1973 Chrysler New Yorker 440 Motor Build

H

hilly101111111

New Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2024
Messages
21
Reaction score
7
Location
Hamburg PA
Goodmorning all I recently discovered that the 440 in my Chrysler is just about wore out and in need of rebuild. Unfortunatly money is tight and I am really trying to drive this car. What can I do to made some cheap power mostly interested in low to mid end power. I will most likely have the machine shop do all the machine work and then I will assemble the motor. Any build ideas/formulas that are cost effective and really give bang for ur dollar and again the focus is on torque and low end power. The car is rather heavy naturally and I plan on daily driving it !

Things to keep in mind I have a Holley 770 single pump street avenger and a duel plane aluminum intake that will go on along with stock exhaust manifolds. I don't want headers and I want the motor to basically look factory but be very streetable and be able to run the turnpike.
I will be installing 3:23's with a sure grip and the transmission remains stock although I am thinking about changing the converter. The car has at least 120k on the odometer judging by the motor wear and wear on other parts of the car.

I think my point to all of this is I need some solid advice and I really want to put my money where it counts!
 
Blue printing an engine to 69 specs will help with power. True 9.5:1 compression, a good smooth torque cam that is good from idle to 4500. Clean up the ports on heads and exhaust manifolds with a gasket matching.
 
Cam choice can be "critical" as many of the cams in the desired (rational and reasonable) rpm range are smaller than the stock cam, or about the same. Unless the cam shows significant wear, consider saving your money, but a good choice can make things better, too. Probably need to stay below 220 degrees @ .050" lift. Putting a double-roller timing chain in the mix can be good to do, also.

Aim for a stock 10.75" torque converter. That came with the '70 383 4bbl (383/330) C-bodies. Probably would be good with your car as it is in my car with 3.23 gears and P225/75R-15 tires. With the stock AVS and intake, throttle response gets very "tight" past 62mph.

Cyl head science is much more evolved than "back then", so an investment in some modern combustion chambers (rather than like you now have) MIGHT be considered. Past the budget-friendly Edelbrocks, things quickly escalate in price with names such as AFR, TrickFlow, and similar. Names which also quote flow figures past .500" lift, which is not the territory you need. You want strong low and mid-lift flow, by comparison. Raising port VELOCITY in the process, rather than flow specifically. So, just a normal "de-casting flash" smoothing and normal gasket matching can help this, as can back-cutting the valve heads for a smoother flow past them.

IF you are going to buy pistons anyway, the best options can be the Mahle piston/ring packages with the thin piston rings (as OEMs now use), combined with "plateau honing", to unlock some power and efficiency in the process, with their near-10.0CR in the process. I believe they should also have the skirt coatings, too?

The under-car exhaust system might be better than suspected. If it is still stock pipes, check their diameter and you might find 2.5" pipes or so. If so, adding duals might look and sound better, but not much real benefit past that up to about 4000rpm or so. Key point is the pipe diameter. Check the outlet diameter at the exh manifolds, too.

What intake manifold and jetting of the Holley carb are now on the motor?

Adding a quicker advance curve to the motor (as the 1967 440/375) might help off-idle response, which is what you want. Mechanical and vac advance. Then some NGK V-power spark plugs to help things along a bit better.

Main things would be cyl port flow issues and compression ratio issues, to me.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
CBODY67 said:
Cam choice can be "critical" as many of the cams in the desired (rational and reasonable) rpm range are smaller than the stock cam, or about the same. Unless the cam shows significant wear, consider saving your money, but a good choice can make things better, too. Probably need to stay below 220 degrees @ .050" lift. Putting a double-roller timing chain in the mix can be good to do, also.

Aim for a stock 10.75" torque converter. That came with the '70 383 4bbl (383/330) C-bodies. Probably would be good with your car as it is in my car with 3.23 gears and P225/75R-15 tires. With the stock AVS and intake, throttle response gets very "tight" past 62mph.

Cyl head science is much more evolved than "back then", so an investment in some modern combustion chambers (rather than like you now have) MIGHT be considered. Past the budget-friendly Edelbrocks, things quickly escalate in price with names such as AFR, TrickFlow, and similar. Names which also quote flow figures past .500" lift, which is not the territory you need. You want strong low and mid-lift flow, by comparison. Raising port VELOCITY in the process, rather than flow specifically. So, just a normal "de-casting flash" smoothing and normal gasket matching can help this, as can back-cutting the valve heads for a smoother flow past them.

IF you are going to buy pistons anyway, the best options can be the Mahle piston/ring packages with the thin piston rings (as OEMs now use), combined with "plateau honing", to unlock some power and efficiency in the process, with their near-10.0CR in the process. I believe they should also have the skirt coatings, too?

The under-car exhaust system might be better than suspected. If it is still stock pipes, check their diameter and you might find 2.5" pipes or so. If so, adding duals might look and sound better, but not much real benefit past that up to about 4000rpm or so. Key point is the pipe diameter. Check the outlet diameter at the exh manifolds, too.

What intake manifold and jetting of the Holley carb are now on the motor?

