1968 '340' Barracuda vs 1968 '383' Road Runner
My point was, that the 383/335 HP engine was over-rated for Horsepower. Not
that it was a bad engine.
More to come,,,,,,,,,,,
If you look at Motor's repair manuals that span the time period when the automakers went from "gross HP" (a bare engine sans accessories on the dyno) to "net HP' ( the bare engine as it was installed in the car W/all the accessories, exhaust, etc on the dyno) you will notice something interesting.
"Gross HP" for the 340/440 (I know we are talking 383s here, but that's not the point) was 275HP/370HP respectively. A 95HP advantage for the 440.
"Net HP" for the 340/440 was 240HP/244HP respectively, only a 4 HP advantage for the 440 as it was installed in the cars..
The point I'm trying to make here is that the 340 was grossly underrated. A big reason for this was insuarnce rates.
I had a '70 340 swinger in 1972 & it was rated "V 8 standard transmission" just like if it had a 318/3 on the tree. My insusrance rates were a fraction of what I paid for my '68 442 & it was a slug compared to the 340 Swinger.
This was in Pennsylvania during the early '70s & in those days it was hard to get a car W/suspension changes of any kind inspected so most of the cars on the street were pretty close to stock.
I regularly spanked 383s 440s, 396s, 390HP 427, etc
The cars that gave me the most trouble were the 350 HP 327s in Chevy IIs & Vettes & of course other "A" body 340s.
My friend had a Dart GTS W/a 383 & I could smake him.
I doubt that a 383 had as much "net HP" as a 340 in those days.
Just my experience.
