How many of us are there? Owners of Dodge based RV's?

[whiteknight001]

I'm new here, and curious.

How many of us in Class C own Dodge B300 incomplete
cab/chassis based RV's? I know two others- Steve aka
Ripsaw, with a 1977 Brougham, and Leroy aka 1978_Dodge
_Delta who owns a 440V8 powered sharp looking 1978
Delta RV. I would like to ask, and offer, help, idea
swapping and comparing notes on our particular RV's
which are based on the Dodge B300 van chassis.

Yeah, I know. These are low tech, podgy old RV's that
would be considered "entry level" for folks like me,
but I have a deep and abiding respect for the quality
of these old "monsters of the open road". And anyone
wanting to pick brains, joke about, share notes or just
brag about our old A- Dodge-io's are certainly welcome
to PM or email me. Between all of us we can form a real
good support group, and help each other with problems
we know we'll encounter with an older vehicle.

Sure. I'd love a new RV. But I'd rather have an older
one already paid for, and a lotta great memories. Call
me frugal, an old hippie, or whatever you will. I'm proud
of my old land yacht.

Mopar Madness Manifest in the flesh,

Mark aka White Knight

P.S. Mine's a '72. Is there an older one out there someone's
motorvating in? Maybe even a Travco? W/K

[Jarlaxle]

What is better? Let me count the ways...

More torque (displacement is torque).
Parts actually, you know, AVAILABLE. (Nobody makes 413 pistons anymore.)
Better heads.
Most had a ThermoQuad from the factory, saving the trouble of changing over.

Crank is a wash, unless it's a 440-3, which uses the 6-pack crank & rods. A 440 block (any 440 block, from the 60's to 1978) is plenty strong for any street engine. Give me a 440 over a 413, every application, every time, no exceptions. Heck, I'd rather have a 400 than a 413.

And yes, shrouding (or clearance, on some aftermarket heads) IS a factor with big-valve heads on a 413's smaller bore. The best thing about a 413 is you can sell it on eBay and bolt in a 440 with no other modifications. There is no Earthly reason to use a smaller-displacement engine with identical packaging.

[MasterBoondocke]

Jarlaxle wrote:
The 440 is a better choice, carb to oil pan. There is no case where I would prefer a 413.

And what about the 440 is better ? ..... for an RV application. I can only think of two things that some might think as "better".

EVERYTHING else ...... the block, heads, intake-heating, crank, rods, cooling-system, pistons - etc ..... is far FAR better.

And I see you did not comment on the additional shrouding "issues". GOOD move.

[Jarlaxle]

The 440 is a better choice, carb to oil pan. There is no case where I would prefer a 413.

[Jayne60]

79powerwagon This looks something like ours....the big front windown over the cab actually had the window curved. Made for some wicked leaks. No matter. I am still looking. I gotta find a picture of my first baby/

[MasterBoondocke]

Shrouding ? ... not a whole lot better in a 440 with a 1.81 valve. THEN you put a 4.15 crank in it. Huh ?

And a 440 is a better choice ...... the whole motor, heads -- what ?

[Jayne60]

Morgan, scan thru my big ol post and you will see that your "baby" will do fine on your cross country trip. Good luck. Let me know how it goes.

[Jayne60]

This is not my usual group, I do the pop ups these days, but my first introduction to rv'ing was in 1994 when my boyfriend and I took a trip to Lakeland Florida to stay with a friend in is Winnebago at a fish camp on the St. John's river.(Yeah, we saw alligaors too.) My first impression was very very bad. It was old, and cramped and had a musty smell, and how in the world would we sleep back there, and the bathroom was so tiny, but I kept a stiff upper lip because my boyfriend was on a quest to find a long lost relative. Within a short period of time I was totally hooked on the whole concept of Rv'ing and before we left Florida we bought a 1972 Dodge Cobra class c and drove it all the way from Tampa to north alabama. We had some wonderful trips in it until my boyfriend got too sick to wrench on it...yup, it qualified for an antique license plate...too bad our state didnt do them any more, but we still felt pretty lucky. I can close my eyes today and see every nook and cranny of our first RV, and get some really big tears in my eyes. My story is pretty special to me. The Rv finally had a bad carberator, and my boyfriend passed away from emphysema. Never would give up the cigarettes. Give me a few years and I will be telling a sad story about my current boyfriend. Gives one reason to not consider marriage at age 60 when you might not have too many years, but you will have all the bills. Oh well, sorry I went on and on, but the Dodge Cobra will always have a huge chunk of my heart. It finally flooded out when the creek jumped its banks. I cried the whole day they hauled it off. Hopefully, God willing, i will be able to pull a pop up for at long as I live.

[Jarlaxle]

And said valves were heavily shrouded. The bore is too small for good breathing...the 305 Chevy has the same problem. The 440 is a better choice.

[MasterBoondocke]

Jarlaxle wrote:
One major reason the 413 uses smaller valves is very basic: it has a smaller bore than the 440 (all RB's have the same stroke), and the larger ones simply do not fit easily. IIRC, most of the HD 413's & 440's (and most "dash-3" engines in general) are governed to under 4000RPM. There's no tach in my friend's class C (1974 B-300, 440-3), but the engine is certainly not a revver.

