1963 New Yorker Exhaust Question

Engine, Transmission & Driveline

  1. 63Fun

    63Fun Member

    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Hello All,

    I have a 1963 New Yorker with a 413 4bbl engine in it. It has single exhaust right now, and I'd like to convert it to dual exhaust (with a cross-over (H) pipe)).

    I know the 300 model this year had dual exhaust and even dual quads. I would like to upgrade to that exhaust. Does anyone know if that car also had different exhaust manifolds as well? Is there anyone out there that remanufactures factory exhaust for these cars?

    I attached pics of my exhaust manifolds below. As you'll see, they aren't necessarily performance manifolds.

    My passenger's side manifold has PN 22055JS on it (last 2 are a guess).
    My driver's side manifold has PN 22055S8 on it (last 2 are a bit of a guess). IMG_4353.jpg IMG_4356.jpg
     
  2. Davea Lux

    Davea Lux Senior Member FCBO Gold Member

    Messages:
    4,074
    Likes Received:
    1010
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2017
    Location:
    Cornelius Or
    The '63 cross ram cars had a completely different exhaust manifold setup. You have stock log style manifolds which were not noted for their high degree of efficiency. Used cross rams and the exhaust manifolds that accompany them are expensive and hard to find. What are you plans for the car? Adding dual exhaust to the log manifolds will probably increase you performance some. If you are looking to build the engine down the road, you might want to find a later set of high performance exhaust manifolds ("67-'70), those later HP manifolds are starting to get expensive as well, or consider a set of quality headers and build the exhaust system accordingly. If the car is going to be a sunny day cruiser, do the dual conversion and call it good with the log manifolds. TTI and Waldron's both offer complete exhaust for these '63-'64 Chryslers.

    Dave
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. CBODY67

    CBODY67 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    827
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    By observation, the '67-'73 HP manifolds have been expensive for decades. No matter how much rust was on the outside surface, by observation.

    The factory 300-Letter car exhausts had special front pipes to run exhaust heat to the bottom of each side's intake manifold plenum, for better drivability and such. Past that, probably similar to the 413/360 dual exhaust system that was under normal 300s and New Yorkers. Part of that additional 20 horsepower was due to a slightly hotter cam.

    I always wondered why the stock 413s and 426 Street Wedge motors always seemed to produce less power than the marginally larger 440 of 1966+. Then, one day at a dealer's obsolete parts clearance sale, there was a '65-era log manifold. With an exit hole of about 2' diameter! Not nearly big enough or as big as the outlet gasket on the '66+ 440s. So, even the '66 manifolds would be an improvement . . . provided they fit YOUR chassis! A higher-flow version was used on the '72+ B/RB cars, as their normal log manifold, with a bigger exit hole. Again, possibly even less expensive as they aren't on the radar for "muscle car" people. BUT, make sure they'll fit and clear that earlier chassis!

    BUT . . . also be aware that if you change the exhaust manifolds, then those that build the dual exhaust system will need to know what you did, so they can build the pipes to match-up. But since I don't know how clearances are on those '64 and back C-body cars are, relating to engine exhaust and such, it would probably be better to do the stock-for-the-car factory dual system. No H-pipe needed. Hopefully, you can get one in 2.25" pipes?

    If you had a '65 C-body, or newer, then I'd feel better about recommending the later manifolds as '65 was the model year when the basic platform architecture changed for C-bodies. More engine compartment width, for one thing.

    So, generally, I concur with the above statements.

    CBODY67
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
  4. 63Fun

    63Fun Member

    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Thanks for the replies. I do have a set up later 60s exhaust manifolds for a b body, but from what I read above, they may not work due to the different engine compartment space in the earlier c bodies. Plus, something like that would require modification.

    Does anyone than make a dual exhaust setup that’ll bolt right up to the log manifolds?
    I know the original duals were 2.25, while the single was 2.5. So if I could then maybe do duals in 2.5 that would help offset the log manifolds a bit.

    You mentioned no H pipe needed. Why is that? I know it’s not needed, but it wouldn’t hurt to just gain back a little power no?
     
  5. CBODY67

    CBODY67 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    827
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    One of the earlier reasons for the "H" pipe, which Ford typically used on all of their '60s-era factory dual exhausts, was for sound issues, which could also relate to balancing the pressure pulses, side-to-side. Back when all of their factory dual systems used 2.0" pipe, no matter what the car or engine was (which I didn't realize until years later while looking at a then-current Walker Exhaust catalog. Same muffler on a 427 2x4bbl V-8 as a normal 390 300 horsepower T-bird.

    GM didn't use an H-pipe, nor did Chrysler. IF the sound control issue was the real reason, then ANY crossover pipe/duct between the two sides would do, including the heat crossover passage in the intake manifold. But when a friend (as other "hot rodders" used to do) blocked the passage on his '79 Corvette, no appreciable change in exhaust note or sound level, that we dould pin on that one change.

    The X-pipe is a more blatant effort to share flow, side to side, of the exhaust out-flow. According to a former Panther-body Ford website, the use of the X-pipe raised the frequency level of the exhaust. Using two X-pipes multiplied that effect. On a 4.6L V-8 LIncoln Mark, it went from normal rumble, to a higher pitched rumble, to a "scream" (in that progression) as the first and second X-pipes were added to the dual exhaust system.

    Consider, too, that if you're going to use an H or X pipe, that automatically means that you've got to run the two exhaust pipes tightly parallel to the driveshaft. Which also works much better on IRS cars as the driveshaft does not go up and down, but remains "in its place", so to speak.

