Re: [FWDLK] intake torque specs

["john g. photakis" <owlshop@telegram.infi.net>]

David, that motor in there is a 301.

David Charles Gedraitis wrote:
>
> Actually it's a Chrysler, and it has the Spider type intake. Am I mistaken
> as to what engine this is?
>
> ~dave
>
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, David Homstad wrote:
>
> > Dave
> >
> > Are you sure you have a 55 301? I thought that engine (similar to a 318
> > Poly) was introduced in mid 1956. In 55, I think Plymouth used the Dodge V8,
> > which is totally different. Probably a 241 or 260.
> >
> > Check out http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Track/4164/55.htm for a
> > discussion of 55/56 Plymouth engines.
> >
> > The easiest way to tell the Dodge Poly from a Plymouth Poly is that the
> > Dodge intake manifold sits up like a spider on individual legs and has a
> > separate plate to seal of the lifter valley. The Plymouth (318 style) uses
> > the manifold to seal the lifter valley.
> >
> > You should be able to get all of your gasket needs from Felpro, from
> > complete engine sets to just manifold sets, for either engine type. There
> > was also a gasket set for a 56 and newer Plymouth V8 (318 style) recently on
> > eBay.
> >
> > If you have a Dodge engine, the intake manifold torque should be identical
> > to the 56 at 30 ft-lbs. Data is in the Specifications at the back of the
> > Manual. The Manual doesn't say so, but I would tighten up the bolts on any
> > manifold by starting in the center, alternating from side to side, and work
> > out to the ends. Start with 10 ft-lbs, and then repeat at 20, then 30.
> > Retorque after driving a hundred miles or so.
> >
> > Dave Homstad
> > 56 Dodge D500
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Forward Look Mopar Discussion List
> > [mailto:L-FORWARDLOOK@lists.psu.edu]On Behalf Of David Charles Gedraitis
> > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 1:40 PM
> > To: L-FORWARDLOOK@LISTS.PSU.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [FWDLK] intake torque specs
> >
> > also, does anyone know a dependable place to get gaskets for said intake?
> > ('55 301 poly 2bbl) NAPA has struck out twice, but we suspect it's the
> > counter guy, who needs to ask for the year " '55 " to be clarified as
> > "1955"  if i'm not mistaken, there aren't too many other options...
> >
> > ~dave
> >