j-c-c-62
Well-Known Member
It's the new normal. LPR's, cameras everywhere, etc It's all about giving up privacy for perceived safety.
What is so special about the 383, that a later 426 big head wedge with 13.5 CR didn't have?
"The 383 was a bored out 361"?
- Thread starter j-c-c-62
- Start date
Lefty71
Well-Known Member
You arent wrong....back then tho the cars were huge and heavy. Don Garlits was no fool when he started snagging the drivetrains out of them, meaning big old hemi Chryslers. BTW, I have heard those heads are the earliest wedge heads regarded as HiPo.
Lefty71
Well-Known Member
5 years earlier.
j-c-c-62
Well-Known Member
"I don't know all there is to know about early 60's engines from any make, but I do know a lot of them had high compression and ........"
So a MW 13.5CR 426 ram 2x4 in 1963 was in the same league as a "screaming 383" CI 2x4 from 1960? A 383 was giving up a lot more than just cubes IMO, and the "screaming" part here is rather subjective.
Nada. Small cams, small valves, small ports. Pretty much the same up to 67. But with the flat 2 4 barrel intake.
Detective D
Well-Known Member
Who are you arguing with?
I would consider a 426 to be early also. IMO, anything 66 and earlier for a Chrysler is in one group, 67-71 in another, and then the hardened valve seat heads and newer in another. Polyhead might as well be a totally separate group of itself.
I also consider the FE Fords from that era to be much more powerful then they state on paper, and stuff like the Packard V8's to be very powerful engines. You don't push a Studebaker Golden hawk to 160mph with some lame duck engine. I think the same thing about Buick Wildcats.
All I am saying is a lot of folks consider late 60's the only "muscle car" era when there were some truly potent engines much earlier than that making cars with terribly inadequate brakes and suspension go very, very fast. I think the fuel also played a part in it.
Example: father in law had a 1964 Ford Galaxy 2 door with a 352HP(high comp, cast iron headers, etc) that car would lay rubber into second gear from a stop light. He used to do that downtown on weekends in Appleton back in the 70's, light turn green, lay double rubber tracks all the way down the block to the next red light.
I am a gearhead through and through, and my loyalty to brands is established but certainly thinner than a lot of people. I consider stuff like this "characteristic" of the car or engine. it is something I learned from seeing Japan's approach in the 90's. The drivetrain and vehicle as a whole is more important then just numbers on paper. I think the early 60's stuff is special, and often overlooked, especially by the youngsters today. But that does not mean "better" or "superior". It just means it has a unique feel and characteristic that should be appreciated. I have never been a "the best" type of person. I worked on Fords in the 90's and into the 2000's, and got away from them because the Ford company doubled down on econobox crap and the mod motors, but more so because the Ford guys were such zealots they would get all worked up just talking about an engine, and nothing on the planet was better than a Ford. Not my style. It is super easy on the internet to start HP wars and start pointing out "the best", that type of conversation I usually walk away from.
Lefty71
Well-Known Member
Yes indeed. The point to be made here in saying "5 years earlier" is that these racers and engineers were learning to make the most of this engine family that was so recently (at that time) invented. They found that the long rams made good torque but the powerband was short and fell flat quickly. Ulitimately the dual quad short ram on the MW engines became a better choice, the ports opened up on the heads as well.
Then the new hemi came along and interest went that direction as we all know. I have always said, things most certainly could have continued to the point where we saw sleeper 451s and ever 470s coming out of the factory in big Chryslers if the EPA and the fuel crunch had played out a little differently.
So what is the real answer? Is a 383 just a bored out 361?
j-c-c-62
Well-Known Member
That is where the confusion starts.
My takeaway:
The 1959 RB 383 is not a bored out 1958 361
The 1959 B 383 appears to be a bored out 1958 361
I am still trying to wrap my head around the OEM basis for the 1959 Chrysler RB 383 vs the 1959 Bored out B 361 found in other mopars.
Not meeting the criteria as a "real mopar guy", I have to ask a lot of questions.
j-c-c-62
Well-Known Member
I'm contending the 383 in early 1960's was rather lame and the real "screamers" were not the 383's.
No reason to even talk about a 383 RB. It was the predecessor to the other RB engines to follow. They were made for what, one year? The 383 B we all know started out as a 361 sharing the same stroke, rod length, and deck height. (from what I see) The only thing that changed was the bore size. The same thing happened with the 400. Same dimensions except a larger bore. Now, from what I understand, there were minor changes to the block casting but the above dimensions stayed the same.
Unkle Krusty
Well-Known Member
I know nothing about the subject matter here.
However, I do know a bit about the motorcycles of the late sixties and early seventies.
