360 vs 383

383 or 360 ?

  • overall, 383 all things considered

    Votes: 31 58.5%

  • overall, 360 all things considered

    Votes: 22 41.5%
  • Total voters
    53
-
318willrun said:
Actually, it's amazing how many famous "muscle cars" ran mid 14's to even low 15's. I think many versions of a 383 car, and 360 vehicles too, were well into the 14's in the 1/4 mile. Just not in C-bodies with 2.76 gears and single exhaust... LOL. I think they were on par for the era.
Click to expand...
That's family sedans numbers now :)
 
For comparison sake, the '70 AMA specs for a Barracuda/Cuda list 3 separate 383's:

2bbl - 290@4200
4bbl - 330@5000
4bbl HP - 335@5200

The 2bbl and 4bbl both show the same cam (256/260), but the 4bbl HP shows a 268/284 cam.
 
318willrun said:
Actually, it's amazing how many famous "muscle cars" ran mid 14's to even low 15's. I think many versions of a 383 car, and 360 vehicles too, were well into the 14's in the 1/4 mile. Just not in C-bodies with 2.76 gears and single exhaust... LOL. I think they were on par for the era.
Click to expand...
Yeah and a great for instance are all those big block SS Chevelles like in that video up there^^^^. Everybody says and thinks those cars ran mid to low 13s off the showroom floor and that's a big load of CRAP. They were mid 14s to mid 15s at best. Even the big horse power cars like the LS6. They were heavy and very traction limited. Also, the SS gear was the 3.31. They never came with a 3.55 like that video said. That was just WRONG. That's why they were regularly whooped up on by much lighter cars with smaller engines.....you know, like 340 A bodies. I'd love to have had a 70 340 4 speed Dart with optional 4.10 gears back in the day. Can you imagine how many big time muscle cars I couldda put on the trailer? LOL You better believe it happened, too.....a LOT.
 
DionR said:
For comparison sake, the '70 AMA specs for a Barracuda/Cuda list 3 separate 383's:

2bbl - 290@4200
4bbl - 330@5000
4bbl HP - 335@5200

The 2bbl and 4bbl both show the same cam (256/260), but the 4bbl HP shows a 268/284 cam.
Click to expand...
The bigger cam AND 10.25 compression FROM 8.5 and "only" 5 more HP. Yeah. I think that's some of that insurance fudging. The 383HP was a runner. Some of these cats around here don't wanna admit it, because it might take some of the glory from their beloved 340s and 440s.
 
66fs said:
Where to start... It was a general statement why I would pick a 383 over a 360 having daily driven Factory A-Bodies with a 383 and a 340. The "seems to be a long-standing, common knowledge in a Mopar world" is actually a long standing common misconception. As for the extra weight it really seems to be a non issue. What is the weight difference between a 7/8 torsion bar and a 15/16 torsion bar? Same for the 7/8 vs 15/16 front sway bar. Everything else is the same, only the engine weighs more. My early 68 Formula S does not have A/C or power steering and was a pleasure to drive with no handling issues. The extra weight of a 383 is easily offset by the intake flow of the heads. Maybe 190 cfm for the 360 vs 230 cfm for a 383. At 2 x intake airflow = hp that is 80 hp. 360 torque runs about 360 ft lb vs 425 ft lb for the 383. Have you heard the exhaust sound from a healthy 383, even through factory A-Body exhaust manifolds?

As for the 383 being a dog, just ask anyone who owned a 68-71 Road Runner. I worked with a guy who had a "68" 4 speed Road Runner, he had it for years. It was stock and would occasionally break into the 12's at 75-80 Drag Strip in MD. All he did was mill the heads, richen up the metering rods in the carb, add headers, gears and slicks. He never even changed the cam. It did not stop pulling at 4,000 to 4,500 rpm. Oh and yes, that was his baby. He probably tuned it for years to get it to that level. The 383 in my 68 Barracuda ran 906 heads, a Comp Cams 268 high energy cam, stock red HP valve springs, a 400 HP TQ, 3.23 sure grip, and a stock 727 5.0 kick down arm and a 340 torque convertor would spin the rear tires and move the rear sideways a foot or two before it straightened up at the 1st to 2nd shift. It also would get 16-18 mpg steady highway cruising in the midwest, up hill or down hill. Just because you would not, or could not, get any performance from your 383, does not mean someone else could not. It is not hard.

