• 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.

1968 Charger 383

Holley, 440 heads, 440 cam, Windage Tray, HP exhaust=Magnum Correct me if I'm wrong. Oh don't forget the pie tin. Can't forget the pie tin!

Oh sorry. See were discussing the 68 version Magnum/Super Commando.

Carb applications vary by year. Most of the 335 horse versions used Carters.

Big block heads are big block heads. There are no differences in the castings. The 383 and 440 HP assemblies got stiffer valve springs to go with the different cam.

There are 2bbl and 4bbl exhaust manifolds, the HP assemblies did not get any different manifolds than the 330 horse version. There are no HP specific manifolds.
 
Last edited:
From the info in post #8, I'm guessing that the extra 5 hp came from the windage tray and unsilenced air cleaner that the 330 horse engine didn't get. At least that makes sense to me.
 
From the info in post #8, I'm guessing that the extra 5 hp came from the windage tray and unsilenced air cleaner that the 330 horse engine didn't get. At least that makes sense to me.
Also a camshaft
 
A lumpier cam would have provide more than 5 hp.
Sure it would. The technical article just says performance camshaft. Does not say how radical or the differences 330hp VS 335hp. The fact is Air cleaner, windage tray and camshaft made the 5HP differences No sense disagreeing with me. I did not write the articles. I suggest looking in the mirror and have a disagreeing conversation with that guy.
 
You're the one tooting your horn about the camshaft being different from the 330 hp engine. That is what I am disagreeing with.
So you are disagreeing with the manufactors technical data in the sales brochure article? Look in the parts book. Different cam 330 vs 335. Just the facts. They are what they are.
 
Just read this on a wiki... Says the 335 HP version got the 440 cam, heads and exhaust manifolds. However I was not around then I can only rely on the information out there.

383​

220px-Chrysler_383_low-block_engine%2C_1964_or_65.jpg

1964 or 1965 Chrysler 383 B engine
The 383 cu in B engine — not to be confused with the RB version — was essentially a larger bore version of the 350 and 361, using a 4.25 in (108.0 mm) bore for a 383.03 cu in (6,277 cc) displacement. This venerable engine was introduced in 1959. Dodge's version, the D500 had a cross-ram induction manifold and dual four-barrel carburetors as options. In some Dodge applications, this engine was labeled as the Magnum, while the Plymouth version was called the Golden Commando. Both came with a dual point distributor in high-performance versions.

The 383 became the standard model Mopar performance engine for the next decade. The big bore allowed for larger, 2.08 in (53 mm), intake valves, and the relatively short stroke helped it to be a free-revving and free-breathing engine.

Producing a maximum of 330 hp (246 kW; 335 PS) (gross) and 460 lb⋅ft (624 N⋅m) of torque for the 1960 model year, the 383 beat the 392 Hemi that had reached 435 lb⋅ft (590 N⋅m). The 1960 383 engines featured the same basic ram induction system as the Chrysler 300F's 413 RB engines (named Sonoramic Commando when sold in Plymouth form). The later 383 Magnum (starting in 1968) used the 440 Magnum heads, camshaft, and exhaust manifolds. This engine was advertised at 335 hp (250 kW; 340 PS).
 
I always kind of thought of those factory horsepower ratings were not real anyways. Something about rating them low so they could be insured. The "5 horsepower" difference just let the consumer know that the magnum was really a considerably more powerful motor than the regular 383. If they had told the truth, then the insurance rates would have been alot higher, and sales would fall.
 
I always kind of thought of those factory horsepower ratings were not real anyways. Something about rating them low so they could be insured. The "5 horsepower" difference just let the consumer know that the magnum was really a considerably more powerful motor than the regular 383. If they had told the truth, then the insurance rates would have been alot higher, and sales would fall.
Thanks for the common sense interjection. :thumbsup:
 
There is a ton of miss information out there and I don't have a problem with you believing everything you see in print. I just refuse to believe that Chrysler would change a cam, add a windage tray, and an unsilenced air cleaner and dual exhaust just for 5 hp. I am done with this pissing contest though.
Pnora has shown with documentation an attempt clarify some prevalent misinformation.

There is no ”contest” when it comes to accurate information.

We’re all welcome to believe what we want but when irrefutable proof from various factory sources is used to back up a position, then it is up to the person that disagrees to provide alternate information. ”Don’t shoot the messenger”
 
I always kind of thought of those factory horsepower ratings were not real anyways. Something about rating them low so they could be insured. The "5 horsepower" difference just let the consumer know that the magnum was really a considerably more powerful motor than the regular 383. If they had told the truth, then the insurance rates would have been alot higher, and sales would fall.

a different perspective.. compare the HP ratings from the 383 to other manufacturers engines competing in the same class. Go see what the larger CI Ford 390, the standard Chevy 396, Pontiac 389, et all were rated and how that affected sales and marketing.
 
Pnora has shown with documentation an attempt clarify some prevalent misinformation.

There is no ”contest” when it comes to accurate information.

