Help run down a 392 eng.serial number

ewoky409 · Post by **ewoky409** » Thu May 06, 2004 9:23 am

I have a 392 hemi out of a 57 Chrysler 300C sport coupe.Can anybody interpret the engine number,and tell me whether or not it's the 390hp model?I've been told that it is,and it has a lot of the symptoms,but I want to know from the engine number,so I can be completely sure.The engine number is:3NE57-1787.

centerline · Post by **centerline** » Fri May 07, 2004 6:42 am

I believe you have the 375 hp '57 392. My info shows both the 380 and 390 versions should have a 58N3 code vs. the 3NE57.

ewoky409 · Post by **ewoky409** » Fri May 07, 2004 5:08 pm

Hate to tell you this,but you have some erroneous information.Chrysler didn't make a 380hp 392 in 57,the 58 390hp 392 was the fuel injected one, which mine isn't and 50's Chrysler hemi engine numbers were such that the first three placeholders(3NE) in the first half of the number mean it's a Chrysler Hemi in a Chrysler 300.The two digits after that(57) denote the year of manufacture.I know that much. I've been told by a friend,although of questionable knowledge,that the four digits in the second half of the number,each have a separate meaning,like a code,and are not the engine's place in the production sequence.I'm hoping somebody with accurate knowledge can set me straight with chapter and verse.
I'm sure mine isn't a 375hp model,because the 375hp has hydraulic lifters,and mine are mechanical.As far as I've been able to dope out,the 390hp model is the only 57 392 that has mechanical lifters.
Also, I'm almost dead sure mine is the 57 390hp model,because it has another symptom which suggests it.Mine has the 4 bolt flange,2 1/2 in.low back-pressure exhaust headers,which only the 390hp version has-all the other 392's in 57 have a 3 bolt flange.
I'm just looking for someone who is knowlegeable enough about Chrysler hemi engine numbers to tell me if,and/or how,I can glean the information I want from the numbers,to verify with certainty what I already am pretty sure about. My insecure,doubting mind is having trouble believing that I've been lucky enough to stumble onto one of these rare treasures.
If it is indeed a 390hp 392,with the engine specs.I have for that model,I,m drooling at the mouth to hear it run.The long duration,high rpm cam for that engine is outrageous!Valve lift:int.-.444,exh.-.435.Intake opens @ 48deg.BTDC,exh.closes @ 47deg.ATDC.That's a 95deg.overlap!The thing breathes like an Olympic runner.Chrysler said it wasn't recommended for street use due to rough idling and low power at slow speed. But it redlines at 7000rpm.A factory race engine.

TrWaters · Post by **TrWaters** » Sun May 09, 2004 10:10 am

Here is what it looks like to me. 1957 had three 392 engines. The first listed as NE57, 325 hp with single 4bbl used in NYer.
The second is CE57, 325 hp, single 4bbl, used in Imperial.
The third is 3NE57, listed as 375 hp, 2x4bbl carbs, used in the 300C, which would include solid lifters and 4 bolt exhaust. Sounds like what you have.

The 58 N3 used in 1958 with 2x4 carbs is listed as 380 hp, with the F.I. listed as 390 hp.

Now..the part I find interesting about your story. I have heard one other story of a Chrysler 300 factory race car/test car being found. Not sure of the year. The car was bought damaged when it was almost new. Because the owner found some "unusual" mods to the motor, he researched the car and ended up talking with Chrysler R&D at the time. He was told it was a factory test/race car,damaged during track tests, and should have never ended up in the publics hands. As for the engine numbers, I have no idea what they were.

