Chrysler 413 Cross Ram in 1962?

[StevenGuthmiller]

I've been trying to find some documentation as to whether or not the Cross Ram (Long Ram) intake set up was available in the '62 Chryslers but I've come up empty.

Does anyone have any knowledge if this was an option in 1962?

I know that it was available in '60-'61 & again for '63-'64.

Seems a little strange that I can find nothing about this intake configuration in '62.

Did Chrysler discontinue it for one year in the middle of it's production?

I recently traded for a Johan 1962 Chrysler 300 convertible kit that has the Long Ram set up, but this is meaningless as a lot of the '60s Johan Chrysler kits offered these parts as part of the custom options.

I'd like to use it if it's correct for '62, but I need some expertise.

Anybody have the answer?

 

Steve

[Bill J]

I can only find the 300 with a 413 and 2-4 bbls on an inline manifold for 1962.

[keyser]

Ultimate Guide to Chrysler Muscle Cars by Mueller, p,35 states that the long-ram was not standard, but a variant was available as a short ram and it seems a long ram. Book doesn't distinguish  which was factory. The short ram was 15" shorter than the long runner. The short was used in Plymouths and Dodges, as they were much smaller underhood in '62.

Hot Rod evidently tested a 62 300H with a ram manifold, but none seem to survive. 

Best I could do. HTH,

Max Wedge came out in 62 as well. The long rams didn't have much top end. The short ram and the Max Wedge intakes had lots, so probably why less sold. 

[StevenGuthmiller]

Thanks guys.

I since found this on a site called "Allpar.com" that seems to corroborate what Christian said.

 

"The 300 H, with it's non-ram twin 4 barrel carbs, got a 380 horsepower label, but could also be ordered with a 15 inch set of ram tubes, (405 horsepower).

If the right box was checked, you could have gotten it with the 30 inch long of ram tubes.

That engine was not rated.

The same applied to the 426 cubic inch version.

To my knowledge, no one ever did order such cars.

If there are any, of either engine size, with the 30 inch tubes, they would be a truly priceless piece."

 

I guess at least it seems that the option was available.

That gives me the "green light" to go ahead with the 413 Ram!

 

Steve

[Harry P.]

Thanks guys.

I since found this on a site called "Allpar.com...

Allpar is the best website for any MOPAR information. It's the Chrysler online bible.

[Xingu]

The Long Ram is my favorite intake. I love the way they look!

[gtx6970]

From 1962s 300H, the fins were gone, as was the letter series' unique place in the Chrysler lineup; there was now a whole Chrysler 300 Sport Series (which included a four-door hardtop along with a two-door hardtop and convertible), along with the 300H. Externally there was little difference between the 300H and the 300 Sport Series (except for a "300H" badge on the driver's side of the trunk), and many of the 300H's features could be ordered as options on the other models. Under the hood of the 300H the cross ram engine became an option, and there was a return to the inline dual 4-barrel carb setup of the 300E as the base power plant. With a slight power boost and a 300 lb (140 kg) lighter body, the 300H was faster than the 300G, but the loss of exclusivity coupled with high prices made this the slowest-selling letter series year yet, with only 435 coupes and 135 convertibles sold.

[keyser]

Holthaus did a 61 300 I missed. Bought one on ebay that was nice, it arrived with trashed windshield frame. Back it went. 

Really wish I could find one, the 61 was Exner at his best. 

Sales dropped precipitously after the lowline stuff appeared alongside the letter car.

[tim boyd]

Guys....you need to double check me on this but I understood that the "long ram" and "short ram" intake manifolds appeared to be the same or very close to the same on the outside  The "long" and "short" referred to how long each individual cylinder head intake tube in the manifold ran separately (long ram), vs. joined (siamesed) together internally (short ram) for part of the length of the ram tube intake.    

Steve....this car (the '62 300H) would be a great subject for your Mopar building expertise....can't wait to see how it works out for you, and good luck on fixing that '65 Fury III hood paint  

TIM 

   

[keyser]

Tim, I think the runners were really similar, but the 30" ones ended up with the carb outboard the valve cover, and the 15" ones were closer to V edge of valve cover. That said, I don't see 15" diff between the two. Now I have to figure that out.

Pretty close at a glance though. I learned stuff looking for this. Best part of boards.

Edited June 22, 2016 by keyser

[StevenGuthmiller]

Tim, I think the runners were really similar, but the 30" ones ended up with the carb outboard the valve cover, and the 15" ones were closer to V edge of valve cover. That said, I don't see 15" diff between the two. Now I have to figure that out.

Pretty close at a glance though. I learned stuff looking for this. Best part of boards.

Just from the appearance in your photos Christian, I'm assuming that all of the manifolds included in the Johan kits were the "Long Ram" variety.

I'm pretty sure that they all looked like the ones I used on my '64.

 

Steve

 

[keyser]

Yes, all long ram. The short ram looks different, as it is flat where the runners are siamesed, and the long ram is separate from plenum to port. 

It'd be pretty easy to box off the runners from base of carb to 1/2 way down length. 

There has been notes about the short ram being narrower, and it did look shorter in a couple albeit poor pictures, with carb more inboard. This is consistent with smaller engine compartment of Plymouth and Dodge, vs. the Chrysler, where the wheelbase changed, but front end was pretty much unchanged.

Wish someone would cast another 61 300 letter car. Love those things. 62 close, but the fins just Exner.  

[StevenGuthmiller]

Wish someone would cast another 61 300 letter car. Love those things. 62 close, but the fins just Exner.  

If a guy wanted to spend the time & money, you could probably pretty easily combine the '62 300 with the old Johan '61 New Yorker kit.

Not much difference between the 300 & New Yorker except the grille, & side trim.

The only badging was in the side trim, grille, trunk ornament & a small "300" on the deck lid.

You could use the original '62 interior.

 

Steve

 

[gtx6970]

for some reason.i thought there was a 15" and an 18" runner ......can't remember ever hearing about a 30"

[StevenGuthmiller]

for some reason.i thought there was a 15" and an 18" runner ......can't remember ever hearing about a 30"

Yeah, looking at Christian's photos, I fail to see where that 15 inch difference comes in.

 

Steve

[tim boyd]

Tim, I think the runners were really similar, but the 30" ones ended up with the carb outboard the valve cover, and the 15" ones were closer to V edge of valve cover. That said, I don't see 15" diff between the two. Now I have to figure that out.

Pretty close at a glance though. I learned stuff looking for this. Best part of boards.

Thanks Keyser...that is what I was trying to remember correctly.   Cheers....TIM 

[keyser]

Well, I can't get to my JoHan Cross Ram manifolds I have, but if someone can throw a caliper on them, I'd guess length from bottom of plenum to port should be 30"??

I cannot find dimensions of the B motor, but has to be 30" from base of carb to port, and short ram basically siameses half that, as you can see the separate round runners start halfway from carb plenum to port. I did not see anything about 18" looking. Pic came from All Par. 63 motor, but same manifolds. 

, 

 

[1930fordpickup]

Christian How wide is the engine itself ? That could tell you the length of the runners.