The Forward Look Network
The Forward Look Network
Search | Statistics | User Listing Forums | Chat | eBay | Calendars | Albums | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forward Look NON-Technical Discussions -> 1955-1961 Forward Look MoPar General DiscussionMessage format
 
MichiganMan
Posted 2018-09-02 12:54 AM (#569401)
Subject: 1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions


New User

Posts: 4

Just acquired a 1960 Belvedere sedan, which we (the boy and I) are planning to build out into a mild hot rod/daily driver. It currently sports the 225 slant six and is able to, barely, get out of its own way. Downhill. With a tailwind.

That being said, we're not looking to build a race car. Our goal is to have something that makes the right sounds, can chirp the tires, and be a bit of a stoplight hero. In addition, we want to increase the driveability of the car by upgrading some aspects of the running gear. To that end, our initial project list looks like this:

- swap for a B/RB big block. I know you could get a 361/383 in this vehicle, but I believe these were the lower deck "B" motors. Any fitment issues with the more common RB motors? There is no replacement for displacement, and if I can put a 440 in place over a 383, I'd likely go that route. We would plan to build a motor around the 400 hp mark.
- add disk brakes to at least the front. I'm looking into upgrading to power brakes as well (have a physical disability that makes power brakes a very nice thing to have over manual)
- lower the suspension. Thought about air bags but that seems to be overkill when we just want to drop and rake the big girl a little bit

Has anyone taken on a project similar to this? I'd love to pick your brain if so.

Thanks,

MM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-09-02 8:38 AM (#569416 - in reply to #569401)
Subject: Re: 1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5413
5000100100100100
Location: northern germany
Yes, it fits but actually the 383/400 is by far the superior engine, unless you want to plow a field. In personally would rather build a 361 than a 440.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
plymouth
Posted 2018-09-02 11:43 AM (#569425 - in reply to #569416)
Subject: Re: 1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions



Expert

Posts: 2185
2000100252525
Location: McComb, Mississippi
And no need for airbags. Just adjust the front height by loosening the torsion bars. The rear can be lowered with blocks. There are front and rear disc brakes available for these cars.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
longram60
Posted 2018-09-02 1:00 PM (#569429 - in reply to #569401)
Subject: RE: 1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions



Veteran

Posts: 242
10010025
Location: Crystal River, FL
The engine mount pedestals are different on the slant six front subframe than the V-8 subframe, so some fabrication will be required.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-09-02 1:02 PM (#569431 - in reply to #569416)
Subject: Re: 1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions



50005000500050002000100252525
Location: Parts Unknown
I have built both B engines and RB engines. The 440 is stupid
overkill of fuel consumption vs. delivery at the wheels. The 383
is my choice of all the wedges. It will give you more than enough
lift for stoplight racing without requiring a stop at every gas station.
My 440 Magnum Coronet is fun to drive, but dangerous on high
revving shifts (car easily goes sideways), and the amount of fuel
it eats is absurd. The 383 can be built to deliver mid-20's mpg and
still tear the tires off the rims. The simple physics of air through
a 440 makes much over 10mpg impossible. I think my Coronet
gives me about 14 on the highway, if I am really nice to it. But it
is fully capable of dropping that to 4mpg if my foot gets heavy.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Sonoramic60
Posted 2018-09-02 2:41 PM (#569440 - in reply to #569431)
Subject: Re: 1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions


Elite Veteran

Posts: 1173
10001002525
Mich --
As far as I am concerned, there is no substitute for cubic inches, especially when they generate a quarter or so ton of torque. From my own experience, while I fervently believe and maintain that the stock ram-inducted 383 develops more than its advertised 330 horsepower and presents a very most impressive image upon opening the hood, for actual driving I prefer the 426-S which will "chirp" the tires not only off the line, but also when going from 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, and 3rd to 4th -- with the 375 HP/440 CID engine being even more of the same (and with 3.23 gears).
Personally, I think if I were to build a 60 Belvie, I'd drop a 426 or 440 with a single Carter AFB in it, paint it red with gold valve covers like a "Golden Commando 395", and hang some "Golden Commando Power" badges on the fenders. It sure it would bug the heck out of purists (like me) if they knew the truth but, in the meantime you could wipe up all the dudes in their Goats on the street. If you wanted under-hood appeal, there always is the very expensive and rare ram-induction setup with appropriate emblems, again looking like a stock SonoRamic Commando, on the 426 or 440. If you don't want a "sleeper" but would like some pizzazz in the engine compartment there are several 2X4V carb setups out there (including Max Wedge clones) to say nothing about the 440 Six Pack stuff.
However, if you want fuel economy, keep the /-6.
Sid --
I'd never use one of the those big 426 and 440 mills to plow fields as I like them to rip up asphalt.
Joe Godec
'57 Chrysler 300C, '60 Fury SonoRamic, '65 Vette Fuelie, '65 Sport Fury 426-S/4-Speed
Top of the page Bottom of the page
57chizler
Posted 2018-09-02 2:53 PM (#569441 - in reply to #569431)
Subject: Re: 1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions



Expert

Posts: 3001
20001000
Location: NorCal
Doctor DeSoto - 2018-09-02 10:02 AM

The 440 is stupid overkill of fuel consumption vs. delivery at the wheels.


