rule applies on building
but with a little more emphasis on torque. Torque
is what get you out the "hole". Unless you leave
above 3500 RPM, torque is king. As for the technical jargon, I believe and listen to the "old
school" engine builders and racers. They know far
more technical info. than myself, so I don't
play around with knowledge, it is a shared
resource when building engines, trannys or putting
a car together.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 01:30 AM

Quote:

Quote:

I would consider a 413 (cheap to build in the long run, more torque where you need it low
midrange)

How is a 413 cheap to build in the long run if the only way to get half decent piston is to go custom? Other than that every other aspect of the rebuild would cost the same as on a 440.

Quote:

I agree with some of of your thread, but a 600
anything I'd run a STEEL CRANK. As far as the
small bore/small valves they are on the right path to produce TORQUE. Plus the flame travel
across the piston is less meaning less chance
of DETONATION. More torque in some way offsets
horsepower at the lower and midrange of the rpm
scale.

I challenge you to build a 413 that would beat an identically built 440 can on the strip or on the street. All this tech jargon is good stuff, in theory, but the real world has proven all that to not really make enough difference to affect your timeslip at the track. Detonation control isn't a big issue on a 440 if you know how to setup your engine and I don't think that 413 is going to make more torq in the bottom end, at least nothing that would show up on the butt dyno or the drag strip. The fact is the 413 isn't a bad engine, there's just no reason to run it over a 440. There are a couple 413 devotees on here who just don't want to hear the truth.

Some people just don't like history. On the subject of price, we all know stroker cranks
cost MORE than pistons for a 413.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 01:50 AM

Take your glasses off!! Correction in print: 440's
are superior to 413's in SOME ways, 440's have their place on the street and the track, and so
do 413's, youngster. Repeating, if there were no
Ram-Induction, Max-Wedges or, Cross-Rams, there
would be no Magnums, Commandos or Six Barrel/Six
Packs. "RBs", and even some standard "B" mills,
were weaned on hi-performance, multi-carb technology ("old school science").

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 01:59 AM

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.

If you do it right with home porting on the heads using the templates, you should end up with an honest 400 hp and 550 lb-ft of torque (guess-top dyno). This engine will outpull a similarly built 440 up to say 4500 rpm. Compression ratio will be around 9.5:1, pump gas friendly.

Or you can sell the 413 for 11 cents a pound.

R.

Torque rating is pretty close. Good recipe, great
ingredients, but I would go a tad higher in compression. Thanks for the idea.

Posted By: stumpy

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 02:02 AM

Hey hyper, 413s are old school has been motors. The reason they didn't keep making them is they weren't good enough to stick with. New engineering with the 426 wedge setup made them obsolete. The 62 dart in my sig picture, taken in 1966,is a cross ram 413 so I have experience. They are a great period piece for nostaliga but not for todays race builds.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 02:40 AM

Quote:

Hey hyper, 413s are old school has been motors. The reason they didn't keep making them is they weren't good enough to stick with. New engineering with the 426 wedge setup made them obsolete. The 62 dart in my sig picture, taken in 1966,is a cross ram 413 so I have experience. They are a great period piece for nostaliga but not for todays race builds. [/quote
Thanks for the nostalgia bit "Stumpy", but I do like to combine "old school science" with "todays
technology". If the motors back then were strong
enough to run in the 12's and 11's back then,
this day and age of improved cams, ignition and
other engine parts will up the ante by least a
full second or, better with CAREFUL techniques and
simple but KEY BLUEPRINTING practices. That is what I am saying. Never throw away usefull piece.
There was a time when "station wagons" did not
fit it at the "strip". Anything can run!! Note:
I know the rules for class racing very well, but
to run the brackets I WOULD run a 413.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 02:55 AM

The "so called" new engineering on the 426 Mill
was simply a bore change and factory upgrades
(stronger internals and valvetrain pieces) along with an increase in compression. Basic hot rod
technology by Chrysler to increase power output.
Same tech was apllied to the 440. Chrysler never
really retired these motors, they were shifted over to the industial/truck division. 440 was the
top engine due to it's cubes to power both cars and trucks to save money, as big engine evolution
started going downhill due to the looming oil situation in the 70's.
Otherwise we would have more choices again in engines.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 03:05 AM

By the way, great looking car "Stumpy". Have not
seen an actual "production looking" version in a
long time. A great picture. Thanks for the
memories.

+

Posted By: dodge_nut

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 03:51 AM

so, 7 pages later you are all still debating the legacy of the 413 and how it relates to the 440 prowess.

413's are not an economically efficient way to build hp or torque. if they were, there would be more of them on the road and more people racing them. that is the truth, and you can argue it to end of the earth, it still will not change the truth.

383 vs 400 arguments are the same way. people say 400's are crap, but all they are are just 383's with bigger bores. 440 is a bigger bore 426 which is a bigger bore 413 which is a bigger bore RB383...

which is better, who cares? which is special? they all are. Which one will give you the most bang for your buck when its a 440 vs a 413.. the 440. there, debate ended. now argue about something worthwhile and quit talking down to people just because they disagree with you. the only time you should look down on someone is when you are picking them up... "youngster".

Posted By: I go fast

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 01:46 PM

This sort of equates to which is better,a 360 or a 20 cu,in less 340.It's a personal choice and cost is a moot point because it's only one persons money,he can spend as he chooses.If you like a 413,build what you want,same goes for a 440.Actually it's nobody's business but your own.If any of you guys ever drove (and I mean ACTUALLY drove) a solid lifter 62 300H,you might have a slightly different outlook on a 413.

And incedintly,the 426 Hemi is 14 cu.in smaller than the 440.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 01:58 PM

Once again I will say this SLOWLY FOR READING
IMPAIRED. 440 are superior in SOME ways to the
413. As for you ALL OUT racers at the track and
class racers, we all know cubic inches rule. I
am not arguing that point, and respect what you
do and bring to the technology table. My hat is
off to you guys. The group I am talking about
are the bracket racers/street machiners who want to run with what they have, instead of throwing
good 413 blocks to the wayside. Some cannot afford
to run 440's at the time and that is where my thread is directed, without your negative rhetoric
shooting them down. Again 413's can be made to
run very well if you have the time to build it
and place it in the right chassis. As for 400's
everbody thought that they were junkyard fodder
until somebody used their noggin and str0ked them.
Now, we have 400 stroker motors running harder than 440's. See my point, ANYTHING can be made to
run, It just takes patience, innovation and good
common sense. As for the term "youngster", I do
apologize to all for the so called "put down",
however if you knew about 413's back then, we
would not be debating now would we. No, we would
be sharing "speed secrets and building tips", to
the young guns and the die hards who held on to
their 30-40+ year old rides. My ending, encorage
those who have less knowledge of what they are
running 440's or OTHER SIZE Mopar mills. Maybe
they just might surprise us all bringing a "new
idea" to the forum. To the 440 guys, respect to you all, but don't knock down the lessser sibling
motors. they have their place on the strip also.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 02:01 PM

Ghost, you said it well man.

Posted By: jcc

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 02:07 PM

Quote:

Ah yes, I forgot the totally pathetic 383 RB motor.

This is just a rehash of the SB 273 vs 318 vs ??? argument. Nothing changes

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 02:09 PM

Quote:

This sort of equates to which is better,a 360 or a 20 cu,in less 340.It's a personal choice and cost is a moot point because it's only one persons money,he can spend as he chooses.If you like a 413,build what you want,same goes for a 440.Actually it's nobody's business but your own.If any of you guys ever drove (and I mean ACTUALLY drove) a solid lifter 62 300H,you might have a slightly different outlook on a 413.

That IS what I am trying to say.
Simply put thread without the "put down",
Thanks again man.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 02:17 PM

Quote:

Ghost, you said it well man.

my only regret is that i now single handedly raised the price of a 413 from scrap value to $1000 for a bare block

LOL!
i might add though that if this topic was about the 413 MAXI engine. this whole conversasion would have taking a drastically different direction. plus looks at all these stroker smallblock engines. 4.12" or 4.18" bores with 4" & 4.25" strokes. are these nay sayers gonna deny that those engines are not worth building either?

Posted By: jcc

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 07:36 PM

This is supposed to about engines, not people, stay OT please. Some might interpet your reply as a baiting comment, I will not quote it to allow an edit, should you reconsider

Posted By: Pacnorthcuda

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 07:43 PM

Quote:

This is supposed to about engines, not people, stay OT please. Some might interpet your reply as a baiting comment, I will not quote it to allow an edit, should you reconsider

And the OP asks "Are 413 Engines really all that special?" In my opinion, no. There is nothing about them that puts them in any sort of special class, like max-wedge, hemis, 6-pack engines etc.
As far as mopar engines go, they are pretty "average" by most metrics.
Thats not to say they aren't a great engine--most mopar engines are!
But "really all that special" ??? No

Posted By: maundmotorworks

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 08:08 PM

Quote:

Quote:

These guys are right that the 440 is a better choice to build on the basis that the aftermarket offers more stuff for it.

If you mean pistons when you say "Stuff" you are correct, otherwise EVERY other aftermarket part made and sold as a "440" part today will also fit 413's equally.

Yes, Scott, by "stuff" I meant pistons. Thank you Mr. Obvious!

As for the other comments made on this thread, I can't help but notice that most people commenting on this are looking at the 413 in the drag racing world. It all comes down to application. In a naturally aspirated drag car, sure, a 440 is a better choice overall because of its displacement and aftermarket piston availability. But overall, a 413 is no more or less special that a 440 4bbl. Both are big, both make good torque numbers, but the 440 is more popular. And we all know that just because something is popular, it doesn't necessarily make it better. Look at Chevys. They're popular, but that doesn't mean they're better. Some engines are better than others depending on application and vehicle. And we all know too well that it takes a whole combination and not just the engine to make a vehicle great for its intended use.

Posted By: 474218

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 08:28 PM

Quote:

And the OP asks "Are 413 Engines really all that special?" In my opinion, no. There is nothing about them that puts them in any sort of special class, like max-wedge, hemis, 6-pack engines etc.
As far as mopar engines go, they are pretty "average" by most metrics.
Thats not to say they aren't a great engine--most mopar engines are!
But "really all that special" ??? No

I seem to remember that the first Max-Wedge engine that you say are in a special class were what, Oh yes they were 413's.

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 08:32 PM

Special enough?

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 08:33 PM

"Mo'" Special

Attached picture 5663248-62maxwedgeA.jpg

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 08:41 PM

Harms knows what is Mo'Better. Excellent pics.
Great details.

Posted By: skyhawk61

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 08:42 PM

There is perhaps one overlooked aspect of all this: The Beach boys sang about a 413 in "Shut Down"; so far, at least to my knowledge, there have been no songs about a 440.That makes a 413 somewhat special (at least until someone musical finds a word to rhyme with "forty"!) Just one low-tension way of looking at it.

Posted By: 62maxwgn

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 09:10 PM

A little history for you young fellow's,and from a car that weighed upwards of 4000lbs and more in some cases with a measley 413 cu.in.

http://www.moparstyle.net/history/300.htm

Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 09:12 PM

The 413 the beach boys were refering to was the max wedge not an average 413

The average 413 is nothing special, I always think it is funny when you see a Cl add for a "rare 413" from a motor home for $4000.

The 440 is more popular because it will make more TQ in an otherwise equally built motor, no rocket science there

Sure the 413 had awesome TQ numbers from the factory but build a 440 with the exact same heads intake cam carb... and it will for a fact make more TQ and equal or greater HP.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 09:16 PM

I agree with you as far as popularity quote.
Because it is popular, does not make it the
"world class motor", you want it to be. Chrysler
always gave the enthusiasts choices, different
strokes for different folks; no pun intended.
Their engines ALL run! Because you have a
high-dollar 440 that is run on both street and
strip, DOES NOT make me a lesser racer (read
person) cause I have a "warmed-over" 383 with
iron heads that runs 12.50's all day. If the guys
are so sure that a single type of motor is so
superior, then enroll in class type racing! Prove
your motors worth. Most of us rather "run against
the clock" and help others to improve their combos to run better. There is no room for
the "ultimate motor", unless you are bucking
for sponsorship to build them. It is called being
a student and scholar in the world of automotive
technology.