Adding a quicker advance curve to the motor (as the 1967 440/375) might help off-idle response, which is what you want. Mechanical and vac advance. Then some NGK V-power spark plugs to help things along a bit better.

Main things would be cyl port flow issues and compression ratio issues, to me.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
Click to expand...
Tight budget, so I figured no aluminum heads. If so the 440 source heads are best bang for buck and look stock. They also take all stock hardware, unlike some other aluminum offerings. Duals with Imperial style mufflers.
 
sent my specs to Hughes...(9 to 1, HP manifolds, iron heads, stock converter, Performer 440, 750 holley, recurved dist, 3.23, factory A/C)...they recomended their 2024BL-11 cam...the issue I ran into trying to come up with 9-1 was that the only pistons that worked used big block chevy wrist pins so had to buy rods too...I was afraid that higher compression with a bigger cam would result in something that idled like crap when the RV2 kicked in so maybe I was too conservative
 
Last edited:
Why not just do a safe and simple rebuild updating the cam, intake, and carb in the name of driveability....
You talk about TC stalls, aluminum dis n dat, etc..... all wasted money on a C-body.
Zero bang for the buck.
 
Boydsdodge said:
Tight budget, so I figured no aluminum heads. If so the 440 source heads are best bang for buck and look stock. They also take all stock hardware, unlike some other aluminum offerings. Duals with Imperial style mufflers.
Click to expand...
My desire was to get some "new tech" in combustion chamber design, which the Edelbrocks appear to have. By the same token, using "quench dome" pistons might work just as well, effectively making an open chamber design into a more-desirable closed chamber design with plenty of "quench/squish" orientations.

One other possibility is using 1.6 ratio roller-tip rocker arms, but keeping the total valve lift below about .450" at the same time. Reason is that the 1.6 ratio will move the valve off-seat faster than a 1.5 rocker will. Not sure if there might be a crossover point as to which one is best for peak power or if it might really matter on a more-stock motor at 2500rpm?

I ran across a POWERNATION segment where they dyno'd a "motor home 440", to see what it would do before they started doing their "stuff" to it. It was amazing how much torque it produced below 3500rpm. We were all surprised! In spite of its 8.2CR "worn" condition. Which can tend to support my orientation that the existing cam is pretty good, as is the head port flow, as Chrysler built them all to work together (seemingly better than other OEMS did back then).

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
CBODY67 said:
Cam choice can be "critical" as many of the cams in the desired (rational and reasonable) rpm range are smaller than the stock cam, or about the same. Unless the cam shows significant wear, consider saving your money, but a good choice can make things better, too. Probably need to stay below 220 degrees @ .050" lift. Putting a double-roller timing chain in the mix can be good to do, also.

Aim for a stock 10.75" torque converter. That came with the '70 383 4bbl (383/330) C-bodies. Probably would be good with your car as it is in my car with 3.23 gears and P225/75R-15 tires. With the stock AVS and intake, throttle response gets very "tight" past 62mph.

Cyl head science is much more evolved than "back then", so an investment in some modern combustion chambers (rather than like you now have) MIGHT be considered. Past the budget-friendly Edelbrocks, things quickly escalate in price with names such as AFR, TrickFlow, and similar. Names which also quote flow figures past .500" lift, which is not the territory you need. You want strong low and mid-lift flow, by comparison. Raising port VELOCITY in the process, rather than flow specifically. So, just a normal "de-casting flash" smoothing and normal gasket matching can help this, as can back-cutting the valve heads for a smoother flow past them.

IF you are going to buy pistons anyway, the best options can be the Mahle piston/ring packages with the thin piston rings (as OEMs now use), combined with "plateau honing", to unlock some power and efficiency in the process, with their near-10.0CR in the process. I believe they should also have the skirt coatings, too?

The under-car exhaust system might be better than suspected. If it is still stock pipes, check their diameter and you might find 2.5" pipes or so. If so, adding duals might look and sound better, but not much real benefit past that up to about 4000rpm or so. Key point is the pipe diameter. Check the outlet diameter at the exh manifolds, too.

What intake manifold and jetting of the Holley carb are now on the motor?

Adding a quicker advance curve to the motor (as the 1967 440/375) might help off-idle response, which is what you want. Mechanical and vac advance. Then some NGK V-power spark plugs to help things along a bit better.

Main things would be cyl port flow issues and compression ratio issues, to me.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
Click to expand...
I really appreciate the information ! They are the factory cast exhaust manifolds from 1973 my new distributer and carb are also vacuum advance! I will deffinetly talk to the gentlemen at my local machine shop they do great work and tell them what I am looking for. The factory exhaust is now deleted haha and will be replaced with Porter Mufflers. At least 2.5" but prolly gonna shoot for 3" !exhaust. I certainly don't mind putting my money into the heads cam and pistons im hoping to made lots of torque ! Ill deffinetly keep the cast heads and all of that. I reckon raising that compression would help a lot haha
 
What is special about Porter Mufflers? Just curious.

The normal mufflers under the car will work fine and should be the same restriction of the OEM Hemi Mufflers of back then. No need for 3" exhaust, plus the issues with bending that size of pipe over the rear axle, too! Even 2.5" might be a bit of over-kill for a lower-rpm motor. Best option might be a TTI system, making some allowances for the longer wheelbase of Chryslers.

