The Australian engines had a "Super 225" decal on an unsilenced filter and 1bbl carb...not sure what was super about it !

http://www.valiant.org/valiant/engines.html
The above link is an Aussie slant. The 2bbl engines also had an unsilenced filter on some models from memory,other had a snorkel .

No, sir. The Australian air cleaners you're talking about are silenced items, both the 1bbl and the 2bbl versions. Silenced/unsilenced is not a matter of with/without snorkel.

(The air cleaner used on the 2bbl 225 in Australia did not have a snorkel. A snorkel was added to the 1bbl air cleaner for the '67 VE model. All of these were silenced air cleaners.)

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Oh reallly? I always thought the snorkel was the deciding factor...for my education what is the deciding factor that makes them silenced? Just a shroud around the filter? I don't recall the 1bbl VE filters but I do remember the 2bbl having the shallow non snorkel set up and the auto choke with the hot air pipes to the bi metal spring mounted in the carb.Thanks

The most obvious indicator is whether—from some angle—you could get a big, clear view of the filter with the air cleaner assembled. An unsilenced air cleaner is "yes", and a silenced one is "no". The silenced air cleaners have a small gap between the inner diameter of the lid and the outer diameter of the base; see here. Unsilenced air cleaners have a big gap in this location, or just a partial splash guard (like the '62-only 170 air cleaner shown here or those aftermarket open-element "performance" air cleaners).

You can make an unsilenced air cleaner by using the base and bail from the 9" 1bbl air cleaner and the lid from the 11" 1bbl unit. That's the setup I was too busy listening to the roar from when I got stopped by a traffic cop for the very first time -- a lot of years ago on my way to high school.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Got it...thanks Dan

Hey Yaz79, welcome to the forum! Just curious why You want to do this.
What are the plans for the mill, racing,boost, etc.? You are putting the min.
amount of cubes in the heaviest block, and the rods will have to be very
long to achieve a decent compression ratio, and long rods have to be that
much stronger/stiffer for the same applied pressure. Seems counter-
productive unless You have a specific reason.

I used 7.875 centre to centre rods and really short pistons when I did this...
( I installed a 170 crank into a 225 Aluminium Block )

As to why???
- How does a 2.52 rod ratio "feel" ?
- I always wanted a Aluminium Block 170 SL6
- Some things I do.... because I can.
DD

Where would one source such a long rod for this type of expiriment doc?


Greg

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/hyperpack

Molnar said he would make them (formerly of K1).

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines since 1988

The ones I used were out of an old Chrysler flat head six.
They needed a lot of reworking but I got them to fit.
DD

Crazy You mention that, I was doing the math the other nite, and came
up with the difference needed to maintain the compression. It worked out
to about 1.700" taller!! I went out and(very imprecisely) measured from
the corner of the head dr. rear to the block casting in line w/the bell-
housing bolt, both 170 then the 225 in the coupe, damn near 1.680"!!
Funny, the Racing manual lists the deck height as 9.68" for the 170,
& 10.68" for the 225/198!!! They list the rods at 5.707"(170), 6.699"
(225), & 7.006"(198), so they got part of it right. But even some quick
math in Your head tells you that deck height can't be right!!!

Edit; The 170 is from a '62 Valiant, the 225 is from My '64GT. both were
checked from the underside of the gasket.

I also happened to be looking up the OE compression ratios in a couple
of different sources, and low & behold, the footnote that the '64 Darts had
8.4:1 squeeze vs. the standard 8.2:1 on the 225, 8.5:1 on the 170. Did
Mopar deck the Dart an extra .020" ala the Shelby 2.2's???

Yeah, there are a lot of "funny" things (i.e., wrong facts) in that book.

The ~1.7" deck height difference explains how come the water pump to cylinder head coolant bypass hose looks more than 1" longer on an RG engine than on an LG.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

No. The nominal compression ratio moved around a little, year by year, between 8.2 and 8.5. It was not different in Darts than in Valiants, Coronets, Belvederes, D-100 pickups, A-100 vans, etc.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

The footnote was for the 1964 model year only, no other, kind of odd
to just "put in there". As soon as it dries out some tomorrow, I have a
170 that is from a '64 dart 4dr, guess I'll take a measurement & see.