Advice:69' 383 4bbl vs 72' 440 4bbl, both stock what do you pick?

[Bad B-rad]

I have had a few 383's and a couple of 440's in my past, so I have my own ideas of what I can realistically expect from each engine, in the stock, to mildly modified state.
I also love to learn, and have no issue taking advice from people who have more experience then me.
In the past every 383, or 440 I had, I was interstead in going as fast as I could, as quick as I could, and I RARELY did any highway driving.
Even going to the drag strip, 1.5 hrs on the highway, I would trailer my car.
Driving around my home town on back roads the 30 miles to work was no big deal, but long highway driving, the rpms were high, and the dash was like watching trees fall, gas fell to left, as MPH, engine temp and rpm fell to the right.
Now I am older, and my goals have changed a bit.
Although I did yard drive my car last year, this will be the first year, I really get to enjoy driving my Charger.
And my goal is to take the car to Carlisle (3.5 hrs one way, and the Nats 8hrs one way)
Having this goal in mine, I will be keeping the factory 3.23 gears.

So the only mods from stock I currently have on the #'s 1969 383 4bbl, is the Mopar performance aluminum intake manifold, the copy of the cast iron one, with the fel pro valley tin with the crossover blocked, a set of 70's headers the car came with and a mopar mini starter.
By the time Carlisle comes, I think I will have switched to a factory style electronic ignition, with the orange box hidden.
I also have a vintage 70's direct connection aluminum water pump housing, that I will toss on with a new water pump.

But I have toyed with the idea of installing the 1972 440 I have, and MAYBE, going to 2.94, or even 2.76.

My thoughts are the 69 383 and the 72 440 as they are, will probably preform very similar, 0-60 and 1/4 mile, and again the times are what they are, I am not ready to be building an engine this year.
I will have to use what I have, and what I can modify cheaply.
But the 440's extra torque MAY allow me to run the 2.94 gears,(or 2.76) and make long highway trips a bit nicer.

Keeping in mind that the headers, water pump, and starter will swap right from the 383 to the 440, and that I have an electronic distributer for the 440.

Anyone have any advice or good tips on this subject for me?

 

[Bad B-rad]

Currently the 72 440 is also running its stock cast iron intake manifold, and carter thermoquad.

 

[R413]

440 without hesitation.
A big NO on 2.76 gears. It all depends how tall or short the rear tires are for 323 or 294.

 

[69 Sleeper Bee]

The 383 will get better gas mileage. Have a friend with a 440 and it eats gas but is faster on the top side.

 

[Superbeemike]

If both engines are equally healthy, I would say the 440. Reason is you wil have some extra torque and I assume it's lower compression. Not that the 383 can't get the job done, just that 440 can push those 2.76/2.94 gears with ease and be a bit tamer.

Last year, I drove to the Road Kill Zip Tie drags in Tucson with my 69" Bee. Lower Compression 440 with 3:23 gears. We cruised along nicely around 70 mph and averaged 11-12mpgs. I was able to fill with 87 octane the entire trip, never worried about over heating, and ran in the 14's at Tucson. Total miles on that trip was over 1800. Things I thought about during my drive were how I wish I had an overdrive, or had switched the rear pumpkin to a 2.76, and I would have liked to pick up the pace and average 80mph. Overall I can't say enough how great it was to really put some miles on the Bee. Road trips out weigh drag strips 100%

 

[Bad B-rad]

Thanks!!!
That sounds very cool going to the zip tie drags, I bet you had a blast!!!!
Those were my thoughts.
I really at this point would like to keep my Charger, a car, that I can jump in and drive anywhere, I understand it may not be as fast as my wife's 5.7 Hemi car, but I just want to enjoy driving it. I do not really care about washing it and showing it off to people.

I also know if I pull the #'s 383 and trans, and install the 440, I wont feel as bad about pushing it hard, as I would HATE to blow a hole in the #'s block.