ewoky409 · Post by **ewoky409** » Mon May 10, 2004 3:27 am

Where did you get your information from?The information I have is from The Standard Catalog of Chrysler 1924-1990, first ed.,by John Lee(Krause Publications),Special Interest Autos,iss.#107/Oct.1988,put out by Hemmings Motor News,Motors Auto Repair Manual 1950-1959, what little information I've been able to get from the net,and from talking with individuals.None of this information is complete or clear.
Let me quote from The Standard Catalog of Chrysler concerning the 57 Chry.300C 392: "300C SERIES ENGINE-V8.Cast iron block.Overhead valves with hemispherical combustion chambers.Displacement:392cubic inches.Bore and stroke:4.00x3.9 inches.Compression ratio:9.25:1.Brake horsepower:375 at 5200 rpm.An extra cost engine developing 390 brake horsepower at 5400 rpm was available with stick shift and no power options.It had a 10.0:1 compression ratio,four bolt cast iron exhaust headers and a 2 1/2 in. low back pressure exhaust system.Solid lifters and twin four barrel carburetors were used."
It doesn't say that the 375hp engine had 4 bolt cast iron exhaust headers and low back pressure exhaust system.(I'll grant you it doesn't say it didn't either,you have to take it in context).
I found in Special Interest Autos about the radical cam,and I can't remember where I learned about the high compression heads,but they were also unique to the 57 390hp engine.The cam specs.I got from Motors Auto Repair Manual.
How do you know for sure that the 375 horse engine had the four bolt exhaust too?If that's true,then the only way to tell for sure without a compression test is by the engine number or popping the plug out of the end of the block and getting the specs.off the end of the cam.
I'm gonna rebuild it before I use it,so I guess that's what I'll have to do,unless somebody comes up with more accurate information beforehand.
That part about the test /race car is very intriguing.I didn't get any history on the engine,but it does have the four bolt cast iron headers,and it came with both dual and single four barrel intakes.

centerline · Post by **centerline** » Mon May 10, 2004 8:13 am

TrWaters wrote:Here is what it looks like to me. 1957 had three 392 engines. The first listed as NE57, 325 hp with single 4bbl used in NYer.
The second is CE57, 325 hp, single 4bbl, used in Imperial.
The third is 3NE57, listed as 375 hp, 2x4bbl carbs, used in the 300C, which would include solid lifters and 4 bolt exhaust. Sounds like what you have.

The 58 N3 used in 1958 with 2x4 carbs is listed as 380 hp, with the F.I. listed as 390 hp.

Thanks for confirming the info I gave was accurate.

TrWaters · Post by **TrWaters** » Mon May 10, 2004 7:40 pm

Let me start by saying that there are no answers set in stone... BUT, it is generally accepted knowledge, backed by Chrysler part manuals that the 57 motors were 9.25 : 1, and that the 58 motors were 10.0 : 1 compression. Any horsepower differences within a specific year were due to changes in intake, exhaust, and cam.
It is also generally accepted that all 300 series had 2x4 carbs, solid lifter cams, and 4 bolt exhaust.

Sorry to say, you do not have a 390 hp 392 hemi. When you get it apart, post the numbers from the heads (located top center), and the pistons (located inside the skirt). Then we can all see who's information was the most accurate.

centerline · Post by **centerline** » Tue May 11, 2004 7:31 am

TrWaters wrote: Then we can all see who's information was the most accurate.

I believe you and I agree on what this gentleman has, however you went into more detail in your answer than I did. It will be interesting to see what casting numbers he has though.

ewoky409 · Post by **ewoky409** » Tue May 11, 2004 9:43 am

I'm tired of this.I can,and have,quoted chapter and verse for what little accurate information I've gotten so far from the published texts and I'm also tired of "armchair experts"giving me even more incorrect,misleading,incomplete,and inaccurate information based on what's "generally known",and what the parts manuals(which specific parts manuals?)say, and my engine's 150 miles away in storage,and I'm not going to go running up there and drag the thing out&tear it down to get casting numbers and piston part numbers,when there's an easier way to settle this which I should've done in the first place.(Incidentally,Chrysler DID make a 390hp hemi in 57,that I have from at least 5 published sources,and all the 57 392's had solid lifters,except the one in the Imperial.)
I'm waiting now,to hear back from the Walter P.Chrysler museum historical records dept.,on an inquiry I made,requesting ALL the information they have on the 57 300C,most specifically,on the 390hp hemi,and the externally discernable differences between it and the 375hp model.
My original question was for accurate information from someone who could quote from specific sources,instead of confusing and misleading me with a patronizing "generally known"mix of what I already know,and what I also know to be incorrect.
I could go on,but I'll stop with this:re the 58 390hp 392.I've been told twice that the engine Ive been referring to,is the 58 390hp 392.I know about the 58 390hp 392.It was the fuel injected model,they made I don't know how many,but 19 were actually sold ,and when they recalled them,all but 2 were returned for retrofit to a dual 4 barrel setup.

