'Match Race 1969' 440 'Cuda vs 440 'Six-Barrel' Road Runner

-
Plymouth should have put six packs on the 440 in the barracuda. Hmmm... That is why I put a 440+6 in my 383-S Barracuda. Rumor has it my engine came from a roadrunner.

I read a long time ago that very early six pack 440s had the standard rods and therefore didn't need the thicker dampner. Anyone know this for sure.?
 
R Klein 383,

Yes,,

The 1969 Road Runner 440 'Six-Barrel' and 1969 Super Bee 440 'Six-Pack'
Connecting Rods were the same as regular 440 Connecting Rods.

But, they were 'shot-peened' for stress relief, and Magna-Fluxed to detect imperfections.

Considered to be the 'A+ Grade' 1969 440 Connecting-Rod.
 
Mr. Vitamin C,

Got some information on the 1969 Super Bee 440 'Six-Pack' {First Car} that was
featured in the {March 1969} 'Hi Performance Cars Magazine'.

That car was a 'Proto-Type', that was pulled off the line in December 1968.

It was a 1969 Super Bee 383 {4-Speed} with a 3.55 Sure-Grip with an 8 3/4" Rear,
and equipped with the 'HD Suspension' and Bench Seat. The 15" steel wheel rims and
G70 x 15" Tires were added also.

Butterscotch Paint, with a Black-Vinyl Top.

It was specially built on the platform with {10" Drum Brakes} to save weight
{approximately 40 lbs.} and was equipped with a {Code B51} Power Assisted
unit to help braking.

It also was equipped with Power Steering, as it was to be used as a 'Magazine
Test Car'.

The 440/390 HP 'Six-Barrel' engine was swapped in later.

The final finishing details were put together by Creative Customs in Detroit.

It was labeled as the 'Display Car', to be offered up as a Test Car for the Press,
as well as being displayed at the International Auto Show in Detroit {January 20, 1969},
and the International Auto Show in Chicago {March 8, 1969} which was before the
'first' Production run in late-March 1969, and later at the New York Auto Show {April 1969}.
 
Frank,

There were some significant differences between the 1969 440/375 HP Engine and
440/390 HP engine besides the obvious 'Six-Barrel' set up.

A} The Engine Block, Forged-Steel Crankshaft and Cast Pistons were the same.

B} But the 440 'Six-Barrel' had 'Special Forged Connecting Rods' {Casting #185135}
which were 'shot-peened' for stress relief, and Magna-Fluxed for inspection of imperfections.
In short, they were called 'A+ Select Components' or the 'Best-of-the-Best'.

C} The Cast Pistons 'Flat-Top' {10.1 - 1 Compression Ratio} were the same, but the Top Piston Ring
for the 440 'Six-Barrel' was Moly-Filled, while the 440 Super Commando was a 'standard' cast ring
made of premium grade iron.

D} There was a slight difference in the Hydraulic Camshaft Specifications, as the 440 'Six-Barrel'
was designed with a 'low-taper' profile.

Depending on who you talk to;

440/375 HP Camshaft
.450"/.458" Lift ~ 268*/284* Duration ~ 46* Overlap ~ 114* Center-Line

440/390 HP
.450"/.465" Lift ~ 276*/292" Duration ~ 54* Overlap ~ 114* Center-Line {As per; Dick Maxwell}
 
Cool, 7 of 8 of my connecting rods are A+!
 
Wasn't the CFM rating on the two barrels tested different than the 4? 1350 rating isn't the same as 750.
 
MTmopars said:
Wasn't the CFM rating on the two barrels tested different than the 4? 1350 rating isn't the same as 750.
Click to expand...

Yes, the 440 'Six-Barrel'

The 'advertised' rating

350 CFM {Center Carb}
500 CFM {Front and Rear Outboards}

Total Advertised Rating = 1350 CFM

According to Chrysler Racing Head - Dick Maxwell, the 'Six-Barrel' system flowed at 1050 CFM's.
 
2 bbl were tested at 3inHg, 4 bbl were tested at 1.5inHg. I believe if tested the same it would add up to just under 1000cfm. Still way more than the magnums 4bbl.

