belyea_david You are quite welcome. Thanks for helping to restore my sanity - I thought I was going crazy - ha ha. DanBabb, I forget - is your intake gap surface even from top to bottom? If so - we can rule out any angle milling. Since early hemi intakes don't have a valley to seal on we can ignore that as well so all we are left is How much to cut off the intake to get the bolts to align. I think we can figure that out, but since we only wanna do this once we ought to try it a couple different ways to see if we can get the same answer. I like your method of stacking the feeler gage till the bolts line up - after all THAT is the final goal Next I would think we can subtract out the compressed thickness of an intake gasket and calculate how much material to remove based on the geometry. Make sense?
With the intake bolted to one heads, there's a .100 gap now. Cutting the intake will only increase the gap. Milling the heads or using thiner head gaskets will reduce or eliminate the gap, or back to my comment of filling the gap with spacers. The centered intake should be a bit low, the spacers would lift it up, hopefully back to where the bolt holes line up.
I have a '58 "354'' industrial engine. I presume it is hemi block because it was a complete engine before I stripped it. It is identicle to that block pictured with the elongated push rod holes. I didn't realise that they still made 354's in 1958, but apparently they did and it is an A1 block. If you want I can mock the engine up with a 4 barrel intake and see if mine lines up.
Just looked at the photos again and if I'm seeing it right the push rod holes match the gasket on the left bank, but are different on the right side. Is this the same engine?
In regular p***enger car use both the '57 & '58 Chrysler Windsor, and I believe Saratogas, used the 354 in polyhead versions. In '55, Chrysler NY & 300 was a 331 hemi, Windsor 301 poly,....then for '56 the NY & 300 was 354 hemi, the Windsor 331 poly.......'57 & '58 continued the pattern of a larger cid hemi (392) and the prior year's hemi was fitted with poly heads for lower line models as said in the opening sentences. Here in the US I believe the 354 hemis were used in larger trucks through '59. The 315 hemi truck engines were built through '59 as well......presumably, the Marine/Industrial line would have followed suit. I have always heard that hemi heads can be used on a poly block, though they difffer in the pushrod holes, but it works as long as the camshaft is for a hemi. If that is truly the case, and I have never seen any dispute of that, it follows that when casting engines for the 354 p***enger car polys the blocks may also been used for some other applications. On the other hand, I'm thinking the truck blocks have a difference in the front of the block where there are water p***ages to either side of the timing cover not present on p***enger cars. I don't know which arrangement was used on Industrial versions. Ray
i had a problem like this many years ago,like 30. I drilled the bolt holes out in about 15 minutes and away we went. I guess us old guys just did stuff... just drill the holes out..
The data plate, block and head numbers all decode to a 57 354 hemi. Dont think I have a poly that was converted. Once I get the gaskets tomorrow, I will see if it seals enough...if not, then I can see if I need to drill out or get a spacer. Thanks for all the help. You guys rock
Dan, I wasn't suggesting you have a converted poly to hemi engine. My point was merely that Chrysler made the same displacement blocks (both 331 and 354) and fitted them with either poly or hemi heads depending on intended use. Further, there seems to be a variation of the push rod holes between hemi and poly blocks. However, since the blocks apparently can be fitted with either style head, it follows that some blocks with the "poly style" pushrod holes may very well have been factory equipped with hemi heads. All that verbiage to offer a basis for speculation why your block has oblong vs round pushrod openings. Even though I am (and as are others) merely an interested observer of this problem you are faced with, I gotta tell you this is wearing me out............I can only imagine what you must be going through trying to make sense of it. Hang in there.......... Ray
It was good to meet you saturday Dan. And this has been the most informative thread. Im glad i wasnt the only one confused about how milling heads or intakes affects the mating surface clearances.
Yeah, like Ray said, I wasn't trying to imply you actually had something based on a Poly either. I just happen to notice the bizarre oblong push rod holes that are typically seen in the Poly blocks and it had me wondering what other applications they were used with. Chrysler did a TON of bizarre stuff with their Truck, Industrial, and Marine engines. I actually have a pair of heads off of an engine that was tagged as a 331 IND motor and it was built from the factory with two DIFFERENT heads! HAHA! One is a later 331 ind/truck head and the other is a 354 ind/truck head.
No worries guys...I wasn't trying to be uptight or anything. I'm going to dig up a picture of my block to see what it looks like without the gaskets.
I would have to lean towards head gasket thickness myself. Weren't the stock gaskets .025 tin and the aftermarkets comp.040 making the heads sit higher therefore causing the misalignment prob. he's experiencing? Just a thought. No Hemi expert here.
George, with all the talk about decking block and milling heads I was just thinking the intake bolts (on the heads) were too close together - not the other way around. oops So looking back at Dan's post with the picture - it seems to me that those suggesting that thicker head gaskets causing this are on the right track. Normally heads are resurfaced and a thicker head gasket negates any potential issue. In Dan's case it would seem his block and heads are virgins or have had very little removed. In this case it sounds like thicker head gaskets were used - and the intake may or may not have already been resurfaced - making the issue worse. We could try to verify that for you Dan if you're interested. I'm thinking we could measure a couple intakes bolt spacing (from underneath) to see if that the case or not. I have one I just took off a 392 that I believe to be unmolested. As far as doubling up the gaskets - if that is undeseriable - you could always have some thicker ones made up. I believe Cometic will make up whatever thickness you want, but if it were up to me I'd rather make a stock gasket work. Dan when you install the intake sitting on gaskets - how far off do the threaded holes appear?? To dial this in you could also install the intake with no gasket and all the bolts loose - lift up on it - you should now get a pretty good idea how thick a gasket is needed. FWIW my felpro stock looking gaskets are right around .062" thick and the washers are right around .120" - and of course they crush down to .062 or so once installed.SO if you're right on the hairy edge for installing the bolts - you could always install one side - crush the washers a little - repeat for the other gasket and then see if that's enough to get all the bolts started. I agree about not "needing" gaskets with washers - other motors got away without them.
