|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: bobs66440]
#1157724
01/17/12 01:48 PM
01/17/12 01:48 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 56
SCVpolara
member
|
member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 56
|
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: bobs66440]
#1157727
01/17/12 07:26 PM
01/17/12 07:26 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,163
CT
GTX MATT
master
|
master
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,163
CT
|
Quote:
It's funny to hear all this, considering that at about the same time, as the story goes, GM and Ford were doing exactly the opposite and underestimating the numbers to avoid big insurance premiums. Who knows how accurate those stories are.
LIES I TELL YOU! LIES! In my opinion most Ford and GM numbers were incredibly optimistic outside of their top performers. Theres no way a 325 horse 390 made 325 horse and no way a 325 horse 396 made 325 horse when those cars were sometimes lucky to break 15s. They all overrated the lesser performing engines.
Last edited by GTX MATT; 01/17/12 07:28 PM.
Now I need to pin those needles, got to feel that heat
Hear my motor screamin while I'm tearin up the street
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: GTX MATT]
#1157728
01/17/12 08:38 PM
01/17/12 08:38 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's funny to hear all this, considering that at about the same time, as the story goes, GM and Ford were doing exactly the opposite and underestimating the numbers to avoid big insurance premiums. Who knows how accurate those stories are.
LIES I TELL YOU! LIES! In my opinion most Ford and GM numbers were incredibly optimistic outside of their top performers. Theres no way a 325 horse 390 made 325 horse and no way a 325 horse 396 made 325 horse when those cars were sometimes lucky to break 15s. They all overrated the lesser performing engines.
Easy to forget 45 years after the fact, but in the fall of 67 Hot Rod had this to say about the new 68 Fords:
Quote:
[M]ost production Fords are indifferent turkeys, not even redeemable by outstanding gas mileage. This condition is doubly disastrous when squared against Ford's racing victories, where they have literally won everything in the world. . . . It is natural to assume since Ford is 100 percent in racing that some of the competition flavor would rub off on their production vehicles. Unfortunately this has happened only in looks and suspension rather than the engine compartment.
A few months later, Ford was prodded into offering the 428 Cobra Jet Mustang, after Tasca Ford complained that the 390 Mustangs had sold well until the snow melted and everyone realized what slugs they were.
Ford did offer some decent muscle cars later, but they were awfully slow in coming out with real street performance compared to GM and Mopar.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: GTX MATT]
#1157729
01/18/12 05:56 AM
01/18/12 05:56 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's funny to hear all this, considering that at about the same time, as the story goes, GM and Ford were doing exactly the opposite and underestimating the numbers to avoid big insurance premiums. Who knows how accurate those stories are.
LIES I TELL YOU! LIES! In my opinion most Ford and GM numbers were incredibly optimistic outside of their top performers. Theres no way a 325 horse 390 made 325 horse and no way a 325 horse 396 made 325 horse when those cars were sometimes lucky to break 15s. They all overrated the lesser performing engines.
No, not lies. I cant speak for every make and model, but i've had enough ov each to form an opinion. I've never had a 440 that ran worth a damn in stock form. The few stockish 440 Magnum cars i've been in were woefully weak as well. A couple could be blamed on bad rebuilds, but others were original. I've always found the 383's to run more like you'd expect a 400-class engine to run, but the 440's honestly never seemed worth the upgrade... until you started adding headers, intake, carb, and other cheap tricks.
On the other hand i have had a good handful ov 68-70 Buick 430's and 455's, all high compression stuff, and those engines were ready to go from the start. Yank 'em out ov a big Electra or whatever, dump 'em in an A-body, and suddenly i had a fast car. There are countless stories ov people running 15's, even low 15's in full-size Buicks stock. Even the 5200lb Electra's were considerably faster than the lighter Mopar C-bodies (and i'm comparing the elite Electra to the Furies and Monacos, NOT the Imperials). None ov these were Stage 1 engines either. Even the lowly Buick 350's i had could beat up on every 340 i owned except for one (A66 70 340 ).
Friends had Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs... 455's in those. I would still swear they were faster than 440's, but i had little experience. Oldsmobile's '365HP' always felt like 365HP, yet the Magnum's '375HP' felt more like 320. I've had 3 Cadillac 472's, all stock, and two (one was junk) would destroy my modified 440's. 30cid doesn't make up THAT much ground...
