331/354 Chrysler Hemi crankshaft differences

Hey Hemi gurus, need some quick help!

Can someone please tell me what/if any differences there are in 331 and 354 crankshafts? Any with 331 Truck type crankshafts, or were those the same as 354 crankshafts?

Specifically I'm interested in dimensional differences. Were the rear flywheel mounting flanges located differently, relative to the rear main bearing? Were later crankshaft tails slightly longer, per chance?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

 

Hey Scooter, only difference I know of between the CAR 331-354 is the oil holes are larger in the 354 cranks. Truck cranks that use the gear system will not have the step in it for the car timing gear. Flange measurements are the same. Hope this helps!!!

 

That's my understanding of it too. the 301/331/354 interchanges.

 

Okay, this was my understanding as well. Just making sure I didn't miss something. Thanks guys!

I have an issue with my new flywheel being TOO FAR AWAY from the starter, for some reason. Starter will not engage. I don't know if it's a machining error or what, but it's not looking too good.

 

Need to ask, what flywheel are you using ?


.

 

Wilcap 146 tooth Mopar, lightened steel flywheel.

Gary, as we discussed, I agree with your thoughts on everything pointing to the flywheel offset.

 

Scoot,
I am pretty sure there is a length difference between the 51-53 extended bell crankshaft and the later 54-56 331/354 (std. type bellhousing).
Yes, they physically "fit", but the difference is from the rear main (or maybe better defined from thrust bearing surface) to the flywheel flange. The oil holes are smaller on the early ones too.
My memory is tellin me the early ones were shorter?????
I can check both styles of cranks tonight after work and post the dimensions.

 

If this is trully the case PLEASE PLEASE post them!!! I'm desperate to get to the bottomof this problem!

THANKS!!

 

You guys can see what I'm getting at in these two threads. Something isn't adding up...

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=346193&page=2

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=403678

 

Hate to keep you on pins & needles, but the soonest I can get back to you on this is about 7:00 central tonight. I'll post the results and PM you.

I will get you some measurements, hopefully it will help you out.

 

I saw you were working on the starter as well. Did you ensure the bendix (starter solenoid) is pushing the starter gear all the way out? I have seen them only engage partially or even not at all and the starter will still spin.

 

No problem! Any information you can add is good!! Thanks!!

 

Rather the solenoid is or isn't pulling the bendix gear all the way out, I have clamped the solenoid at it's physical limits and took the measurements and the absolute BEST scenario shows that it still isn't going to engage anymore than a little under .125 inches. No way to tell if it's even engaging that much.

 

It was just a thought.....125 thou is no where enough engagement....

 

Yeah! Totally! And thanks for your input! All is appreciated at this point.

I just compared some crankshafts here at the shop.



The one on the left is a marine crank and is totally different. Not sure what year it was, but I suspect it was 1954.

The other two cranks are the same casting number. One was out of an early extended bell and the other was out of a later 331. Again, can't remember what years.

 

Went through some old pictures to see what crankshaft is in my 331 right now. I have a crank with cast number 1619647, which would be a 354 crankshaft. I have no way of measuring this particular one, but maybe someone else has a 354 crank they could measure out. Maybe Back of flange to the first counterweight would give us the answer.

On a crank with cast number 1323335 (331 chrysler), the distance from the flange face (flywheel mounting face) to the first counterweight is 3.750".

 

More info...

I have a crank with casting number 1409421, which is listed as a 331-354 crank (and was supposedly removed from a 354). I measured from the flange face (flywheel side) to the first counterweight and I got a measurement of 3.938. If the listed application is correct, then that would mean there could be OTHER 331 cranks that have the longer back end. I would assume that the application would have used the later 172T flywheel as well.

Just reporting back with what I have.

Any chance someone out there has a crankshaft that has a casting number of 1619647 that could get that same measurement for me?

