Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 - Moparts Forums

Register Log In Moparts Forums Moparts Question and Answer Question on 1967-69 A-body 383

Print Thread

Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159468 01/17/12 05:39 PM 01/17/12 05:39 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 22,900 Gabba Gabba Hey! NYC Diego (not Ted) OP Too Many Posts
Diego (not Ted) OP Too Many Posts Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 22,900 Gabba Gabba Hey! NYC	So what's the difference between the 1967 383 that made it less powerful than any other 383 Mopar from that year? Was it the exhaust manifolds? Then, in '68, there were new cylinder heads - presumably the same as that on the RR. Same exhaust manifolds, though? And, then, what did they do to the 383 in 1969 for it to reach 330 hp? And I presume it still was a different 383 from the 383/330 that was available on non-performance B-bodies (and AC-equipped RRs)?

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Diego (not Ted)] #1159469 01/17/12 05:40 PM 01/17/12 05:40 PM
Joined: Feb 2005 Posts: 2,679 owt west Thread Ender1 master
Thread Ender1 master Joined: Feb 2005 Posts: 2,679 owt west	It had a 383 2bbl camshaft.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Thread Ender1] #1159470 01/17/12 06:11 PM 01/17/12 06:11 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 22,900 Gabba Gabba Hey! NYC Diego (not Ted) OP Too Many Posts
Diego (not Ted) OP Too Many Posts Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 22,900 Gabba Gabba Hey! NYC	For 1967 only? What about the other years?

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Diego (not Ted)] #1159471 01/17/12 06:52 PM 01/17/12 06:52 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A.	I don't know a lot about the 67 , they would have had 516 heads and I think it was based off the 300HP 383 , the left manifold was more restrictive on the 67 , they changed the manifold for 68 and used it on 69. I never compared the specs on the 68 , based on the lower HP engine, and by the way the 68-69 330HP 383 used the 2bbl cam. What I do know is the 69 330HP 383 used in A bodies only is the same engine as the 335HP engine , same cam , same heads , same carb on the 4 speed , auto ??? the A body 383 had a dual point distributor , the 335HP engine didn't. I'll guess the 5HP difference is that left manifold. This spring/summer I'll finally have the replacement engine for the Dart on the dyno and I intend to swap the exhaust manifolds to see how much HP difference there is .

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: JohnRR] #1159472 01/17/12 07:09 PM 01/17/12 07:09 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,541 Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy Rhinodart Rhinotruck
Rhinodart Rhinotruck Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,541 Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy	Indeed a smaller cam, 516 heads with small valves, restricted exhaust manifolds that were changed each year, and the killer was a low rise intake manifold and small carbuertor that only let the 383 rate at 280 HP in 67. The funny thing about science is that if you change one miniscule parameter you change the entire outcome to the way you want it. JB Rhinehart, Realist A-Body's RULE!

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: JohnRR] #1159473 01/17/12 08:35 PM 01/17/12 08:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 22,900 Gabba Gabba Hey! NYC Diego (not Ted) OP Too Many Posts
Diego (not Ted) OP Too Many Posts Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 22,900 Gabba Gabba Hey! NYC	Quote: by the way the 68-69 330HP 383 used the 2bbl cam. You mean the B-body 383? So the downgrade for the AC RRs and "normal" Satellites was the cam? Why was the A-body manifold different? Because of a low-clearing hood?

