2.2 common block

[168glhs1986]

Would like one for a backup. Any new mopar performance blocks out there?

[contraption22]

I don't think such an animal exists. MP blocks were all pre-CB.

[168glhs1986]

Ha thanks for that Mike. Which one is better?

[lengel]

I have a TIII block.

[contraption22]

I have a TIII block.

TIII's are rumored to be the best blocks available. Although I do not know specifically why they would be any better than any block that came out of the same plant. (Mexico I believe.)

[83scamp]

Ha thanks for that Mike. Which one is better?

I'd run a common block. The added beef in the bottom end makes a stout base for building the engine. The DC race blocks were only built for a short while to fill the gap between the original 2.2 block, and the "turbo" block. The turbo block had enough extra meat in it to make the DC block pointless. Besides, it is near impossible to find one now.

[BadAssPerformance]

Ha thanks for that Mike. Which one is better?

More DC Race Block info in the next issue of "Up Front" mailing this week!

Depends on how much you want to push it... DC block is supposed to have the thickest cylinder walls, but there are only a few left in existence

[zin]

In Warren's thread, this was discussed, and his consensus was that the later (93?) blocks from Mexico were the best castings, though that is based on sonic testing and not taking into account the supposed extra nickle the TIIIs were supposed to have. If the TIIIs are "high nickel" blocks, they may very well be the best, but that is not a certainty.

Mike

[mpgmike]

I have a common block that sports a "-1" in the casting number. This means it is a virgin casting block. The science of manufacturing means it has the least amount of core shift of any other block out there.

When a new casting is made, the first block out is a dash-1. When one of the cylinders collapse and is replaced, it becomes a dash-2; etc. Chrysler used this indicator for years (at least as far back as the '60s).

Mike

[zin]

Sounds like a picture worthy post ....

Mike

[Reaper1]

I have a common block that sports a "-1" in the casting number. This means it is a virgin casting block. The science of manufacturing means it has the least amount of core shift of any other block out there.

When a new casting is made, the first block out is a dash-1. When one of the cylinders collapse and is replaced, it becomes a dash-2; etc. Chrysler used this indicator for years (at least as far back as the '60s).

Mike

Excuse my ignorance here for a minute, but this doesn't make sense to me.

These blocks were sand cast in batches. Each time a block is made, the sand mold has to be "remade" in it's own die set. I would figure that each die set for the sand would have it's own marking like that dash number, but because the sand mold is in essence destroyed with every block, the only thing that is re-used from batch to batch that is 100% consistent would be the sand dies.

It is possible to track each block down to the shift it was made, and that dash number to me would make sense that you could track what mold die set made the sand casts for it so if there is something wrong with the die set it can be fixed.

At least this makes sense to me, knowing what I know of parts tracking, raw material tracking, and tooling tracking.

[JohnnyIroc]

i have a 2.2 out of an 89 daytona t2, was replaced by chrysler in 95 guy worked for kohler dodge then too
so not sure what the deal is with it
id sell it