1968 Match Race '383 Road Runner' vs 'Cutlass 350 Ram-Rod'

-
69 Cuda 440 said:
Honest Observation,

In 1968 and 1969,

Set up 383 Road Runners and Super Bee's were running at best 13.25's in
the {10.00 - 10.49 Wt/Hp} Stock Class.
* 1968 = E/S or E/SA

1968 National Records
* E/S.......12.78
* E/SA.....12.79

Never saw one get into the 12.90's back then, and nobody else did either.

Look at all the older National Dragster Publications, and Magazines.

You won't see one 383 Road Runner or 383 Super Bee with high marks.

They were good medium-sized body 'no frill' lighter weight Street Performers
that were durable

No matter what Artie says.

Artie what Boring Bars did you operate.........???
Click to expand...
this is about the 4th post in about as many months that you rag on the 383 RR and to a lesser amount the superbee. Your correct the 383 was no killer at the strip in NHRA classes but it was the engine that most common guys could afford and go racing with. When now in 2013 when you mention mopar muscle cars its the big charger, RR, cuda and challenger that come to mind. As for the ram rod why would you pick the 383 RR to pot it against doesn't make sense! Use another hot sb be it ford or Chevy or a sb b body or just use the 69 hemi RR there were a lot of them around back in the day. Lets here about a different car other than the 1968 383 RR next time you post NHRA class stats from 45 years ago. Lets see how some of the 340 cars stack up against the ford and Chevys,, ha.... what do you say???
 
I'd agree with that. Picking a small cube big block (and one that was never even nearly set up like say, a 375 H.P. 396 was...) just seems like low-hanging fruit to knock. That it provided a dead-nuts-reliable, cheap 14-second car seems laudable IMO.

I'd say the Ford 390 was in this same boat too.....
 
godfatherofchry said:
your a funny man that has read way to many hotrod &chevy books..and Im sure you have forgotten more than I will ever know.in your drems.:prayer::prayer::prayer:eek:r did you get that off the TV the speed ch.I bet.they did a comparison on them with the RR.up in smoke ya that's were you got it.so unless you have worked or owened a deler ship back then.mybe you should cheak out the fackes or talk to someone that has owened one from new...........sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..:thumblef::thumblef::thumblef::thumblef::thumblef::thumblef:....I will not try to explain anything to ya again......sorry........Artie
Click to expand...
good cuse I would hate to make ya look like an assssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! in front of your fallwers
 
Artie,

By your 'foolish' statement, I can tell you never set up a Boring Bar, let alone
run one to bore out a Cylinder.

'Craftsman' and 'Black & Decker' made small engine 'Cylinder Boring Tools',
not 'Automotive Boring Bars'.

The early Boring Bar units were, 'Van Norman' and 'Lemco'.

Then the 'Kwik-Way FN' Boring Bar became the most popular portable bar, which was an excellent unit.

'Rottler' was the 'Crème de la Creme', followed by 'Peterson'.

For a Mopar Guy, you are a major disappointment.
 
I LOVE my 1968 Road Runner. Nicer than an Olds.
Real world?
I am the second owner - bought it from the original owner in 1993.
STOCK 383 Carter AVS, 727, stock manifolds but has glass packs.
I added a 3.91 sure grip (it had 3.23s).
How's 14.40s all day long? Yep. STOCK.
I don't know how some of you are claiming 14.70s at best?
 
1968 Plymouth Road Runner (HR)
383ci/335hp, 4spd, 3.55, 0-60 - 6.2, 1/4 mile - 14.74 @ 98mph
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
Artie,

By your 'foolish' statement, I can tell you never set up a Boring Bar, let alone
run one to bore out a Cylinder.

'Craftsman' and 'Black & Decker' made small engine 'Cylinder Boring Tools',
not 'Automotive Boring Bars'.

The early Boring Bar units were, 'Van Norman' and 'Lemco'.

Then the 'Kwik-Way FN' Boring Bar became the most popular portable bar, which was an excellent unit.

'Rottler' was the 'Crème de la Creme', followed by 'Peterson'.

For a Mopar Guy, you are a major disappointment.
Click to expand...
ya your write Im sure you have seen them all??..and I also know your not worth me wasting time on wen there are other people here that needs help from a real mopar kid!? that knows what hes talking about not just reading sumthing out of abook from back in the day about sumthing that other people have owned and know better.and just remember sum of thos books I helped write.or people like me...and Ill also bet your the ding ding SOB that was the cuse (justen wild&crazy)as his frends know him..to be band again I sure hope not...sooooooooooo.I hope not to meat or talk to you again cus you ant worth it......................you can run that up your Disappointmented ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS:cheers::cheers::crybaby::crybaby::crybaby:mr.dum *** Artie the ******** byby baby byby:hello2::hello2::hello2:but I will be:lurk::lurk:
 
Artie you are my new favorite member. I can just visualize you sitting on your computer pissed off at us young whipper snappers for not being around in the 60's and trust me man I wish I was to be able to experience the muscle cars of that era. Are you sure there were internal combustion engines in your day? Or were you boring axle holes in your wagon wheels with a bit made from obsidian? I can understand the confusion. Back to your nap....... Haaaaaa!!! Just kidding just yankin you chain don't get mad I like hearing stories of the good muscle days.
 
Artie,

Are you sure you didn't swallow a 'bad' Soft Shell Crab in Maryland.

You post like you got smacked in the head with a 1962 Dodge 413 Ramcharger
Connecting-Rod.

Or maybe you accidentally drank some H & H Racing Gasoline {1971 era}.

