• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

392 vs 440/426

jusglazin

jusglazin

Well-Known Member
Local time
1:33 PM
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
318
Reaction score
179
Location
Charlotte, nc
I am the proud owner of a 2013 SRT 392 challenger and a 66 belvedere with a 440. I love HP and both deliver their thrills. I'd like to know from some of you old timers who had the luxury of owning either a 440 6 pack or 426 hemi in the day that now has a new 392 hemi how you would compare them. The legendary mopars of old must have been quite something for their time but I wonder how they compare to the modern hemi in terms of brute torque and fun to drive..
 
For the thrill of brute torque and fun. It has to be the 440 or 426. The new cars are quick. But no feel of the sudden start when the other carbs kick in, with those pipes loud. Just my 2 cents worth.

I still wait for the carbs to open with my Challenger.
 
Plymouth63 said:
For the thrill of brute torque and fun. It has to be the 440 or 426. The new cars are quick. But no feel of the sudden start when the other carbs kick in, with those pipes loud. Just my 2 cents worth.

I still wait for the carbs to open with my Challenger.
Click to expand...

I solved that problem in my '09 Challenger SRT8 with a Vortech centrifugal supercharger. Now boost kicks in at around 3,000 rpms and it's like kick down times 10!

I have both old and new school. I think the biggest difference is more in a modern day platform versus fifty year old technology. At 100+ mph the Challenger feels like a leisurely Sunday cruise. At 80+ mph my Fury starts floating and becomes more and more squirrelly the faster I go. It feels like I'm going faster even though I'm not. The Challenger has great brakes and the suspension has been modified for carving through the twisties extremely well. The Fury can't stop for beans and drags the doorhandles if I turn a corner. They are both a lot of fun but a totally different driving experience.
 
[ At 100+ mph the Challenger feels like a leisurely Sunday cruise. At 80+ mph my Fury starts floating and becomes more and more squirrelly the faster I go. It feels like I'm going faster even though I'm not. The Challenger has great brakes and the suspension has been modified for carving through the twisties extremely well. The Fury can't stop for beans and drags the doorhandles if I turn a corner. They are both a lot of fun but a totally different driving experience.]

Phil....I agree, the analogy, I could not have stated it better.

btw; my '63 is a workout, also a labor of love:icon_sunny:.
 
I have a 2014 Core Challenger with the 392 and have had a 440+6 but never a hemi. The 392's have an even almost flat torque curve versus the low end torque of the big blocks. So to me it feels stronger than the BB's as the RPM's increase close to redline. I also have a 496 stroker in the RR which pumps out 555hp 630lb/ft. IMO, the 392 is outright better than a stock 440+6. The numbers would back that up. 470hp/470tq. But the Challenger is a very big girl, even heavier than the RR, so in a lot of ways their performance feels about the same IN A STRAIGHT LINE. The moment you have to turn or stop....the new stuff is 1000's of times better. The stroker has a noticeably more savage feel to it and is clearly the stronger motor.

But I will say this, and I never thought I would, if I was going to build a non-numbers matching vintage muscle car in the future, I honestly think I would just buy a 392 and drop in it versus the seasoned blocks. They are that good.
 
Pretty much the same as above. '08 SRT blown stroked 6.1 665 bhp in the shop with the '64 426 Hemi manual and cross ram. Both a kick in the pants to drive but very different in handling and stopping. DW has no problem getting groceries in the Challenger but she won't drive the '64...
 
The new stuff:
Maintenance free.
Air Conditioned
Roller rockers / not mechanical, not needing adjustment.
Power everything.
Reliable
No-fouling of plugs like a 426 Hemi or a 426 Max Wedge.
Oil change every 7,500 miles. With a Max Wedge, it floods, gasoline (Hi-Octane) washes oil away from cylinder walls.
Pump gas.
FAST.
12.0 second 1/4 mile times

The old stuff:
Well, a LONG list but mostly the "fun and experience" of keeping them alive.
Maintenance heavy...
Reliable yes but you need to get them up in the Hi RPM range.
You can say: "I have one" because the numbers are dwindling yearly. Whats left is whats left.
12.0 second 1/4 mile times w/ a little work.


It's like comparing Marilyn Monroe to Scarlett Johanssen ....?

PS: I had owned two 2007 Shelby GT500s at the same time.
I recently sold one.
Sub 12 second 1/4 mile car.

