• 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.

67 383/325 hp - 68 383/330 hp - 68 383/335 hp Compared

Mr. PNW

Well-Known Member
Local time
10:27 PM
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
69
Reaction score
52
Location
WA State
I’ve noticed a number of 68 383 questions asking about the differences between the 330 hp engine (charger and other b-bodies) to the 335 hp (road runner/super bee). So I googled and this thread on FABO came up. Wow that has more info in one place then I’ve seen anywhere. A lot of misinformation is cleared up as well.

https://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/threads/383-1967-325-hp-vs-1968-330-hp-vs-1968-335-hp.322257/

And some remain....


Boston Bob,

No, the 383/335 HP {Road Runner / Super Bee} engine was never found
in the 1968 or 1968 Dodge Charger.

It was only the 'weak-sister' 383/330 HP.

That was too bad, as the Charger 383 should have been part of that package.

The 383-335 horse applications vary by year. What happened in 68 may or may not apply in 69 and may or may not apply in 70.

Any 69 B body (Charger, Satellite, Coronet) with a four speed and without A/C received the 335 horse assembly as there was no four speed 330 horse assembly in '69 as there was in '68.

Any 69 B body with A/C received the 330 horse assembly. Any non Road Runner or Super Bee with an automatic received the 330 horse assembly.

This is verified via broadcast sheets and Lynch Road fender tags.
 
A interesting thing we have run into...Mopar on the 68 440 350hp lowered the compression w the shorter 67 piston compared to a 375 hp 440 piston even though in all the literature they are advertised as the same at 10.1: on all 68 440s. I have 3 350hp 440s apart they are NOT 10.1:1(at least on those we took apart). Our charger originally had a 330hp 383 and I am a little skeptical that it has the same piston as a 383 magnum. Be interesting to find a piston list from 68 or 69, or a original 330hp to be compared...Most the original pistons are all long gone and I've never heard of someone talking about a 330hp popping out of deck...it could be????? I just have not seen it verified. Can't trust advertisements for compression. Mopar changed pistons occasionally wo listing a different advertised compression.
Anyone had a original 330 hp apart? Did the pistons pop out of the deck?
 
Last edited:
I’ve noticed a number of 68 383 questions asking about the differences between the 330 hp engine (charger and other b-bodies) to the 335 hp (road runner/super bee). So I googled and this thread on FABO came up. Wow that has more info in one place then I’ve seen anywhere. A lot of misinformation is cleared up as well.

https://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/threads/383-1967-325-hp-vs-1968-330-hp-vs-1968-335-hp.322257/
I have a 69 Super Bee with the 330 hp version. Previous owner, now deceased, had the engine and 4 speed trans rebuilt, and I thought he simply did the wrong color on the engine, aqua instead of hemi orange. Evidently this was the norm for some models, don't know whether it was because it was a factory a/c car (with a 4 speed, rare combo), or something else.
IMG_0358.jpg
 
I have a 69 Super Bee with the 330 hp version. Previous owner, now deceased, had the engine and 4 speed trans rebuilt, and I thought he simply did the wrong color on the engine, aqua instead of hemi orange. Evidently this was the norm for some models, don't know whether it was because it was a factory a/c car (with a 4 speed, rare combo), or something else.View attachment 1109919

Any 69 B body with A/C received the 330 horse assembly.
 
Can check the ‘68 440 part numbers to see if they are different 350 to 375. If I have time later I’ll do that. Also note that none of these were at advertised compression, almost universally 1/2 point lower.
 
A interesting fact...Mopar on the 68 440 350hp lowered the compression w a shorter piston then a 375 hp 440 piston even though in all the literature they are advertised as the same at 10.1: on all 68 440s. I have 3 350hp 440s apart they are NOT 10.1:1(at least on those we took apart).
What was your deck height measurement on the 350hp compared to a 375hp.
 
Our charger originally had a 330hp 383 and I am a little skeptical that it has the same piston as a 383 magnum. Be interesting to find a piston list from 68 or 69, or a original 330hp to be compared...Most the original pistons are all long gone and I've never heard of someone talking about a 330hp popping out of deck...it could be????? I just have not seen it verified. Can't trust advertisements for compression. Mopar changed pistons occasionally wo listing a different advertised compression.
Anyone had a original 330 hp apart? Did the pistons pop out of the deck?

Examples I had of 330 horse from 69 Charger and 335 horse from 68 RR had the same pistons: flat top with CH of around 1.934. Somebody else may have seen something different and that's okay.

They both had 906 heads. The 69 had blue-green single valve springs, and the 68 had red valve springs with damper. I use those vintage red springs to this day and they are still working just fine. The 69 did not have a windage tray.

I don't want to comment on whether the pistons were proud of the deck or not, because I didn't take pictures when those 383s were in their original configuration many years ago. I will remember one way, and somebody will remember or will have measured something else.
 
Last edited:
What was your deck height measurement on the 350hp compared to a 375hp.

This. Data please on the different piston/compression height.

I don't think I've ever found there to be incorrect info from the manufacturer or source info from that time period regarding the piston compression distance from the pin to the top of the piston. That information is solid. However, the distance from the deck to the top of the piston is never correct, and usually the piston is lower by 0.020" because the block is not machined to spec.

Generally, in 1968, all 440 pistons will be about 0.050" to 0.060" below the deck (2.034"-ish CD), and the 330 and 335 hp 383 pistons will be about even with the deck, usually 0.000" to 0.005" under (1.932"-ish CD). There are always exceptions on where the piston top is relative to the deck.
 