Posted By: Pacnorthcuda

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 09:23 PM

Quote:

Quote:

And the OP asks "Are 413 Engines really all that special?" In my opinion, no. There is nothing about them that puts them in any sort of special class, like max-wedge, hemis, 6-pack engines etc.
As far as mopar engines go, they are pretty "average" by most metrics.
Thats not to say they aren't a great engine--most mopar engines are!
But "really all that special" ??? No

I seem to remember that the first Max-Wedge engine that you say are in a special class were what, Oh yes they were 413's.

Go back to the original post--are we talking about a max-wdege engine here? Didn't think so!

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 09:39 PM

Hey, Max Wedge, Long Ram, Short Ram......Like it or not they are all examples of 413's.

Posted By: Pacnorthcuda

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 09:44 PM

Quote:

Hey, Max Wedge, Long Ram, Short Ram......Like it or not they are all examples of 413's.

if only all 413's were like that then they would be special indeed!

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 10:01 PM

Quote:

The 413 the beach boys were refering to was the max wedge not an average 413

The average 413 is nothing special, I always think it is funny when you see a Cl add for a "rare 413" from a motor home for $4000.

The 440 is more popular because it will make more TQ in an otherwise equally built motor, no rocket science there Sure the 413 had awesome TQ numbers from the factory but build a 440 with the exact same heads intake cam carb... and it will for a fact make more TQ and equal or greater HP.

HotRodDave, you are dead on about two of your
three points, (1) Beach Boys WERE singing about
a "RAM INDUCTED 413 vs. a fuelie 327 Vette.
The song was named "Shutdown"
(2) Average 413's aren't that special, but are becoming rare.
(3) 440's may make more horsepower than 413's
due to increased bore size, but are VERY close
if not equal, in torque output. Remember, 90% of
413's were in chassis weighing 4500 lbs or more.
Where as for 440's, a little more than half were
placed in chassis of 3500-4000lbs. Naturally, the
lighter car will run faster with the bigger motor
in it. If the chassis were equal, the 440's advantage would narrow.

Posted By: scratchnfotraction

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 10:32 PM

exactly...what was different between all the 413s?

heads,cam,intakes...correct?

I will run one if I ever come across a "used" one,put it to work like it was built for in a truck to pull my hotrods around.

I gotta think a 413 would do something if it was tuned right,may not be the fastest around on the street...but I bet they would be chasin after it to get in front

or just put it in the mud truck and use the torque

to many opions out there to keep beating the horse,its not getting up

that we dis-iagree

I run anything mopar fellas,beets driveing brand x at any time

those 413s can bait them up and the 440s can shut them down...lets work together here

run what ya brung

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 10:44 PM

Quote:

exactly...what was different between all the 413s?

heads,cam,intakes...correct?

I will run one if I ever come across a "used" one,put it to work like it was built for in a truck to pull my hotrods around.

I gotta think a 413 would do something if it was tuned right,may not be the fastest around on the street...but I bet they would be chasin after it to get in front

or just put it in the mud truck and use the torque

to many opions out there to keep beating the horse,its not getting up

that we dis-iagree

I run anything mopar fellas,beets driveing brand x at any time

those 413s can bait them up and the 440s can shut them down...lets work together here

run what ya brung

LOL. This is an original, very clever post.
Count me in on the 440/413 double team. But I
rather see it this way the 413 shuttin em' down
and the 440 burying what did get by the 413.

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 10:50 PM

I love beating a dead horse, it makes them tender...

Once during a not-so-legal dragrace on an industrial lot I found myself paired against a 454 powered ElCamino. I was in my '62 Chrysler NewYorker wagon, powered by the 413 taken out of an Imperial once.
It was a very cool race to witness as I stayed right beside the Camino all the way from the start to the end.

Same day, doing some whoop-S on a Chevy pickup with a healthy 350 and nitrous, only the bottle was empty so he lost, big time...

Another run against a nice Nova who told me afterwards he had some ignition-problems. After the second run he mentioned he should REALLY be checking out his ignition-system soon... Yeah, sure pal!

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/12/09 11:08 PM

Attached picture 5663553-413angry-preacher.jpg

Posted By: scratchnfotraction

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 12:08 AM

either way,with either on top

they call me the junk man

I have a lot of junk

but I got some fast junk

I will admit,I put a 440 in the 85 truck cause I got it for 300$ with 75,000 miles on the clock from a MH

it should do sumtin..I just shaved 60 foot of MH off it and stuck it in a striped 85 short bed with 3.91 sg got 800$ in the whole thing all "used parts"

you can get some fast junk mixing stock parts around IMHO

let me get a 413,i will be sure to have fun with it

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 12:57 AM

I've heard Andy is secretly working on a new book.

Here's a sneak preview...

Just ribbin' ya Andy!

Posted By: maundmotorworks

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 01:00 AM

Quote:

I agree with you as far as popularity quote.
Because it is popular, does not make it the
"world class motor", you want it to be. Chrysler
always gave the enthusiasts choices, different
strokes for different folks; no pun intended.
Their engines ALL run! Because you have a
high-dollar 440 that is run on both street and
strip, DOES NOT make me a lesser racer (read
person) cause I have a "warmed-over" 383 with
iron heads that runs 12.50's all day. If the guys
are so sure that a single type of motor is so
superior, then enroll in class type racing! Prove
your motors worth. Most of us rather "run against
the clock" and help others to improve their combos to run better. There is no room for
the "ultimate motor", unless you are bucking
for sponsorship to build them. It is called being
a student and scholar in the world of automotive
technology.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 02:44 AM

Quote:

Quote:

This is supposed to about engines, not people, stay OT please. Some might interpet your reply as a baiting comment, I will not quote it to allow an edit, should you reconsider

And the OP asks "Are 413 Engines really all that special?" In my opinion, no. There is nothing about them that puts them in any sort of special class, like max-wedge, hemis, 6-pack engines etc.
As far as mopar engines go, they are pretty "average" by most metrics.
Thats not to say they aren't a great engine--most mopar engines are!
But "really all that special" ??? No

oh im sorry.. did I steps on your guys TOES by questioning what a GURU said about 413's? I suggest you re-read the Gurus statements too.. they went a tad beyond the "YES or NO" answer too.

if your bothered to read my first post on this subject.. here it is again for your amusment

"make that 3 Devotees (i think you and AndyF should try building one FIRST before you guys throw out blanket statements). can't build a 413 to go eh? lol. a pontiac 455 has a bore and stroke of 4.15" � 4.21". nobody can deney that in the day it was a wickedly strong engine. 413 has a 4.18" x 3.75" bore and stroke .030" larger bore then the pontiac 455. valve sizes are roughly the same too. I wager that cube for cube.. ie: stroke a 413 to a 4" stroke making 439cid (yes i know custom pistons blah, blah, blah). the way smaller bore 413 will make more horsepower & torque then the larger bore 440. thats a guarantee"

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 03:09 AM

And throw the same 4" crank in the 440 and watch the real show.....

You guys really crack me up....

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 03:17 AM

and the self proclaimed gurus crack me up as well.
prove me wrong. if you think you get the same hosrepower from a 4.32" x 3.75" vs 4.18" x 4.00" bore and stroke 440 cid engine your sadly mistaken my friend.

Posted By: dodge_nut

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 03:29 AM

Quote:

and the self proclaimed gurus crack me up as well.
prove me wrong. if you think you get the same hosrepower from a 4.32" x 3.75" vs 4.18" x 4.00" bore and stroke 440 cid engine your sadly mistaken my friend.

you are comparing apples to oranges.. make it apples to apples and you are on! no replacement for displacement.

but really, this isnt about which block is better as both had their place in history. it is nothing about stroking one or the other, its about whether or not a 413 block is special, and well.. the answer is no. it is NO WHERE near as special as any other wedge block. they ALL can be strok'd, piston'd, head'd, or cam'd to perform.

so really you are beating a dead horse trying to get others to believe what you want to believe, which is.. well.. i have no idea what it is.

Posted By: SPWC

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 03:39 AM

Think ill stay away from 413 engines all together...This topic is like a tennis match..Back and forth and im getting dizzy

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 03:43 AM

Gee where are the 426 guys???

Attached picture 5664100-426angry-preacher.jpg

Posted By: JonC

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 03:49 AM

I think a 225 slant 6 C body will outrun a 440 A body any day of the week. Only because the /6 is lighter.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 03:50 AM

Quote:

And throw the same 4" crank in the 440 and watch the real show.....

You guys really crack me up....

Ya know Reg', there is such a thing as having
TOO MUCH LOW END. I guess you like watching

tailights from the "tree".

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 03:57 AM

Quote:

Gee where are the 426 guys???

Sitting back, having cold ones,

laughing at the
nonsense you are throwing in the forum.

Posted By: Jwilli500

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:06 AM

Dont forget it will be custom built crank too...

Quote:

ie: stroke a 413 to a 4" stroke making 439cid (yes i know custom pistons blah, blah, blah). the way smaller bore 413 will make more horsepower & torque then the larger bore 440. thats a guarantee"

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:10 AM

Quote:

its which is.. well.. i have no idea what it is.

it is these STUPID claims that a 4.18" bore will not make horsepower.. that there "pathetic" "useless" etc. Hyper, bigblock, know the real story on these engines. the rest of you guys are being herded like sheep.

and Jack, the crank was a hypothetical example.

but again.. prove it wrong.. if you can..

Posted By: stumpy

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:14 AM

You aren't going to get the same kind of horse power out of a 413 that you can a 440 doing the same things to both equally.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:15 AM

Jon, only if if built to HYPERPACK specs or
better. The 440 A Body should not slip the tires
at the start. If the A body hooks good, the 225 will be toast on the big end. If the A Body
burns tires past the tree and the 225 cuts a
good light, things could be interesting. Weight
is a big factor as well as traction.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:26 AM

Quote:

You aren't going to get the same kind of horse power out of a 413 that you can a 440 doing the same things to both equally.

You may be right Stumpy. But the horsepower
difference between the two
is not as great, as everyone quotes it to be.
Where the 413 loses in top end horsepower,it
makes it up, big,

in midrange torque.

Posted By: Jwilli500

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:26 AM

Well, if it's hypothetical, then you cant prove it right or wrong.

Posted By: SomeCarGuy

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:42 AM

Quote:

I've heard Andy is secretly working on a new book.
Here's a sneak preview...

Just ribbin' ya Andy!

He sent me an advance copy. I hate to play spoiler but I will.

1st chapter outlines finding a 440 to build, or finding the best deal on a megablock.

2nd chapter details removing the 413 from your car.

Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:46 AM

The facts are the 413 with same heads cam intake carb... will make

Less power

The 440 will make more power at the low RPM mid range RPM and will be more at higher RPM

The 4.18 bore can make a lot of power, no one is argueing that bore size can not make a lot of power, no one said a 413 will not make a lot of power, just that the 440 will make more when it has the same equiptment, but the simple FACT is that it will not make as much power as the 440s bore size can. The valve will plain and simple be less shrouded in the 440 and will flow more air at virtually every lift includeing LOW lifts. As an aditional bonus with the bigger bore of the 440 you can put a bigger valve in it than you can a 413 and a bigger valve can flow even more at every lift includeing low lifts and will make more power than the port that is restricted to a valve that will fit a 413. The 413 will NOT make more power than a 440 in equally built engines.

If a smaller bore is better than why not build a 383 RB and while you are at it you could throw in some sleeves to make the bores on that even smaller and really make some awesome power

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:52 AM

Quote:

Quote:

its which is.. well.. i have no idea what it is.

it is these STUPID claims that a 4.18" bore will not make horsepower.. that there "pathetic" "useless" etc. Hyper, bigblock, know the real story on these engines. the rest of you guys are being herded like sheep.

and Jack, the crank was a hypothetical example.
but again.. prove it wrong.. if you can..

Ghost, I got this one. You guys are stuck on the
(excuse me chevy guys, no disrespect) CHEVY style
of engine building. Big (4 1/4 inch or better)
slugs and medium stroke (3.75 or 4.00 strokes) big ports, hi-compression, big carb, single plane intakes and if automatic trans are used, they are
using converters that launch the car in the
midrange of it's powerband, knowingly trying to wing a 440 like a 383 (6000-6500 rpm maybe 7000)
Strip fine, street racing borderlining dangerously
street performance sucks. 413's may not be able to
be winged like the above combo, but with it's
strong low/midrange power, it will slip out in
front of a 440 off the line with little to no
problem.

Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:09 AM

A 413 absolutely wil not no way no how make more low end tq than a 440 that is identicle except bore size, no way none whatsoever and anyone who thinks it will has no understanding of what makes an engine work.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:10 AM

Quote:

The facts are the 413 with same heads cam intake carb... will make

Less power

The 440 will make more power at the low RPM mid range RPM and will be more at higher RPM

The 4.18 bore can make a lot of power, no one is argueing that bore size can not make a lot of power, no one said a 413 will not make a lot of power, just that the 440 will make more when it has the same equiptment, but the simple FACT is that it will not make as much power as the 440s bore size can. The valve will plain and simple be less shrouded in the 440 and will flow more air at virtually every lift includeing LOW lifts. As an aditional bonus with the bigger bore of the 440 you can put a bigger valve in it than you can a 413 and a bigger valve can flow even more at every lift includeing low lifts and will make more power than the port that is restricted to a valve that will fit a 413. The 413 will NOT make more power than a 440 in equally built engines.

If a smaller bore is better than why not build a 383 RB and while you are at it you could throw in some sleeves to make the bores on that even smaller and really make some awesome power

Big Bores mean big valves, in a moderate stroke
motor. Big carbs are used and as the r's go
up in the motor, air flow is increased. The
velocity is less at low speed in a 440 vs 413.
The slightly smaller valves in the 413 actually
have a better velocity at low speed than the 440.
Flowing more air with better heads works, but
bore/stroke combo of the 413 would favor a good
flowing head with higher intake port velocity.
This is the key to running a strong 413. Like
I said not an upstairs motor, but plenty of
torque to hold it's own anyplace, short of a full
race or class-type motor.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:19 AM

Quote:

A 413 absolutely wil not no way no how make more low end tq than a 440 that is identicle except bore size, no way none whatsoever and anyone who thinks it will has no understanding of what makes an engine work.

Quite. Which means you have no understanding of
volumetric efficiency. Tell you what, why don't
you run a 4.18 x 4.00 340 based 'Small/Big Block
against your 440, same technology, and let me
know the outcome. If you win, more power to your
argument. If the small block wins you'd better
figure a way to make that 440 more effcient to
run a 413 on modern technology.

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:26 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Gee where are the 426 guys???

Sitting back, having cold ones, laughing at the
nonsense you are throwing in the forum.

I think they're sitting back laughing at all this fractured logic. I'm just waiting for someone to chime in that a 318 will run with a 340. Oh, wait - don't forget the 413 vs. 440 logic: better throw in a 3.58 crank first.

There is nothing wrong with a 413, but saying it will spank a 440 with all things being equal just denies the laws of physics. Would I throw one away? Heck no. Would I drag one home if I got it for cheap? Heck yeah. There is always Dogdays's special 471 recipe.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:27 AM

You said the smaller bore was better. I mearly
indicated that for port velocity the slightly
smaller intake valve may have some advantage
with this bore/stroke combo. every motor has
their own operating characteristics. They may
resemble each other, but no two engines are exactly alike.

Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:30 AM

Quote:

Quote:

The facts are the 413 with same heads cam intake carb... will make

Less power

The 440 will make more power at the low RPM mid range RPM and will be more at higher RPM

The 4.18 bore can make a lot of power, no one is argueing that bore size can not make a lot of power, no one said a 413 will not make a lot of power, just that the 440 will make more when it has the same equiptment, but the simple FACT is that it will not make as much power as the 440s bore size can. The valve will plain and simple be less shrouded in the 440 and will flow more air at virtually every lift includeing LOW lifts. As an aditional bonus with the bigger bore of the 440 you can put a bigger valve in it than you can a 413 and a bigger valve can flow even more at every lift includeing low lifts and will make more power than the port that is restricted to a valve that will fit a 413. The 413 will NOT make more power than a 440 in equally built engines.

If a smaller bore is better than why not build a 383 RB and while you are at it you could throw in some sleeves to make the bores on that even smaller and really make some awesome power

Big Bores mean big valves, in a moderate stroke
motor. Big carbs are used and as the r's go
up in the motor, air flow is increased. The
velocity is less at low speed in a 440 vs 413.
The slightly smaller valves in the 413 actually
have a better velocity at low speed than the 440.
Flowing more air with better heads works, but
bore/stroke combo of the 413 would favor a good
flowing head with higher intake port velocity.
This is the key to running a strong 413. Like
I said not an upstairs motor, but plenty of
torque to hold it's own anyplace, short of a full
race or class-type motor.

You are completly wrong, the 440 turning the same RPM weather it is low RPM or high RPM will have a higher port velocity if they are equiped with everything else identicle except bore size, it is because of the cubic inches NOT the bore size. The 440 will suck 220 cubic inches of air in one revolution the 413 will only suck 206.5 cubic inches of air per revolution, if you have the exact same size port then the air will have to move faster to flow 220 cubic inches through it then it will to flow 206.5 cubic inches of air. Velocity in a port is determined by cubic volume of air flowed VS the size of the port through witch it flows.

IF your statement was true than throw in the 383 RB motor and it will make more low RPM TQ than the mighty 413 and the Chrysler engineers knew this yet they kept makeing the engines with bigger and bigger bores to slow them down and make less TQ

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:35 AM

As it was said before, 440's will have the upstair
power due to it larger bore. things will will be tight between them at low and midrange.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:43 AM

No Dave, Chrysler played the HORSEPOWER GAME
along with GM, Ford and AMC. EVERYBODY PLAYED
THE GAME, Bigger is better. Oh, by the way
SmallBlock Magnum heads and AMC heads used this
Hi-velocity, smaller valve tech and it seems to
work a little better in the brackets, than all out heads for 11sec or greater.

Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:44 AM

Quote:

As it was said before, 440's will have the upstair
power due to it larger bore. things will will be tight between them at low and midrange.

Still wrong on all counts. The 440 will crush it with low RPM tq due to the cubic inches and it will smash it on top end because of the ability to flow more air with a bigger bore and less shrouded valves. The low RPM TQ is a direct derivitive of the cubic inches and the 440 will kill an equally equipped 413.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:49 AM

And to the 383 RB motor, I would use it as a utility motor. No harm done to 383 fanatics,
383's are great too.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 07:40 AM

Believe your own hype Dave. A 440 will never push
a 4500+lb sedan into the 13's high 12's like a
413. End of story. 440's show better performance
in LIGHTER CHASSIS! That is why they run great
times in A and "stripped down" B bodies. It isn't
just motor alone. Mopar performance groups the
"engine recipes" by series, and 413 and the 440
are in the same buildup cluster. Which tells me
their performances is very SIMILAR. Stop pulling
my leg, Dave. Weight hinders high end performance
and if the 440 was put in a heavier chassis, they
would run a little slower up top.

Stop the

, Dave, cut the superiorty
nonsense.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 09:13 AM

Quote:

Quote:

As it was said before, 440's will have the upstair
power due to it larger bore. things will will be tight between them at low and midrange.

Still wrong on all counts. The 440 will crush it with low RPM tq due to the cubic inches and it will smash it on top end because of the ability to flow more air with a bigger bore and less shrouded valves. The low RPM TQ is a direct derivitive of the cubic inches and the 440 will kill an equally equipped 413.

um WRONG. small bores BIG strokes.. thats what wins in a killer street engine. being of EQUAL cubic inches mind you.

JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE:
TOP FUEL ENGINES:

4.1875" bore x 4.500" stroke

remember kids.. just an example.. i know that isn't a street engine and its supercharged, but
yet they choose to make the engine that way.

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 11:18 AM

8 pages!

The 413 is not special, no way, it's a Legend by now...!

So, now we all agree that a 413 owns a 440 at just about anytime of the day

I think it's time to move our 413-legend motor to the also legendary 426 Hemi.

If a lowly 440 can take a Hemi upto 4/5000 rpm, ofcourse you don't have to wonder how the legendary 413 would absolutely KILL the Hemi when it really comes down to it...

Posted By: Greg55_99

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 01:30 PM

Oh boy! Another 413 food fight! I can talk about motorhome 413's because I've got one and built it nearly 30 years ago. Here's a short list of things I pitched when I got my motor home 413:

Heads got swappped for 440 items.
Intake from Weiand.
Couldn't use the cam or even the cam sprocket because the MH 413 version I had used a gear driven cam that turned backwards.
Rockers and pushrods.
Water pump and housing.
Balancer.
Oil pan.
Distributor and drive gear.
Pistons.
Exhaust manifolds.

Even little nit-noid brackets and bolts didn't fit. In other words, I had to nearly buy a complete 440 just to get the parts to put the MH 413 into a car. And in the end... I had a 413... down on cubes from a 440. So... that's the deal. If I had to do it over again today... I'd go for a stroked 400. Just me.... The OP mentions his 413 is coming out of a car. He's still going to have to upgrade to 440 specs... and... it's still going to be a 413.

Greg

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:07 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I've heard Andy is secretly working on a new book.
Here's a sneak preview...

Just ribbin' ya Andy!

He sent me an advance copy. I hate to play spoiler but I will.

1st chapter outlines finding a 440 to build, or finding the best deal on a megablock.

2nd chapter details removing the 413 from your car.

My apologies to the "low buck, grass roots, 1/4mi
1/8mi, warriors who have the LOVE for the sport
and the SPIRIT OF INNOVATION. Ignore the negative
posts and simply build what you desire to build.
Never "fall into the trap" of popular is best, or
got to have a certain engine,let me trade or junk
what I have. Sure there is a thing that there is
no replacement for displacement. That may not be
a universal rule for some of us. Run what you have, KNOW YOUR ENGINE AND IT'S LIMITATIONS whether it be a 225/6 or a 440 (and every displacement between the two). As far as you 440
guys honking about your buildups being better than
413's and 426's, I don't hear you squawking about SHUTTIN' DOWN HEMIS. Cmon now, they have 14 less
cubes than you, what's the problem. Could it be
some of you are simply "street bullies" that like
to pick on their lower displacement sibilings to the point of MAKING EVERYONE RUN 440's. Some
innovative spirit, guys. Get real. The horsepower
race is on the decline. TORQUE IN THE RIGHT RANGE,
and consistency will outweigh SOME horsepower
advantages. Parts break less, engine/trannies last much longer and the car is much more fun to drive. Don't get me wrong, horsepower IS needed
but torque is KING. Example: The Buick GS Series
Vehicles. Love them.

Posted By: jcc

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:19 PM

This thread has become the proverbial rubber necking car wreck. Maybe time for a little mod intervention.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 04:22 PM

Quote:

8 pages! The 413 is not special, no way, it's a Legend by now...!

So, now we all agree that a 413 owns a 440 at just about anytime of the day I think it's time to move our 413-legend motor to the also legendary 426 Hemi.

If a lowly 440 can take a Hemi upto 4/5000 rpm, ofcourse you don't have to wonder how the legendary 413 would absolutely KILL the Hemi when it really comes down to it...

Hey man, the HEMI is a "tuners dream"
to run. They are the "JUGGERNAUTS" of the MOPAR
stable. However, the MOPAR big blocks will have a
tough time beating them. It would be close, but not as close as you think. The HEMIS "upper mid-
range to top-end" torque and horsepower is
legendary. I don't think that many big blocks
could run with it on the "big end". The big block
needs to beat it out the "gate" and hold it off,
1/3 of the way down to have a chance of winning.
Note: Another silly post!

Posted By: 62maxwgn

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:20 PM

The perfect example of less displacement and more horse power.

From Dick Maxwell:

Any 170 cu. in. slant six having a small BBS carburetor (1-1/4" dia. venturi) will produce about 5% more power when the 225 cu. in. BBS carburetor (1-11/32" dia. venturi) is installed. These two carburetors can be identified by measuring their throttle bore diameter. The larger carburetor has a 1-11/16" dia. throttle bore and the smaller carburetor has a 1-9/16" dia. throttle bore. All 170 manual transmission jobs and the 1960 and 1961 170 with automatic transmission have the smaller carburetor.
2. Two Barrels
a. Two Barrel Conversion Available from MoPar
A two barrel set up (as used on the 225 cu. in. marine engine) is available from MoPar as follows:
1 - 2463849 carburetor
1 - E8467 manifold
1 - 2465310 air cleaner

Posted By: Pacnorthcuda

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:38 PM

I'm considering sleeving my 440 to get the bore size down and make some serious power.
Who makes the thickest sleeves?

Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:44 PM

Quote:

The perfect example of less displacement and more horse power.

From Dick Maxwell:

Any 170 cu. in. slant six having a small BBS carburetor (1-1/4" dia. venturi) will produce about 5% more power when the 225 cu. in. BBS carburetor (1-11/32" dia. venturi) is installed. These two carburetors can be identified by measuring their throttle bore diameter. The larger carburetor has a 1-11/16" dia. throttle bore and the smaller carburetor has a 1-9/16" dia. throttle bore. All 170 manual transmission jobs and the 1960 and 1961 170 with automatic transmission have the smaller carburetor.
2. Two Barrels
a. Two Barrel Conversion Available from MoPar
A two barrel set up (as used on the 225 cu. in. marine engine) is available from MoPar as follows:
1 - 2463849 carburetor
1 - E8467 manifold
1 - 2465310 air cleaner

Dick is not saying the 170 will make 5% more power than the 225, he is saying the 170 will make 5% more power with the bigger carb from a 225 than it did with it's original carb.

If the 170 makes more power than the 225 witch we already established is the most powerfull engine ever then mabey we should all swap out Hemis for the rare and elusive monster 170 slant 6 the no car on earth could ever touch us

Posted By: 62maxwgn

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 05:51 PM

Quote:

Quote:

The perfect example of less displacement and more horse power.

From Dick Maxwell:

Any 170 cu. in. slant six having a small BBS carburetor (1-1/4" dia. venturi) will produce about 5% more power when the 225 cu. in. BBS carburetor (1-11/32" dia. venturi) is installed. These two carburetors can be identified by measuring their throttle bore diameter. The larger carburetor has a 1-11/16" dia. throttle bore and the smaller carburetor has a 1-9/16" dia. throttle bore. All 170 manual transmission jobs and the 1960 and 1961 170 with automatic transmission have the smaller carburetor.
2. Two Barrels
a. Two Barrel Conversion Available from MoPar
A two barrel set up (as used on the 225 cu. in. marine engine) is available from MoPar as follows:
1 - 2463849 carburetor
1 - E8467 manifold
1 - 2465310 air cleaner

Dick is not saying the 170 will make 5% more power than the 225, he is saying the 170 will make 5% more power with the bigger carb from a 225 than it did with it's original carb.

If the 170 makes more power than the 225 witch we already established is the most powerfull engine ever then mabey we should all swap out Hemis for the rare and elusive monster 170 slant 6 the no car on earth could ever touch us

So does that equate that a 413 will make 5% more HP than a 440 using the 440 carb ?

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 06:41 PM

Quote:

I'm considering sleeving my 440 to get the bore size down and make some serious power.
Who makes the thickest sleeves?

RUN WITH WHAT YOU HAVE, just do your HOMEWORK
on the mill.

Posted By: 67Satty

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 06:41 PM

Quote:

and the self proclaimed gurus crack me up as well.
prove me wrong. if you think you get the same hosrepower from a 4.32" x 3.75" vs 4.18" x 4.00" bore and stroke 440 cid engine your sadly mistaken my friend.

And if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

This is one of my favorite threads ever.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 06:59 PM

Quote:

Oh boy! Another 413 food fight! I can talk about motorhome 413's because I've got one and built it nearly 30 years ago. Here's a short list of things I pitched when I got my motor home 413:

Heads got swappped for 440 items.
Intake from Weiand.
Couldn't use the cam or even the cam sprocket because the MH 413 version I had used a gear driven cam that turned backwards.
Rockers and pushrods.
Water pump and housing.
Balancer.
Oil pan.
Distributor and drive gear.
Pistons.
Exhaust manifolds.

Even little nit-noid brackets and bolts didn't fit. In other words, I had to nearly buy a complete 440 just to get the parts to put the MH 413 into a car. And in the end... I had a 413... down on cubes from a 440. So... that's the deal. If I had to do it over again today... I'd go for a stroked 400. Just me.... The OP mentions his 413 is coming out of a car. He's still going to have to upgrade to 440 specs... and... it's still going to be a 413.

Greg

Nice mill Greg. Too bad you had problems, those
RV mills can some times be trying. Good luck with the 440

man.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 07:16 PM

Quote:

Hey Ghost, I'm not perfect either, nor right
all the time. I gotten some really good posts from you, as well as some other members. Thanks
for the "education without the BIAS", Ghost. Just
remember we are all still "learning" and I'm no
GURU. Hats off to you all.
NOTE: I will try to answer your questions to the
best of my ability.

those questions where for hotroddave lol. i already know your answers to them question

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 07:31 PM

Quote:

I'm considering sleeving my 440 to get the bore size down and make some serious power.Who makes the thickest sleeves?

Just get yourself one of them RB 383s....

Posted By: 62maxwgn

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 07:37 PM

One more,in 65 Chrysler had a single 4bbl 413,rated at 360HP,10.10 comp,470 ft lbs torque,the 66 and later non HP 440's were rated at 350 horse,480 ft.lb torque. Even if you compare with a HP 440 at 375 horse,torque is still the same 480 ft.lbs,that's only 15hp and 10 ft.lbs of torque with 27 more cu.in.than the 413, with the old 516 heads and all three had the same comopression ratio.

Posted By: dodge_nut

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 07:38 PM

Quote:

Hey Ghost, I'm not perfect either, nor right
all the time. I gotten some really good posts from you, as well as some other members. Thanks
for the "education without the BIAS", Ghost. Just
remember we are all still "learning" and I'm no
GURU. Hats off to you all.
NOTE: I will try to answer your questions to the
best of my ability.

your answers are based upon opinion, conjecture and theoretical modifications of builds written up in this (and maybe other) forum threads.

YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY PERSONAL QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR YOUR HYPOTHESES EITHER FROM DYNO OR DRAG STRIP PERFORMANCE NUMBERS.

Due to this, your answers are about as legitimate and trustworthy as half the people who put up "forum" knowledge due to stuff they read from other people, who have read from other people, who have actually done the work.

413's are not special blocks, its the owners of them who believe they are.

Posted By: 6PakBee

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 07:48 PM

I can't believe this thread is still alive!

Posted By: 62maxwgn

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 07:51 PM

Quote:

I can't believe this thread is still alive!

You wouldn't want something this entertaining to go away would you ?

Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 07:53 PM

Whoe ever said I had a 440 or even a BB in my car? I don't even have a stroker in it right now

When I did have a stroker in it with the same heads, same bore, cam, intake...

Never mind you guys made up your mind and don't want to learn anything

Posted By: Pacnorthcuda

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 08:17 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I'm considering sleeving my 440 to get the bore size down and make some serious power.Who makes the thickest sleeves?

Just get yourself one of them RB 383s....

and THEN if I sleeved that baby down....woah nellie!!! I'd be makin GOBS of power.

Posted By: Pacnorthcuda

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 08:19 PM

check out:

www.pencilpistons.com

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 08:49 PM

Quote:

I'm considering sleeving my 440 to get the bore size down and make some serious power.Who makes the thickest sleeves?

Don't be such a fool man...

Everyone knows you gotta double sleeve it for extra strength!
I think Cometic even makes 'MLS', Multi Layered Sleeves

Posted By: Iceman01

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 09:12 PM

Quote:

This thread has become the proverbial rubber necking car wreck. Maybe time for a little mod intervention.

Please don't! This is much more entertaining (and educational) than that stupid "Epic Silly Thread" in the General section...

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/13/09 09:29 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Hey Ghost, I'm not perfect either, nor right
all the time. I gotten some really good posts from you, as well as some other members. Thanks
for the "education without the BIAS", Ghost. Just
remember we are all still "learning" and I'm no
GURU. Hats off to you all.
NOTE: I will try to answer your questions to the
best of my ability.

your answers are based upon opinion, conjecture and theoretical modifications of builds written up in this (and maybe other) forum threads.

YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY PERSONAL QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR YOUR HYPOTHESES EITHER FROM DYNO OR DRAG STRIP PERFORMANCE NUMBERS.

Due to this, your answers are about as legitimate and trustworthy as half the people who put up "forum" knowledge due to stuff they read from other people, who have read from other people, who have actually done the work.
413's are not special blocks, its the owners of them who believe they are.

i guess if i had "GURU" or "MASTER" or some QUANTITATIVE title under my user name then I would be believed.. wouldn't pull the wool over anybodies eyes..

Posted By: Fury Fan

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/14/09 08:48 PM

Quote:

Oh boy! Another 413 food fight! I can talk about motorhome 413's because I've got one and built it nearly 30 years ago. Here's a short list of things I pitched when I got my motor home 413:

Heads got swappped for 440 items.
Intake from Weiand.
Couldn't use the cam or even the cam sprocket because the MH 413 version I had used a gear driven cam that turned backwards.
Rockers and pushrods.
Water pump and housing.
Balancer.
Oil pan.
Distributor and drive gear.
Pistons.
Exhaust manifolds.

Well, FWIW, you used an industrial 413, so yeah, most of it was useless for a streetcar engine.

If you had started with a passcar engine, like the OP asked about, you wouldn't have had to change a thing (unless you wanted to).

Posted By: dirtybee

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/14/09 10:32 PM

well i'm convinced. i'll be putting a chainsaw motor in my bee next weekend 'cause i wanna go REAL fast.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 12:40 AM

Quote:

One more,in 65 Chrysler had a single 4bbl 413,rated at 360HP,10.10 comp,470 ft lbs torque,the 66 and later non HP 440's were rated at 350 horse,480 ft.lb torque. Even if you compare with a HP 440 at 375 horse,torque is still the same 480 ft.lbs,that's only 15hp and 10 ft.lbs of torque with 27 more cu.in.than the 413, with the old 516 heads and all three had the same comopression ratio.

good point. if you go buy hp/ci the 360hp the 413 made should equate to 383hp for the non-hp 440 with superior cylinder heads.
seems the 440 is missing 33hp

mabey that 225 \6 got it.

Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 01:15 AM

Quote:

I've heard Andy is secretly working on a new book.
Here's a sneak preview...

Just ribbin' ya Andy!

LMAO! I don't check this thread out for nearly a week and look what I miss!

That was a good one, thanks for the laugh!

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 01:36 AM

Quote:

Quote:

One more,in 65 Chrysler had a single 4bbl 413,rated at 360HP,10.10 comp,470 ft lbs torque,the 66 and later non HP 440's were rated at 350 horse,480 ft.lb torque. Even if you compare with a HP 440 at 375 horse,torque is still the same 480 ft.lbs,that's only 15hp and 10 ft.lbs of torque with 27 more cu.in.than the 413, with the old 516 heads and all three had the same comopression ratio.

good point. if you go buy hp/ci the 360hp the 413 made should equate to 383hp for the non-hp 440 with superior cylinder heads.
seems the 440 is missing 33hp mabey that 225 \6 got it.

Two points:

1. The 360hp version of the 413 had a hotter cam than the 350hp 440. (The New Yorker 413 had a milder cam than either of them and a 340hp rating.)

2. In the 50's and 60's, advertised horsepower ratings were often more about marketing than real horsepower. One of the worst examples was a 1958 Ford 352 that was supposed to have 300 horsepower but only made 200 actual horsepower on an engine (not chassis) dyno.

Posted By: mr_belvedere

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 02:37 AM

I never buy lottery tickets, but will this week. If by chance I would win millions, some lucky engine shop will be building several 413s and 440s.

And on top of that, we will need to find a 1962 300 to get some baseline performance figures, then pull out the 413. build a 440 with the exact same CR (rotating assembly only) finishing up the 440 with the parts from the 413.

My point- $$$ is the only way to do a true apples to apples comparison. Build the 413 and the 440 side by side using the EXACT same components/specs (with the exception of the 440s larger bore)

There really is no sense in debating it, the only way to put this to rest is spending $$$.

Why dont the mods feed this thread a tall glass of kool-aid....

btw- the only advantage the 413's smaller bore has over the 440 is less parasitic friction.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 04:16 AM

Quote:

One more,in 65 Chrysler had a single 4bbl 413,rated at 360HP,10.10 comp,470 ft lbs torque,the 66 and later non HP 440's were rated at 350 horse,480 ft.lb torque. Even if you compare with a HP 440 at 375 horse,torque is still the same 480 ft.lbs,that's only 15hp and 10 ft.lbs of torque with 27 more cu.in.than the 413, with the old 516 heads and all three had the same comopression ratio.

