BeepBeepRR
Well-Known Member
Casting date on the block was 1-6-64
NOS 413 Engine
- Thread starter Jonpaul64
- Start date
33 IMP
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 5:20 AM
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 12,798
- Reaction score
- 20,878
- Location
- taxifornia,soon 2b Arizona.
I saw that after I posted the question, thanks. I type so slow I end up posting after about five others get in front of me, lol.
Jonpaul64
Active Member
I noticed that the 516 head was also used on the last letter series. The 413 for the 300L as well as the 383 and 361.
Last edited:
Jonpaul64
Active Member
It sounds like it should bolt in my 64 imperial no problem then. The engines look identical to each other. The stamp pad is blank though. I’ll look at the heads again and see if I can find a cast date. The dyno should yield a lot of info too. I’ll come back on this and share the results.
33 IMP
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 5:20 AM
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 12,798
- Reaction score
- 20,878
- Location
- taxifornia,soon 2b Arizona.
A little more research.....
Apparently there were "ordinary" 300 chryslers in 64, that weren't considered "letter" cars. There were also 64 300K cars that ARE letter cars, available with a 413, SOLID LIFTER, crossram engine. (Rated 390 hp?!?)
Maybe???
Also, maybe the pad is blank cause it's a warrantee engine?
Apparently there were "ordinary" 300 chryslers in 64, that weren't considered "letter" cars. There were also 64 300K cars that ARE letter cars, available with a 413, SOLID LIFTER, crossram engine. (Rated 390 hp?!?)
Maybe???
Also, maybe the pad is blank cause it's a warrantee engine?
BeepBeepRR is that your block in the pic ?
33 IMP
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 5:20 AM
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 12,798
- Reaction score
- 20,878
- Location
- taxifornia,soon 2b Arizona.
I don't know if that's his...... but I know a max when I see one!
Exactly!!!
Jonpaul64
Active Member
That would be wonderful, but the 300K had 1.75 ports. This has 1.6”. I’ll measure the spring I.D.s too. The springs in there now are very beefy. I know I have something, but what? It’s a new 413 bore with 3-3/4 stroke without hydraulic lifters. Puzzling. It was worth the 2k I paid for it.
That’s my block in the pic.
33 IMP
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 5:20 AM
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 12,798
- Reaction score
- 20,878
- Location
- taxifornia,soon 2b Arizona.
Sorry, no. We meant the block in post #13. It's a 413 max block.
I think this is a question for @69Coronetrt !
I'll be the first to say that I am no expert on this stuff, but I find it odd that the pad is not stamped. As already stated, that was stamped when the block was built, and includes information like assembly date, shift, undersized journals, etc. I see no reason why that wouldn't be stamped for ANY block built, warranty or otherwise.
Could you show us a picture of the pad (in front of the intake manifold, as shown in an earlier post)? Could that have been machined later?
I'll be the first to say that I am no expert on this stuff, but I find it odd that the pad is not stamped. As already stated, that was stamped when the block was built, and includes information like assembly date, shift, undersized journals, etc. I see no reason why that wouldn't be stamped for ANY block built, warranty or otherwise.
Could you show us a picture of the pad (in front of the intake manifold, as shown in an earlier post)? Could that have been machined later?
Jonpaul64
Active Member
I will show you a pic when I go back to the shop. There is an “m” only on the block. They would have had to blend in the entire valley pan area around the entire intake, or leave a step where just the pad area is. I’ll check it out.
Last edited:
MIKESPOLARA
Well-Known Member
33 IMP
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 5:20 AM
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 12,798
- Reaction score
- 20,878
- Location
- taxifornia,soon 2b Arizona.
Not really, no. Maxes used a different casting, supposedly with more nickle in it.
We just recognized the numbers and font on the pad, and you can see the reliefs in the top of the bores for the 1.88 maxwedge exhaust valves.
Nate S
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a marine block. The solid lifter street 413s had the 1.74 exhaust valves (300K). The marine engine has solid lifters but still 516 heads. You should measure up the cam, I’d be interested in its specs. The 300J/K cams were almost identical the the HP hydraulic with a tiny amount more lift (268-268, 450-450). Instead of 430-430.
BeepBeepRR
Well-Known Member
Nope just a picture off the web.
maxwedgechar
Well-Known Member
The motor in MAX is a factory replacement. It is not stamped.
Jonpaul64
Active Member
Thanks for the info maxwedgechar. Now I’m guessing that someone complained about the hydraulic lifters, and of course back in those days, when customer service mattered, they handed that one with solid lifters to them with no hassles. And it was never installed.
maxwedgechar
Well-Known Member
I think that the mechanic was supposed to stamp the block with the original engine's numbers.
maxwedgechar
Well-Known Member
Are the rocker arms adjustable? Have you checked the crank flange? Are the holes in the flange threaded or through bolt? The cast iron TorqueFlite torque converters had studs that slipped through the flange and were held on with nuts. Painted red I am wondering if it might be an engine for an older car even with a '64 casting date. The 361 in my '59 Plymouth was painted red.
Similar threads