A thought that occured to me was...If the block deck was @ the max possible but in spec, & the head decks was max spec, & some really thick head gaskets.....Over @ webrodder they have a 331 build where the deck height of the 2 banks were unequal & neither was square to the crank centerline, front to back or top to bottom. While Hemis have a rep for good machining, that was one example of not so great machining.
Would a head gasket difference of .015 really add up to the intake manifold bolts being pushed high enough to leave me the .1 gap I have between the manifold & head surface? Funny how these threads lead to a barrage of new questions...while the gap I have stays the same.
Doubt it. Something really strange is involved. Almost like it's a 392 block with 354 casting numbers, wierd. unless both intakes were milled equally, really quite baffling.
Did the 92 have a taller deck height than a 54? If not it would be a moot point. As to the .015,one wouldn't think so,but as I said,I'm not a Hemi expert.LOL I just tossed those #'s (.o25 & .040)out as an example. That's prolly close though. It would take a pretty big bit of ***ulative error to there from here (tall deck-tall head) to create the problem you're seeing.If with no bolts and a gasket in place the port match looks good,I'd be tempted to perfom the drilling operation. If however the intake was down I'd be tempted to make new or double up on the gaskets. Doubled gaskets prolly would never be an issue with the possible exception of a particularlly bad backfire with the throttle closed. It would be nice to be able to do the touchy feely 'cause at the end of the day .100 is pretty extreme. It'll be interesting to see what the prob. and or fix turn out to be for real. Good luck with it.
Doubt it. According to my extremely rough calculations, the intake mounting surface will move approximately 1/5 the amount that the heads moved. The amount is disproportionate for sure because of the angles and direction of movement . Highly unlikely but Maybe I'm off by 50% in my calculation, that still seems like a country mile.
Might check out this thread. Looks like your engine had the wrong head gaskets when you tore it down. Could be the 'thickness' problem mentioned earlier. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367538
How much different is a 331 intake manifold from a 354 or 392? Is it close enough to be mistaken for a 354 or 392 intake? Or would it be totally obvious when you tried to put it on the motor? http://www.earlyhemiengineparts.com/showpage.cfm?catid=1775 Just trying to think here.... or are they all supposed to be compatible?
Intakes all interchange in so far as sitting on the heads. There are differences in ports and wet vs dry but all interchange. Recall that Dan placed another 392 manifold on the engine with the same problem so the manifold itself does not appear to have been modified. ...patiently waiting for the re-check with double intake gaskets... .
Yup, 392 is high deck, 331/354 isn't. Using 331/354 heads on a 392 requires spacers. But Dan said the block has 354 casting #.
Double gaskets looks like it did the trick. I put a thin coat of gasket sealant between the two gaskets and a thin coat on the metal surfaces around the water ports. All the bolts dropped right into their holes with no fidgeting...so looks like everything lined up. When I torqued everything down (in the right order), you could see just a touch of the blue stuff squeeze out. The bolts tighted up to torque specs without any feeling of a bind. Hope this holds together when I fire it up.
Dan, Well at this point why not just try the double gaskets? You said earlier that you have .100" gap with the manifold pushed down that means you have slightly MORE than that with it pushed UP. A stock gasket is right around .062 - which means doubling them would be .125. You should easily be able to accomodate the "extra" .025 (.125-.100) with the clearance in the factory holes- they're probably .41 (.41-.37=.04) that alone suggest you have enough room. The only thing worth worrying about is IF the gaskets you use have the factory washer which as I mentioned earlier is right around .120" - and again if the bolts won't start it's probably because of those - in which case if you "pre-seat them" you ought to be golden. If all that STILL doesn't work - then drill the holes out - some. Granted with your numbers drilling wouldn't be my first choice since what you have seems like so much. Besides with the gaskets - you risk nothing other than some gaskets. Which actually isn't all that much different than the manifold $ wise - those are cheap too (now that I think about it). Heck I saw 2 on ebay this week - I think they were 60 bucks AND were cut for a modern carb instead of the tiny WCFB pattern the stocker has....decisions decisions... Drag racers have doubled up intake gaskets and gotten away with it for years - I'm sure you can too - besides if you pre-seat them then the alignment won't be nearly as critical.
Now that this is solved..so to speak.....I will mention this. Gary may have run into this also. In the time I have been playing with these, I have had at least a half dozen people email me, asking what the spacers were for under their intake. I would question them as "what do you mean by spacers?". The answer was always the same......"it looks like a gasket only its really thick. 1/8" or more. It's a spacer." These were all truck or Ind motors. So the answer is? No idea. Maybe at some point Chrysler went through the reject pile and remachined some parts rather than melt them back down. Something to add. I am surprised that no one mentioned the heads and the fact that this was an Industrial motor. Alot of the later Industrials used what I am guessing were "left over" car type heads. If these were taken off the "car" shelves, they did go through at least one other machining process after the fact....the installation of the big stem exhaust valves. As I mentioned before, towards the later years Chrysler seemed to be using up what was left on the shelves. One could keep guessing I suppose.
The Jalopy Journal