These 'New-Age" Muscle cars are truly much faster than the "Old-School" counterparts.
The New Muscle Cars are a TRUE "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"
Nice when you need them to be, but NASTY when you want them to be.

The "TRUE" Old School muscle (Hard Core stuff) like a Pontiac RA IV or a Max Wedge or a 429 SCJ Ford Torino Cobra (Solid Lifters) were specifically "Hard-Core" muscle cars.
You NEVER wanted to Stall-one in traffic. Hard strating, hot, nasty stuff.
Always in the "Mr. Hyde" personality
 
How are older cars "maintenance heavy" compared to newer ones? When was the last time you had to spend days chasing down a Check Engine Light problem on a Road Runner? When was the last time you had a failed injector on a Fury? When was the last time you had a no-start due to a bad CPS on a 440? When was the last time you had to spend five hours dismantling most of the top end of the engine to change out a bolt-on part on a 440? And as my favorite parts guy once told his co-worker, "when was the last time you sold someone a computer for their car for $20?" :) My road runner needs three things to run: gas, air, and spark, and a failure of any three of these can be troubleshot at home and in quick order. One of my newer cars fails to start, whoa boy.

I remember back in 1991 I was driving a 73 Road Runner and beat a Ferrari 308 GTi coming out of four red lights. I stopped at a shopping center and the Ferrari owner pulled up and said "yeah, you can beat me in acceleration but there's no way you would beat me in the curves", to which I responded "First, where do you see any twisting, windy, roads around here? The only curves we have are the on and off ramps to I-95. Second, your car cost $80,000. Mine cost $1,700. Give me one half what you paid for your car and I'll have my car ready to take you on the curviest road you can find!" Now I look at this discussion and my mindset hasn't changed much. I can't remember the last time I ever drove my 74 Road Runner on anything but roads with mild curves that any car can handle, and I'm going to be into my car for a little over $8,000 once my 440 is in there. So why would I ever want t blow $30K on a new Challenger? :)

Plus there's the big difference now one has mentioned yet... there are thousands and thousands of new hemi-powered cars out there, including Chargers and Challengers. No one really notices them anymore. You jump in a vintage Mopar with those 440 or 426 Hemi badges... you definitely get peoples' attention. :)
 
Bru, I 2nd that! And when I was driving my 66 Belvedere every day, I threw on a set of 15x7 cop car wheels with decent tires, lowered it a bit and changed the alignment settings with good shocks and driving it 100 mph was no problem and it even handled pretty decent for not having sway bars on it. Now it did have the little drum brakes but with an upgrade to a bit larger ones on the rear (swapped to an 8 3/4 rear) and a smaller diameter master cylinder, braking was pretty decent too. Oh, yeah, also put it on a diet. I've driven new Challengers and didn't really care for them that much.....mainly the cost and dealing with the electronics too. When the electronics are good, they are pretty much maintenance free but when they are junk, it's a royal pita and costly. The Belvedere is easy to work on even with the old school point system :D
 
Bru
Have you ever adjusted "mechanical lifters"?
My (sold it) 63 Ford Galaxie XL 500 w the 406CI tri-power 405 HP car ALWAYS need adjustments.

Hemi cars DO foul plugs.

Six-Pack cars DO need carbs tinkered with to keep in balance.

Oil needs changing 2,500 miles if car became flooded, even sooner. (Oil incylinder walls became diluted, oli/gas ran into pan)

Hard launches equals "Cluth replacements" or adjustments. (They were not hydraulic)

Brakes were inadequate, mostly drums,in those days so yeah...they were a'weak-link" and were needing more attention over Disc systems.

Piston to wall clearence was HUGE due to heat and expansion.
so, there was excess wear in cylinders.

If you ran Hydraulic lifters, you could over rev and bend a push-rod.
(now, ALL Hi-Po New muscle have rev-limiters.

Hard launches meant "U-joints" were stressed...relpacing them was maintenance.

CRAP, an 86 Mustang GT could beat a Magnum PI car...
We rented them (Magnum PI cars) in Oahu, Hawaii for kicks back in the late 80s on Air Force pay.

I dont know Bruzilla, I lived that era, Born in 1953. Cars were lucky to make it to 85,000 miles with out having major wiork performed!
Hell, I remember seeing a claim in Popular Mechanics stating that "He got 100,000 miles out of his engine befroe a re-build"!!
Any that was considered GREAT!

Ha Ha,,,my "New Muscle" does not get "CODES".
Reliabilty NOW is much greater than in the 60s.

