Headers for a 65 Sport Fury with 383?

[Andy Blaisdell]

Does anyone know of headers which will fit and work well in a 65 Sport Fury equipped with a 383 4 speed? How about with an automatic?

Does anyone have a set for sale that anyone knows of?

 

[The Horvaths]

TTI makes the ones that I would recommend.
http://www.ttiexhaust.com/MoparClassics-Headers/383440-Cbody/C6573-383178.htm
Others work... not well. You will have to lift the engine to install even the TTI's.

 

[Andy Blaisdell]

Thanks, Engine is currently out anyway to rework and convert to 4 speed as well as re-do the entire engine bay due to the small engine fire. Really wasn't thinking of spending that amount of money on headers. Being my first Mopar I am learning that the price of aftermarket performance parts is ridiculous compared to my other collector cars.

Anyone out there with used ones they are willing to part with or others that will fit?

 

[Badvert65]

You won't likely find anything new that will fit unless you figure on spending over $500. That's just the cost of headers today. If you want to keep the cost down, you can use any of the factory HP exhaust manifolds.

 

[CBODY67]

The days of the '$79.95 headers (even for Chevys) is long gone. Even if they were thin-gauge tubing. There can be subtle differences in the model years of Chrysler HP exhaust manifolds, but they should all go in the same place. Differences include the clocking of the exhaust exit flange and the style of the lh heat stove "vanes" on the exterior of the casting.

Some I used to see at Mopar Nats Swap Meet looked very rusty, yet they still wanted $300 for the pair! That was 11 years ago. The heat stove versions started in about '69, I believe, to complement the "heated inlet" snorkles in the air cleaners? An emissions-era situation.

There should be a cast part number on the manifolds, which can make model year determination easier, but there should also be a casting date, too. B-body versions might fit, but usually have different part numbers than the C-body items, I believe, but that might not be universally accurate. Key thing is to do due diligence in finding out the best ones to look for AND get the best ones in the process.

CBODY67

 

[Zwap]

Some people have succesfully used Hedman 78070 shorties in 383 and 440 C-Bodies. About $220 but requiers a ministarter.

 

[Andy Blaisdell]

I don't mind spending money but when the gain of HP to the $ spent is so outrageously out of proportion headers for $800 to $1000 are really hard to live with unless you have more money then sense. Since I have everything apart and the person who built the dual exhaust which is in the car built it to where the pipe on the drivers side is almost in constant contact with the steering linkage I know now is the time to change things up. I have the stock manifolds off the 65 Sport Fury: (DS 2463107 and PS 2205535) as well as a set of manifold off a 78 440 manifolds (DS 3830800 and PS 4041468D). Not sure which one of those would perform better but just looking I would guess the 440's. Any input there?

 

[The Horvaths]

I don't mind spending money but when the gain of HP to the $ spent is so outrageously out of proportion headers for $800 to $1000 are really hard to live with unless you have more money then sense. Since I have everything apart and the person who built the dual exhaust which is in the car built it to where the pipe on the drivers side is almost in constant contact with the steering linkage I know now is the time to change things up. I have the stock manifolds off the 65 Sport Fury: (DS 2463107 and PS 2205535) as well as a set of manifold off a 78 440 manifolds (DS 3830800 and PS 4041468D). Not sure which one of those would perform better but just looking I would guess the 440's. Any input there?

You might see a 1 hp difference between the two manifolds...
Use the ones that look nicer.

 

[Badvert65]

As far as 65 Fury's go, you will run into problems on the passenger side. Specifically interference with the torsion bar.

 

[CBODY67]

Use the cast iron manifolds with the largest exit flange diameter. The earlier ones are smaller, I believe. In a personal project I did back in high school . . .

CAR LIFE magazine published a chart and a list of particular correction factors. The chart was vehicle weight on one side, 1/4 mile trap speed on the other side, with a scale in the middle for "Horsepower". There were also correction factor charts to predict performance (1/4 mile speed, 1/4 mile ET, axle ratio) for changes. I had to copy that page to keep from wearing it out! Plus my K+E slide rule. I took all of the magazine road tests with each engine/body/powertrain combination and corrected the performance into to a 4000lb car, 3.23 rear axle ratio/H78-14 tires (about 25mph/1000rpm). See the C-body correlation? Then with those corrected-to-control figures, I looked at the "Horsepower" figures for each engine. The '65 and prior 413s were weaker than the later 440s, for some reason. Even the 426 Street Wedge was weak!

