I have a late modle low mileage 440 with cast crank. I also have a 413 steel crank from 1964- very good condition. To avoid trying to find a external balance flywheel and to have pilot hole provision for my 4 speed, I would like to put the 413 crank in the 440 and not remove the heads. I have the internal balance flywheel and harmonic balancer. There is a question as to whether I need to re- balance the 413 crank to the 440 pistons and rods?. I don't want to, but don't want problems either. This is just a temporary engine so I don't want to put much money in it at this time. Any input is appreciated....................MO
Sounds like a disaster waitin to happen. None of the ballencing can be done without taking it all apart. Rods might be different length. It wont end up well.
The 64 413 crank is the same as the 440 crank in regards to physical dimensions and should not pose any problems. You would need to use the balancer for the 413 crank with it, your existing rods and pistons should be fine. I would recommend you tear the engine down to change the crank if for no other reason than to get at the rear main seal which takes some attention to get it to seal.
Thanks for the input folks. When the cast crank is taken out, wouldn't I then have access to all of the rear main seal? I was skeptical of the word that I heard about their being a difference in weight between 440 and 413 rods and pistons. An engine doesn't need re- balanced if you put in oversize ( heavier) pistons--right?? And in balancing a crank, isn't that done independant of the rods and pistons? Just trying to get my head straight here...........Thanks......MO
The rods are not the same (same length and dimensions but different forgings)and I doubt the piston weights are ether so it is probably not a good idea. What I want to know is why get rid of the cast crank? If it is because of the balance weights on the torque converter B&M make a flex plate that eliminates that need. If some "bozo" told you the cast crank wasnt strong enough hit him with a 2X4. You will not break it ,ever. They are good to 600+ hp at least in a harsh racing atmosphere and nothing on the street would ever hurt it. Don And if the guy who put the fear of cast cranks is a Ch#$%@y guy ask him then how come he runs a cast 400 chev crank in his and the other 90 million 383 strokers around. 90% of them and all early ones were built with cast cranks. And if you were wondering have we ever raced a BB mopar with a cast crank? Yes 9 years with no crank problems and we still have it for a future project.
I always like to read Dolmetsch. Funny too how this type of question doesnt take very long to have responses like...yes that will work, and oh no that will not work. Dolmetsch does ask a good question though. good luck.
Wasn't the journal size different for the late model, cast crank 440s (4.25") vs the older steel cranks at 4"? Or was that just the difference in the thrust surface?
----------------- Huh?? Why would you say "the rods might be different lengths"???? The only dimensional difference between a 440 and a 413 is the bore size. Everything else, including rod length is exactly the same. Back to the original question . As far as balancing goes, unless you're building a really high revving - ie - 6500-plus rpm - all-out race engine (not really the Chrysler RB's forte anyway) the weight difference between the 4.32 bore size 440 pistons and the 4.180 bore-size 413 pistons won't cause any problems. If the crank is an 8-bolt unit out of a 413 truck, marine or motorhome engine, the stock pistons may be even closer - and even slightly heavier than the weight of a standard 440 passenger car piston. Regardless though, for a below 5000 rpm 'street' engine, the difference in balance solely due to piston weight with either a 413 passenger car or 413 truck crank and a 440 crank will be negligible. The only thing that *could* screw you up here is the rod weight. Some externally balanced 440's starting in the early '1970's and going through to the mid and late '70's - even those used in standard 'low-performance' full-size passenger car applications - used leftover and *much heavier* 440-Six pack connecting rod forgings. If your 440 has got the the 6-pack rods, than rebalancing *will definitely* be necessary when swapping in an early, internally balanced crank. Mart3406 ====================
Don. perhaps I didn't make myself clear. (That happens often!) No I have absolutly nothing against a cast crank. I read "old reliable"faithfully. The thing is- I am running a 4 speed and would have to drill the cast crank. I already have the internal balance flywheel and harmonic balancer. Since this is just a temporary engine, I didn't want to take off the heads and remove the pistons and rods. A couple posts down- "Mart 3406 " understands what I am trying to do. My 440 engine is a 1978 so I doubt they would have the heavier six pac rods. Thanks all for the input---more is welcome...........MO
You can get a flywheel for $100 from 440 source that is internal or external balance. It has a weight on the back you remove if it is internal balance. I think for the money its worth it to leave the crank in. The only issue would be you not wanting to cut your input shaft to do the roller bearing conversion. -Joel
Yes, I have seen that and gave it some consideration. No doubt it is foreign made and the metal standards are different than the same grade made in America. If I did that it would simplify things except one thing. I don't want to cut off the end of my input shaft, so the crank would need the pilot hole deepened. So the next question is, could that be done correctly with the crank in the engine? Thanks again for all responces..................MO
If you use the sealed roller bearing that nests in the shoulder then you could get sloppy and drill the crank without removing it. Nothing wrong with a cast crank. .
Ok I see where you are at. I would approach it differently . I dont agree with some of the answers here but I will let it go except to say every time I cut a corner in my career I spent twice as much. Often the proper fix is the cheapest as you only need to do it once. If you had a 440 steel crank then that would be the ultimate solution to your balance problem. It would be balanced to the rods and pistons and you could use you flyweel as is. Don
Well this is my take the 413 crank 8 bolt also has a heavy and thick flange that requires a special flywheel and the balancer can be a problem cast cranks are thicker and have less options for pulleys .. so you need the 413 balancer but a new issue comes to play off set 6 bolt patern V standard patern pulleys . your going into a very ugly dark place but it can be done but......
My 413 crank is a 6 bolt flange. From the info you all have given me, I think I will leave my external balance 1978 440 engine together I believe we can deepen the pilot hole a little bit - enough so I don't need to cut off any of the tranny input shaft.So now I need to find a used flywheel . What engines and year has external balance 10 1/2 " flywheel that will imterchange. I know about the new one from "440 Source". Thanks for any help.............MO
A friend of mine tried drilling his crank while installed and it ended up off center. The input shaft ended up wobbling out the crank shaft and getting pretty sloppy. He ended up cutting the input shaft. For what it's worth the 440 source flywheel is really pretty nice even if its made in China.
The Jalopy Journal