The best Mopar big-block heads are the later open-chamber ones, from the 1968-ish 906 to the last of the 400 & 440's in 1978. In fact, the later ones are BETTER, since they all have hardened exhaust seats for unleaded gas.

Huh ??... !!

One style of the 413 had the LARGEST exhaust valves that were ever put in any B/RB-engine !!

[Jarlaxle]

One major reason the 413 uses smaller valves is very basic: it has a smaller bore than the 440 (all RB's have the same stroke), and the larger ones simply do not fit easily. IIRC, most of the HD 413's & 440's (and most "dash-3" engines in general) are governed to under 4000RPM. There's no tach in my friend's class C (1974 B-300, 440-3), but the engine is certainly not a revver.

The best Mopar big-block heads are the later open-chamber ones, from the 1968-ish 906 to the last of the 400 & 440's in 1978. In fact, the later ones are BETTER, since they all have hardened exhaust seats for unleaded gas.

[MasterBoondocke]

Big_John wrote:
In the industrial engine, yes, Chrysler did their homework and I'm sure the valve size is great for that application. A motorhome? I don't know. First you've got more cubic inches to feed. There's no getting around that. Then you're not running at a constant speed like you are with a stationary industrial engine. I think the small valve may narrow the power band. Under 3000 RPM may be fine for you, but for me, climbing steep hills and sometimes towing a car trailer, there are times were the RPM in my motorhome goes over 3000 RPM.

Honestly? It may work fine. Chrysler used the bigger valves in all the 440's they built though. They never saw the need to use a smaller valve.

Try it and report back. Its got me curious.

First ... this motor was designed and put in way more MHs(and trucks) ....than "industrial" by far. Are you aware that there were TWO "industrial" motors ? ... the 413 and the 361.

In a MH application you ARE running a basic "one rpm" for most of the running time. For SURE it narrows the power band AND the max output ... but I would rather have a motor that will run it's best in the range of 800-4500 than one that will run up to 6k. But is this just me?

Those HEADS are the reason why Chrysler dropped the 413 combo. That total motor cost Chrysler 250$ more PER UNIT ...than the 440 that it replaced. The exh valves? ... were sodium filled. They cost almost 50$ each(at the dealer) ! .... the rotators cost a TON too. ALL those items add-up ...big-time.

Try what ? ..... the flow work ? .... my intent is to get the fuel/air mixture automized the BEST .... at and around 3k. If this means epoxing up the intake ports ...so be it.

[79powerwagon]

Big John makes a good point. In the Power Wagon with 3.91 gears and the 3 speed 727, normal cruising was 25-3500 rpms. But at many times (freeway on ramps, crossing traffic, climbing hills, and general tom foolery) my engine ran near 6000 rpms. While the P Wagon is not as heavy as a MH, it was no light weight either, and I built the engine for it wanting most of the grunt down low, but still having some left when I needed it up high. I used small valves (stock size), small tube headers, 2.25" dual exhaust, dual plane intake, a real mild cam (214), small 600 cfm carb, etc. The combo was unstoppable!

[Big_John1]

MasterBoondocker wrote:

Big_John wrote:


Yes, I guess you're right that you wouldn't have to use that pump, but I thought that was the idea. 😉

Does the industrial engine have the removable valve seats? All the other big block Mopar heads I've ever seen don't have this.

I still think the valves are too small, even in the low RPM range, but that's only my opinion. It would be interesting to see how well they work in this application though.

That massive pump is not required to use the heads ... but under heavy load -- it does prove it's worth.

Those valve seats ARE removeable - indeed. But in the many sets I have seen ... I have never seen a "smoked seat". Now on the 440 heads ... I have seen heads that have had the valve sunk almost .200. Are you also aware that the exh valves had rotators on them? ...

How well they work in "this" application ? .... the proof is in the pudding. Chrysler really did their home-work on these heads.

You question the valve size ? ..... at under 3k rpm? ....why?

In the industrial engine, yes, Chrysler did their homework and I'm sure the valve size is great for that application. A motorhome? I don't know. First you've got more cubic inches to feed. There's no getting around that. Then you're not running at a constant speed like you are with a stationary industrial engine. I think the small valve may narrow the power band. Under 3000 RPM may be fine for you, but for me, climbing steep hills and sometimes towing a car trailer, there are times were the RPM in my motorhome goes over 3000 RPM.

Honestly? It may work fine. Chrysler used the bigger valves in all the 440's they built though. They never saw the need to use a smaller valve.

Try it and report back. Its got me curious.

[79powerwagon]

They're two years old. They are the new, correct 20lb portable LP tanks, and the lines in the truck are for those tanks. We're OK on this!

[MasterBoondocke]

79powerwagon wrote:

eyeteeth wrote:
I'm curious... what have others been doing about replacing/updating propane tanks for the opd valve regulation on these older units? Can they use "standard" 20-30-40 lb tanks?

My truck came new with 2-20 lb tanks. I simply went to the RV place and bought 2 new hoses with the new style connector and BINGO! All done! The previous owner was even nice enough to "forget" that he the new tanks there (probably for a grill since they wouldn't work on the rig), so my only expence was for the 2 new lines!!!! :B

So 9er ...what is the date on the tanks? New lines on the tanks do not make it a OPD.