 

Scooter,

I measured 5 different cranks and found the early 331 extended bell cranks are .200"+/- shorter than the later cranks, they measured 3.750" like you found. Here's what I got:

Two confirmed extended bell crankshafts, both measured 3.750" from the rear flange face to the face of the throw
Both 132335, small oil holes

Confirmed '55 331 crank, 3.950" from the rear flange to the face of the throw (+.200")
casting number hard to read on this one maybe 1409421? (Too dark to see well)

Confirmed 354 Truck crank, 3.950" again. (This one was from a school bus, how would you like to go to school in a HEMI powered bus!!!!!) Casting 1619467

Last crank, origin unknown, 331 or 354 also 3.950" and casting 1619467

I also checked the overall length of each and found the same .200" difference, so it is in the rear journal/ flange length. This may not be exactly .200" as I was using some pretty crude methods, but it is close (I think +/-.020 at most).

I have a couple of confirmed '54 331 cranks in the shed that I can not get to tonight in the dark. If it would help I can check those this weekend with casting numbers.

If you have about .125 engagement now on the starer, another .200 would mean a lot. Sorry, I do not have any suggestions on how to proceed from here.

It would be nice to have Tom Waters chime in with some information.

 

In the red! That's the solution! That's the crankshaft that's in my engine! That would help explain my issues right there! That would at LEAST by me some engagement... if I switched to a different crank. OOFA!!

So, I guess if I machined off .200"+ off the starter housing that would give me my engagement... assuming the starter housing will accept the shift in the starter. OR if there is a starter out there that is slightly longer that will mesh with a 146T flywheel, then I'm good to go.

Thank you SO much for the information!!

What's ideal engagement for a starter?

 

Just trying to learn something here; would a different starter plate and/or starter drive make the difference. Something 73RR told me, that you just about have to use everything from the same year.

 

I don't think there is enough meat on the lower bellhousing to mill that deep? It would be a pretty serious cut. Maybe you could mill some (.080") off the starter face and the rest (.120) off the bellhousing?
I'm not sure about the proper dimension for starter engagement, but I would think you would want it to be the same depth as the teeth on the fly wheel, which I would guess would be about 3/8"or a little less. You can probably measure your flywheel teeth through the inspection cover hole. Going deeper wouldn't accomplish anything.
I was wondering too if there is a starter option with a longer nose? I am not sure of the starter options for these things (I thought all Hemi's were push started).

 

The starter plate is actually part of the block/bellhousing. In theory it could be machined down the difference in the crankshaft lengths... I think. Or not. Going to have to research it.

I definitely agree with 73RR's theory on keeping things together for various years. What a mess...

 

A big rope wrapped around the crankshaft is sounding appealing right now.

I like your thoughts on taking a little here and a little there.

I think the teeth are about 3/8" on the flywheel. I'll measure first thing in the morning and report back.

I would MUCH rather use a longer starter. So maybe someone has some input on that.

 

Looks like the starter housing thickness is about 1/2".

 

Scoot, I had the same problem with the adapter, and hi-torque mini starter. It would start fine but every now and then it would miss. Crawled under it and the starter was tearing up the front of the ring gear teeth because the engagment was so shallow. My buddy took the starter apart and somewhow got more throw out of it. Been working fine for the last 2 years. I'm suppose to see him tonight or tomorrow for some stuff and I'll ask him exactly what he did.

 

PLEASE PLEASE ask him what he did!! I would REALLY appreciate it!!! Thanks man!!

 

As thick as the starter area is on the bell, I would not hesitate to take .200 off the starter mounting face area.

All the force of the starter is rotational. Just think of all the cars (Mopars) built that mount the starter to a thin cast aluminum bellhousing.

 

Scooter:
I have 2 #1619647 cranks that are 58 Dodge truck 354's.

3.918
3.919

Rich

 

Thanks Rich! Looks like pretty much the same thing I'm coming up with. Proof the 354 and 331 stuff isn't all the same. That's a good thing for builders to take note of for SURE!

 

I'd love to know how you went with all of this. I have two Hemi's and am going to do a heap of research before I put one together. Thanks for everyone's input, it's not like we can ask our neighbour anymore! Cheers all