Now... open the 440 up a bit, let it breathe... and things change quickly. Headers are a must, intake is a biggie, bigger carb, good tune, good exhaust... and suddenly even a stock low-comp 440 can be a winner. But off the lot, i'd take a non-Stage 1 455 over a 440 Magnum any day. Then again, i wonder what would happen if i did the same to a 455...??? Never got to really get into them back then. Stock was all i could afford.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: bobs66440]
#1157730
01/18/12 07:36 AM
01/18/12 07:36 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
Rick_Ehrenberg
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
|
The gross numbers were derived with NO accessories (water pump, fan, alternator, etc.), cold engine, open exhaust, no air cleaner, a deep oil pan, cold air, etc. In other words - every trick in the book to get the advertised number up. And there was still plenty of fudging!
Rick E.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1157731
01/19/12 03:10 AM
01/19/12 03:10 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,163
CT
GTX MATT
master
|
master
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,163
CT
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's funny to hear all this, considering that at about the same time, as the story goes, GM and Ford were doing exactly the opposite and underestimating the numbers to avoid big insurance premiums. Who knows how accurate those stories are.
LIES I TELL YOU! LIES! In my opinion most Ford and GM numbers were incredibly optimistic outside of their top performers. Theres no way a 325 horse 390 made 325 horse and no way a 325 horse 396 made 325 horse when those cars were sometimes lucky to break 15s. They all overrated the lesser performing engines.
No, not lies. I cant speak for every make and model, but i've had enough ov each to form an opinion. I've never had a 440 that ran worth a damn in stock form. The few stockish 440 Magnum cars i've been in were woefully weak as well. A couple could be blamed on bad rebuilds, but others were original. I've always found the 383's to run more like you'd expect a 400-class engine to run, but the 440's honestly never seemed worth the upgrade... until you started adding headers, intake, carb, and other cheap tricks.
On the other hand i have had a good handful ov 68-70 Buick 430's and 455's, all high compression stuff, and those engines were ready to go from the start. Yank 'em out ov a big Electra or whatever, dump 'em in an A-body, and suddenly i had a fast car. There are countless stories ov people running 15's, even low 15's in full-size Buicks stock. Even the 5200lb Electra's were considerably faster than the lighter Mopar C-bodies (and i'm comparing the elite Electra to the Furies and Monacos, NOT the Imperials). None ov these were Stage 1 engines either. Even the lowly Buick 350's i had could beat up on every 340 i owned except for one (A66 70 340 ).
Friends had Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs... 455's in those. I would still swear they were faster than 440's, but i had little experience. Oldsmobile's '365HP' always felt like 365HP, yet the Magnum's '375HP' felt more like 320. I've had 3 Cadillac 472's, all stock, and two (one was junk) would destroy my modified 440's. 30cid doesn't make up THAT much ground...
Now... open the 440 up a bit, let it breathe... and things change quickly. Headers are a must, intake is a biggie, bigger carb, good tune, good exhaust... and suddenly even a stock low-comp 440 can be a winner. But off the lot, i'd take a non-Stage 1 455 over a 440 Magnum any day. Then again, i wonder what would happen if i did the same to a 455...??? Never got to really get into them back then. Stock was all i could afford.
I think you've had quite a strange experience but even so Ill take the 440. If I planned on beating on a BOP engine I would save myself the trouble and just unbolt the intake, drop in a hand grenade, and quickly bolt it back on.
Now I need to pin those needles, got to feel that heat
Hear my motor screamin while I'm tearin up the street
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: GTX MATT]
#1157732
01/19/12 04:12 AM
01/19/12 04:12 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mi,U.S.A.
mike s
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mi,U.S.A.
|
I think low numbers were more a product of shoddy quality control than any thing else.90cc or more 906 heads .050 down or more down the hole deck heights.1.5 rocker ratios that are closer to 1.4.Cam lift.010-020 short.Add them up and you have a dog 440 or any other eng.Remember no CNC machining back in the day.If the specs are on they make the power.
Doesn't matter what kind of engine results are the same
Leave the gun.......take the Cannoli's....Mike
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: mike s]
#1157733
01/19/12 07:56 AM
01/19/12 07:56 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
I think low numbers were more a product of shoddy quality control than any thing else.90cc or more 906 heads .050 down or more down the hole deck heights.1.5 rocker ratios that are closer to 1.4.Cam lift.010-020 short.Add them up and you have a dog 440 or any other eng.Remember no CNC machining back in the day.If the specs are on they make the power.