TrWaters · Post by **TrWaters** » Tue May 11, 2004 5:21 pm

We tried.

ewoky409 · Post by **ewoky409** » Wed May 12, 2004 12:50 am

Thanks for trying,and my regrets for wasting mine and your time and the space on this forum by coming here looking for information I could depend on from a qualified expert with bibliographical data.
I should've remembered a lesson I learned a long time ago,and which never seems to sink in:For reliable answers,go directly to the source.My mistake.
Chrysler Corporation took my address and phone number,and said they'd have a researcher compile all the information they have on the 57 392,and send it to me.The minute it gets here,I'll post it.They're the ones that produced the damn things,so their information should satisfy all concerned.Who knows?Maybe we'll all end up downing a ration of crow.

centerline · Post by **centerline** » Wed May 12, 2004 7:45 am

Those of us who have attempted to answer your question have done so using published information gathered over years of research on these engines.

I don't believe anyone's going to be eating crow simply because there is only so much info available and what is available all seems to point to an answer you feel is incorrect. If anyone can confirm your assertion the WPC museum can. I believe that I speak for pretty much everyone here when I say that if you do receive information from the museum that contradicts the published information we have used to answer your question, please do let us know.

TrWaters · Post by **TrWaters** » Wed May 12, 2004 4:49 pm

I dont feel that much time has been wasted

, but I will tell you this. No matter what your books say, and no matter what the WPC says, the only way to know exactly what you have is to have it torn down, (which is indeed what you stated you will eventually do), and get the casting numbers from the various parts.

There are many knowledgeable people on this board, and they are so from experience working with these engines, not from reading books about them. Now lets move on.

Tr Waters

ewoky409 · Post by **ewoky409** » Thu May 13, 2004 3:47 am

Okay,so it's not wasted time.I'll go along with that.I just thought that this was starting to turn into more of a pissing contest than an exchange of information between different people,who it seems to me,all have a store of some amount of knowledge,part empirical,part conjecture,part innocently mistaken,and part provable fact.I don't know about the rest of you,but I've found from researching and working on hemi engines since I was 15 years old,that there is a very large amount of conflicting published information on hemi engines.I've even found contradictory information about the same engine model at different places in one text.This has long been a source of frustration for me,and I've often wondered how it came to be so.It doesn't seem to be nearly as prevalent among the other auto makes.I suppose it may be due to the fact that there were so many different models produced in such a short span of time.I've even spent hour after hour researching and re researching a certain point to make doubly certain all over again that I haven't missed something or misunderstood because of the habit of second guessing myself that has come about over finding that something I'd accepted as true was mistaken.I've always intended someday to start a hemi information collection solely from Chrysler produced data,and only rely on it when there is a point in question,because Chrysler has the original records that preceded all the rest of the information that proliferated from them.I've developed a healthy sense of skepticism concerning most early hemi texts,especially if they cover a range of different model or design variations in a short span of time.I want to take a healthy bite of crow now before I go on.In an earlier post,I stated that the 375hp 392 had hydraulic lifters.I'd never had occasion to study in depth the 375hp engine because I've never worked on one.The information I had,I got from another site here on the net.I won't say which one but I accepted it as fact without double checking(it was late night and I was tired).Two days after I posted that info,I discovered my mistake,but it was too late.I'd already passed on the misinfo.I stand corrected.I have good info now.But before I end this,I will say this:I have it from too many sources to be mistaken.Chrysler most definitely DID produce a 390hp 392 in 57,and I'm ready to prove it to anybody who doubts it and wants to bet.Because I don't know for my own self beyoud doubt whether or not the 375hp and the 390hp had the same exhaust headers,based on your claim only,I'm going to research my 392 in much more depth and find out for myself with wagerable certainty what I've been told emphatically as fact(still no title,author,chapter,or page),by opposing camps,that mine is either one or the other,and when I can prove it one way or the other,I,ll post my findings.I'm still not giving up hope.The verdict's still out.