As for other engines they are not relevant in this thread.
Click to expand...
Well, having driven both the 340 and 383 Formula S fast backs, there was not a lot of difference , the 340 handled a little better.

Both cars had 3.23 suregrips.

What really woke up the 383 I drove was when fender well headers were added. (all that was available back then)

Now that was a marked improvement as the stock manifolds, especially the drivers side was very restrictive.

The 340 seemed to rev faster but maybe that was just the difference in sound of both motors.
 
I can tell most of you never drove a tuned 68 4spd Roadrunner or a 383 A- body with the exhaust opened up with headers.
Such simple things as adding the 440 AVS and super tuning the 383 made a huge difference.
 
RustyRatRod said:
The bigger cam AND 10.25 compression FROM 8.5 and "only" 5 more HP. Yeah. I think that's some of that insurance fudging. The 383HP was a runner. Some of these cats around here don't wanna admit it, because it might take some of the glory from their beloved 340s and 440s.
Click to expand...
And the EH1 360 in the LRE... a nose-heavy pig that had the aerodynamics of a brick schoolhouse was the quickest 1/4 mile time of American made cars (including the Z28, Corvette, and mustang) in 1978. 14 second truck from the showroom!
 
Super-Cuda said:
Well, having driven both the 340 and 383 Formula S fast backs, there was not a lot of difference , the 340 handled a little better.

Both cars had 3.23 suregrips.

What really woke up the 383 I drove was when fender well headers were added. (all that was available back then)

Now that was a marked improvement as the stock manifolds, especially the drivers side was very restrictive.

The 340 seemed to rev faster but maybe that was just the difference in sound of both motors.
Click to expand...
I don't really see how a 340 could rev any faster at all than a 383 as there was only a .065" difference in stroke. Plenty of people seem to think that, though.
 
More research will show that the early to mid 60s was dominated by the 383 dual quad engines in stock eliminator.
 
Sadly enough, the "hottest 360's" from the factory came in a smog era, or in heavy trucks/vans/RC's. I think the 360 4bbl A-body ran 14.6's ??? I'd have to verify. But even a police E58 pulled from a Diplomat could compete with the late sixties/early 70's muscle cars if put in a '70 Duster with dual exhaust and 3.55's. No add-ons needed! Not even headers.
 
318willrun said:
In my experience, a 383 2bbl and 360 2bbl are so close in every way possible that I doubt I would have known which one was in the car by just driving, without opening the hood. Especially in C-bodies. But this is just the bottom of where both power plants were intended to be..... mules.
Click to expand...
while my experience isn't precisely apples to apples, it's fairly close.

i have a 70 D300 dually with a flat bed, 383 2bbl 727 and that thing will straight *** burn all 4 tires unloaded, set you back in your seat at a roll on from 20mph and doesn't break a sweat on the fwy at 65~70 (unloaded).

my friend has a 73 D200 long box with a 360 2bbl 727 and it feels much more under powered even though it's a considerably lighter truck. it has gobs of torque and doesn't complain when loaded or pulling a trailer, but it fully adheres to the "it'll get there, eventually" adage.
 
Love the internet... LOL...
Seems no solid ground on what the '74 Cuda 360 4bbl ran.... and it would be fun to compare to the 383 4bbl '71 Cuda. Both sweet cars, and pricey these days.. lol
 
junkyardhero said:
while my experience isn't precisely apples to apples, it's fairly close.

i have a 70 D300 dually with a flat bed, 383 2bbl 727 and that thing will straight *** burn all 4 tires unloaded, set you back in your seat at a roll on from 20mph and doesn't break a sweat on the fwy at 65~70 (unloaded).

my friend has a 73 D200 long box with a 360 2bbl 727 and it feels much more under powered even though it's a considerably lighter truck. it has gobs of torque and doesn't complain when loaded or pulling a trailer, but it fully adheres to the "it'll get there, eventually" adage.
Click to expand...
yeah, I mean so much loose property in there.... I ran 15.3's in the 1/4 with a stock 360 D150, 3.21 gears, single exhaust. It's so hard to compare unless all is equal.
 