A quick tour of the '68 parts manual shows 1 compression for all 440s other than export, 1 compression for 4bbl 383s and 1 for 2bbl 383s.
 
This. Data please on the different piston/compression height.

I don't think I've ever found there to be incorrect info from the manufacturer or source info from that time period regarding the piston compression distance from the pin to the top of the piston. That information is solid. However, the distance from the deck to the top of the piston is never correct, and usually the piston is lower by 0.020" because the block is not machined to spec.

Generally, in 1968, all 440 pistons will be about 0.050" to 0.060" below the deck (2.034"-ish CD), and the 330 and 335 hp 383 pistons will be about even with the deck, usually 0.000" to 0.005" under (1.932"-ish CD). There are always exceptions on where the piston top is relative to the deck.
I wil measure when I get a chance the 375hp magnum is around 2.03ish in 68 and 69 like mentioned that is correct. I wish they made that piston, speed pro/trws domed piston ch is close the original 68-69 magnum. The 350hp should not have had the same advertised compression as the 375hp at least on the ones we have.
The 67-70 350hp is 1.98ish. I Can verify the 350 hp we have a 68 and a 70 std bore 350hp 440s w the heads off. They are nearly .080-.090down.
Examples I had of 330 horse from 69 Charger and 335 horse from 68 RR had the same pistons: flat top with CH of around 1.934. Somebody else may have seen something different and that's okay.

They both had 906 heads. The 69 had blue-green single valve springs, and the 68 had red valve springs with damper. I use those vintage red springs to this day and they are still working just fine. The 69 did not have a windage tray.

I don't want to comment on whether the pistons were proud of the deck or not, because I didn't take pictures when those 383s were in their original configuration many years ago. I will remember one way, and somebody will remember or will have measured something else.
That's the kind of hands on info I like hearing. ..Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Bam. And thank you, this lines up exactly with what I was thinking, the last 68 350hp I checked was .055.
Put a nice 915 on it and there you go
This. Data please on the different piston/compression height.

I don't think I've ever found there to be incorrect info from the manufacturer or source info from that time period regarding the piston compression distance from the pin to the top of the piston. That information is solid. However, the distance from the deck to the top of the piston is never correct, and usually the piston is lower by 0.020" because the block is not machined to spec.

Generally, in 1968, all 440 pistons will be about 0.050" to 0.060" below the deck (2.034"-ish CD), and the 330 and 335 hp 383 pistons will be about even with the deck, usually 0.000" to 0.005" under (1.932"-ish CD). There are always exceptions on where the piston top is relative to the deck.
 
Bam. And thank you, this lines up exactly with what I was thinking, the last 68 350hp I checked was .055.
Put a nice 915 on it and there you go

I have that exact combination. 68/69 year 1.034” CD flat top pistons in a squared/decked block with 915 heads and a small cam. Pistons are about 0.040” down due to the decking. Runs very well, but compression is too high for pump gas.
 
Thank you, not what I was hoping to hear.
So can I ask, Headgaskets, CR, and fuel type (91 oct ?)?
 
Thank you, not what I was hoping to hear.
So can I ask, Headgaskets, CR, and fuel type (91 oct ?)?

Heads were also cleaned-up about 77cc. Felpro 0.040 about 10.3:1. Cam was MP 272 duration 0.455 lift. Cranking pressure was 195 psi. Car ran high 12s at 109 mph, with stock 12" converter and 3.23 in a 4200lb Charger on P235 BFGs.
 
Excellent thank you.
 
For further reference re: pump gas. My 426W with iron heads carefully measured and cc’d is at 9.25:1 does well with 93 and knocks on warmer days with 89. No 91 here to know, I’m guessing it would knock a little under some circumstances.
 
At some point TRW must have offered it too, because SpeedPro offered that 2.03ish CD forged flat top piston back in '92 when I was building an improved 440 to replace the '68 350hp 440 that I got from a 4dr 300. I was too conservative to run the L2355F 6pk pistons (2.055?), because I had spark knock issues with the old engine. I still have those pistons to this day, and I guess they are the " '68-up 375hp" replacements and the common 1.99" CH TRW must be the " '67 and 350hp" replacements.

As a side note, about 3yrs ago, I reworked a '69 383/335hp Road Runner engine and it DID have positive deck pistons, and the customer supplied cast oversized replacements with a sub-1.90" CH, but he wanted a Hughes "Whiplash: cam for low compression engines, so it ran pretty good. I carefully pressed off and saved the pistons, and still have them somewhere. I really didn't measure them, but I shared a pin with a new L2315F (1.93?) TRW and the '69s were noticeably taller (positive deck).
 
I know of a 383 that is .1 unsquare across the deck...machinist must've had a rough weekend when he did that on Monday morning. No piston was going to have a positive deck on that engine.
We have never had a 69 350hp 440 apart and if guys say their 68 was .055 down that is what it should've had according to every rating I have seen. We were quite disappointed to find a 67 piston in the two 68 350hp engines we took apart, they certainly may have not all been that way. Maybe our were earlier 68s? The 70 also uses the 67 piston. In 71 the 440 piston we have looks like a 70 piston but with a dish. By 72 they started being .145 down the deck and a flat top but its been 30 years but I don't remember a dish. In the later 70s I have seen some guys post pictures of a 440 piston .145 with a dish, possibly a rv or industrial piston? I have never run into that...chrysler must have been trying for a military contract for a all fuel engine.Lol
 
Last edited:
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top