I still like you,,,,,,,,
 
Below, 'Mellow Yellow' a very good running 1969 '383 Road Runner'

{1969 Photo} Classed in F/S

Ran 13.15's @ 108 MPH

attachment.php
 
So is the point of this thread that a gm 350 can beat a Mopar 383 IF-

it has more compression, AND it is in a lighter car, AND it has a steeper gear?

Because that's what I'm getting from all this.


For a dose of street reality- from '83 to '87, my bone stock but carefully tuned 66 Coronet poly 318-2 NEVER lost to ANY gm 350, including "fresh" four barrel builds in that same cutlass/malibu/lemans/skylark body style.
 
...and for the record, I don't think the 68-72 cutlass is ugly.
 
I wouldn't own the '68 and '69's, but I LOVE the '70 to '72's!! I was a hair away from buying a '72 442 from an old man once. That thing was mint.
 
Mr. YY1,

You ever stand near a 'stock' 68' Cutlass 350 'Ram Rod', and listen to
the Engine rumble.

Then listen to a 'stock' 383 Road Runner or 383 Super Bee.

The 'power sound' is not even close. The Ram Rod sounded like
a 'Down South Backwoods Rum Runner' with that 'rappy' Camshaft,
and hollowed out mufflers.
 
Doesn't really matter wat it sounds like.

With all due respect, I repeat my previous post:

So is the point of this thread that a gm 350 can beat a Mopar 383 IF-
it has more compression, AND it is in a lighter car, AND it has a steeper gear?
Because that's what I'm getting from all this.
 
Just that in 1968 and 1969,

The Road Runner was popular because of a 'great' Marketing and Advertising Campaign,
as well as being a smartly priced car.

The 'low-cost' $3000 for the base 383 performance car with a 'No Frills' Interior was a great Advertising tool.

Unfortunately, Mopar never pulled the trigger {due to a limited budget} on a
'Package Stock Option' from the 'Factory' for the 383, though it was available as
an 'over-the-counter' package for the customer.
 
YY1 said:
So is the point of this thread that a gm 350 can beat a Mopar 383 IF-

it has more compression, AND it is in a lighter car, AND it has a steeper gear?

Because that's what I'm getting from all this.


For a dose of street reality- from '83 to '87, my bone stock but carefully tuned 66 Coronet poly 318-2 NEVER lost to ANY gm 350, including "fresh" four barrel builds in that same cutlass/malibu/lemans/skylark body style.
Click to expand...

The poly 318 is another very underrated engine that people dog on all the time. They are a stone reliable engine. They even make a difference of over 40 foot pounds over the LA 318. With a 4bbl and duals they run really nice!

Dad has one in a '65 Satellite. Don't have any desire to swap it.
 
383 Upgrade,

I can't remember the 'high' number of Mopar Guys coming into my father's
Machine Shop from 1968 thru 1971 with complaints on how to make
the 383/335 HP run.

For the Street/Strip guys that just wanted the Road Runner or Super Bee to
run fast, it was the 'standard procedure'.

* Competition Valve Job
* Gasket-Port Matching
* CC the Ports and Chambers
* Set Valve-Spring Height
* Teflon Valve-Seals
* Edelbrock Aluminum Intake
* Carter Carburetor 750 AVS or Holley 780 CFM 'Series #4160"
* Performance Curve Distributor
* Lunati Camshaft {Stock-Cheater}
* Double-Roller Timing Chain
* Street-Headers {Cyclone or Doug's}

That was '383 Stage 1'
 
How did they run after you guys did all of that to them? What do you figure horses were after that? 400?
 
gtmopar said:
How did they run after you guys did all of that to them? What do you figure horses were after that? 400?
Click to expand...

Mr. GT.

A typical 'stock' 1968 or 1969 '383 Road Runner' with 3.55 Gears would run 14.75's @ 97 MPH.

That '383 Stage 1' upper engine upgrade would knock a good 1/2 second {.50 } off of the Elapsed Time,
and get the #3450 lb. {Shipping Weight} '383 Road Runner' down into the 14.20's @ 100 MPH.

Horsepower Gain.......+ 40 HP over Stock

As for Total Horsepower, the 383/335 HP was over-rated by at least 30 HP from the factory, as it was much
closer to the 300 HP range.
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
Mr. GT.

A typical 'stock' 1968 or 1969 '383 Road Runner' with 3.55 Gears would run 14.75's @ 97 MPH.

That '383 Stage 1' upper engine upgrade would knock a good 1/2 second {.50 } off of the Elapsed Time,
and get the #3450 lb. {Shipping Weight} '383 Road Runner' down into the 14.20's @ 100 MPH.

Horsepower Gain.......+ 40 HP over Stock

As for Total Horsepower, the 383/335 HP was over-rated by at least 30 HP from the factory, as it was much
closer to the 300 HP range.
Click to expand...



Ouch.......
 
cudavert said:
I'd agree with that. Picking a small cube big block (and one that was never even nearly set up like say, a 375 H.P. 396 was...) just seems like low-hanging fruit to knock. That it provided a dead-nuts-reliable, cheap 14-second car seems laudable IMO.

I'd say the Ford 390 was in this same boat too.....
Click to expand...
i would say the 390 ford wasthe worst performance big block out of them all.nice in a f 250 4wd though...
 
My friend used to have a early Ramcharger chassis with a truck cab on it and a shorty wood bed, it was a 4x4 and had a 440 in it and the trucks name was "Ram Rod" lol :glasses7:
 
In all fairness to the Road Runner,

The 1968 Cutlass 'Ram Rod' was a car that was prepared by the
'Oldsmobile Specialty Performance Staff', aka 'Dr. Oldsmobile'.

The 350 Engine was 'fully blueprinted'. And the 'Ram Rod' came
with a specially calibrated Rochester MV {800 CFM} Carburetor,
a Distributor with a 'performance curve', and 'tricked' Mufflers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top