413 Engine

Newport 66

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
6,900
Reaction score
7,156
Location
Lancaster, WI
I just got a 413 given to me. Its out of a motorhome. My questions are: it is worth rebuilding seeing it's a RV engine, I have a set of 906 heads I would use in place of the RV heads. Are there any issues concerning block water jackets for the heads, crankshaft flanges for the torque converter bolts or any other issues that would make me look elsewhere for a core engine? Attached is a picture of the distributor pad. If I'm correct it's a 1972?

20181115_175323.jpg
 
Is there a casting date on the right side of the block.(not sure the 413s even had casting dates) Mother started using 440 blocks in '66. It's ah bit of a stretch to think they had any 413's left 6 years later for any purpose. That machined pad you show a picture for usually conveyed other information, not the year of Manufacture. Any idea what the year of the motor home was? My understanding is that the flange on the crank is different between the 413 and 440 but I'm not sure how. They started using aluminum torque flights in '62 so I'd think for those 4 years they'd be the same?
 
Is there a casting date on the right side of the block.(not sure the 413s even had casting dates) Mother started using 440 blocks in '66. It's ah bit of a stretch to think they had any 413's left 6 years later for any purpose. That machined pad you show a picture for usually conveyed other information, not the year of Manufacture. Any idea what the year of the motor home was? My understanding is that the flange on the crank is different between the 413 and 440 but I'm not sure how. They started using aluminum torque flights in '62 so I'd think for those 4 years they'd be the same?

Sounds like it's a "truck" 413 with the big heads that the waterpump housing bolted directly to. They made those engines at least until they got out of the commercial truck biz, 76 or 77.

Kevin
 
Sounds like it's a "truck" 413 with the big heads that the waterpump housing bolted directly to. They made those engines at least until they got out of the commercial truck biz, 76 or 77.

Kevin
I was going to disagree with you but I did my research first. :p

413
The 413 cu in (6.8 L) RB was used from 1959 to 1965 in cars. It was also used in medium and heavy trucks including truck-tractors such as the C-1000, up until 1979

In addition :

With Dodge pulling out of the heavy truck business, the C series' last year in the US market was 1975. A few hundred more CNT800's and CNT900's were exported in 1976 as CKD kits to Latin American countries, where the last units were assembled until 1978.[
 
The block and crank is pretty basic RB. The crank might be 8 bolt. Rods I'm pretty sure resemble a 6pak rod dimension wise and the pistons would be different than automotive too. GM ran 4 ring pistons in their 366 and 427 HD truck engines, I don't know if Mopar did the same or not.

Nothing above the deck resembles an automotive engine.

Kevin

D-Series

ramcharger064.jpg
 
The block and crank is pretty basic RB. The crank might be 8 bolt. Rods I'm pretty sure resemble a 6pak rod dimension wise and the pistons would be different than automotive too. GM ran 4 ring pistons in their 366 and 427 HD truck engines, I don't know if Mopar did the same or not.

Nothing above the deck resembles an automotive engine.

Kevin

D-Series

View attachment 229809

It's a 6 bolt crank flange, like the 383 I have on a stand. Is the block reinforced differently than the car engines? Like I said I plan on using the 906 heads. If (when) I bore it, can I use automotive pistons with the factory rods? Thanks guys for your help. Just trying to get my ducks in a row before diving in too deep!
 
Is there a casting date on the right side of the block.(not sure the 413s even had casting dates) Mother started using 440 blocks in '66. It's ah bit of a stretch to think they had any 413's left 6 years later for any purpose. That machined pad you show a picture for usually conveyed other information, not the year of Manufacture. Any idea what the year of the motor home was? My understanding is that the flange on the crank is different between the 413 and 440 but I'm not sure how. They started using aluminum torque flights in '62 so I'd think for those 4 years they'd be the same?

The motorhome was a '72 ( chassis build date 1/72)
 
The block and crank is pretty basic RB. The crank might be 8 bolt. Rods I'm pretty sure resemble a 6pak rod dimension wise and the pistons would be different than automotive too. GM ran 4 ring pistons in their 366 and 427 HD truck engines, I don't know if Mopar did the same or not.

Nothing above the deck resembles an automotive engine.

Kevin

D-Series

View attachment 229809
I have read that you can remove the motorhome water-pump and use a standard 440/413 pump in its place and all is well.

Someone put an Eddy on that motor! I rebuilt an Eddy 1407 yesterday! Even though i took a shower after, I smelled like carb cleaner all day!!! Think it was in my nostrils!! Yuck!!
 
Last edited:
It's a 6 bolt crank flange, like the 383 I have on a stand. Is the block reinforced differently than the car engines? Like I said I plan on using the 906 heads. If (when) I bore it, can I use automotive pistons with the factory rods? Thanks guys for your help. Just trying to get my ducks in a row before diving in too deep!

Depending on what you are planning to do with this engine and how far you want to "build" it, the only thing I would consider reusing there would be the crank. If it has the style of rod I think it has, they are HEAVY. I don't know if they used a bigger wrist pin on the truck engines or not but if they are similar to the 6pak rod, all that extra weight is still being held together by the same 3/8" rod bolts. When a stock Mopar breaks a rod it's not the beam that fails, it's the bolts and cap.

If the rods that are in the engine use the stock 1.094" wrist pin size, you could use them with an automotive piston or you could use the LY car engine rods which are tons lighter and at the end of the day just as strong.

This is where the how far do you want to build it part comes in. If you are doing a proper stock rebuild as in no corners cut, the rods should be resized and new bolts installed. You just spent about $300 there. A set of new, lighter and stronger H-beam rods from 440Source is $500.