So, thats my opinion.
Compare a 1967 Corvette "435" car against a 2014 C7.
Now tell me what has Maintence issues and what dosent.......
 
Hard to compare apples to oranges. But I drove a 69 Hemi charger back in 69 and that was an experience I'll always remember. The two engines (426 vs 392) both produce plenty of power but the visual impact of the 426 hemi with dual quads or the 440-6pak were what was feared back then. Two cars at a car show both 70 cudas one with 6.1 and the other with 426 hemi my quess the 426 would be the one drawing the crowd.
 
THe new 392 is really not a Hemi, so that alone makes it tuff. Another thing the new Motor is a small block. You can not compared the torque "Pulling Power of A 426 Hemi to the new motor no comparison in power capability. The 440 on the other hand is a great Motor for sheer power. But again being a big block you can't compare these motors to the new 392.
 
The OP asked how the 392 compared to the 440's and 426 in brute torque and fun to drive. The bottom line is, the 392 does compare favorably to both. The numbers are the numbers.

440+6 390HP/490tq
426 425HP/472tq
392 470HP/470tq

The 392 is every bit the motor as its ancestors and then some. As far as fun to drive, I actually prefer driving the older cars. They require a great deal more driving skill IMO. All the modern wizbangery is far more forgiving of driver mistakes than the older cars. BUT, driving a new one with braking and handling in the same car with the functional equivalent of a 426 hemi under the hood is just freaking awesome.
 
super-bee_ski said:
Bru
Have you ever adjusted "mechanical lifters"?
My (sold it) 63 Ford Galaxie XL 500 w the 406CI tri-power 405 HP car ALWAYS need adjustments.

Hemi cars DO foul plugs.

Six-Pack cars DO need carbs tinkered with to keep in balance.

Oil needs changing 2,500 miles if car became flooded, even sooner. (Oil incylinder walls became diluted, oli/gas ran into pan)

Hard launches equals "Cluth replacements" or adjustments. (They were not hydraulic)

Brakes were inadequate, mostly drums,in those days so yeah...they were a'weak-link" and were needing more attention over Disc systems.

Piston to wall clearence was HUGE due to heat and expansion.
so, there was excess wear in cylinders.

If you ran Hydraulic lifters, you could over rev and bend a push-rod.
(now, ALL Hi-Po New muscle have rev-limiters.

Hard launches meant "U-joints" were stressed...relpacing them was maintenance.

CRAP, an 86 Mustang GT could beat a Magnum PI car...
We rented them (Magnum PI cars) in Oahu, Hawaii for kicks back in the late 80s on Air Force pay.

I dont know Bruzilla, I lived that era, Born in 1953. Cars were lucky to make it to 85,000 miles with out having major wiork performed!
Hell, I remember seeing a claim in Popular Mechanics stating that "He got 100,000 miles out of his engine befroe a re-build"!!
Any that was considered GREAT!

Ha Ha,,,my "New Muscle" does not get "CODES".
Reliabilty NOW is much greater than in the 60s.

So, thats my opinion.
Compare a 1967 Corvette "435" car against a 2014 C7.
Now tell me what has Maintence issues and what dosent.......
Click to expand...

You bring up some good points, but you can't mix maintenance (plugs, lifters, etc.) with performance things like brakes. Plus I don't remember the OP asking about Ford 406's. :)

Yes, older cars, especially Hemi cars, did need some occasional adjustment, but what's the work load for that compared to the maintenance that's required for newer cars? Yes, a computer can compensate for engine issues as the car gets older, but that just means your performance is slowly decreasing as you drive the car more and more, while performance discrepancies in older cars were corrected albeit temporarily. :)

On a more apples to apples comparison, how many man hours does it take to change out a fuel injection system compared to changing out a carb? How many man hours does it take to replace an air conditioning compressor on a 440 compared to one on a new Challenger? How many man hours does it take to replace a power steering pump on a 440 as compared to a Challenger? While it is true that older cars have more routine maintenance requirements, those actions are fairly simple and straight forward, while even minor maintenance issues on newer cars are a major PITA due to all the components that need to be removed/reinstalled, troubleshooting sensors, harnesses, fittings, valves, regulators, switches, and all the other junk under the hood that has to be done, yet alone the actual replacement of the parts themselves. Extended warranties make this a bit better, but once that warranty expires, getting anything replaced gets really expensive, not so much due to parts costs but due to labor costs because few things on a modern engine are quick or easy to replace anymore.
 