Doesn't matter what kind of engine results are the same
I'd agree. I maintain that a Mopar big block is hands down THE best starting point ov the era. But as delivered they were awful. The higher end GM's at least (Buick, Cadillac) seemed to put far more attention into the actual build than Mopar did. I never had a bad Buick or Cadillac engine, aside from that one 472 that was in a truly junk car.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: GTX MATT]
#1157734
01/19/12 08:07 AM
01/19/12 08:07 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
I think you've had quite a strange experience but even so Ill take the 440. If I planned on beating on a BOP engine I would save myself the trouble and just unbolt the intake, drop in a hand grenade, and quickly bolt it back on.
Oh dont get me wrong... i love the Mopar engine over all others. Even without a rebuild (and real pistons/heads) they can dominate. I've had many many opportunities to get back into a Buick 455 since those days, but just cant seem to pull the trigger. The sheer cost is half the trepidation, and the relative fragility ov the Buick oiling system is the other. I've beat the living [Edited by Moparts - Family Friendly Site - Keep it clean] out ov many Mopar engines... and never blown one up. I've had a good dozen Buick engines, maybe beat on two or three... yet i've blown up 4 (one 350, a 430 and two 455's).
The Caddy is in my opinion, by FAR the best GM made... but again, in its stock form the rods and rockers will eventually let you down sooner or later. I've been lucky with my 68 Caddy, and its been plenty abused... But i've never called that anything more than luck. Cast iron rods and pop-can rockers...??? I've been so tempted to spend some money on that engine so many times now... but again... still cant seem to pull the trigger. The fragility ov this particular engine design may well be overstated, i'm starting to wonder. Again, i dont have a lot ov experience with Olds or Pontiac.
I'd have NO trouble spending money on a B/RB though... you cant hurt them and man, they respond to upgrades...
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1157735
01/19/12 01:55 PM
01/19/12 01:55 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,163
CT
GTX MATT
master
|
master
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,163
CT
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think you've had quite a strange experience but even so Ill take the 440. If I planned on beating on a BOP engine I would save myself the trouble and just unbolt the intake, drop in a hand grenade, and quickly bolt it back on.
Oh dont get me wrong... i love the Mopar engine over all others. Even without a rebuild (and real pistons/heads) they can dominate. I've had many many opportunities to get back into a Buick 455 since those days, but just cant seem to pull the trigger. The sheer cost is half the trepidation, and the relative fragility ov the Buick oiling system is the other. I've beat the living [Edited by Moparts - Family Friendly Site - Keep it clean] out ov many Mopar engines... and never blown one up. I've had a good dozen Buick engines, maybe beat on two or three... yet i've blown up 4 (one 350, a 430 and two 455's).
The Caddy is in my opinion, by FAR the best GM made... but again, in its stock form the rods and rockers will eventually let you down sooner or later. I've been lucky with my 68 Caddy, and its been plenty abused... But i've never called that anything more than luck. Cast iron rods and pop-can rockers...??? I've been so tempted to spend some money on that engine so many times now... but again... still cant seem to pull the trigger. The fragility ov this particular engine design may well be overstated, i'm starting to wonder. Again, i dont have a lot ov experience with Olds or Pontiac.
I'd have NO trouble spending money on a B/RB though... you cant hurt them and man, they respond to upgrades...
I don't really have experience with them either for my own cars, but everyone I know thats owned BOP engines has launched rods, spun bearings, etc. I've always thought that a 440 is very impressive in stock form but to each their own! Different tunes and worn out engines and bad rebuilds all provide differing experiences. I will also say that 440s are a little more funny to tune than other engines. Im not saying its like a Hemi or anything, but even compared to a 383 a 383 will kind of just work no matter what you do. It will get better with tuning, but theres something about a 440 when you tune it spot on that when its right its RIGHT. The throttle response will break your neck and it will just pour torque on and keep going.
I wasn't there when the cars were new, but everyone I know who owned them new and ran them at the strip has backed up all of the magazines reports on the Mopars. I know a couple of people who had GTXs that ran low to mid 14s box stock. The BOP 455s are all very torquey and deliver about the same performance, so I do see your point. The smaller BOP 400s I don't think can come close to touching it nor can they hang with most 383s, except for maybe a RAIV.
Last edited by GTX MATT; 01/19/12 01:59 PM.
Now I need to pin those needles, got to feel that heat
Hear my motor screamin while I'm tearin up the street
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: GTX MATT]
#1157736
01/19/12 03:15 PM
01/19/12 03:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mi,U.S.A.
mike s
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mi,U.S.A.
|
My opinion is that the Buick was the best by far.It is a copy of a 383 Chry engine.(yes the a 383 intake fits with a spacer) They had piston and lifter problems. The rest have very poor cyl heads,oversize mains and weak rods/cranks.Best test was NHRA stock elim in the old days.Blueprinted engines w/factory original parts and cheater cams.Wedge Mopars dominated the classes where they ran BOP cars.Cady? 350 Buick?......Cmon man!