RustyRatRod said:
I love a stock stroke 360. Fantastic engines.
Click to expand...
As long as you can ditch those dished pistons they castrated the 360s with, and get closer to
pistons being 0 deck, Only then will the 360 have a fighting chance
 
Charlie_es_cool said:
I think the last year for the 383/335 was 1970. By 1971 Chrysler dropped it to an advertised 8.7:1 comp ratio, and was rated at 300 gross/250 net horsepower. Makes sense that a heavier car, with less gear and just 5 extra horsepower is the slower of the two. Converter stall also plays a role here. A smog 383 with a 11.75" converter doesn't seem like a combo that would launch better than a smog 360 with the smaller 10.75". But....... This doesn't completely account for the huge difference in ET.

I would say the driver and tune play the biggest role in the ET/mph discrepancy. An inferior driver in a car that still needs bugs figured out is the only explanation for a full 2 seconds and 10mph difference at the finish line.

I don't think this makes a case for 383 being doorstops.
Click to expand...
Didn’t realize that the ‘71 383 was detuned that much. I apologize to all for posting incorrect info, makes the comparison a little more skewed. If the engine in that Challenger was truly built to factory ‘71 specs that would definitely account for the lower performance.

It also would make sense the converter was detuned to match.
 
volaredon said:
As long as you can ditch those dished pistons they castrated the 360s with, and get closer to
pistons being 0 deck, Only then will the 360 have a fighting chance
Click to expand...
Chance against a 383 I assume you are talking about. I still have dished pistons in my 360, and my pistons are down the hole a ways, and when I had factory smog heads, and less cam than the E58 police 360, it went 13.3's with 2.94 gears. Only addition was headers and an RPM intake (which the intake really wasn't worth anything to speak of). I think that would be tough for a 383 commando with headers in a Duster with only 2.94 gears. Just say'n.... But you are correct, swap pistons and the 360 becomes a whole new animal.
 
318willrun said:
yeah, I mean so much loose property in there.... I ran 15.3's in the 1/4 with a stock 360 D150, 3.21 gears, single exhaust. It's so hard to compare unless all is equal.
Click to expand...
i'm not gonna take the D300 to the strip, mainly because i'd have to remove the stakes and that's a gargantuan pain in the ***, and my back hurts just thinking about it.

but for all intensive porpoises, the trucks are fairly evenly matched in equipment with the big one getting deeper gears but washing that with the much taller tires.

having recently driven both, Lawrence Le Beouf straight steps all over the the fleetside everywhere it counts, at least for the type of driving/use i do or would need. and that's not trying to be a put down on mid 70's trucks which i love and are great, either. his 73 is a *much* more comfortable truck to drive and is clearly more mechanically refined. but in pure technical terms it is "dog **** slow".
 
junkyardhero said:
i'm not gonna take the D300 to the strip,
Click to expand...
LOL .. i get it, although I might :D . I'm just saying, are both engines 100% up to snuff? Any updates on one vs the other? It's very hard to hold 50 year old vehicles to a standard of 50 years ago, so many changes between then and now. And were those changes equal? I guess that's why I said there is a lot of property there to cover, but I get your comparison.
 
volaredon said:
As long as you can ditch those dished pistons they castrated the 360s with, and get closer to
pistons being 0 deck, Only then will the 360 have a fighting chance
Click to expand...
Wrong. But then I don't expect much more. lol
 
One thing that's surprised me as to this point in the thread, the 383 votes are doubling the 360 votes. By all means justified because there really is no correct answer, kind of an each to their own. But I'd have guessed the A-body folks would have stuck to the 360. :)
 
318willrun said:
One thing that's surprised me as to this point in the thread, the 383 votes are doubling the 360 votes. By all means justified because there really is no correct answer, kind of an each to their own. But I'd have guessed the A-body folks would have stuck to the 360. :)
Click to expand...
The 383 is every bit as easy to install in an A body, so what's not to love? Plus, it has the distributor staring you in the face when you open the hood, instead of having to reach for it.
 
318willrun said:
Seems no solid ground on what the '74 Cuda 360 4bbl ran.... and it would be fun to compare to the 383 4bbl '71 Cuda.
Click to expand...

383 4bbl '71 Cuda would be the same as the '71 Challenger posted earlier. Looks like the only 4bbl 383 available in '71 was a 300hp detuned, 8.5:1 motor, probably with the 2bbl cam.

Never noticed it before, but looks like the '71 dealer info shows both rating systems, and says 250 hp and 325 ft/# for the '71 383. Compared to 245/320 for the '74 360.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top