I found this...
CFM ratings are more accurate than physical carburetor sizes, as the CFM rating takes into account the venturi size of the carburetor. It is not uncommon for a given physical size (see Carburetor sizes paragraphs) to have many different internal venturi sizes. Early Stromberg and Zenith carbs could have as many as 9 different venturi sizes for a given physical size. Carburetor CFM ratings have been around since at least the 1920’s; however many O.E. (original equipment) carburetors never had published CFM ratings. I have not seen any actual agreement that stated that it had to be this way, but the early published ratings that I have seen for 1-barrel and 2-barrel carburetors were measured at 3 inches of mercury. This rating was about the amount of vacuum available on engines of the period under wide-open throttle conditions.



Sometime during the 1950’s, engineers found that a passenger engine with a four-barrel carburetor would not maintain a vacuum of 3 inches of mercury at wide-open throttle; and by some convention 1 ½ inches of mercury was chosen for rating 4-barrel carburetors. The ratings for 1-barrel and 2-barrel carburetors were left unchanged.



To convert from one system to another (with a very small percentage of error) is relatively simple. Simply use the square root of 2 (1.414). Thus to convert a two-barrel rating into a four-barrel rating, divide the two-barrel rating by 1.414. To convert the four-barrel rating to a two-barrel rating, multiply the four-barrel rating by 1.414.
Click to expand...
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
Mr. Vitamin C,

Got some information on the 1969 Super Bee 440 'Six-Pack' {First Car} that was
featured in the {March 1969} 'Hi Performance Cars Magazine'.

That car was a 'Proto-Type', that was pulled off the line in December 1968.

It was a 1969 Super Bee 383 {4-Speed} with a 3.55 Sure-Grip with an 8 3/4" Rear,
and equipped with the 'HD Suspension' and Bench Seat. The 15" steel wheel rims and
G70 x 15" Tires were added also.

Butterscotch Paint, with a Black-Vinyl Top.

It was specially built on the platform with {10" Drum Brakes} to save weight
{approximately 40 lbs.} and was equipped with a {Code B51} Power Assisted
unit to help braking.

It also was equipped with Power Steering, as it was to be used as a 'Magazine
Test Car'.

The 440/390 HP 'Six-Barrel' engine was swapped in later.

The final finishing details were put together by Creative Customs in Detroit.

It was labeled as the 'Display Car', to be offered up as a Test Car for the Press,
as well as being displayed at the International Auto Show in Detroit {January 20, 1969},
and the International Auto Show in Chicago {March 8, 1969} which was before the
'first' Production run in late-March 1969, and later at the New York Auto Show {April 1969}.
Click to expand...
Now that I can believe. Also my car does have the standard rods and flat top pistons. I have heard the six pack rod came out in 70 and is in all HP 440's. I have a brother in law with a 70 Coronet R/T and it has the big rods
 
Mr. Vitamin,

That first 'performance test' with the 'Display Car', had a 4-Speed with a 3.55 Sure-Grip
8 3/4" Rear-End, and 10" Drum Brakes.

The 'proto-type' Super Bee was actually about 100 lbs. {lighter} than the 'true'
1969 Super Bee 440 Six-Pack'.

First test runs were in the 14.80's @ 99 MPH.

After tweaking.... 13.95's @ 104 MPH.

Later, the 'smartly added' 4.10 Dana-Rear for the 'true' Six-Barrel' and 'Six-Pack' cars
really let them wind up to proper RPM's.

Below, the #1851535 {1969 Connecting Rod} = 830 Grams of Prime Grade 'A+' Factory Forged Steel

!BdW!MWg!mk~$(KGrHqUOKisEq5,w0W5SBK4f1TH!Dg~~_12.JPG
 
1969,

A true result from a 1969 1/2 Road Runner 440 'Six-Barrel' owner.

An Automatic with 8.90 x 15" Slicks and a proper 'performance tune-up' 13.20's @ 108 MPH.

With 'fenderwell' Hooker Headers, 12.90's @ 110 MPH


Oct_69-400dpi_001.jpg
 
Eddie,

Engine Components

The 440 'Six-Barrel' Engine did come though with .0005 under-sized Hydraulic-Lifters,
which eliminated friction, and were also ground flat-faced for improved rotation
when riding on the low-taper design Camshaft {#4529770}.

The 'Push-Rods' for both the 440/390 HP and 440/375 HP Engines were
5/16" Diameter Tubular-Steel {with .060" steel} {#2899595}.