70rr-brian said:
The OP asked how the 392 compared to the 440's and 426 in brute torque and fun to drive. The bottom line is, the 392 does compare favorably to both. The numbers are the numbers.

440+6 390HP/490tq
426 425HP/472tq
392 470HP/470tq

The 392 is every bit the motor as its ancestors and then some. As far as fun to drive, I actually prefer driving the older cars. They require a great deal more driving skill IMO. All the modern wizbangery is far more forgiving of driver mistakes than the older cars. BUT, driving a new one with braking and handling in the same car with the functional equivalent of a 426 hemi under the hood is just freaking awesome.
Click to expand...

This was in my original post:
"The old stuff:
Well, a LONG list but mostly the "fun and experience" of keeping them alive.
Maintenance heavy...
Reliable yes but you need to get them up in the Hi RPM range.
You can say: "I have one" because the numbers are dwindling yearly. Whats left is whats left.
12.0 second 1/4 mile times w/ a little work."

Notice I said: "Reliable yes..."
But notice I said: "You can say I have one...blah blah blah..."

Because YES, I too love the old stuff.

Also, a 440 powered 66 Coronet or Satellite is not a 63 Max Wedge.

Yeah 77rr-brian, I too love the old-stuff.

Heck, I just did a "Drum brake job" on my newly purchased 1978 AMC Gremlin X
 
Was the listed horse power of the 426 a true listing?
 
Cranky said:
Was the listed horse power of the 426 a true listing?
Click to expand...

From Wiki:

The street Hemi version was rated at 425 bhp (316.9 kW)(Gross) with two Carter AFB carburetors. In actual dynomometer testing, it produced 433.5 horsepower and 472 lb·ft (640 N·m) torque in purely stock form.[4] Interestingly, Chrysler's sales literature[5] published both Gross and Net HP ratings for 1971 (425 Gross HP and 350 Net HP.)
 
70rr-brian said:
From Wiki:

The street Hemi version was rated at 425 bhp (316.9 kW)(Gross) with two Carter AFB carburetors. In actual dynomometer testing, it produced 433.5 horsepower and 472 lb·ft (640 N·m) torque in purely stock form.[4] Interestingly, Chrysler's sales literature[5] published both Gross and Net HP ratings for 1971 (425 Gross HP and 350 Net HP.)
Click to expand...



My 1970 Hemi "Dyno'ed" at 452HP.
(NOT Chassis dyno)
I have the pic somewhere.
It is the "Stock" automatic cam.
(Chrysler factory spec lists the 727 Torqueflight at a 62HP loss)

The only MOD was the Hansen Stage V aluminum heads and of course headers on the Dyno.

So, yeah, 425HP rating +10% under-rated as most factory cars were listed as.

(Except FORD, listing the BOSS 429 at 375HP AND the 428 SCJ at 335HP)

- - - Updated - - -

I think my error in the original post was:
Specific to the "REAL" or "TRUE" factory race cars.

Again, a REAL 63 or 64 Max Wedge
Or, a Fairlane "Thunderbolt" or a "62 Pontiac Catilina Superduty 421"

They were not meant for street racing.

Getting back to the original post:
Old school rules in my book.

My point, new school muscle is awesome too, like me cruising to Scottsdale AZ on the I-10 480 miles one way to see family in my GT500.
Uh, lets see, Speed: 75
AC: On cold
XM/Sirrius radio: On
Leather seats: yup, comfy
In the lap of Luxury.
PS: I own the road in that thing.

I personally LOVE old-school, otherwise I would not have the cars I have.


PS: its all just my stupid opinion, sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Edelbrock Performer RPM 705 HP top end kit for Gen II HEMI 426-572 cubic inch engines
Replies
18
Views
662
Michael Kocan
M
hemi71x
  • Locked
SOLD Some More "EMBLEMS" 440 MAGNUM, 440 FOUR BARREL, 426 HEMI. NOS & Used.
Replies
1
Views
617
hemi71x
hemi71x
O
New Guy - 65 Belvedere Cross Ram Hemi
2
Replies
24
Views
842
davek
davek
wrenchinrandy
How does the Hemi compare?
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
6K
not so famous bob
not so famous bob
Bryon
  • Locked
SOLD 1 of 3 Mr Norm 426 Street Ram 1966 Dodge Coronet
Replies
2
Views
4K
Bryon
Bryon
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top