You could use that same argument to say that any BB is "overkill" compared to the /6. The OP is obviously looking for power, not mileage.

I helped do a 440 long-ram swap into a '61 Savoy and, yes, the /6 mounts won't work; be ready to do some fabrication.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-09-02 3:58 PM (#569448 - in reply to #569440)
Subject: Re: 1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5413
5000100100100100
Location: northern germany
Sonoramic60 - 2018-09-02 2:41 PM

for actual driving I prefer the 426-S which will "chirp" the tires not only off the line, but also when going from 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, and 3rd to 4th -- with the 375 HP/440 CID engine being even more of the same (and with 3.23 gears).

Sid --
I'd never use one of the those big 426 and 440 mills to plow fields
Joe Godec



But you would want after your 426 met my 383 at least after if it accumulated the same mileage:

330+K miles (heads never been off) 2.93 open rear end, mild cam, acceleration from curb idle around 500rpm, without loading up the tc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvPRrCk01vE
Top of the page Bottom of the page
MichiganMan
Posted 2018-09-02 9:36 PM (#569470 - in reply to #569401)
Subject: Re: 1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions


New User

Posts: 4

Sounds like either option will work; good advice on the differences in subframe. The reality is that I'll have to pay someone to do the work, but it helps to go in educated. Which brings me to another question (obviously I am new to Mopar - thanks for the patience!). My car has the push button auto trans - am I correct in assuming that this is an early 727? Or is it some other transmission? Anything that will need to be buffed should we go with the big block? I have a similar question on the rear end. I'm again assuming it is standard open axle, and we'll want to add a limited slip of some sort. Any recommendations are much appreciated!

This has been very educational - your help is definitely giving me some thought!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-09-03 2:17 AM (#569489 - in reply to #569470)
Subject: Re: 1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions



50005000500050002000100252525
Location: Parts Unknown
You could attack this 1000 different ways. I offered the idea of fuel economy
as part of tempering just how wild you want to go. If "ripping up asphalt" at all
costs is more your style, dial up a Dana 60 out back and go "whole hog" all the
way to the front with it !

I like to drive my cars. Not drive them around town, from stop light to stop light,
looking for some chump to smoke. I have no use for cruise-ins and car shows, so
my bent is making the car/s give good performance, but not require $200 worth of
fuel just to go 300 miles !

But lots of guys DO just want to race between stop lights and do cruise-ins and
car shows .... It's all a matter of what YOU like to do, and how much money you
want to spend !
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Sonoramic60
Posted 2018-09-03 10:44 AM (#569516 - in reply to #569489)
Subject: Re: 1960 Belvedere - /6 to B/RB swap questions


Elite Veteran

Posts: 1173
10001002525
Mich --
Actually, the '60 TorqueFlite is the 904 and while similiar to the 727, the two are not easily interchanged without effort. The 727 is a better trans as it is lighter, with an aluminium case, and with a "gen-u-wine" parking brake.
Sid --
Don't forget that I'm an old fudd and a product of the days when engine displacements increases were the major solutions to horsepower. Back then, about the only reason the mills didn't get any bigger was because NASCAR and USAC started putting a 7-liter limit on engine size (ergo, the 426, 427, 421, 428, 429, etc.). Experiments in induction systems were just that, experiments, and expensive ones (i.e. the fuel-injection on my '65 Vette was a big $538 in 1965 bucks and the ram setup on my '60 Fury was $412). In comparison, the '65 396 was only $138 and it had 50 more ponies (though at the expense of more engine weight up front). I must state that bigger engines were not necessarily all that effective, as the 409 was not really as good an engine as the 348, but again being a guy that hasn't progressed from the 60's, I'm still enamored with the mystique of the 426 and 440. In my case, cars became just transportation after our first son was born in 1968 so nowadays I'm just trying to return to the days of my misspent youth in the late 50s to 1968.
Another interesting point, my dad could never get over the 160 MPH speedometer in my wife's '63 Vette. Today, just about every souped-up riding lawnmower in automobile guise has at least a 140 MPH speedo and can actually do it using less and lower pollutant fuels, while handling extremely well.
Joe
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread



(Delete all cookies set by this site)