Hey All
Well I guess that I will chime in here.. Even though I know very
little about differences in engines, I will just say one thing. I have a 69
and 71 Imperial. I have done some minor upgrades to the engine on the 71
440, suck a a fresh, hotter cam adn alum. intake and ele. ign. the 71 440
I will have to say is a VERY powerful motor and leaves nothing to be desired
at any RPM range. yet is is smooth and quiet.
On the other hand the 440 in my 69 is 100% stock adn must be the most
quiet and smoothest engine that I have ever heard or owned. While not as
powerful as the 71 engine she still leaves nothing out and it a great
powerplant.
I will say only this, the 413 and the 440 are great engines and I think
that anyone who ownes either of them should be proud!!..what one of them
makes up for in one area the other makes up for in some other way.. So if I
may be so bold to say,,,,can't we all just get along???!!!!heheh
Tony Fortner
Imp(6971)
>From: "D. Dardalis" <dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: IML: More 413 Thoughts
>Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:35:02 -0500
>
>
>>At 08:09 AM 7/12/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>is all this talk going on the assumption that all the comparisons of
>>vehicles are using the same rear end ratio? that will make a difference in
>>off the line snap.
>>
>> mo jo
>Almost Imperials from 1959 had 2.94 gear ratios (its actually 2.9375,
>quoted as 2.93 early on). There is a 1961 CarLife road test somewhere in
>the site (413) where a 3.23 gear ratio was used, and certainly helped
>acceleration. The 3.23 413 Imperial was still a bit slower than the 2.94
>67 440 Imperial (which also had larger tires).
>
>>Also, is it possible that the casting mass and cylinder wall thickness
>>contribute to quieter operation?
>
>Certainly it won't hurt, but most of the engine noise is coming from the
>intake and the exhaust, so I am not sure if this will make any significant
>difference.
>
>>but wasn't the 413
>>originally intended to be a smooth, quiet, powerful piece for Imperials
>>and
>>the like?
>
>Well, I know for sure that certain 413s on Chrysler 300s made excellent
>high performance engines that surpassed the earlier hemis. The ram
>manifolds and large cams produced some seriously powerful engines
>energizing 300F's and G's to some very high speeds, in spite of the cross
>ply tires and relatively low gear ratios. It seems that the 413 was a fine
>engine, no doubt. But if the 440 had certain shortcomings against the 413,
>my opinion is it was an overall improvement.
>
>>And if I'm all wet, why did they continue to use 413's well into the 70's
>>for
>>medium duty truck use? Why not just use the common 440 at that point?
>
>Is it possible that there was an inventory of left over 413 parts and
>blocks which had to be utilized?
>
>D^2
>
>
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network