Correct on all accounts.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 04:18 AM

Quote:

I never buy lottery tickets, but will this week. If by chance I would win millions, some lucky engine shop will be building several 413s and 440s.

And on top of that, we will need to find a 1962 300 to get some baseline performance figures, then pull out the 413. build a 440 with the exact same CR (rotating assembly only) finishing up the 440 with the parts from the 413.

My point- $$$ is the only way to do a true apples to apples comparison. Build the 413 and the 440 side by side using the EXACT same components/specs (with the exception of the 440s larger bore)

There really is no sense in debating it, the only way to put this to rest is spending $$$.

Why dont the mods feed this thread a tall glass kool-aid....

btw- the only advantage the 413's smaller bore has over the 440 is less parasitic friction.

I couldn't agree more with ya.

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 04:36 AM

Quote:

well i'm convinced. i'll be putting a chainsaw motor in my bee next weekend 'cause i wanna go REAL fast.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 05:04 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Hey Ghost, I'm not perfect either, nor right
all the time. I gotten some really good posts from you, as well as some other members. Thanks
for the "education without the BIAS", Ghost. Just
remember we are all still "learning" and I'm no
GURU. Hats off to you all.
NOTE: I will try to answer your questions to the
best of my ability.

your answers are based upon opinion, conjecture and theoretical modifications of builds written up in this (and maybe other) forum threads.

YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY PERSONAL QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR YOUR HYPOTHESES EITHER FROM DYNO OR DRAG STRIP PERFORMANCE NUMBERS.

Due to this, your answers are about as legitimate and trustworthy as half the people who put up "forum" knowledge due to stuff they read from other people, who have read from other people, who have actually done the work.

413's are not special blocks, its the owners of them who believe they are.

That is YOUR opinion, and by you posting it in
this forum, we can either rebuke it or respect
it. I do respect other opinions of this forum,
however, when it comes to singiling out a mill
to be the "ULTIMATE", I draw the line. AS I SAID
EARLIER, in this forum, not EVERYBODY has a 440.
There is definitely nothing wrong with the 440,
it makes great power, is very streetable and in some chassis can be your worst nightmare, if you are lined up against it. I am speaking for the
guys who do not have 440's but 413's. 413's can be
made to run AS hard as a 440, built differently. It
will definitely scare 440's enough not to pick on
it either at the track or on the "street". 413's
are definitely no slouches !!! ALL I am basically
saying is, if you 440 guys want to pick on your
"slightly younger 413 bretheren", you just might
get shut down badly. They will definitely hold their own anywhere.
I would watch who you'd pick a fight (run) with.
AS for a DYNO or Personal data on the power output
of the 413, don't need it!! The Ramcharger Race
Club/Team, Dick Landy, Dick Maxwell, Al Eckstrand
and nearly two dozen or more Chrysler Engineers/
Racers and Engine Builders provided enough race
clinics, speed parts and technical info. so that
WE WOULD NOT BE BICKERING ABOUT WHO'S THE
SUPERIOR MILL. If that was the case, Mopar performance, again "FOR THE READING IMPAIRED",
would not have GROUPED the 413 and the 440 in the
SAME performance buildup menu. Enough said, Just
run with what you have and be happy.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 05:17 AM

Quote:

I'm considering sleeving my 440 to get the bore size down and make some serious power.
Who makes the thickest sleeves?

You would be better off stroking it. You would
gain some more low-midrange torque in the
below 4000 rpm range.

Posted By: mr_belvedere

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 05:21 AM

Quote:

if you 440 guys want to pick on your
"slightly younger 413 bretheren",

I thought 413s were older than 440s......?

Seriously, can we get some kool-aid over here?

Posted By: mr_belvedere

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 05:23 AM

Quote:

Quote:

I'm considering sleeving my 440 to get the bore size down and make some serious power.
Who makes the thickest sleeves?

You would be better off stroking it. You would
gain some more low-midrange torque in the
below 4000 rpm range.

You do know the post you quoted is sarcasm, right?

Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 05:35 AM

Quote:

413's can be
made to run AS hard as a 440, built differently.

Nobody's denying that. But that's an apples to oranges comparasin. I can build a turbo fwd 4cyl mopar that will spank a differently built 413 on the street and the whole way down the track. But that's an apples to oranges comparasin. All we're saying is the 440 will have a slight edge over AN IDENTICALLY BUILT 413 across the whole powerband. Nobody is saying the 413 won't make good power or that the 440 is the ultimate motor. As I said before, that difference is not likely to be much of anything on the drag strip or on the street. The 440 will have the slight edge in a perfect world. However in a perfect world motors are tuned to perfection, all drivers are pros and tracks are prepped amazingly. I don't know what it's like around you, but here 413's are as scarce as 361's and RB383's. Just seems to be none of them around, however I can find a 383, 400 or 440 if I hit up the classifieds.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 05:38 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Hey Ghost, I'm not perfect either, nor right
all the time. I gotten some really good posts from you, as well as some other members. Thanks
for the "education without the BIAS", Ghost. Just
remember we are all still "learning" and I'm no
GURU. Hats off to you all.
NOTE: I will try to answer your questions to the
best of my ability.

your answers are based upon opinion, conjecture and theoretical modifications of builds written up in this (and maybe other) forum threads.

YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY PERSONAL QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR YOUR HYPOTHESES EITHER FROM DYNO OR DRAG STRIP PERFORMANCE NUMBERS.

Due to this, your answers are about as legitimate and trustworthy as half the people who put up "forum" knowledge due to stuff they read from other people, who have read from other people, who have actually done the work.

413's are not special blocks, its the owners of them who believe they are.

By the way, you talk about timeslips. you had
not indicated what chassis, you wanted to see
the mill in. Secondly, as far as the 413's and
MAX-WEDGE 413's, you can go to any HISTORICAL
CHRYSLER PERFORMANCE WEBSITE and look up the
info on 413 road tests and performance data. I
do not use OTHER FORUMS to gather data. MY own
personal experiences and data from Chrysler
tech books, Direct Connection (now) Mopar
Performance and constantly talking to local racers/builders as well as Chrysler Techs. MY
opinions are not "gospel", but I CAN point you in
the "right way" for more performance. If I am
wrong, I do admit it. When I am right, I have
info to back it up. Opinions I respect most,
unless they either make no sense or you're trying
to be an "irritant". If the latter, your wasting
YOUR time.

Posted By: R70RUNNER

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 05:46 AM

Still trying to figure out where the crank to stroke the 413 is going to come from

4.15" is too much with 383 pistons and 3.90" has chevy ends that makes the rod/piston problem WORSE

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 05:54 AM

Quote:

Quote:

413's can be
made to run AS hard as a 440, built differently.

Nobody's denying that. But that's an apples to oranges comparasin. I can build a turbo fwd 4cyl mopar that will spank a differently built 413 on the street and the whole way down the track. But that's an apples to oranges comparasin. All we're saying is the 440 will have a slight edge over AN IDENTICALLY BUILT 413 across the whole powerband. Nobody is saying the 413 won't make good power or that the 440 is the ultimate motor. As I said before, that difference is not likely to be much of anything on the drag strip or on the street. The 440 will have the slight edge in a perfect world. However in a perfect world motors are tuned to perfection, all drivers are pros and tracks are prepped amazingly. I don't know what it's like around you, but here 413's are as scarce as 361's and RB383's. Just seems to be none of them around, however I can find a 383, 400 or 440 if I hit up the classifieds.

Thank you for finally "listening". AS for you, it
could be that your turbo mill has enough "oats"
to run or even beat a big block on the track.
Anything is possible!!! Good size turbo w/adj
wastegate, hi-flow head, good fuel managment,
strong tranny/drivetrain/suspension plus a drop
of NOx2, you too would shock the heck out of some
"disbelievers". Turbo cars RUN like the BIG DOGS
so don't feel left out of the "game".

Besides you "hit on a point that I was making.
Cubic inches CAN be substituted!!!

AS far as the 440 vs.413 goes, it's NEVER a
perfect world. Your Car IS a shining EXAMPLE!!

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 06:05 AM

Quote:

Quote:

if you 440 guys want to pick on your
"slightly younger 413 bretheren",

I thought 413s were older than 440s......?

Seriously, can we get some kool-aid over here?

Don't need any KOOL-AID son, the difference in
engine displacement was "used as a comparision" in
age. It's the age-number thing. Cool you jets,
don't run with it guys. We all know that the 413
actually older in the case of production. Think
a little and you won't get

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 06:07 AM

Quote:

Quote:

413's can be
made to run AS hard as a 440, built differently.

Nobody's denying that. But that's an apples to oranges comparasin. I can build a turbo fwd 4cyl mopar that will spank a differently built 413 on the street and the whole way down the track. But that's an apples to oranges comparasin. All we're saying is the 440 will have a slight edge over AN IDENTICALLY BUILT 413 across the whole powerband. Nobody is saying the 413 won't make good power or that the 440 is the ultimate motor. As I said before, that difference is not likely to be much of anything on the drag strip or on the street. The 440 will have the slight edge in a perfect world. However in a perfect world motors are tuned to perfection, all drivers are pros and tracks are prepped amazingly. I don't know what it's like around you, but here 413's are as scarce as 361's and RB383's. Just seems to be none of them around, however I can find a 383, 400 or 440 if I hit up the classifieds.

Bingo! There are at least 7 or 8 440s for sale within 100 miles of me. There is presently just ONE 413 for sale, and he thinks it's a MW engine.

Posted By: mr_belvedere

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 06:22 AM

Quote:

he is doing BASICALLY the
same as you 440 guys

Which is....?

Posted By: R70RUNNER

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 07:10 AM

Mods is there anything positive coming out of this thread anymore? Merry Christmas to all and to all a goodnight...

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 09:25 AM

Quote:

Mods is there anything positive coming out of this thread anymore? Merry Christmas to all and to all a goodnight...

then why open this thread? everybody is being
respectful. well hotrod was kinda over the top
and that dodge whatever guy.. but its cool.

to answer your earlier question on "your still
trying to figure out what stroker cranks to use
with the 413" after talking with the good ole
boys at OHIO crank. we came up with an awesome
combo. do a little research. 440 is a great
engine. not rocket science to source out good
parts for the 440. The 413 however.. seperates
then men from the boys.

Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 11:19 AM

Quote:

Mods is there anything positive coming out of this thread anymore? Merry Christmas to all and to all a goodnight...

Oh yes there is... It's providing a certain level of fun for those who don't participate in it (anymore) ...

Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 01:26 PM

Quote:

not rocket science to source out good
parts for the 440. The 413 however.. seperates
then men from the boys.

You mean the men who cut their losss and throw that 413 in the trash and the boys who can't accept their mill is a boat anchor?

Lol, just kidding.

Really it would be neat to see someone stroke a 413, however with the low price you can get a 440 core block for, and the ease of availability of 440 based stroker kits, I think most guys will come to the conclusion it's easier to just go with the flow and pick up a 440 block. Plus like I said in my previous post, I can find a 440 block any time. Even if I tried, I would be hard-pressed to locate a 413. The one guy I know I could get one from would want much more $ than I can get a core 383/400/440 for. But you are right, doing a 413 properly with a nice set of custom pistons is not for the faint of heart or the average guy.

And yeah this thread is fun, keep it up!

Posted By: patrick

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 02:29 PM

Quote:

Really it would be neat to see someone stroke a 413, however with the low price you can get a 440 core block for, and the ease of availability of 440 based stroker kits, I think most guys will come to the conclusion it's easier to just go with the flow and pick up a 440 block. Plus like I said in my previous post, I can find a 440 block any time. Even if I tried, I would be hard-pressed to locate a 413. The one guy I know I could get one from would want much more $ than I can get a core 383/400/440 for. But you are right, doing a 413 properly with a nice set of custom pistons is not for the faint of heart or the average guy.

And yeah this thread is fun, keep it up!

