|
|
Veteran
Posts: 282
 
| Hey guys, I might not have the correct tital on this thread and would be happy to hear from anyone who knows more about these Exhaust Manifolds.
This is a pair numbers being 1536377-1 and 1536377-2 to me they look exactly the same so I do not know why they would have what I suppose is a Left and Right numbers?
Is that a date code that one has on it? looks like 4-28-66 but I suppose would have to be 4-28-55 ??
Those outlets really sweep out so am I right in thinking Truck? or did they use the same on the Chrysler 300's?
Ok so the next question is whay are they worth? I do want to sell them.
 (392 Hemi Exhaust 2.JPG)
 (392 Hemi Exhaust 1.JPG)
 (392 Hemi Exhaust 3.JPG)
 (392 Hemi Exhaust 4.JPG)
 (392 Hemi Exhaust 5.JPG)
 (392 Hemi Exhaust 6.JPG)
Attachments
----------------
 392 Hemi Exhaust 2.JPG (132KB - 521 downloads)
392 Hemi Exhaust 1.JPG (170KB - 239 downloads)
392 Hemi Exhaust 3.JPG (111KB - 235 downloads)
392 Hemi Exhaust 4.JPG (127KB - 227 downloads)
392 Hemi Exhaust 5.JPG (126KB - 263 downloads)
392 Hemi Exhaust 6.JPG (137KB - 258 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
 
Location: Under the X in Texas | These are heavy duty Dodge truck exhaust manifolds from the '54-56 period and these were cast in '56. Those Dodge trucks had 331 and 354" Hemis. Yes, Carl Kiekhaefer did use these on his race cars. They were not available on production cars any year, any model. Any time a casting or part number has a dash plus another number (typically 1 or 2) that indicates the mold that was employed to make them. This is a quality control in case of future problems. They are absolutely identical left and right (except mold number). Yes, they will bolt onto a 392 but have clearance problem in a torsion bar chassis.
|
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 9654
 
Location: So. Cal | Wayne, do you know if the clearance problem is only with the power steering box? In other words, would they fit a 392 with a manual steering box? I do know that they barely fit with a 354 or 331 with power steering without touching. |
|
| |
|
Location: Under the X in Texas | Depending on how the rubber cylinder motor mounts are turned on their offsets within the '57-58 motor mount cup, there is still less than adequate clearance or actual interference with the power steering box on the left side. On the right side it is a similar situation to the rear leg of the upper control arm. There is a catchphrase of "engineer's fit" for minimal accepted clearances of parts that rock or move during driving. In this case the 4 bolt manifs could be shoe-horned into a '57-58 chassis with a 392 however there is too much heat getting to the steering box or actual touching and there is probable touching to the control arm. "Engineer's fit" isn't there. With a manual box, which is smaller, there is adequate left bank clearance.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Under the X in Texas | For the 1957 300C 399 code race cars (390 HP, manual trans, manual steering) there were designed early in the year, a modification of the truck 4-bolt flange exhaust manifolds. The following year these became the standard exhaust manifold for the '58 300D fuel injection cars and the manifs and 2.5" exhaust system became an option for all '58 300D cars. Recalling the option name as "High Flow Exhaust System" or similar. The modification was to partly flatten the outside of one ram's horn. When mounted to the left bank the "flat" gave clearance at the steering box. When mounted to the right bank, this "flat" gave gave clearance at the control arm. Some 8-9 years ago, I had recast the '57-58 performance exhaust manifolds because I needed one and other owners sought them All have been sold as of a couple years ago and another run will not happen. Photos show these manifolds.
 (2008_07270007.JPG)
 (2008_07270014.JPG)
 (2008_07270008.JPG)
Attachments
----------------
2008_07270007.JPG (42KB - 291 downloads)
2008_07270014.JPG (44KB - 249 downloads)
2008_07270008.JPG (37KB - 236 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 9654
Location: So. Cal | StillOutThere - 2015-06-14 12:20 PM
....All have been sold as of a couple years ago and another run will not happen.
What if we ask very nicely?  |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 363
| If you look carefully at the originals they are very weak/thin around the gasket/mounting flange and were prone to cracking in various places. Those repros Wayne did are beautiful AND strong AND clear everything.
I may have a pair for sale soon if they do not get used up on a project which was planned.....
|
|
| |
|
Location: Under the X in Texas | Powerflite - 2015-06-14 2:31 PM StillOutThere - 2015-06-14 12:20 PM ....All have been sold as of a couple years ago and another run will not happen. What if we ask very nicely? : ) It was a project that all came together at the time it was done. Costs and conditions won't be duplicated. Not happening. It was a large investment and a very slow payback with buyers very slow to appear. Not happening. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1730
Location: Michigan | I would be in for a set of those.. there is a set of 331's on ebay right now going for over 110 for the pair of them. Not the same as these but original manifolds none the less. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1622
Location: Seville, OH | StillOutThere - 2015-06-14 9:42 AM
These are heavy duty Dodge truck exhaust manifolds from the '54-56 period and these were cast in '56. Those Dodge trucks had 331 and 354" Hemis. Yes, Carl Kiekhaefer did use these on his race cars. They were not available on production cars any year, any model. Any time a casting or part number has a dash plus another number (typically 1 or 2) that indicates the mold that was employed to make them. This is a quality control in case of future problems. They are absolutely identical left and right (except mold number). Yes, they will bolt onto a 392 but have clearance problem in a torsion bar chassis.
The 4-bolt truck manifolds were used on the Dodge D-501, but some would argue that that was not a regular production car. I agree that there doesn't seem to be any difference between a -1 and -2, in fact my D-501 engine came with two -2's, both with the same casting date. I have had a number of sets of these. They all had either a -1 or -2 on them, but it is clear that not all the -1 or -2 came from the same mold. Maybe they cast them in pairs and when a mold required replacement, it became the new -1 or -2. I have one manifold with a casting date of 1963 which I thought was pretty late, unless it was strictly a service part. |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 9654
Location: So. Cal | Are you sure the 6 in 63 wasn't really a 5? I believe that hemi production of marine and industrial hemi's continued on after 1958, like to around 1960, but neither of those motors used the truck manifold. Hemi production for big trucks stopped in 1959, so that 1963 seems very late for a casting number unless they made one more run because the manifolds had a tendency to crack? But that doesn't sound like something they would do. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1622
Location: Seville, OH | Absolutely certain it is 9-30-63. It is from an NOS set, the other is dated 1962. I'll post a picture. |
|
| |
|
Location: Under the X in Texas | Service parts (when you order something for your used and broken older car or truck) will sometimes have to be created again (in this case perhpas recast) if there is continuing demand for the part and the inventory has run out. I could certainly see that happening with truck exhaust manifolds which can get hundreds of thousands of miles and overheating abuse and mechanics breaking bolts /studs/ flanges. What you have could have been cast seven - eight years after the original run of parts. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 363
| Latest casting date I've seen on these is '65 but now George's at '66. On passenger cars a seperate plate was sandwiched between the manifold and pipe for the choke take-off.
|
|
| |
392 Hemi 4 bolt flange Exaust Manifolds