The Camshaft Sprocket Gear {#3512903} for the 440/390 HP timing chain was a 3-Bolt Design,
as opposed to the Single-Bolt Sprocket Gear for the 440/375 HP.

Both engines used a 'Windage-Tray', but the 440 'Six-Barrel' was fitted with a
426 Street Hemi 'High-Volume' Oil Pump which increased oil-flow 25% over the
stock 440/375 HP oil-pump.

Both the '1969' 440/390 HP and 440/375 HP utilized the same Vibration Damper
{#2658457} which was a 'thin-style' forged-steel unit used for 'internally balanced'
440 Engine components.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cylinder Heads

Both the 440/390 HP and 440/375 HP Engines were fitted with the same Cylinder Heads
{#2843906} - but the Valves for the 440 'Six-Barrel' were 'special' thinner .3725" Diameter,
and 'Chrome-Stemmed' for hardness. They were also designed for a 'Single-Grooved' Valve Keeper.

The Valve-Springs for the 440 'Six-Barrel' had a higher Load-Rate as well.

440/390 HP {#3418491} = #131 lbs. {Valve Closed} and #279 lbs. {Valve Open}
440/375 HP {#2658471} = #133 lbs. {Valve Closed} and #256 lbs. {Valve Open}

Rocker Arms

The 440 'Six-Barrel' came though with 'heavier' stamped-steel Rocker-Arms, which
helped limit 'Valve-Train' deflection at higher RPM's.
 
Argo,

2013 NHRA Horsepower Factors

1969 440 'Cuda 440/375 HP {#3279 lbs.}
* Stock HP Rating................350 HP = 9.37 Wt/Hp
* Super Stock HP Rating...... 356 HP = 9.21 Wt/Hp

1969 440 Road Runner 'Six-Barrel' 440/390 HP {#3530 lbs.}
* Stock HP..........................390 HP = 9.05 Wt/Hp
* Super Stock HP Rating.......385 HP = 9.17 Wt/Hp
 
April 7, 1969

Dick Maxwell - Chief Technical Advisor 'Performance Parts Division'
John Bauman - Racing Technician for Fuel Systems

Performance Test with a 'stock' 1969 Super Bee 440 'Six-Pack ~ Automatic Transmission

With 'Factory Delivered' Goodyear G70 x 15" Red-Line Tires {6.625" Width x 27.47" Tall}


Test 1 {Bone Stock}

* Off-Line Launch At Idle @ 1000 RPM's
* Shift Points @ 5000 RPM's {Car Left In Drive, For Automatic Gear Shifting}

Test Result ~ 13.81 @ 103.59 MPH

Test 2

* Remove Air-Cleaner Element
* Set Timing to 32*
* Spare Tire and Jack Assembly Removed
* Front Tires Inflated To 50 lbs.
* Rear Tires Heated Up {Pre-Launch Burn-Out}

Test Result ~ 13.56 @ 105.63 MPH

Test 3

* Goodyear Slicks 'D3 Compound' 8.50 x 14" {27.4" Tall}

* Off-Line Launch @ 2800 RPM
* Shift Points @ 5200 RPM {Manual-Automatic Shifting}

Test Result ~ 13.37 @ 106.00 MPH

Test 4

* Re-calibrate the {Front and Rear Outboard} Holley Carburetors to open up quicker
* Install a set of J-11Y Spark Plugs {Colder}
* Intake Manifold Gasket with Heat Cross-Over passage blocked

Test Result ~ 13.18 @ 107.01 MPH

Test 5

With a Set of 'Blueprinted NHRA-Legal' Cylinder Heads
* 3-Angle Valve Job
* Teflon Seals
* Spring-Height Set
* Heads Milled to equal a 79.5 CC Combustion Chamber = {10.79 - 1 Compression Ratio}
* .021" Steel-Shim Head Gasket

Test Result ~ 12.95 @ 111.60 MPH
 
Roger,

The 1969 440 'Cuda could have been made as a more potent 'missle', and still
been able to stay within the 1969 NHRA C/SA Class {8.50 - 8.99 Wt/Hp} with
just a few minor tweaks and weight saving components.

Let me post what Plymouth Racing had suggested in December 1968,,,,

th
 
In your experience, was the 440 cuda still traction limited with the little slicks?
 