Leave the gun.......take the Cannoli's....Mike
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: mike s]
#1157737
01/19/12 06:08 PM
01/19/12 06:08 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 15,134
Kelowna, B.C. Canada
DPelletier
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 15,134
Kelowna, B.C. Canada
|
Wow some good info in this thread and alot of bad too!  - the factory HP numbers for most muscle era motors were realistic for a perfectly running "good" motor given the way they were tested; gross flywheel with no exhaust and no accessories whatsoever. - lots of variation and quality control issues with assembly line motors. How many times have you heard of two identical cars back in the day and one of them being noticably faster? - every dyno is different - some engines were overrated, some were underrated and some were pretty close. A 275hp 340 comes pretty close to a 360hp LT1; a 430hp L88 had quite a bit more power than a 435hp L71; A 455 W30 made more than 5hp over the standard 455 and a Stage I Buick is good for more than 360hp. - personally, I'd say the 375hp 440 was a little optimistic and I'd agree with HPMike that the 440-6 had more than a 15hp boost. I'd put a 440hp up against a standard 455 from Buick, Olds or Pontiac or any of the oval port BBC's. .....anyhow, continue....  Dave
1970 Super Bee 440 Six Pack
1974 'Cuda
2008 Ram 3500 Diesel
2006 Ram 3500 Diesel
2004.5 Ram 2500 Diesel
2003 Ram 3500 Diesel
2006 Durango Limited
[url] http://1970superbee.piczo.com [/url]
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: dogdays]
#1157738
01/19/12 09:59 PM
01/19/12 09:59 PM
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,123
Warrenton, VA
RoadRunnerJD
master
|
master
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,123
Warrenton, VA
|
Quote:
One thing for sure, the 1968 fabled 906 heads were not better than the 915s with the larger exhaust valve.
When ChryCo advertised the "440 heads" on the Road Runner V8 they weren't telling you that the sole difference between the two was valve springs. Now if they had said "440 valve springs" it wouldn't have sounded so impressive, would it?
To factory HP numbers, there was an interview of a ChryCo test operator by E-burg in Mopar Action many years ago in which the operator said they'd run an engine on the dyno for many hours and eventually would get the advertised HP number right before it broke. This was using the current-at-the-time SAE gross HP test standard conditions.
BTW, in Chryslerspeak they were not called "dyno tests". They had a different name, which I cannot remembe
R.
I think this is not correct. The 915 HP heads had the same size valves as later 906 heads. The 67 blocks had a lot more deck height so the compression was about the same as 68 and up HP motors with the 906 heads. The overall combustion volume is not much different unless you put the 915 heads on a 68 and up HP big block. You get a higher compression because the piston is higher in the hole.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: lewtot184]
#1157739
01/20/12 12:58 AM
01/20/12 12:58 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,271
Vista, California
67Satty
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,271
Vista, California
|
Quote:
the direct connection/mopar performance engine manuals give an estimated horsepower for a 440 4bbl (this probably includes 8:1 and 10:1 engines) at 270-330hp.
That's pretty depressing seeing as how the 3.5 liter V6 in my wife's Nissan Minivan is rated at 260 hp.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: RoadRunnerJD]
#1157740
01/20/12 01:24 AM
01/20/12 01:24 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
DaytonaTurbo
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
|
Quote:
The 67 blocks had a lot more deck height so the compression was about the same as 68 and up HP motors with the 906 heads.
No they didn't. The 67 440's had a lower compression height piston, that is how they had the same CR as the 68-71's.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Factory HP/Torque Numbers Accurate?
[Re: ademon]
#1157741
01/20/12 02:40 AM
01/20/12 02:40 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 11,632
SHELBY TWP,,MICHIGAN
72N96RR
I LOVE WEDGIES
|
I LOVE WEDGIES
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 11,632
SHELBY TWP,,MICHIGAN
|
Quote:
the 383 was very close to the true 335hp rating, but i think the 375 for the 440 was a bit high.
If true it sure didnt transfer to the ground very well... 
If I had 10 383 motors sitting in a pile I would trade every one for ONE 440..
1972 Road Runner / GTX 440 4spd Dana 3.54 Just about to turn 26K original miles..
A boat, a GMC truck, some Craftsman Tools, LOTS of Zombie Protection, and a few Goldfish..
If you love someone set them free..
If they come back it means nobody else wanted them either..!!
|
|
|
|
|
