Saw a Hemi at my favorite Machinist's shop today - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

t walgamuth · #1 03-04-2012, 06:57 AM

A fellow brought in a 331 Chrysler Hemi today. Wow! That is one heavy motor. Each head must weigh over 100#.

I love the way they look though.

The fellow said it is out of a 35 Chevy pickup he inherited from his Father in Law. With that 900# hemi in front the little truck rod must make a 454 El Camino look well balanced!

MS Fowler · #2 03-04-2012, 07:14 AM

Wow, they were that heavy?
That's almost double the weight of the 289/ 302 Ford small blocks.
No comparison in terms of power.

t walgamuth · #3 03-04-2012, 07:25 AM

Maybe not. ...but they were the heaviest of the common v8's of the era, probably by 75 to 100#.

I suspect the Packard OHV might be heavier and the IH truck v8 might give it a run for its weight title.

My machinist has a set of heads for a Packard OHV v8 in his shop too and they are 4" longer than a Chevy head.

We play "guess what this is" when he gets new things in. I am pretty good at guessing oddball things like flathead ford rods, packard heads etc. I have a lot of general knowledge about engines and can often guess things I have never seen before (Like Packard heads).

If you see the delicate rods in a flathead ford (they look a lot like the rods in a 250 Ferrari motor) you can understand why they were known as high revving motors back in their day. Like the 250 Ferrari motor the ford rods have their rod bearing caps bolted on at a 45 degree angle to get it through the small bores.

Mike D · #4 03-04-2012, 08:14 AM

Yup, back in the 1950's no American manufacturers were going to mess around with that inferior "aluminum" metal. Why, that stuff was for poor countries which didn't know how to properly cast "real" metal. Besides, gasoline is only 16 cents a gallon and we have a gadzillion years worth of oil in the Oklahoma oil field alone....

t walgamuth · #5 03-04-2012, 08:22 AM

According to my engine weight chart the 331 Hemi is 745#. the Cadillac 331 of the same era (which is godawful heavy) is listed at 699#.

I don't know if that includes starter and so forth or not.

hill · #6 03-04-2012, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

According to my engine weight chart the 331 Hemi is 745#. the Cadillac 331 of the same era (which is godawful heavy) is listed at 699#.

I don't know if that includes starter and so forth or not.

354 Hemi heads are 98#. A few more than 454 heads.

Stoneseller · #7 03-04-2012, 01:24 PM

Another anchor was the late 50'searly 60's Chevy 348. Tons of torque, but not what a street rod would be happy with horsepower wise.

Strife · #8 03-04-2012, 01:27 PM

On modern engines, they can do simulated stress analysis of an engine before the castings are even planned. Back then, this type of analysis consisted of guesswork, limited testing (how many interations can you do of really expensive tooling) and human experience. There was very little downside to "overdesigning" something in an era of cheap energy - and this isn't just gas, it's metal, the heat to cast, the shipping weights, et cetera.

You can bet that a modern engine, and entire car, have very little extra "beef" where it isn't needed.

Strife · #9 03-04-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoneseller

Another anchor was the late 50'searly 60's Chevy 348. Tons of torque, but not what a street rod would be happy with horsepower wise.

This actually was a very interesting engine design, with the combustion chamber basically in the piston. The pistons were REALLY heavy.

t walgamuth · #10 03-04-2012, 02:32 PM

It was a gas hog boat anchor of a motor. OK in a grain truck but never really should have appeared in a car.

My sister had one. What a slug. 61 belair IIRC.

PaulC · #11 03-04-2012, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

It was a gas hog boat anchor of a motor. OK in a grain truck but never really should have appeared in a car.

My sister had one. What a slug. 61 belair IIRC.

Was the 409 based on the 348?

t walgamuth · #12 03-04-2012, 03:48 PM

Yes. I am not sure what all they did to create the 409. Obviously it was better (The Beach Boys DID do a song about it!)

Stoneseller · #13 03-04-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

It was a gas hog boat anchor of a motor. OK in a grain truck but never really should have appeared in a car.

My sister had one. What a slug. 61 belair IIRC.

An old country boy repair shop owner tried to get me to buy one he had laying around back in '72 or so. I was looking to hot rod my newly acquired '57 chevy sedan.

On the advice of a classmate, whose dad owned a service station and taught his boys well, I opted for a 327 out of a '62 or '63 Impala SS instead. I was a very mechanically inclined "hippy" at the time, with no practical experience with cars under my belt as yet.
Best choice I could have made. That was a sweet motor.

Stoneseller · #14 03-04-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

Was the 409 based on the 348?

IIRC the 348 had a shorter stroke and smaller pistons, but the same block.

I doubt many owners ever cracked block on one of those behemoths.

rscurtis · #15 03-04-2012, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

It was a gas hog boat anchor of a motor. OK in a grain truck but never really should have appeared in a car.

My sister had one. What a slug. 61 belair IIRC.

You are correct. It was originally a truck engine that was transplanted to a car. The 409 couldn't hold a candle to a 427 Ford or a 426 Hemi. Chevy was not really in the performance business until they came out with the "porcupine" 396/427.

I once rebuilt an IH 266 V8. It used the same size block as a 392, and probably wasn't any lighter. It had over an inch of water jacket between cylinders. Even with broken rings and worn out bearings, it still ran pretty well.