IF your 413 block can be bored out to 4.25", I think stroking one of these wouldn't be a bad idea.

blueprint deck height is 10.72 or 10.725", depending on where you look....

take 1 4.15" stroke crank, aftermarket RB rods (6.76" long), and KB162 pistons (383 standard bore, 1.908" CH)

4.15/2+6.76+1.908= 10.743", or ~.020" out of the hole. with 92cc heads and a .040" head gasket it yields 10.3:1 compression. perfect if running OEM chambered heads

or look for thicker gaskets (fel-pro Z1039's are .051" thick, there's plenty of copper gaskets in the .06-.07" range on summit) and run closed chambered eddies. if deck height is 10.725", with the fel pro's you're looking at .033" quench (tight, but doable) and 10.7:1 compression with eddies..on summit, there's some .064" compressed rubber coated copper Flatout brand gaskets that would yield .041-.046" quench and 10.5:1 with eddie heads....

the other option is to use Federal Mogul Z366NP pistons, which are stock replacement 383 flat tops, 1.848 CH. (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/STL-366NP/?image=large) this would yield ~.037-.042" in the hole with a 4.15" crank, and .008-.013" out of the hole with a 4.25" stroke crank. these don't have valve reliefs, though, and are the same price as the Kieth Blacks.

Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 02:48 PM

Quote:

Actually,you missed the point.The 360 hp 413 may have had a hotter cam,but the 375 hp 440 also had a hotter cam than the 350 hp.Still only 25 hp with better heads and more cu.in.So all things being equal,one is as good as the other if it is a personal choice.

And since when were factory published power numbers regarded as gospel? Seeing their published compression ratio numbers were miles off reality and just a marketing gimmick, I would assume the same for the published hp/torq numbers. And besides, those numbers are 40+ years out of date. Who builds a bone stock engine these days anyway other than the resto guys?

Posted By: ZIPPY

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 02:54 PM

Definiton of special:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/special

So the short answer is no, the 413 was a mass produced throwaway engine installed into mass produced throwaway cars that were sold in huge volumes and generally sent to the junkyard when their lifespan was over.

Anything mass produced doesn't qualify as "special".

Posted By: patrick

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 03:05 PM

Quote:

stroke a 413 to a 4" stroke making 439cid (yes i know custom pistons blah, blah, blah). the way smaller bore 413 will make more horsepower & torque then the larger bore 440. thats a guarantee"

Quote:

and the self proclaimed gurus crack me up as well.
prove me wrong. if you think you get the same hosrepower from a 4.32" x 3.75" vs 4.18" x 4.00" bore and stroke 440 cid engine your sadly mistaken my friend.

um, I think carcraft proved this a number of years ago. it's displacement that matters, not bore or stroke.

they built up 2 equal displacement SBC LS1 motors, IIRC, both 383 displacement. one was a stroked 5.7 (which are, IIRC 3.9" bore), the other used a 5.7 crank (3.62" stroke) and all bore to achieve the same displacement. both were built to have identical compression ratios. I do not remember if they varied rod length to have the same rod ratio, as well. I don't remember if the all bore motor was a 5.7 block and sleeved, or an aftermarket block, or what, but IIRC the article was in the early '00's, before the "big bore" 6.0/6.2L's LSx's were widespread or even available.

they used the same heads, cam, intake, headers, etc, so the two engines were identical except for the bore/stroke ratio to come up with identical displacements. the results? the larger bore/smaller stroke motor made slightly (like 5hp and lb-ft) more HP than the all stroke motor, their assumption was it was due to less valve shrouding, but it was less than 2% difference, which basically means they made identical power.

so build up your two hypothetical 440 cube motors otherwise identically (cam, compression, induction, exhaust), they should make the same amount of power.

I really wish I could find the link to that article again...

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 03:13 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Really it would be neat to see someone stroke a 413, however with the low price you can get a 440 core block for, and the ease of availability of 440 based stroker kits, I think most guys will come to the conclusion it's easier to just go with the flow and pick up a 440 block. Plus like I said in my previous post, I can find a 440 block any time. Even if I tried, I would be hard-pressed to locate a 413. The one guy I know I could get one from would want much more $ than I can get a core 383/400/440 for. But you are right, doing a 413 properly with a nice set of custom pistons is not for the faint of heart or the average guy.

And yeah this thread is fun, keep it up!

IF your 413 block can be bored out to 4.25", I think stroking one of these wouldn't be a bad idea.

blueprint deck height is 10.72 or 10.725", depending on where you look....

take 1 4.15" stroke crank, aftermarket RB rods (6.76" long), and KB162 pistons (383 standard bore, 1.908" CH)

4.15/2+6.76+1.908= 10.743", or ~.020" out of the hole. with 92cc heads and a .040" head gasket it yields 10.3:1 compression. perfect if running OEM chambered heads

or look for thicker gaskets (fel-pro Z1039's are .051" thick, there's plenty of copper gaskets in the .06-.07" range on summit) and run closed chambered eddies. if deck height is 10.725", with the fel pro's you're looking at .033" quench (tight, but doable) and 10.7:1 compression with eddies..on summit, there's some .064" compressed rubber coated copper Flatout brand gaskets that would yield .041-.046" quench and 10.5:1 with eddie heads....

the other option is to use Federal Mogul Z366NP pistons, which are stock replacement 383 flat tops, 1.848 CH. (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/STL-366NP/?image=large) this would yield ~.037-.042" in the hole with a 4.15" crank, and .008-.013" out of the hole with a 4.25" stroke crank. these don't have valve reliefs, though, and are the same price as the Kieth Blacks.

very nice

Posted By: 62maxwgn

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 03:59 PM

Quote:

Definiton of special:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/special

So the short answer is no, the 413 was a mass produced throwaway engine installed into mass produced throwaway cars that were sold in huge volumes and generally sent to the junkyard when their lifespan was over.

Anything mass produced doesn't qualify as "special".

And the 440 was not mass produced? I think you will find quantity of 440's produced far out number 413's over each's life span.Just about any platform built from 66 on could have a 440.So each 440 is special,I really doubt it.Just like the 413,some are special,some aren't.The 440 smog motor that was in my 75 Imperial was special or was it not? The 6pk motor in my bird is special or is it not?

Show me where the 440 was not "mass produced"

Posted By: Rug_Trucker

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 04:19 PM

Finally looked at this thread. Glad I didn't get involved.

Posted By: b54406barrel

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 04:21 PM

Holy cow, I read this post last week on the dive shop's computer! I can't believe it's still going! By the way, people are all massed produced so none of us are special, even the one's on the short bus!

Posted By: ZIPPY

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 04:26 PM

No 440s aren't "special" either.

Good and special aren't the same.
Just because I happen to like it, doesn't mean there's anything all that SPECIAL about it.

Everyone have fun trying to create debate where none exists, this thread is a total waste

Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 04:31 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Mods is there anything positive coming out of this thread anymore? Merry Christmas to all and to all a goodnight...

Oh yes there is... It's providing a certain level of fun for those who don't participate in it (anymore) ...

Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 04:41 PM

Hotrod also did a build like Patrick mentioned but they used BB chevys with small valve heads so shrouding would not be an issue and they did correct the R/S ratios to be equal and they even ran the dyno on a steady state pull (stop RPM from going up then check power) so the different bob weight would not effect it, the result less than 1% differance any where in the curve, pretty much squashed the bore/stroke tq/hp debate.

That is not the only test I have seen either but it should be easy for someone computer savoy to find a link to bth articles.

Can any one find where I said a 440 was "special"?

I only said it can make a tad more hp than an equal 413 and for less $$$

Now that I think about it, I never even said a 413 was stupid or dumb

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 05:37 PM

I think this guy knows what he's talking about.

Posted By: Fury Fan

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 07:45 PM

That article is a good example of where everything is well-written and appears to have merit -- if you only take it at face value. However, it does not address opposite compromises/perspectives.

As an example:
He mentions that ring friction is the greatest loss in an engine, which we all accept to be true. He mentions that a shorter stroke has less drag of ring friction -- however he does not quantitatively discuss the 'longer' rings required in a larger bore. Based on a simple circumference calculation, a 440's bore/ring is about 3% longer than a 413 - so there is higher friction with a larger bore.

Larger bores take advantage of larger valves � but they weigh more. Running larger valves, and at higher RPM, requires stiffer springs to maintain control � with all else equal, there is increased inertia & more friction in the valvetrain.

Larger bores have more area and therefore require more time for the flame front to travel. This theoretically requires more ignition timing, and advanced ignition timing permits more heat to be lost to the cooling system. Ideally, ignition would start at TDC. Larger bores also have more surface area at the cylinder walls that hold cool end gasses that contaminate the next intake charge.

�My subject is racing engines, not street motors, so I'm not concerned with torque at 2,000 rpm. In my view, if you are building an engine for maximum output at a specific displacement, such as a Comp engine, then the bores should be as big as possible and the stroke as short as possible.�

It is known that an engine is most efficient at its torque peak, so you increase power by creating more torque pulses/unit time, however they become less efficient individually as RPM increases.

Yeah, if you don�t care about fuel usage and you want to run an engine at max RPM (and don�t care about the higher expenses involved with high-RPM durability), then his statements have more merit.

It�s all a compromise. Whomever suggested a scientific test of identical 413-440 builds hit the bullseye.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 07:57 PM

Quote:

That article is a good example of where everything is well-written and appears to have merit -- if you only take it at face value. However, it does not address opposite compromises/perspectives.

As an example:
He mentions that ring friction is the greatest loss in an engine, which we all accept to be true. He mentions that a shorter stroke has less drag of ring friction -- however he does not quantitatively discuss the 'longer' rings required in a larger bore. Based on a simple circumference calculation, a 440's bore/ring is about 3% longer than a 413 - so there is higher friction with a larger bore.

Larger bores take advantage of larger valves � but they weigh more. Running larger valves, and at higher RPM, requires stiffer springs to maintain control � with all else equal, there is increased inertia & more friction in the valvetrain.

Larger bores have more area and therefore require more time for the flame front to travel. This theoretically requires more ignition timing, and advanced ignition timing permits more heat to be lost to the cooling system. Ideally, ignition would start at TDC. Larger bores also have more surface area at the cylinder walls that hold cool end gasses that contaminate the next intake charge.

�My subject is racing engines, not street motors, so I'm not concerned with torque at 2,000 rpm. In my view, if you are building an engine for maximum output at a specific displacement, such as a Comp engine, then the bores should be as big as possible and the stroke as short as possible.�

It is known that an engine is most efficient at its torque peak, so you increase power by creating more torque pulses/unit time, however they become less efficient individually as RPM increases.

Yeah, if you don�t care about fuel usage and you want to run an engine at max RPM (and don�t care about the higher expenses involved with high-RPM durability), then his statements have more merit.

It�s all a compromise. Whomever suggested a scientific test of identical 413-440 builds hit the bullseye.

excellent answer

Reggie was throwing the Reher-Morrison Racing name around becouse that name would seem to have credibility, which it does.. but not on this case.

Posted By: Fury Fan

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 08:04 PM

Quote:

excellent answer

Thanks! Sometimes my long-winded answers become the last one in a thread for some reason.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 08:31 PM

What the....

Youg guys can't be serious!

Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 08:51 PM

Quote:

Everyone have fun trying to create debate where none exists, this thread is a total waste

No, it allows us to vent our winter/cabin fever!

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 10:22 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Everyone have fun trying to create debate where none exists, this thread is a total waste

No, it allows us to vent our winter/cabin fever!

yup lotsa winter cabin fever here. i'm gonna waste my time effort and $$$ on a 413 build. then lay the hurt
on a couple 440's/Chev 454's around here that think their "fuel" don't stink.

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 10:43 PM

Quote:

That article is a good example of where everything is well-written and appears to have merit -- if you only take it at face value. However, it does not address opposite compromises/perspectives.

As an example:
He mentions that ring friction is the greatest loss in an engine, which we all accept to be true. He mentions that a shorter stroke has less drag of ring friction -- however he does not quantitatively discuss the 'longer' rings required in a larger bore. Based on a simple circumference calculation, a 440's bore/ring is about 3% longer than a 413 - so there is higher friction with a larger bore.

True. However, any power loss due to friction would be more than offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement.

Quote:

Larger bores take advantage of larger valves � but they weigh more. Running larger valves, and at higher RPM, requires stiffer springs to maintain control � with all else equal, there is increased inertia & more friction in the valvetrain.

Also true. However, that point is moot for this discussion which suggested a heads up comparison of 413 and 440 short blocks with all other variables being equal.

Quote:

Larger bores have more area and therefore require more time for the flame front to travel. This theoretically requires more ignition timing, and advanced ignition timing permits more heat to be lost to the cooling system. Ideally, ignition would start at TDC. Larger bores also have more surface area at the cylinder walls that hold cool end gasses that contaminate the next intake charge.