New pistons are also lighter so the crank will have to be rebalanced in any case. The upside to all these lighter parts is the engine will be snappier.

Kevin
 
As noted above, the 413 will perform better with the after market rods and pistons, and it will also be stronger. It will cost about the same to rebuild either a 413 or a 440, major advantage is that the 440 has more cubes to start with and will develop more horsepower for the same cost. All comes down to what you plan to do with the engine and how much you want to get out of it.

Dave
 
The cylinder heads on a '72 440 motorhome engine are very unique! All unto themselves! How? The exhausts are all separate ports, not next to each other in the middle. The intake side looks like normal B/RB ports, so a normal RB intake will fit. The '72 440 MH engine used a Holley 4160, just like a normal Chrysler-spec Holley carb for a car.

The combustion chambers look more like a LA motor, rather than the wedge-shape of a B/RB engine. Which makes things more unusual, for the heads. Intake like a B/RB, combustion chamber shaped like a LA, exhaust ports like a Chevy 454.

My machine shop operative had one of these motors brought to him for a rebuild, back in the 1980s. The owner also brought the Holley off of it for a rebuild. First time I'd ever seen those heads. I checked the Holley part number in the Holley Variable Spec Manual and it matched a "1972 Chrysler 440 Motor Home Chassis" application.

As far as the "unknown" 413 goes, my observation is that the main power increase for the 440 over the 413 came from a better cam, possibly larger carb cfm, and better exhaust manifolds (larger cross section of the "log"). No reason that a 413 upgraded with later 440 intake, cam, 906 heads (with the 1.74" exhaust valves), and later model exhaust manifolds shouldn't make similar power as a similar 440 would.

Chrysler pistons and pins are more than 1000gms EACH. Lighter pistons will surely help the "zingability" of the motor, especially when combined with lighter/stronger connecting rods. As mentioned, such things will need to have the rotating assembly balanced. "Knife-edging" of the crank counterweights might be done at that time, too?

When Chevy used the 4-ring pistons in the 366 and 427 truck engines, they also raised the deck height of those engines, in comparison to the normal big block Chevy engines. This allowed the same length rods and such to be used, as the taller piston was compensated for by the taller deck, rather than a different pin location in the piston. That higher deck made them desirable for racing stroker motors in the 468 and 486cid range.

440 MHC blocks also had the "hour glass" shape water passage on the deck of the block. Many perceive that this was for greater water flow in the HD applications and loads the engines would see, BUT when the head gasket was installed, it covered that area with the normal water restriction hole, so no greater amount of water flow could occur. More of a visual ID for the block than anything else.

A local dirt contractor had one or two of the MD Dodge dump trucks in their fleet. When I looked at one in the shop, I wondered "Why" on the different water pump configuration. "Weird" was more operative, as I recall. Nobody had any parts, so almost everybody who had one of those trucks chunked it when they needed serious repairs. In '74, Frontier Dodge in Lubbock had two of them sitting on the lot. I suspect they were sold for pure cost, just to sell them.

Be sure to check/record the casting numbers and dates on the block, heads, etc. . . . for general principles. Plus the distributor number, if it's still got one.

CBODY67
 
CBODY67 you are a wealth of Mopar knowledge my friend. Kudos to you and that database you call your brain. In New England we would call you "wicked smaht".
 
Not a lot of good piston options for a 413, off the shelf is limited to cast and hypereutectic. Stock bore is 4.1875" but it should go to 4.250" which is .0625" over.

You hear rumours about industrial and HD truck blocks having really thick cylinder walls but the only way to know would be to sonic check it. I can't imagine there's enough meat to go to stock 440 size at 4.320 but that would be ideal. Lots of shelf stocking pistons in hyper and forged for that application.

Kevin
 
Any stock block from that earlier time should have been or was easily capable of a .060" overbore, as a normal situation. Pistons were always available in that oversize, too, back then. Predictably, the replacement pistons were heavier than the stock ones, if that matters.

Rather than available overbore sizes, I'd be more concerned with "compression height" of the replacement pistons as THAT determines compression ratio, typically.

At this point in time, I'd suspect that most pistons available would tend toward the "stock racer" orientation rather than a "max overbore" situation. The only people needing a 413 piston would be either a stock rebuild for a street car or a nostalgia-class drag racer. But then all of the normal 413s were 10.0 CR motors, whereas the "industrial/truck" motors would probably be in the 8.0CR range, I suspect.

Perhaps Ross makes some light-weight pistons for 413s, still?

In general, though, you can be an "cubic inch king" and go for the biggest number you can, when all it takes to usually clean up a worn bore (the first time) is a .030" overbore. Save the rest of that cylinder wall thickness for later needs! Besides, in the boring operation, you'll probably need to stop at .030" for the first phase, then go past that to get to the .060" size. IF the blocks were laying everywhere and such, no real need to try to save one for the second rebuild. BUT it's not that way any more, usually. Bore the least you need to, which is usually .030" for the first rebuild. But then, you might find that the stock bore size might have minimal wear and it could become a "high limit" stock bore? Which might have more power than the extra few cid you'd get with the max-overbore situation.

Unless you're going to be using the motor for a max-effort heads-up drag racer, where a 2cid difference could mean the difference between winning and losing, overbore the least you can get away with, typically, as that extra FEW horsepower won't really make a difference on the street or in normal driving. Especially considering that I've documented that a Chrysler TF powertrain generally lets 86.5% of flywheel horsepower get to the ground.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
Last edited:
The intent is for a performance street engine, with good low end torque and driveability. Assume 9.5 or 10.0 to 1 compression, mild cam and single 4 bbl with performer intake. Not looking for a max wedge build, not drag racing it.
 
Back
Top