I looked a the particular engine specs and saw no real significant "spec" issue per se. BUT . . . our Mopar club sponsoring dealership was having a warehouse closeout sale of obsolete parts they'd gotten from other dealers (for resale). In one bin was an exhaust manifold from the middle '60s, a B/RB rh manifold. THEN I saw what was killing the horsepower. It was the 2.0" exit hole on the exit flange of the manifold. The flange gasket on our '66 Newport 383 was 2.25", by comparison, as many other B/RB exhaust manifolds. By comparison, the "log" manifold on the '65s were more "log" than the '66 manifolds, and as "log" as the '74 manifolds are, they have larger cross sections and I suspect a larger exit hole at the flange. Some of the later manifolds, I believe, were up-sized to allow for the use of AIR pumps, even when the pumps weren't used.

The whole attraction of the HP manifolds, as they were originally billed by Chrysler, was that they had the power capabilities of aftermarket headers, but without the head aches (of many headers of the time, with many of them happening due to the fact that few used the better header gaskets, plus the quality control issues of some brands). If that HP design had not been beneficial, Chevy would not have copied them on their '90s LT1 5.7L V-8s (in the Caprices and such).

I suspect that if you notice any difference, it will be above 4000rpm. At least in my theory. But that theory kind of was disproven when a friend put headers on his '79 Corvette, and it ran better at lower rpms, too. Your judgment call.

CBODY67

 

[Andy Blaisdell]

Thanks The car will hardly see above 4000 RPM except on a rare occasion. I'll check out the manifolds I have and any others I come across before reassembly and probably ed up with cast manifolds. That is unless I somehow come across some reasonably priced headers. I did notice that TTI doesn't provide a picture of the side views of the headers. Pictures of headers that fit would be awesome!

 

[The Horvaths]

I don't have pictures of them out of the car. Here they are in the car. (TTI's on a '66).

 

[LocuMob]

I don't have pictures of them out of the car. Here they are in the car. (TTI's on a '66).View attachment 145112 View attachment 145113

I can't wait to have a straight stub frame to see if mine fit properly! I like my tti's.

 

[Badvert65]

There are a number of 'block hugger' headers that are likely to fit, such as the set Headman makes. I can't vouch for them, but I have the Schumacher shorty headers on my 440 Fury. They fit very nicely, would fit even better on a narrower 383 (they are close to the passenger torsion bar). If you don't think you'll go much over 4000 rpm, the Schumacher shorties would work great. I have a set of TTI headers that will eventually replace mine as soon as I finish the blown, stroker engine. If you spend the money on decent headers, you won't regret it. But, for the budget minded, go with the Cast HP manifolds.

 

[bajajoaquin]

Use the cast iron manifolds with the largest exit flange diameter. The earlier ones are smaller, I believe. In a personal project I did back in high school . . .

(snip)

The whole attraction of the HP manifolds, as they were originally billed by Chrysler, was that they had the power capabilities of aftermarket headers, but without the head aches (of many headers of the time, with many of them happening due to the fact that few used the better header gaskets, plus the quality control issues of some brands). If that HP design had not been beneficial, Chevy would not have copied them on their '90s LT1 5.7L V-8s (in the Caprices and such).

I suspect that if you notice any difference, it will be above 4000rpm. At least in my theory. But that theory kind of was disproven when a friend put headers on his '79 Corvette, and it ran better at lower rpms, too. Your judgment call.

CBODY67

I love that you did that chart with all the cars. I have a similar one going with dyno sheets, cam profiles and such. I'm using Excel, but that's basically the modern version, right?

Regarding your comments about "I suspect that if you notice any difference, it will be above 4000rpm. At least in my theory. But that theory kind of was disproven when a friend put headers on his '79 Corvette, and it ran better at lower rpms, too. Your judgment call."

They can both be right. The thing that makes headers provide better torque at low RPMs is that longer head pipe tubes (and longer collectors) enhance low-speed torque. There's effectively no length to the head pipe and no collector on a manifold, so any improvement you see will be due to increased flow capacity. Headers will flow better up top, and see tuning effects in torque.

Headers still have issues with fitment, heat, access, durability, etc., but for power, I think the facts show that they are a pretty good option all around.