Again, any power loss due to these factors would be more than be offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement. If this were such an issue, Ma Mopar wouldn't have produced anything with a bigger bore than a RB 383 in the first place.

Quote:

�My subject is racing engines, not street motors, so I'm not concerned with torque at 2,000 rpm. In my view, if you are building an engine for maximum output at a specific displacement, such as a Comp engine, then the bores should be as big as possible and the stroke as short as possible.�

I read that. To me it means that a bigger bore 440 would have the advantage in a race against a 413.

Quote:

It is known that an engine is most efficient at its torque peak, so you increase power by creating more torque pulses/unit time, however they become less efficient individually as RPM increases.

Yeah, if you don�t care about fuel usage and you want to run an engine at max RPM (and don�t care about the higher expenses involved with high-RPM durability), then his statements have more merit.

Again, the issue of stroke is moot with a 413/440 comparison. What he does hit on is bore size and power, which is why I posted the link.

Quote:

It�s all a compromise. Whomever suggested a scientific test of identical 413-440 builds hit the bullseye.

I agree, but I doubt that anyone will bother.

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/16/09 10:50 PM

Quote:

Reggie was throwing the Reher-Morrison Racing name around becouse that name would seem to have credibility, which it does.. but not on this case.

Didn't "throw anything around" for credibility,(although he does it for a living rather than playing with his toys in the garage). I posted the link because he talked about bore size and power. Stroke is moot in this comparison.

Posted By: Mobarge

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/17/09 07:18 AM

Speaking of 413s, anyone want to decode the pad on mine?

J 413 TH

Casting date 5/5/73

There is no casting number on the block.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/17/09 08:26 AM

Quote:

Quote:

not rocket science to source out good
parts for the 440. The 413 however.. seperates
then men from the boys.

You mean the men who cut their losss and throw that 413 in the trash and the boys who can't accept their mill is a boat anchor? Lol, just kidding.

Really it would be neat to see someone stroke a 413, however with the low price you can get a 440 core block for, and the ease of availability of 440 based stroker kits, I think most guys will come to the conclusion it's easier to just go with the flow and pick up a 440 block. Plus like I said in my previous post, I can find a 440 block any time. Even if I tried, I would be hard-pressed to locate a 413. The one guy I know I could get one from would want much more $ than I can get a core 383/400/440 for. But you are right, doing a 413 properly with a nice set of custom pistons is not for the faint of heart or the average guy.

And yeah this thread is fun, keep it up!

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/17/09 09:03 AM

Quote:

Quote:

That article is a good example of where everything is well-written and appears to have merit -- if you only take it at face value. However, it does not address opposite compromises/perspectives.

As an example:
He mentions that ring friction is the greatest loss in an engine, which we all accept to be true. He mentions that a shorter stroke has less drag of ring friction -- however he does not quantitatively discuss the 'longer' rings required in a larger bore. Based on a simple circumference calculation, a 440's bore/ring is about 3% longer than a 413 - so there is higher friction with a larger bore.

True. However, any power loss due to friction would be more than offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement.

Quote:

Larger bores take advantage of larger valves � but they weigh more. Running larger valves, and at higher RPM, requires stiffer springs to maintain control � with all else equal, there is increased inertia & more friction in the valvetrain.

Also true. However, that point is moot for this discussion which suggested a heads up comparison of 413 and 440 short blocks with all other variables being equal.

Quote:

Larger bores have more area and therefore require more time for the flame front to travel. This theoretically requires more ignition timing, and advanced ignition timing permits more heat to be lost to the cooling system. Ideally, ignition would start at TDC. Larger bores also have more surface area at the cylinder walls that hold cool end gasses that contaminate the next intake charge.

Again, any power loss due to these factors would be more than be offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement. If this were such an issue, Ma Mopar wouldn't have produced anything with a bigger bore than a RB 383 in the first place.

Quote:

�My subject is racing engines, not street motors, so I'm not concerned with torque at 2,000 rpm. In my view, if you are building an engine for maximum output at a specific displacement, such as a Comp engine, then the bores should be as big as possible and the stroke as short as possible.�

I read that. To me it means that a bigger bore 440 would have the advantage in a race against a 413.

Quote:

It is known that an engine is most efficient at its torque peak, so you increase power by creating more torque pulses/unit time, however they become less efficient individually as RPM increases.

Yeah, if you don�t care about fuel usage and you want to run an engine at max RPM (and don�t care about the higher expenses involved with high-RPM durability), then his statements have more merit.

Again, the issue of stroke is moot with a 413/440 comparison. What he does hit on is bore size and power, which is why I posted the link.

Quote:

It�s all a compromise. Whomever suggested a scientific test of identical 413-440 builds hit the bullseye.

I agree, but I doubt that anyone will bother.

90% of all the information placed by you, Reggie,
is TRUE. But Ma MOPAR increased th bore size from
413 to 440, basically to increase displacement
without altering engine dimensions. To be able
to use the largest Chrysler mill in just about
ANY Chrysler rear-wheel drive chassis. Why? To
save from building different K-Members, and to
keep up with the "Joneses" in the horsepower
game. GM rushed to get a head start with the GTO
and 2 years later Mopar countered with the big
block Coronet option 67' 440 GTX, which formed
the basis of Famous Road Runner. Big bore motors
were the rage back in the late sixties, early seventies. Till longer stroke motors took the
spotlight away. More power, less rpm/engine wear,
more torque/better economy. The 440 sadly left us
in 78', due to more efficient mills of economy and
environmental designs.
AS for the Quotes on the 440, I've been saying it
for a while now, if you are class racing or All
out racing then the 440 IS for you. Street, street
strip racing, in my book 413's get the nod for me.
Ther may be "NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT, but
at the "LIGHT or TREE, Torque RULES and a 413 has
an AMPLE SUPPLY right where it's needed LOW-MID
RANGE WHERE IT COUNTS. 440 RUNS BEST in a light weight chassis, where the 413 can run as well
with slightly more weight.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/17/09 09:13 AM

Yes 62' the SIX PACK MILL was special. There were
a lot of durability/hi-po parts in the engine as a whole, than your "garden variety" C-body 440 or
440 Magnum mills. The difference was way beyond the induction system and carbs. Excellent street
strip mill.

It does

the
competition.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/17/09 09:19 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Reggie was throwing the Reher-Morrison Racing name around becouse that name would seem to have credibility, which it does.. but not on this case.

Didn't "throw anything around" for credibility,(although he does it for a living rather than playing with his toys in the garage). I posted the link because he talked about bore size and power. Stroke is moot in this comparison.

Well then Reggie, I guess you didn't read you own
press then. He basically was refering more to a
"racing type" mill as opposed to a dual purpose
mill, which 70% of the members do run/own. Get
YOUR facts straight buddy.

Posted By: jcc

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/17/09 09:20 AM

Quote:

440 RUNS BEST in a light weight chassis, where the 413 can run as well
with slightly more weight.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/17/09 09:25 AM

Line up at the tree and find out.

Posted By: jcc

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/17/09 09:31 AM

Quote:

Line up at the tree and find out.

If that is all it would take to bury this inane thread, I would gladly chip in gas money to find a local to you sorted out lightweight 440 to line up against a similiar dressed porky 413.

Any takers?

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/17/09 12:47 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Line up at the tree and find out.

If that is all it would take to bury this inane thread, I would gladly chip in gas money to find a local to you sorted out lightweight 440 to line up against a similiar dressed porky 413.

Any takers?

similiar dressed 413? there junk remember? run what you brung and hope you brung enuff..
well how bout my buddies tiny tiny bore 440 smallbock in his dart sport.. he'll gladly add
the engine weight difference to it. hope your pockets are WAY deep LOL. yes i know what your
gonna say next.. i was making a point on tiny bores/ long strokes of equal displacement.
which is easily done with a 413 btw.

Posted By: patrick

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/17/09 05:46 PM

to turn the 413 to the 440 via stroke, you needed new blocks, pistons, and rings. from a manufacturing standpoint, you needed a new core box for the block, as well as revising machining. you needed a new die cast mold and revised machining for the pistons. and new rings for the larger bore

to turn the 413 into the 440 via stroke (4.185" bore, 4" stroke) you needed a new crank and either pistons or rods.

if the base crank forging was done smartly, it could've just been a change in the machining setup with the same rough forging, no additional tooling required.

you'd have the same issue of a new mold and machining setup for pistons, or new tooling for a 1/8" shorter base forging for the rod....

from a procurement/material handling standpoint, you still had to create new part numbers and inventories for pistons, rings, and blocks, vs. pistons & crank.

thinking about it, I'm kinda suprised that chrysler didn't commonize piston and/or rods between the B&RB, and make up the deck height difference in stroke. or at the very least, when the 426 turned into the 440, the 383 didn't turn into a 396 (same bore), or for that matter, that they went to 400 cubes, which was a .020 overbore 440 bore....from a procurement/material handling standpoint, the part number/inventory reduction would have been significant.

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/17/09 06:24 PM

Quote:

Well then Reggie, I guess you didn't read you own press then. He basically was refering more to a "racing type" mill as opposed to a dual purpose mill, which 70% of the members do run/own. Get YOUR facts straight buddy.

And he also said that BORE has the advantage. Dual purpose mills notwithstanding - the larger bore would have the advantage based on his experience. I'll put my money on the Chrysler engineers, who were designing cars for the HP street market - for a living BTW. There sure weren't any 413 Road Runners coming off the production line, and they were "heavy cars" that are supposedly so great for 413s according to the fractured logic in this thread.

In an Feb. '87 HOT ROD magazine article, they took a 1970 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, loaded it with pasengers and other junk to get it to 6,700+ lb and ran a base ET of 17.22 at 80.01 MPH. Then they started removing parts from it in stages to see how it performed - eventually reducing the car to just a 2900 lb frame with a roll bar (for safety) that ran 13.55 at 100.83 MPH. Since there is no argument that the 440 makes more power (you said that yourself), your "413 is better in a heavy car" theory opposes simple physics - buddy...

I'm going to respectfully bow out here since further discussion serves no useful purpose. There is an old saying - "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." The length of this thread serves as evidence of that truth.

The only thing that everyone here can agree on is that they disagree. Everyone has their own viewpoint, just like every cow has it's own moo-point - all of which have absolutly no bearing on the facts. The fact is that Chrysler went to larger displacements for performance applications and the 413 was relegated to workhorse duty in trucks, MHs and industrial applications. 413s were great motors for their time, but they were eclipsed in the displacement race. My

: If you have a 413 - build it if you want to, and be happy. I would go with Dogdays's recipe if it were me, which would make a nice street motor on the cheap. If you don't already have a 413 - look for a 440. They are much easier to find, and enjoy a whole lot more aftermarket support.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 01:01 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Well then Reggie, I guess you didn't read you own press then. He basically was refering more to a "racing type" mill as opposed to a dual purpose mill, which 70% of the members do run/own. Get YOUR facts straight buddy.

And he also said that BORE has the advantage. Dual purpose mills notwithstanding - the larger bore would have the advantage based on his experience. I'll put my money on the Chrysler engineers, who were designing cars for the HP street market - for a living BTW. There sure weren't any 413 Road Runners coming off the production line, and they were "heavy cars" that are supposedly so great for 413s according to the fractured logic in this thread.

In an Feb. '87 HOT ROD magazine article, they took a 1970 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, loaded it with pasengers and other junk to get it to 6,700+ lb and ran a base ET of 17.22 at 80.01 MPH. Then they started removing parts from it in stages to see how it performed - eventually reducing the car to just a 2900 lb frame with a roll bar (for safety) that ran 13.55 at 100.83 MPH. Since there is no argument that the 440 makes more power (you said that yourself), your "413 is better in a heavy car" theory opposes simple physics - buddy...

I'm going to respectfully bow out here since further discussion serves no useful purpose. There is an old saying - "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." The length of this thread serves as evidence of that truth. The only thing that everyone here can agree on is that they disagree. Everyone has their own viewpoint, just like every cow has it's own moo-point - all of which have absolutly no bearing on the facts. The fact is that Chrysler went to larger displacements for performance applications and the 413 was relegated to workhorse duty in trucks, MHs and industrial applications. 413s were great motors for their time, but they were eclipsed in the displacement race. My : If you have a 413 - build it if you want to, and be happy. I would go with Dogdays's recipe if it were me, which would make a nice street motor on the cheap. If you don't already have a 413 - look for a 440. They are much easier to find, and enjoy a whole lot more aftermarket support.