ewoky409 · Post by **ewoky409** » Thu May 13, 2004 5:01 am

I have a good idea.If my 392 turns out to be a 375hp,that's not gonna stop me.I'm a precision machinist as well as a mechanic.From what I've been told both engines are basically the same,the only differences are the high compression heads and the cam.I'll just mill down the heads and have a cam custom ground to the proper specs.,and SHHWING!Im gonna have a 57 Chrysler 300C390hp 392 even if it harelips the president!

ewoky409 · Post by **ewoky409** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 1:31 am

Well,I finally got the research data from the walter P.Chrysler museum archives section.I've ascertained for myself beyond doubt now,that my engine is a 57 300C code399 390hp 392.I have a photograph showing all 3 exhaust manifold designs used on Chrysler300's from 1955 through 1958.The 21/2" low back-pressure 4bolt manifold was only installed on the 57 300C code399 engine.I'm not going to argue the point any further.If anybody's interested,I'm willing to talk about it and provide all the facts,but there's so much material,I don't want to try and write it all out on this forum.
My email address is jimmie401@agritel.net
My phone# is 509-659-1129 Feel free to call collect

TrWaters · Post by **TrWaters** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 9:05 pm

The 2 1/2 inch 4 bolt manifolds were installed on 300's, as well as HD TRUCK applications. More research is needed on your part.

ewoky409 · Post by **ewoky409** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:15 pm

I,m very well aware of the fact that the 4bolt exhaust was also used on Dodge trucks.I was referring only to the Chrysler300's.I don't need to conduct further research.I have all of that type of information in the approximately 50 pages of material I received from the Chrysler museum.

TrWaters · Post by **TrWaters** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:44 pm

Chrysler Casting # 1536377. 55-58 300 series cars and Dodge truck 331-354.

What part dont you understand? Your information is speculation at best without YOUR casting numbers.

You can have 1000 pages from Walter Chrysler himself(RIP).... but until you can produce the numbers from YOUR parts....NOT what you think they are saying you might have, you are guessing. Period.
Surely anyone with as rare an engine as this would want to verify what he had...dont you think?
You do have an engine, dont you?

ewoky409 · Post by **ewoky409** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:38 am

Here are the numbers:
1.Exhaust-1536377-2 There's other data on them,but this is all you get.
2.Block-number"1"on each side of block. Top R.side between valley pan flange and head gasket seam,about halfway from each end:1673729 1 B287. Rear of block,inside bellhousing bolt pattern at about 2:00:CWC 3HH.
3.Right hand head-1731528-1 T P 3 29
4.Data from rear end of cam:J J stamped in, P7CCH hand painted in white enamel.

ewoky409 · Post by **ewoky409** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:12 am

Well,I finally got the thing torn completely down,and here're the numbers.Make what you will of them.I'd really like to know what I've got here.(I'm beginning to strongly suspect that this is a "Frankenstein").

(A)Engine serial#3NE57-1787.Block#s-1673729 1 B287."1"on each side of block.On rear of block-CWC 3HH.

(B)Head#s-1731528-1 P 3 29 NH(joined together) T.

(C)Crankshaft#s(believe it or not)-on3rd counterweight-7375.In front of center main journal:1-DF3.In back of center main journal:DF3 M3.On 4th counterweight-375and small capital"D".On 6 th counterweight:very large "C".

(D)Cam #s-On front of cam just behind 1st bearing:"1""1""N".Behind 1st lobe behind 2nd bearing:"1". On each side of cam between3rd and 2nd from last lobes:"1". Between last 2 lobes ,corresponding to the 2 "1"s:"C"and"D".Part#is between dist.gear&last bearing journal.It consists of only 4 digits:either 6901 or 1096.the 0 could be a 5(it's partially obliterated).It is an o.e.m.cam though,because it has the early Chrysler logo.

(E)Rod#s1673758.

(F)Piston#s(aftermarket)JANNS 941-D.

(G)Exhaust manifold#s1536377-2 6-21-65.

(H)Intake is a Wieand aluminum single plane,open plenum,360deg.intake for 2 AFB's.part#7263

(I)Rocker arms (adjustable):int-153 D 11.exh-1535012 22W

(I)

TheHEMI.com