    Also, the placement of the transmission tailshaft housing in relation to the rocker panel height will have a bearing of how the exhaust system hangs, which can also mean that ANY system with an H or X pipe could have to hang lower than the rocker panel, just to use them. I can tell you from experience, having to watch were one drives is a BIG PAIN with a lower-hanging exhaust system (as on my '77 Camaro after one muffler shop sold me some thicker-than-stock mufflers. It has one fist's-width of ground clearance, which even affected how I had to drive into my shallow-angle driveway without hearing scrapes! Not good--period!

    Remember ONE THING about OEM's vs. aftermarket. IF the alleged improvement is enough the average customer will feel it and "feel value" in the change, it'll happen. Especially if it means more horsepower and/or better fuel economy (both VERY marketable areas). If not or any other compelling reason based in engineering facts, it either becomes optional or doesn't happen.

    Example: For the '58 model year, Buick introduced their Triple-Turbine DynaFlow automatic transmission. Better torque multiplication off-the-line (now termed "launch"), for a mere $58.00 on the window sticker. BUT other than some possible exterior name plates, nobody knew your car had it. Spend that same money on two-tone paint or white wall tires? Instant recognition. People could SEE those things, but not a "hidden" transmission change. Buick spent $3M on that transmission, to see it last for three model years. People who had it liked it, but if the general public couldn't see it sitting on the sales lot, no interest.

    The aftermarket exists to allow owners to upgrade/customize their vehicles, as desired. Nothing wrong with that, BUT sometimes the real benefits of such modifications lie in the customer's head. The added performance which many things offer will only show up on drag strip ET slips or in possible better throttle response, but usually NOT at the gas pumps, for example. If electronic ignition didn't offer some real customer benefits, it would not have been an option that later became standard equipment (as emissions regulations tightened, back then), for example. Helped the service industry as mechanics didn't have to spend as much time laying on fenders to change/adjust ignition points, too!

    The ONE real benefit of an H-pipe is that should the front u-joint fail, the front of the driveshaft might contact those pipes first before it starts to rotate against the moving ground under the car. Same principle as a "drive shaft loop", just probably not recognized as such by drag racing safety inspectors.

    Just some thoughts,
    CBODY67
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. CBODY67

    CBODY67 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    827
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Usually, the lead pipe off of the exhaust manifold needs to match the outlet size of the exhaust manifold. This makes flange sealing much better AND produces no flow turbulence in that area. Exhaust flow out of the manifold is anything but smooth. There are positive and negative pressure pulses, even with a smooth feel to the exiting exhaust gases at the end of the tail pipe.
    So, best to use the same pipe diameter as the exhaust manifold exit flange. Smoother flow, even with a slightly smaller pipe diameter, will be better than a turbulent flow with a larger size.

    In any situation, there will be some designed-in restriction, of sorts, which is kind of a safety-valve situation. In this case, it's the exhaust manifolds themselves. Until you might put something much better in their place, key words "MUCH better", then going to a 2.5" "manifold-back" system will not be worth the added expense for it. Better to use some lower-restriction mufflers of the correct "case size" and matching inlet/outlet pipe diameters.

    Now, IF you could coax the exhaust system suppliers to build you a "transition pipe" behind the exhaust manifolds, which would smoothly transition from a 2.25" pipe diameter to a 2.5" pipe diameter, over about a 2' space in the pipe, THAT might serve to have more of an "extractor affect" upon exhaust flow, with possible higher flow velocities through the exhaust manifolds, for a bit more power. How much power? Not sure. Especially not sure if the possibility of added power might be worth the added expense, either!

    So, end result, get the pre-made system in the correct pipe sizes and put some "better" mufflers, but QUIETER rather than LOUD, and have the feeling that you've got something at least as good as the stock system. Then enjoy driving the car! Spend the extra money not used on something more exotic on some better shocks, brakes, or such.

    CBODY67
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. 63Fun

    63Fun Member

    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Did the 413 300 cars in 63 only use weird exhaust manifolds? I'm assuming the 300 cars didn't use the log manifolds that I have?

    Does anyone know of, or can point me in the direction of someone that makes a dual exhaust setup that’ll bolt right up to the log manifolds? I'm looking for a bolt in swap, without having to make any modifications. Preferably no welding required either.

    http://catalog.walkerexhaust.com/ca...alkerexhaustasset&locale=en&loadStatus=ACTIVE

    I found that above. Not sure if it works with my application. I did not that it doesn't have additional resonators as part of the tail pipe, which I thought New Yorker's got (at least the single exhaust version did).
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
  8. BIGBARNEYCARS

    BIGBARNEYCARS Senior Member FCBO Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    2190
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Location:
    SHADOW OF MOTHER'S PROVING GROUNDZ
    What part of the planet are camping on? Theirs a shop named Waldrens in south central Michigan (just north of Sturgis, Mi.) that will Build, Bend, and ship from Templet's they have hanging from their rafters, and they're exceptionally good at what they do. FYI 63Fan, Only the 1963 300J and the 1964 300 Ram K had the cast iron headers. The regular Chrysler '63+'64 300 had the Log Manifolds. Be specific on what you want when you talk to them for your order and you'll be happy, Jer
     
  9. CBODY67

    CBODY67 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    827
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    As noted, the 2x4bbl "cross-ram" engines would have the specific exhaust manifolds. The normal 413s would use the "log" manifolds.

    The rear resonators were probably on the single exhaust cars, when built, but as there were an extra "muffler" to rust out, they were probably all replaced with a formed straight pipe (i.e., "resonator eliminator" pipe) when they needed replacement. Didn't make much difference in the normal exhaust sound, by observation. Not enough that you'd really notice inside, with the windows up.

    The illustration in the Walker eCatalog is a good representation of hos the pipes are configured, but not a "to scale" illustration. ALSO look in there for any available illustrations of muffler/pipe hangers, which are usually OEM-replacements.

    Waldron's has a generally good reputation, from what I understand.

    CBODY67