These days I can watch videos of these early bikes. An example would be the Kawasaki 750 2 stroke, or the Yamaha road race bikes 250, 350 and 700 and 750.
And I can watch videos of wobble in some street bikes.
Most of what I watch and hear, is bunk. Dramatized bunk.
10 years from now, this bunk may become gospel, and that is unfortunate. The videos are produced, I assume, by folks younger than me, who never set foot on any of the bikes, and never raced at any tracks. They easily forget, that some of us were there, road the bikes, and raced the bikes.
Some days reliable info is hard to get. The internet helps sometimes, and screws things up sometimes.
However, I do know a bit about the motorcycles of the late sixties and early seventies.
These days I can watch videos of these early bikes. An example would be the Kawasaki 750 2 stroke, or the Yamaha road race bikes 250, 350 and 700 and 750.
And I can watch videos of wobble in some street bikes.
Most of what I watch and hear, is bunk. Dramatized bunk.
10 years from now, this bunk may become gospel, and that is unfortunate. The videos are produced, I assume, by folks younger than me, who never set foot on any of the bikes, and never raced at any tracks. They easily forget, that some of us were there, road the bikes, and raced the bikes.
Some days reliable info is hard to get. The internet helps sometimes, and screws things up sometimes.
j-c-c-62
Well-Known Member
The 413 RB and 383 RB were built both in 1959
I'll avoid the question of why it was felt necessary that a B 350 and 361 were both offered in 1958
I agree, setting the record straight serves everyone, IMO
Detective D
Well-Known Member
If you are going to cherry pick the max wedge out to pit against the rest, you will be dissapointed in everything else in the era. That is going down the path of "the best".
The regular 426 wedge had 15 more HP and 25ft/lbs more than the 1959 383 in question here. Not exactly running away laps ahead here.
The 440 4bb hipo was 25hp more and 30ft/lbs. It took the 6 pack to really push ahead. The 426 hemi was a different beast, like the max wedge.
Despite the 440 being much more common and more powerful, the regular 426 is a dream engine of mine and I would need a special car to put it in if I ever came across one. I don't need the expense of a max wedge. I just like the 426 that much, for my own reasons. But that is me. Some people have to have the biggest, baddest, highest HP on the block. That's not me. I find the era very interesting because you could see year to year what the engineers were learning about building engines. A lot of really goo, really powerful mills came from those times and I personally don;t turn my nose up at any of them just because one could pull a 0-60 a tenth of a second faster than another. But I am a gearhead, not a collector, not a drag racer.
To each their own.
Agreed, ones an RB and ones a B ,so not much to discuss
The 361 B is LS( lowdeck small bore) and the 383 is an LL ( lowdeck large bore). A different block.
I believe there was such a large need for 383s that it overwhelmed the B assembly line. So the short term solution was to tool up a 383 built on the RB assembly line to fill the need. Almost sounds ridiculous..I am still trying to wrap my head around the OEM basis for the 1959 Chrysler RB 383 vs the 1959 Bored out B 361 found in other mopars.
Not meeting the criteria as a "real mopar guy", I have to ask a lot of questions.
This will clear up the confusion
Trenton Engine and the story of the two 383s Trenton Engine and the story of the two 383s
Trenton Engine and the story of the two 383s Trenton Engine and the story of the two 383s
Yep. It would be fun to know what the changes were. Possibly just the water jacket cores to make for a larger bore. Probably not much difference. Not to sidetrack but I see there were 4 different casing numbers for the 413's between the passenger car block to the Max Wedge engines. And all were the same bore and stroke. Just an interesting tidbit.
YY1
Well-Known Member
Couple issues with that article-
Sure looks like a poly A engine to me.
and
This paragraph makes no sense-
Making the 413 caused an odd problem for Chrysler: their Trenton assembly plant had one line devoted to the B-series V8s, and another was set up for the RB. To move from making the RB to the B, they had to reset the line, losing valuable production time on a line in a plant whose output was essential to the company.
Nor does this-
Eventually, for the 1972 cars, engineers decided to switch the 383 to the same bore size as the other B engines (4.34 inches); the 383 thus gave way to the 400 cubic inch engine.
IMO this article creates more confusion than it resolves.
Sure looks like a poly A engine to me.
and
This paragraph makes no sense-
Making the 413 caused an odd problem for Chrysler: their Trenton assembly plant had one line devoted to the B-series V8s, and another was set up for the RB. To move from making the RB to the B, they had to reset the line, losing valuable production time on a line in a plant whose output was essential to the company.
Nor does this-
Eventually, for the 1972 cars, engineers decided to switch the 383 to the same bore size as the other B engines (4.34 inches); the 383 thus gave way to the 400 cubic inch engine.
IMO this article creates more confusion than it resolves.
Similar threads
- Locked
