1964 Barracuda Oil Pan Clearance and Cylinder Head Selection for 318 LA Engine

-
T

Techluthier

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
Orlando
I am swapping a 1970 LA 318 Small Block into my 1964 Barracuda, which was originally equipped with 273 V8 and 904. The 318 came from an RV.

I am wondering if anyone has recommendations for the highest capacity oil pan available that will fit between the 318 and original K-Member. Has anyone gone with a Milodon or Moroso oil pan in excess of "stock replacement" 4 or 5 quart capacity and had acceptable clearance with the K-Member?

Also, high capacity oil pump and pickup configuration: Recommended over and above stock flow? What is your 400hp 318 equipped with and how has that worked out?

With that: The 318 is targeted to produce 400hp such as those builds described in the following links:

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/0810phr-chrysler-318-engine/

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/113-0304-318-small-block-build/

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/mopp-0409-318-engine-build/

***

Cylinder Heads: I've read about 302 head castings for quick burn, closed chamber, benefits. Would "302" heads be a better choice for a 318 400hp build?

Short of getting into porting and other head-work such as larger valves, etc. It was recommended I go with a package system such as an Edelbrock Top End Power Package that includes cam, lifters, heads, and intake. Those heads have 2.02 intake valves and are 63cc combustion chamber (seems to theoretically work out well for target compression ratio of 9.5 to 1).

Would 2.02 be too much for a .030 or .040 over 318?
Would I be better with 1.93 valves, etc?
Would it be recommended to chamfer the cylinder to deck transition as I have read about in various engine builds with a generally smaller bore to head configuration?

If anyone has run an Edelbrock top end Power Package on an LA 318 I am curious to know how your build has resulted regarding performance.

I am mainly looking for cruising performance that can run down a highway with the original 904, and will give best bang for the buck reliability while being able to roast the tires at will.

PS: The 904 is going to be re-worked to accept later (post 1967) 904 torque converters and slip yoke instead of original Ball and Trunion configuration while staying with Push-Button on the Dash.

Thanks for your input!
 
IMHO the 2.02 will be overkill for a 318. Your best bet would be the "302" casting or even better, convertor to a Magnum top end (heads, pushrods and oil through lifters, AMC or later Mopar are the same) The MAgnums have a better port, and larger valves than the 318's or "302"s. small chamber 318 would get a boost with 360 valves but 360 head by itself would lower compression. Edel top end for ~$1600 is great but somewhat underutilised with a 318 under it. For that money, look into a turbo setup. Dr. Jekyll cruising, Mr Hyde when under boost.
 
Thanks pishta,
I hear you on the 2.02 contention. That's what I was suspecting. The 318 has cast crank as far as I know....unless its a fluke that the 318 ended up being equipped with a forged item. As far as the heads are concerned, I get what you are saying. I know of the Magnum to LA retrofit that's out there. One of those HotRod builds describes such utilization. How would 2.02 valves become adequately utilized atop a 318? A machinist told me I could bore it out to max, maybe .060 over, but there is the end of the block quite potentially especially if the water jackets have been corroding over many years from the inside out, etc.
The other idea was to go with a Hughes or Campbell 318 to 390 Stroker kit, which might utilize the 2.02 heads?????
 
Hypothetically speaking, if one was to take a 318, stroked to 390, and intend to run it in a factory K-Member equipped 1964 Barracuda, what oil pan, oil pump, configuration would work? Still on the oil pan issue with regard to higher performance, and the '64 K-Member--regardless of heads and valves, etc. Nonetheless, I don't plan on running the vehicle at the 1/4 mile or severely beating on it. Just wanting to have a performing configuration that is reliable, fun to drive, beyond the mundane while remaining somewhat budget conscious. That said, I might even be pushing it by considering the 2K for the stroker package....
 
Add a couple baffles to your stock pan. Another thing to really think about is exhaust. Are you going to use the stock 273 manifolds or headers? If you're using the manifolds, the later model 318 heads and driver side manifold have a clearance issue that some minor grinding to the manifold can fix. Headers for the early-a's are unique and expensive. Dual exhaust requires clearancing the trans crossmember. Also, with some research there are better options to making power than a "package" from Edelbrock. In my opinion Edelbrock's older LD4B or LD340 intakes are better than their new stuff.
 
Thanks Commando66,
Planning to use TTI headers specifically for early A Body, though I do have the original 273 exhaust manifolds.

I'd been wondering how much clearance there will actually be for the oil filter on passenger side and the starter on the driver's side with the TTIs. The stock exhaust system barely allowed for any manner of removing the factory lump of a starter.

As far as the options for top end components. I had heard about the LD4B and LD340 in various posts. How is hood clearance affected by using either of those intake manifolds? I am hoping to keep the original steel hood intact and installed on the car.

I am probably going with factory cast 318 crank, 318 rotating assembly with forged rods and hypereutectic pistons, zero-decked, balanced from flexplate to damper.

The top end could be configured with "302" heads and an LD4B.
To your knowledge or another's..... how far can the "302" castings be machined with regard to larger valves installed? I am considering this in light of 2.02s such as in the Edelbrock package being under-utilized atop a 318 at .030 or .040 over, etc.

Your thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top