273 V8 spark wire routing, looms and grommets

-
Cuda Al said:
The 67 covers have a hole for the banana clip to snap into
In 67 there were two different floating clips, the square on the right side of the engine. I do not know if this was done in other years, early or late.

View attachment 1715885862

View attachment 1715885863

Alan
Click to expand...

The wire clip on the right side of your second pic is the one I was talking about #4 above. I know my 65 Commando 273 originally had at least one of them on the driver's side. Can't remember if I had one on the passenger side, or whether my car had any of the long inline clips when it was new.
 
I ordered four of the “banana two wire” types to snap on the covers from Laysons. I had two of the odd round type that hold four wires. Will set that all up and see about other clips if needed. I appreciate all the help on this new journey! I have no need for a hot rod and just to restore the car as close as I can to original.
 
mike240 said:
Motor may not be correct for 66…is this Dec of 1964 stamp?

View attachment 1715885865
Click to expand...
You are correct....the block came out of a '65 model, not a '66. '66 blocks were stamped with a B 273........and curiously at a slight angle where the top and bottom of the letters/numbers were uneven in depth. In '67 the C273 wasn't parallel to the head gasket like the earlier models (or later models for that matter).
 
cudamark said:
You are correct....the block came out of a '65 model, not a '66. '66 blocks were stamped with a B 273........and curiously at a slight angle where the top and bottom of the letters/numbers were uneven in depth. In '67 the C273 wasn't parallel to the head gasket like the earlier models (or later models for that matter).
Click to expand...

Well this one fails leak down in #1 and smoke a little so its days are numbered. Registered the car today to drive and have fun for awhile as i gather parts and supplies for a tear down for restoration. Will eventually have to deal with motor. Guessing that finding a correct date code block will be difficult. At least one that hasn't been bored past making it worth an attempt.
 
mike240 said:
Well this one fails leak down in #1 and smoke a little so its days are numbered. Registered the car today to drive and have fun for awhile as i gather parts and supplies for a tear down for restoration. Will eventually have to deal with motor. Guessing that finding a correct date code block will be difficult. At least one that hasn't been bored past making it worth an attempt.
Click to expand...
Anything wrong with your block other than it has a weak cylinder? It may very well be original/standard bore and can be easily rebuilt.
 
mike240 said:
Motor may not be correct for 66…is this Dec of 1964 stamp
Click to expand...
IIRC the A indicates the modle year not the year built. My 67 dart has a C 273 12 -6 and was delivered in Feb of 67. So the engine was built on 12/6/66.

Your A 273 12 -4 would have been built 12-4-64 for a 65 modle year car.

Unless I'm way off on what I think I know
 
toolmanmike said:
Anything wrong with your block other than it has a weak cylinder? It may very well be original/standard bore and can be easily rebuilt.
Click to expand...

I think the bad hole is tapered. Holds pressure at the top. Anyways the receipts with car indicated a rebuilt in 2015 with all new valves, stems, hardened seats,pistons, decked and bored and one cylinder sleeved. Does not say which one. Other parts too ARP fasteners etc. just a parts list and list of machine services.
 
I just looked in the 67 FSM in the front of the engine section.

Many of the images are reused from prior years.

It clearly shows the drivers side has round split retainers on the valve cover and the 4 square intermediate retainer.

It also shows the passanger side as having the round split retainers. IF the image is factory correct for A year, it might be correct for the first year that the image shows up in a FSM
 
Lots of times they didn't upgrade the photos from one year to the next in the FSM's
 
cudamark said:
Lots of times they didn't upgrade the photos from one year to the next in the FSM's
Click to expand...
That's my point. If the first photo appeared in 64 or 65 might that be more correct for 64 or 65 for the op?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top