Many people talk about all of the things to make "lots of torque" or "lots of horsepower", but when it comes to dyno time, those things tend to produce less than suspected power increases. Maybe 20 lbs-ft of torque, for example, many times.

Main thing is to get the CR into the mid-9s, but less than 10.0CR. That can make a feelable difference (not worrying about numbers).

Having an engine that feels good off-idle and with tight mid-range throttle response (giving it little bits of throttle for a few mph increase in speed, rather than more, is what I term "tight") can make the car more enjoyable to drive and, with less throttle input and use of "power mixtures" in the carb, yield a bit more mpg in the process. Looser torque converters do NOT aid in this, typically.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
Don't go with 3 inch exhaust. TTI is a great bolt in setup. I have installed over a dozen of there systems and have no complaints. I do install quieter mufflers on there kits.
 
What does "just about wore out" mean? And just how wore out is it? Loss of compression? Crankshaft problems? Noise? Smoking, under throttle or under vacuum, or both?
If it's not using oil excessively, and the compression numbers are relatively even, and not down unacceptably, and it's not knocking or rattling, then put an Edelbrock Perfomer (not Performer RPM) intake manifold on it and a cam that builds cylinder pressure in a low rpm low compression engine.
The cam would be a roller cam with long duration, low overlap, with a very wide (114) lobe separation center line. It will not idle like a baby at 600 but will be slightly rough but stable at 700 rpm. It will be very responsive while providing much more low/mid torque, and then it will fall on its face at 4000 rpm.
Keep the rear gear you have.
 
Just Carbs said:
What does "just about wore out" mean? And just how wore out is it? Loss of compression? Crankshaft problems? Noise? Smoking, under throttle or under vacuum, or both?
If it's not using oil excessively, and the compression numbers are relatively even, and not down unacceptably, and it's not knocking or rattling, then put an Edelbrock Perfomer (not Performer RPM) intake manifold on it and a cam that builds cylinder pressure in a low rpm low compression engine.
The cam would be a roller cam with long duration, low overlap, with a very wide (114) lobe separation center line. It will not idle like a baby at 600 but will be slightly rough but stable at 700 rpm. It will be very responsive while providing much more low/mid torque, and then it will fall on its face at 4000 rpm.
Keep the rear gear you have.
Click to expand...
wore out as in 1 bank of cylinders is low on compression unlike the other side and the crank is scored and it burns oil and the timing chain is falling off haha along with other things. the rear main leaks the harmonic balancer is bad the freeze plugs are rusty ect. none the less she's getting rebuilt haha I need a reliable ride as I will be daily driving it all over the place. including all the way down to Texas ! that's good to know tho I didn't know you could do that with a cam. im learning !
 
CBODY67 said:
What is special about Porter Mufflers? Just curious.

The normal mufflers under the car will work fine and should be the same restriction of the OEM Hemi Mufflers of back then. No need for 3" exhaust, plus the issues with bending that size of pipe over the rear axle, too! Even 2.5" might be a bit of over-kill for a lower-rpm motor. Best option might be a TTI system, making some allowances for the longer wheelbase of Chryslers.

Many people talk about all of the things to make "lots of torque" or "lots of horsepower", but when it comes to dyno time, those things tend to produce less than suspected power increases. Maybe 20 lbs-ft of torque, for example, many times.

Main thing is to get the CR into the mid-9s, but less than 10.0CR. That can make a feelable difference (not worrying about numbers).

Having an engine that feels good off-idle and with tight mid-range throttle response (giving it little bits of throttle for a few mph increase in speed, rather than more, is what I term "tight") can make the car more enjoyable to drive and, with less throttle input and use of "power mixtures" in the carb, yield a bit more mpg in the process. Looser torque converters do NOT aid in this, typically.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
Click to expand...
Porter makes a high quality packed muffler that makes 440s sound great ! as far as horse power and torque far less restrictive over other mufflers if it adds any power most like not even noticeable. I mainly want them for the sound and for the fact that they don't fall apart they will last in the salt compared to others. im glad that 2.5" will work just fine ! We have an exhaust shop over here that's owned and operated by menonites they do incredible work they will make me whatever I want ! for a low price too. I will price a TTI system tho.
 
I just want to say you guys are all awesome and I really appreciate everyones input.! I got my work cut out for me between this New Yorker, my house, and my truck haha amongst everything else !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
440 swap or build the 383?
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
CBODY67
C
WissaMan
400 vs 440 in a 76-78 New Yorker - noticeable difference?
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
vlodarty
vlodarty
67newport
NOT MINE 1976 Chrysler new yorker Salon Sedan 4D $2,950
Replies
0
Views
746
67newport
67newport
lbone
  • Locked
SOLD 1973 New Yorker for sale
Replies
4
Views
3K
lbone
lbone
67newport
NOT MINE 1978 Chrysler new yorker Brougham $7,500
Replies
6
Views
2K
azblackhemi
azblackhemi
Back
Top