In my past experience with the higher compression 383, vs the 72-74 lower compression 440 was that the 383 was, or at least felt quicker off the line.

I am also not DEAD set on changing the rear gear, as in the past 3.23 have been a great gear. I just thought with the 440 it Would allow other options, like 2.94.
Also for tires I am running 245/60/15 inch.

Using the 440 would also open me up to changing from stock cam, but the stock rv cam, in the 440 MAY just be my best option for my use of the car.
I had thought maybe that thermoquad may allow better fuel MPG then the square bore style.

I remember YEARS ago a few older Mopar guys telling me they were able to get 17-19 MPG with their 440's and 2.94 in the C-bodies they had.
AGAIN this is just what they told me, I have never even tried to guess what MPG I got with any of my 440's.
I do remember my 66 Charger 383 4bbl auto getting 15 MPG around town, it had 14 inch tires and 3.23 sure grip.

 

[pnora]

With things getting smogged out a healthy stock 1969 383 4brl may out run the 72 440.

 

[Darter6]

If you were closer, I would take the left overs.

 

[diesel_lv]

My '67 Coronet 4dr, originally my great grandmother's, had 383 2bbl auto, a/c, 26" radiator and 2.94's factory. As a kid, borrowing it to go to the store, it would smoke the "tire', singular, from a standstill. After I inherited it, I drove it from El Paso TX to Vegas. Cruised at 70mph n got 15mpg. After I got it back to Vegas in '96, I put dual exhaust and orange box electronic ignition on it and nothing else, could beat any 5.0 Mustang light to light. I'm pretty sure the '69 383 4bbl would be more than enough.

 

[Bad B-rad]

Well the #'s matching 383 4bbl is running in the car now, and that is how it will be a bit, once, I get running it around a bit more I guess I will have a better idea of what route I may take.

I have to install my vinyl top and its still cold, with snow on the ground here in NY.


Who knows I may be perfectly happy with the 383, and not feel the need to push things into the danger zone, LOL.

I think the hp between the two may be very close, but the 440 will have the torque, and the drinking habit, over the 383 LOL.

But I know how these things start, as I have been here before.
As you get used to the power you want it to preform better and that is how the hot rodding starts!!!

 

[davek]

383 is a torque monster dont fool yourself

 

[R413]

383 is a torque monster dont fool yourself

A stock 383 with an intake and a elect ignition is NOT a torque monster. I’ve owned many of each and the 440 is clearly the winner. Why do people put 440 cranks in B engines to get the 3.75 stroke?
Look at the HP and torque specs from any year BB mopars and compare the B and RB torque ratings.

 

[davek]

A stock 383 with an intake and a elect ignition is NOT a torque monster. I’ve owned many of each and the 440 is clearly the winner. Why do people put 440 cranks in B engines to get the 3.75 stroke?
Look at the HP and torque specs from any year BB mopars and compare the B and RB torque ratings.

say what you want I disagree

 

[Nate S]

383’s do as well as they do because they have the same everything as a 440. Imagine a 440 with 2.39 intakes and 2.00 exhausts etc. That said, they aren’t a 440, there’s torque there that’s simply not available to the 383. Torque monster? Compared to a 318 yes, compared to a 440, no.

 

[Mopars & Missiles]

A stock 383 with an intake and a elect ignition is NOT a torque monster. I’ve owned many of each and the 440 is clearly the winner. Why do people put 440 cranks in B engines to get the 3.75 stroke?
Look at the HP and torque specs from any year BB mopars and compare the B and RB torque ratings.

Not sure just exactly what your "definition" of a torque monster is, but for comparison, here's some numbers.

This is for '69 engines only, for a '72 440 there are no hp/torque numbers shown, although the compression ratio of the '72 440 is only 8.2 to 1. This is compared to the 10.0 to 1 of the '69 383 engine.

Also, torque is listed at 435 lb/ft for the 383 and 480 lb/ft for the 440 engine. Again, these are both '69 engine specs, no info for the '72 version.