We’re all welcome to believe what we want but when irrefutable proof from various factory sources is used to back up a position, then it is up to the person that disagrees to provide alternate information. ”Don’t shoot the messenger”
Thank You.
 
Ugh. So much confusion over this. The 68-69 (and maybe 70, I have not disassembled one in person) 383 4 bbl 330 engine w the HP exh manifolds and unsilenced air cleaner got the 383 2 bbl cam. Compression was the same 10:1 as the Road Runner/Bee engine. This engine was in Chargers and Sport Satellites, likely some C bodies and other stuff I'm forgetting. The Road Runners and Super Bees got the 4bbl cam, hence the 335 hp rating. That's it, just the cam difference. I've taken apart 3 different original 330 HP engines, one in the two owner car to the left here. Jim Dowel mic'ed the cams.

Folks get confused 'cause you can't see the difference. An original 330 motor in a 68-69 Charger, Satellite, 70 E body, etc looks the same on the outside as a 335 HP motor.
 
Well, Turns out I was wrong! After more research I'm sorry for adding to all the miss-information out there.
I apologize for thinking I was right about my assuming the 330 HP 383 got the same Cam as the HP 440 did.
I never could have dreamed that swapping in the HP 440 cam in place of the stock 383 cam could have only produced 5 horse power. Especially after adding the windage tray, unsilenced air cleaner along with the valve springs & exhaust upgrades the 335 HP got.

I found this listing for the upgrades the 335 hp engine got.
Another thing I never knew is that the Six Pack engines in 69 got still a different cam.





..........................1967 Engine Specs................. 1968 Engine Specs............. Road Runner/Super Bee

* Engine.................... 383/325 HP............................ 383/330 HP ..................... 383/335 HP

* Engine Dyno ............ 278 HP ................................. 288 HP ........................... 310 HP

* Compression............ 10.0 - 1 ................................ 10.0 - 1 .......................... 10.0 - 1
* Piston..................... Flat Top ................................ Flat Top ........................... Flat Top
* Piston Height.......... {-.014" } Below Deck ............. {+.021" } Above Deck ....... {+.021"} Above Deck

* Camshaft............... {Hydraulic} .......................... {Hydraulic} ....................... Hydraulic
* Lift........................ .425"/.437" .......................... .425"/.437" ...................... .450"/.458"
* Duration................. 256*/260* ........................... 256*/260* ....................... 268*/284*
* Overlap.................. 32* ..................................... 32* ................................. 46*

* Intake Manifold...... {#301 666 968} .................. {#2806301} ....................... {#2806301}
* Type..................... Cast Iron.............................. Cast Iron ............................ Cast Iron
* Style .................... Dual-Plane............................ Dual-Plane ......................... Dual-Plane
* Height................... Low-Rise.............................. Medium-Rise ...................... Medium-Rise

* Carburetor................{Carter AFB} ...................... {Carter AVS} .................... {Carter AVS}
* CFM Rating............... 575 .................................... 625 ................................. 625
* Throttle Sizes............ 1.437" x 1.563" ................... 1.437" x 1.688" ............... 1.437" x 1.688"
* Venturi Sizes............. 1.186" x 1.313" ................... 1.186" x AV ..................... 1.186" x AV

* Cylinder Head........... {#2506516} ....................... {#2843906} .................... {#2843906}
* Combustion Chamber. {Closed}............................. {Open} ........................... {Open}
* CC Level {Factory}......79.5 .................................. 88.0 ................................ 88.0
* CC Level {Minimum}... 73.5 .................................. 79.5 ............................... 79.5
* Intake Valve............... 2.08" ................................ 2.08"............................... 2.08"
* Exhaust Valve............. 1.60" ................................ 1.74" .............................. 1.74"
* Valve Springs............. Single-Coil.......................... Single-Coil ...................... Single-Coil w/Damper
* Load Rate.................. #134 lbs. {Valve-Closed}.... #134 lbs. {Valve-Closed} ... #134 lbs. {Valve-Closed}
* Load Rate.................. #208 lbs. {Valve-Open}...... #208 lbs. {Valve-Open} ..... #256 lbs. {Valve-Open}
* Gasket Thickness........ .021" ............................... .020" ................................ .020"

* Exhaust ................... {Dual} ............................. {Dual}............................. {Dual}
* Primary Pipe............... 2.25" ............................... 2.25" ............................... 2.50"
* Tail Pipe..................... 2.00" ............................... 2.00" ................................2.25"[/QUOTE]
 
I can tell from personal experience that a 1970 383 2 barrel is nowhere near 10.0 to 1 compression. The pistons sat .076 in the hole. The calculated CR came in at 8.12 to 1 even with the published spec stating 8.7.
 
I can tell from personal experience that a 1970 383 2 barrel is nowhere near 10.0 to 1 compression. The pistons sat .076 in the hole. The calculated CR came in at 8.12 to 1 even with the published spec stating 8.7.
I agree. However the statistics for the 290 hp 383 were not included in these specs
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top