First of all, my apologies for Reggies ignorance
for taking a 68' production model and installing
a mill whose production ended two years earlier.
To the HARDCORE street racers, class racers and
drag enthusiasts, I apologize for HIS OVERSIGHT
ON HIS HISTORY. Second He simply repeated what I
have been saying for a while now. Third, he did make the most sense in pointing out that one
should run what they have and be happy. Thank you
Reggie for your input. However, the Cadillac blog
I am NOT buying that because, of the chassis with
massive amounts of weight and probably the motor
was not "profesionally" built to street/strip
specs (NHRA brackets). Now what I would believe
is an 79 Caddy coupe or even an 82' coupe, with
a 500 cube mill (with Cadillac motorsports pieces)
or, even with a 455 Buick mill. That is much more
feasible, since both coupes weigh less than 4700
lbs. They can be pared down to 3900 lbs (approx)
and still run HARD. Also a 70' Coupe de Ville does
not weight 6700+ lbs., and you would not get a
baseline figure with it "loaded down" either. It
DEFEATS THE MEASUREMENT FOR PERFORMANCE INCREASE
due to it is not a TRUE starting point. YOU ONLY
USE THE DRIVERS WEIGHT!! 6700 lbs is a SEDAN de
VILLE or a 75 SERIES CADDY 4 DOOR. Believe your
own press Reggie, cause I don't. Not on the
Caddy blog, it's a spoof to me.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 01:25 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Well then Reggie, I guess you didn't read you own press then. He basically was refering more to a "racing type" mill as opposed to a dual purpose mill, which 70% of the members do run/own. Get YOUR facts straight buddy.

And he also said that BORE has the advantage. Dual purpose mills notwithstanding - the larger bore would have the advantage based on his experience. I'll put my money on the Chrysler engineers, who were designing cars for the HP street market - for a living BTW. There sure weren't any 413 Road Runners coming off the production line, and they were "heavy cars" that are supposedly so great for 413s according to the fractured logic in this thread.

In an Feb. '87 HOT ROD magazine article, they took a 1970 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, loaded it with pasengers and other junk to get it to 6,700+ lb and ran a base ET of 17.22 at 80.01 MPH. Then they started removing parts from it in stages to see how it performed - eventually reducing the car to just a 2900 lb frame with a roll bar (for safety) that ran 13.55 at 100.83 MPH. Since there is no argument that the 440 makes more power (you said that yourself), your "413 is better in a heavy car" theory opposes simple physics - buddy...

I'm going to respectfully bow out here since further discussion serves no useful purpose. There is an old saying - "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." The length of this thread serves as evidence of that truth. The only thing that everyone here can agree on is that they disagree. Everyone has their own viewpoint, just like every cow has it's own moo-point - all of which have absolutly no bearing on the facts. The fact is that Chrysler went to larger displacements for performance applications and the 413 was relegated to workhorse duty in trucks, MHs and industrial applications. 413s were great motors for their time, but they were eclipsed in the displacement race. My : If you have a 413 - build it if you want to, and be happy. I would go with Dogdays's recipe if it were me, which would make a nice street motor on the cheap. If you don't already have a 413 - look for a 440. They are much easier to find, and enjoy a whole lot more aftermarket support.

As for the bore tech, a larger bore with the
larger valves does make power, particularly
midrange to top-end. When WEIGHT is applied
to the vehicle it's power at low end is
diminishing and require more rpm to launch
it effectively. Long strokes with moderately sized
valves do enhance low and midrange TORQUE to
where a vehicle with weight is moved relatively
EASIER. If the two characteristics are combined
(sorry guys but I gotta give them their props) like in the Buick 455, you would have the
best of both worlds!! They make ungodly TORQUE
and ASTOUNDING HORSEPOWER.

SIMPLY PUT
be happy with the mill you have or built, if you
are not happy get the one you want. If you feel
that your mill is SUPERIOR prove it, line it up
at the tree and run it.

Posted By: stumpy

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 01:28 AM

HYPER8oSoNic, let it go. 413s are old news and not a popular engine to build. Why spend the time and effort on old egineering when there is much better up dated stuff to play with for a lot less cost. Your one man campaign to resurect the past is a waste of time and effort. You might as well bring back disco while your at it.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 01:45 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Actually,you missed the point.The 360 hp 413 may have had a hotter cam,but the 375 hp 440 also had a hotter cam than the 350 hp.Still only 25 hp with better heads and more cu.in.So all things being equal,one is as good as the other if it is a personal choice.

And since when were factory published power numbers regarded as gospel? Seeing their published compression ratio numbers were miles off reality and just a marketing gimmick, I would assume the same for the published hp/torq numbers. And besides, those numbers are 40+ years out of date. Who builds a bone stock engine these days anyway other than the resto guys?

Good point Turbo. Back in the days of the 10.5-1
up to 13.5-1 mills, the ratings were both "brake"
horsepower and several "fudged ratings". Brake
horsepower was actual engine output - no accessories, belts or a/c if equipped. The "fudged" rating came in two versions, lower
ratings to "fool" the insurance carriers for
coverage, and to raise competition racing on the street and strip. It also
boosted car sales from the "Big Three" automakers
during the performance years.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 02:29 AM

Quote:

HYPER8oSoNic, let it go. 413s are old news and not a popular engine to build. Why spend the time and effort on old egineering when there is much better up dated stuff to play with for a lot less cost. Your one man campaign to resurect the past is a waste of time and effort. You might as well bring back disco while your at it.

Stumpy, I like your 62'. But you are beginning
to

again. WHY is that I simply say to run
what you have, it brings the

out in
you. Always wanting people to upgrade, or toss
413's away for 440's. I don't tell people that
at all. Let the masses decide what they want to
run please. Or, could it be that you are using
REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY to gain SEVERAL basement
bargain 413's dumped in your driveway from angry
members fed up with them. And hoping that someone
WOULD be STUPID to THROW AWAY A DECENT MAX-WEDGE.
And that WOULD make your DAY!!! CUT THE GAME,
STUMPY. PEOPLE have CHOICES, NEVER TRY TO MAKE IT FOR THEM!!!!

OR THE

By the way

disco was cool, but I would
NOT bring back the "DEAD". UNLESS Jimi Hendrix
was re-carnated.

. Maybe 60's-70's

rock n roll along with some 70's r&b/funk would definitely work.

Posted By: stumpy

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 02:35 AM

Good then why don't you get off the 413 horse. I don't want no stinking max wedge. I am quite happy with my 4.040x4.00 410 small block. It won me the class championship this year in the Tmccc series.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 02:49 AM

Quote:

HYPER8oSoNic, let it go. 413s are old news and not a popular engine to build. Why spend the time and effort on old egineering when there is much better up dated stuff to play with for a lot less cost. Your one man campaign to resurect the past is a waste of time and effort. You might as well bring back disco while your at it.

As far as the one-man campaign, or should I say
this to you. You must be another "spokesperson"
for the self promoting "440 Supremacy Organization". Thats good. Let's just build
seperate racetracks across the USA specifically
for your 440 powered vehicles. You all can fight
amongst "yourselves" while the other 90% of
different makes and model mills, will compete in
harmony for the sheer sport of racing. To have
fun!!!

Posted By: stumpy

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 02:50 AM

You don't read very well do you.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 03:00 AM

Quote:

Good then why don't you get off the 413 horse. I don't want no stinking max wedge. I am quite happy with my 4.040x4.00 410 small block. It won me the class championship this year in the Tmccc series.

If you have a winning class smallblock, why are
so worried about the 413? You have nothing else
better to do than to bust stones'

. Or, is
it that you ran out of people to beat on the
track, so now you are trying to beat them down on this post.

Posted By: stumpy

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 03:05 AM

I just don't like to see someone spread BS about an engine that has seen it's time and won't be ever making a comeback. Long live the new world. Down with the boat anchors.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 03:06 AM

Quote:

You don't read very well do you.

I read very well, thank you. I think that I
answered the title question at least three times.
That was until the "superiority issue" came into
play.

Posted By: stumpy

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 03:09 AM

All you have done is spout your opinion no matter what facts are presented to you. It's obvious we don't want to learn but that's okay. Live in the past if it suits you. Most of us here are quite happy with the modern engineering. My 4cyl PT cruiser will out run your stock 4bbl 413s all day long.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 03:19 AM

Quote:

I just don't like to see someone spread BS about an engine that has seen it's time and won't be ever making a comeback. Long live the new world. Down with the boat anchors.

Nice touch. But this is not the "new world" and
I do hate to say it, but some of us are on modest budgets and do run these so called "boat anchors".
And we do it effectively!!! Just as some "old
timers" hold on to their hot rod roadsters and
digger rails, and so it shall be with the 413.
"Old technology never dies it just gets better
with time". If you are worried about a comeback, then simply ignore this post.

Posted By: I go fast

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 03:26 AM

Quote:

My 4cyl PT cruiser will out run your stock 4bbl 413s all day long.

Posted By: HYPER8oSoNic

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 03:50 AM

Quote:

All you have done is spout your opinion no matter what facts are presented to you. It's obvious we don't want to learn but that's okay. Live in the past if it suits you. Most of us here are quite happy with the modern engineering. My 4cyl PT cruiser will out run your stock 413s all day long.

Ok. That could be a fair assumption, since I favor
the turbo version of the PT cruiser. One could
never know how well they run. As far as facts are
concerned, I believe that a mill is a mill, and
anything can be made to run. I presented fact to
you even about "other makes" and you did not
comment about the 440's power then. Why is that? The mills back in the early sixties were simple to work on and respond
well to basic hop-up techniques. However, the technology used today can be used in building the 413 in a formidable mill. If, it is a has been
then Mopar performance should produce 440 spec
ONLY speed parts. I am not promoting EITHER MILL
I just believe in a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO RACE,
that's all.

As for living in the
past, some great memories were there but I wouldn't run carbs. I love them, don't get me wrong, but I rather run fuel injection and a
overdrive tranny. Is that not "new world tech"
for you!!!

Posted By: 440fied

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 04:38 AM

Quote:

Speaking of 413s, anyone want to decode the pad on mine?

J 413 TH

Casting date 5/5/73

There is no casting number on the block.

Look in the back along the bellhousing flange on the top, by the oil pressure sending unit, should have casting number 2658 836.

I'll take all of the industrial 413's you guys don't want. I haven't seen one yet that can't be bored to 4.25 and I have a couple that can be bored to 4.32.

Posted By: GTX MATT

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 05:00 AM

Heres a good one

Posted By: Reggie

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 06:20 AM

Quote:

First of all, my apologies for Reggies ignorance for taking a 68' production model and installing a mill whose production ended two years earlier.
To the HARDCORE street racers, class racers and drag enthusiasts, I apologize for HIS OVERSIGHT ON HIS HISTORY.

Gee HYPER, did I get under your collar? What you should be apologizing for is your unwarranted personal attack.

As another poster observed, you do have a bad habit of resorting to put-downs when your reasoning is called into question. It's ok to disagree, but personal attacks are childish. Before you start spouting off about who is ignorant, you should take a reading comprehension course:

1) I grew up around Mopars from the 50s on, so I know a little history. My statement was that there were no 413 Road Runners. My point was that Chrysler stopped using the 413 in performance applications for a reason - it was ancient history. The 440 was the new top dawg wedge engine as far as Chrysler was concerned. Car production was not a hobby - it was a business, and Chrysler was in it to sell cars and make money. They knew that whatever won races on Sunday would sell in the showrooms on Monday. You are also either uninformed about when 413 car production ended, or there is an OVERSIGHT in your math.

1965 was the last year for the 413 in passenger cars - not 1966.

2) Go back and read my statement on the Cadillac - slowly. I'll interpret it for you; They added weight to it using passengers and other junk to get the total weight to 6700+ lb for the baseline test. I don't really care if you don't believe the test. It was a simple test of power vs. weight using a Cadillac stocker and the results are the results.

As I said, I'm done with further discussion on this useless topic. I'm sure that you're not, but do this board a favor and be civil. Personal attacks are uncalled for and unnecessary.

Posted By: Hotwheelsjr

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? - 12/18/09 06:50 AM

Have a good night...jeez, you guys could argue about anything.

Are 413 Engines really all that special?