So, comparing the torque of the '69 models only (and I suspect the '72 440 torque to be much lower due to lower compression ratio) if you take the 435 and divide by 480 you'll see that the 440 has only 11% more torque than the 383.

Probably even less when considering a '72 model 440 versus a '69 model 383

 

[Curiousyellow71]

We have several cars the original bb engine is long, long gone. I would keep the 383 in there for that reason only.
There are some excellent torque converter upgrades that are set up tight and work great for high gears and will wake the car up.. That would be what I would change and keep the motor that it was born with in there. IF it were not original...440 all day.

 

[R413]

Not sure just exactly what your "definition" of a torque monster is, but for comparison, here's some numbers.
View attachment 1078081

This is for '69 engines only, for a '72 440 there are no hp/torque numbers shown, although the compression ratio of the '72 440 is only 8.2 to 1. This is compared to the 10.0 to 1 of the '69 383 engine.

Also, torque is listed at 435 lb/ft for the 383 and 480 lb/ft for the 440 engine. Again, these are both '69 engine specs, no info for the '72 version.

So, comparing the torque of the '69 models only (and I suspect the '72 440 torque to be much lower due to lower compression ratio) if you take the 435 and divide by 480 you'll see that the 440 has only 11% more torque than the 383.

Probably even less when considering a '72 model 440 versus a '69 model 383

The 383 is 425 torque, not 435. So the 440 has 55 ft lbs more torque.

Your Only 11% math doesn’t add up now.

So If the 383 is a torque monster, what is a 440 then? LOL

 

[Darter6]

They are all Mopar engines.That means they are all good..

 

[WileERobby]

Here's the BEST advice: leave that good runnin' hummin' 383 right there in that engine bay. Give that 440 to me.

 

[monaco66coupe]

I have both a 68 383 magnum charger built to the Roadrunner 335 HP,with the 3:23 ratio, and a standard 69 Coronet 383 with the 2:76, .
the charger is an original 10.0 compression engine, and the coronet is a 9.0 compression engine.
other than that, both engines were rebuilt the same, with the Magnum cam, dual exhaust, carb, etc.
The charger has the personality of the HP engine,crisp from the light and aggressively accelerates more quickly. at 70 it is right at home, but would be happy to go 100.
the Coronet is a bit more mild due to the lower compression, and taller gears. but at 80 mph and up the Coronet really comes on and makes it look easy.
For travelling I had both the 440 and 383, , and the 383 loved the mountains and got better mileage, and ran cooler all the time.The 440 was a 71 new Yorker, and would get 12 mpg climbing to flagstaff at 80, and 15 on the flat. but that engine had the 383 two barrel cam that year, the 383 AVS carb, (which chrysler did that year) and 2:76 ratio.
But travelling the midwest In the charger and Coronet, I see little difference in mileage between the different cars ratios, if driving 60-70 MPH.
I do like the sound of the 10.0 engine though, the coronet sounds like a two barrel engine with the four barrel added.If I had it to do over, I would have left the torquey two barrel cam in the Coronet.
I don't think the HP cam was a good choice, with the stock stall convertor, combined with the 9.0 and 2:76 rear ratio.. That is why the Coronet is a bit slower to get going then the Charger.
2:76 ratio rears were optional on 68-69 Chargers with the 330 HP option,as I owned one in Houston in 1986. It had been submerged during hurricane Alicia, so I salvaged it. The differential from that car is presently in my 69 Coronet to this day!
I wanted to also to say that if you decided on the 440, I would duplicate the chrysler cam, Purchase a new Holley, and use the 2:76. A friend recently Installed a 68 440 Standard engine with stock stall and 2:76 in a 67 Charger. That is such a nice car, and with that application the car is an absolute torque monster at any speed.

The two have stock 14 inch rims and 225/70 tires, so nothing unusual there.
in the city the charger uses more gas, but who is counting? Lol