 

[CBODY67]

In the '60s and '70s, when there was a large number of header manufacturers, it was not too uncommon to find a set that fit exactly "easy" (although I was around mostly "brand x" cars back then). Most needed a "dimple in a tube" with a ball pein hammer's round end. Most other issues were wit "header leaks" from the flanges allegedly not being "flat", but more possibly from the quality of the pressed asbestos "white" gaskets, which were common and came with the headers. Once the header bolt might get a little loose, then the gasket would "blow-out". Many tricks to help prevent that, but none seemed to universally work.

Later, in the later '80s, when the stock Chev 454 cast iron manifolds would "warp", we'd grind them flat and then used the "black" reinforced high-heat gaskets. Cost more but NO problems. Later, when GM started slicing the flange, no more warping or heat issues with the manifolds.

Obviously, the headers will flow better and better scavenge the residual cylinder gases during the valve overlap time. I.e., less residual "egr", so the resulting mixture to burn is more "mixture" than diluted mixture. More power as a result.

The reason that many OEMs now use tubing exhaust manifolds is that the tubing is not a heat sink, so the cat converters get more heat quicker for improved cold start emissions performance. Not specifically better flow per se.

When the Gen III Hemi first came out, there were some cutaways of the exhaust manifolds. Rather than just a "log", that "log" had divisions from the particular exh ports so they were incognito headers of sorts.

CBODY67

 

[bajajoaquin]

I just remember there was nothing I could do to get my Hedman Hedders to fit my Dart!

 

[CBODY67]

I love that you did that chart with all the cars. I have a similar one going with dyno sheets, cam profiles and such. I'm using Excel, but that's basically the modern version, right

Thanks for the kind words. Actually, I used note cards and a Royal portable typewriter for the printed version.

In 1967, HOT ROD magazine was doing some dyno tests of various engines. One of them was a Chrysler 383/325 engine. To see how it did and what the possibilities it could have with modifications. Using that dyno test and the "on the ground" horsepower figures from my project, I determined that the Chrysler TorqueFlite'd powertrain absorbed about 15% of the flywheel horsepower. Maybe closer to 18% on some. With modern low-roll-resistance tires, maybe a little less? With the low-pressure slicks, probably more.

It was fun, interesting, and revealing. And kept me out of trouble.

Later, in 1969, Chevy had their CanAM racing series 430 V-8. It ran rings around the existing 427s. In building that special engine, they allegedly optimized the bore-stroke, stroke-rod length ratios to 1.28 and 1.9, respectively. When I started THAT investigative project (using the Peterson "Engine Annuals" from the later 1960s, which I had in my "library", I discovered that those ratios were the same for the Chevy Z/28 302 V-8 (which everybody raved about its "rev-a-bility" to high rpms. The surprise was that the Chrysler B-383 was exactly the same! By comparison, the Chevy SB400 had a s/rl ratio of about 1.57. The RB440 was about 1.75.

Chrysler's original approach, as revealed in an article in the old "MoPerformance" magazine, was to have the connecting rod total swing arc be 15 degrees of less. To minimize piston skirt side loading. A different approach to stroke-rod length, it appears.

EACH of the GM divisions had their own Chief Engineer back then, so their design approaches probably tended to be more concerned with packaging in the chassis and being competitive with the other similar GM divisions. Ford did lots of mix/match in their FE series for different displacements within that engine family. Their MEL (Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln) motors looked similar to the FE, but enough differences that NOTHING interchanges, except possibly spark plugs and oil filters.

LOTS of neat stuff going on back then! Some of the things being tried were later perfected in the 1980s with flow benches. Other things that were thought to work (i.e., round ports in the Pontiac RamAir heads) didn't work any better than what they sought to replace. But they sure did look "killer" back then, when looks counted more than a lot of other things.

CBODY67

 

[Andy Blaisdell]

I found a set of headers for the Fury. Actually the guy had 3 sets of big block headers for sale near St Louis and got all three on the cheap as a package deal. Not sure what the others go to but figured for the price I couldn't go wrong. Also landed some really nice 516 heads which had already been updated to 1.74 intake valves, Stainless steel valves, Bronze guides, hardened seats and cut for larger lift springs. Problem is the springs were missing as well as retainers and keepers.

I'll post pics of the other headers to see if you guys might be able to tell me what they go to. Couple of bent in pipes of course.

 

[Andy Blaisdell]

These are the three sets of Big Block Mopar headers which I got in that package deal in St Louis. There are a few dents in them and surface rust but easily repairable. Going to glass bead blast them and hi temp paint them. Can anyone tell me what the second and the third set fit? I am under the belief that the first set will fit my 65 Sport Fury with 383. Correct me if I am mistaken.