Chrysler 140--continuing saga

[Frank Acampora]

This post is actually for you fellows who have in the past questioned the use of bent electrode plugs to replace surface gap plugs.

I recently bought a '79 Chrysler 140. Didn't have much time when I got it home so I just did a basic compression test--thumb over the plug hole. First, I noticed that it had L82C plugs instead of L20 or UL18. I thought, "Not Good!" Then I found no compression on #3 cylinder and #3 plug gap was filled with aluminum throw-off.

Well, today it is raining so instead of taking out one of my boats I decided to remove the 140 head. Guess what? Just as I suspected, #3 piston had a beautiful 1/4 inch hole in the crown right at the plug location. #2 and #4 had less damage to the baffle, but enough that I would replace them also.

Note that this engine has never been dis-assembled. The cross hatch marks from factory honing are still visible in all the liners and there (luckily) is no scoring of cylinder walls. This is strictly a problem caused by use of incorrect spark plugs.

So: There you have it! Proof! Bent electrode plugs are hotter than surface gap plugs and WILL harm Chrysler and Force engines.

 

[pasquipa]

Re: Chrysler 140--continuing saga

Thanks for sharing that. I never knew there was a difference between the bent electrode and surface gap plugs. I found the plugs my Force manual recommends for my 150hp at my local store (which are surface gap), but never gave it a thought as to what to use if they were out of what I needed. Curious...Does that apply to all marine engines or just outboards...I really don't know.

 

[MikDee]

Re: Chrysler 140--continuing saga

Thanks for the heads up Frank, I guess I thought there wouldn't be a problem with standard spark plugs (as long as they were the proper heat range), never figured there would not be enough clearance for the electrode, so be it.

 

[Bigprairie1]

Re: Chrysler 140--continuing saga

Thanks for the heads up Frank, I guess I thought there wouldn't be a problem with standard spark plugs (as long as they were the proper heat range), never figured there would not be enough clearance for the electrode, so be it.

....I couldn't believe that collection of cars Mike. There are some very nice rides in there....the 68 Charger particularly. As well, I like the GTO and the early 60's Chev and Pontiacs. I'd love to find a 2+2/421 combo.
Regardless...very nice stuff. You have good taste!!

 

[MikDee]

Re: Chrysler 140--continuing saga

....I couldn't believe that collection of cars Mike. There are some very nice rides in there....the 68 Charger particularly. As well, I like the GTO and the early 60's Chev and Pontiacs. I'd love to find a 2+2/421 combo.
Regardless...very nice stuff. You have good taste!!

Almost missed your post bigprarie, glad I took a look, Thanks! just been a perf car buff my whole life, when I could afford it No,no, it's a 1969 Charger R/T, not a 68', my year had the nicer split 2 pc front grille, and the big full width tailights. I was gonna go cheap, and buy a New 69' Roadrunner, but my ex-wife liked the 69' Charger better, so did I of course, so I went for the gusto! Great new car! I got it at a bargain as a leftover, (I found it nicer looking, & more practical then a new 69' Chevelle 396SS, I wasn't thrilled with the GTO styling from 68'-70' either.) Much later I bought the 66' Grand Prix 389/330hp 3spd Hurst from a guy in Queens, NY in the 80's for $500, as a knock around car, it was clean too, just had a slipping clutch, I was shocked by how fast it was for a heavy car! The 2+2 421's were nice too, those pontiac motors could haul. Living thru the 60's, & 70's, I thought every other car was a 65-67 GTO, I saw so many!,,,lol