MT Mopar,

Going by 'first hand' experience.

The 7" Wide Slicks {Maximum Allowable width for Stock Class}
1969 thru 1971, provided minimal traction with 1969 440 'Cuda.

Especially with Standard 3.55 or 'optional' 3.91 Gears.

With 7" Wide 'pie-cutters', the traction was 'poor' at best.

Just for the Rear-End Suspension

To get the A-Body to hook up, you needed;
*} 4.56 Gears {in Stock Class}
*} Super Stock Leaf Springs
*} Heavy-Duty Shackles
*} Adjustable Pinion Snubber with Under-Body Steel Bumper-Plate
*} Rear 'Drag Shocks' 50/50 or Chrysler Imperial 'extended travel' units.
*} Rear Shock Tower Plate Support Plates
*} Front Clamps for the Leaf Springs
*} Heavy-Duty, Solid or Urethane Bushings
*} Make sure the rear Torque-Boxes were properly welded



$T2eC16FHJHoE9n3Kd4p,BR(h42hUMQ~~60_12.JPG
 
7t1gt said:
this is a nice read with lots of info but who won? :burnout:
Click to expand...

I hate to say it,,,,,,

Back in the Day {1970 an 1971} and classed in D/SA,

With 7" Slicks, and in Stock Class the 69' Road Runner 440 'Six-Barrel'
caught us at Top End 75% of the time.

Once those Holley Model #2300 Series 'Outbard Two-Barrel Carbs' opened
up, and sucked in all that fresh-air through the 'big-mouth' Hood Scoop,
it was like they gained another 40 Horsepower on Top End.

With 7" Slicks, we still had to feather the 440 'Cuda out-of-the-hole
before punching it out, otherwise we would go 90* Sideways.

Now this was before 'Rear-End Geometery was fully understood.

With the twisting of the Uni-Body on the 69 A-Body, the Thrust Direction when
coming off the line way too hard, sent the 440 'Cuda's rear-end flying side-ways to
the right.

thrust_04.jpg
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
I hate to say it,,,,,,

Back in the Day {1970 an 1971} and classed in D/SA,

With 7" Slicks, and in Stock Class the 69' Road Runner 440 'Six-Barrel'
caught us at Top End 75% of the time.

Once those Holley Model #2300 Series 'Outbard Two-Barrel Carbs' opened
up, and sucked in all that fresh-air through the 'big-mouth' Hood Scoop,
it was like they gained another 40 Horsepower on Top End.

With 7" Slicks, we still had to feather the 440 'Cuda out-of-the-hole
before punching it out, otherwise we would go 90* Sideways.

Now this was before 'Rear-End Geometery was fully understood.

With the twisting of the Uni-Body on the 69 A-Body, the Thrust Direction when
coming off the line way too hard, sent the 440 'Cuda's rear-end flying side-ways to
the right.

thrust_04.jpg
Click to expand...


That is what I was thinking....it is more than just weight and exhaust flow...6 packs properly tuned are more progressive in their powerband so they hook up better at launch and keep pulling longer due to the high cfm they can flow.
Now add exhaust flow and weight distribution and you have a winner.
We wont even get into the valve train differences and such.

I run a 440-6 in my 70 Charger and it has run 12.30 in Seattle weighing in at just under 4000lbs thru 3.55s. Stock bottom end , pocket ported 906's and a 550 crane roller with headers....so not exactly stock but nothing Rad either !
 
I just think the weight transfer of the RR was just way better. That's a lot of *** behind that car to make it plant so much better.
 
M Baird,

That is moving with that Charger,,,,,,but isn't that a 1969 Charger in the driveway.

As for the 1969 440 'Six-Barrel' or 'Six-Pack' , the Edelbrock Aluminum Intake is
damn near the height of a low-profile Tunnel Ram.

A beautiful piece of engineering.
 
Front-to-Rear Weight Distribution

1969 440 'Cuda
Total Weight.............. #3279 lbs.

Front......................... #1875 lbs. {57.2%}
Rear.......................... #1402 lbs. {42.8%}

1969 Road Runner 440 'Six-Barrel'
Total Weight.............. #3535 lbs.

Front......................... #1915 lbs. {54.2%}
Rear.......................... #1640 lbs. {45.8%}
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top