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Diego (not Ted)] #1159474 01/17/12 08:42 PM 01/17/12 08:42 PM
Joined: Feb 2005 Posts: 2,679 owt west Thread Ender1 master
Thread Ender1 master Joined: Feb 2005 Posts: 2,679 owt west	Quote: Quote: by the way the 68-69 330HP 383 used the 2bbl cam. You mean the B-body 383? So the downgrade for the AC RRs and "normal" Satellites was the cam? Why was the A-body manifold different? Because of a low-clearing hood? Thats the 1st of heard of 68-69 383 330hp four barrel having a 2 bbl cam, i believe the difference in the 383 four barrel 330hp was a deleted windage tray.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Thread Ender1] #1159475 01/17/12 10:56 PM 01/17/12 10:56 PM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	1. There was such a thing as a 383 two-barrel cam in the early 60's. Two barrel cam was 252 duration, about .390 lift. Four barrel cam was 268 duration, .430 lift 2. There is no "two-barrel cam" for late 60's 383's. Not sure about 65 or 66, but 67-70 383's ALL used the same 256/260 duration, .425/.437 lift cam EXCEPT for Road Runners, Super Bees, and 69 A body 383's. The last three used the 440 hi-po cam. 3. 383 A bodies did not use any special low rise intake manifold. ALL 62-67 383 four barrel engines used the same #1859300 intake manifold. 4. 67 A body 383's were identical to 67 B and C body 383's except for the exhaust manifolds. 5. The initial question assumes that 67 A body 383's actually had less horsepower than 67 B body 383's. Given that dyno testing of the 67 B body 383 showed that they only made 280 horsepower, that's a questionable assumption. 6. People need to look at the 67 B body 383 exhaust manifolds and compare them to 67 A body 383 exhaust manifolds. I personally don't see how the log manifolds B body 383's had can flow any better than the 383 A body manifolds, but they darn sure aren't any 45 horsepower better. 7. If you really believe the factory hp ratings, you have to believe that a 1964 383 with two-barrel carb, 252 cam, single exhaust and a factory rating of 305 horsepower is stronger than a 67 Barracuda or Dart with a 383 4-barrel, 256/60 cam and dual exhaust. Makes you wonder why the factory bothered putting a four barrel or dual exhaust on the A body 383's. 8. The 68 A body 383's are identical to the 330 horse B body 383's except for the exhaust manifolds. Both have the same 256/60 cam. Since the A body 383's are rated at 300 horsepower and B's at 330, either the A body exhaust manifolds are 30 horsepower worse or either one engine is overrated or the other is underrated. 9. The 69 A body 383's are identical to the Road Runner/Super Bee 383's except for the exhaust manifolds. Both have the 440 hi-po 268/276 duration, .450/.465 lift cam. Since the 69 A body 383's are rated at 330 horsepower, one would assume that their exhaust manifolds are only five horsepower worse than the Road Runner/Super Bee exhaust manifolds (I can actually believe that). Problem with that theory is that the 68 and 69 A body 383 exhaust manifolds are the same, so you have to believe the same manifolds are 30 horsepower worse than B body (non hi-po) 383's one year, but only five horsepower worse than the (hi-po) 383's the next. (And of course, 440 A bodies had the same horsepower rating as 440 B bodies, so what's the deal there????) 10. Through the 1970 model year, only Road Runners, Super Bees and the 69 A body 383's (and 440's) used the 440 hi-po cam. In 1971, all 4-barrel 383's used the hi-po cam. Two barrel 71 383's continued using the prior years 2/4 barrel cam. So in 71, but not 67-70, it would be accurate to talk about a "two barrel cam."

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Thread Ender1] #1159476 01/17/12 11:38 PM 01/17/12 11:38 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A.	Quote: Quote: Quote: by the way the 68-69 330HP 383 used the 2bbl cam. You mean the B-body 383? So the downgrade for the AC RRs and "normal" Satellites was the cam? Why was the A-body manifold different? Because of a low-clearing hood? Thats the 1st of heard of 68-69 383 330hp four barrel having a 2 bbl cam, i believe the difference in the 383 four barrel 330hp was a deleted windage tray. 5hp for a windage tray? , the 330HP 383 uses a different carb than the 335HP engine. According to my 1969 Dodge service manual that shows the specs for the different engines the 330HP engine uses the same came as the 383 2bbl , also the 350HP 440 uses the exact same cam . Diego , the 67 383 used an AFB with had a different bolt pattern than the AVS and the intake was a different casting than the 68-69 intake.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159477 01/17/12 11:43 PM 01/17/12 11:43 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A.	Quote: 1. There was such a thing as a 383 two-barrel cam in the early 60's. Two barrel cam was 252 duration, about .390 lift. Four barrel cam was 268 duration, .430 lift 2. There is no "two-barrel cam" for late 60's 383's. Not sure about 65 or 66, but 67-70 383's ALL used the same 256/260 duration, .425/.437 lift cam EXCEPT for Road Runners, Super Bees, and 69 A body 383's. The last three used the 440 hi-po cam. 3. 383 A bodies did not use any special low rise intake manifold. ALL 62-67 383 four barrel engines used the same #1859300 intake manifold. 4. 67 A body 383's were identical to 67 B and C body 383's except for the exhaust manifolds. 5. The initial question assumes that 67 A body 383's actually had less horsepower than 67 B body 383's. Given that dyno testing of the 67 B body 383 showed that they only made 280 horsepower, that's a questionable assumption. 6. People need to look at the 67 B body 383 exhaust manifolds and compare them to 67 A body 383 exhaust manifolds. I personally don't see how the log manifolds B body 383's had can flow any better than the 383 A body manifolds, but they darn sure aren't any 45 horsepower better. 7. If you really believe the factory hp ratings, you have to believe that a 1964 383 with two-barrel carb, 252 cam, single exhaust and a factory rating of 305 horsepower is stronger than a 67 Barracuda or Dart with a 383 4-barrel, 256/60 cam and dual exhaust. Makes you wonder why the factory bothered putting a four barrel or dual exhaust on the A body 383's. 8. The 68 A body 383's are identical to the 330 horse B body 383's except for the exhaust manifolds. Both have the same 256/60 cam. Since the A body 383's are rated at 300 horsepower and B's at 330, either the A body exhaust manifolds are 30 horsepower worse or either one engine is overrated or the other is underrated. 9. The 69 A body 383's are identical to the Road Runner/Super Bee 383's except for the exhaust manifolds. Both have the 440 hi-po 268/276 duration, .450/.465 lift cam. Since the 69 A body 383's are rated at 330 horsepower, one would assume that their exhaust manifolds are only five horsepower worse than the Road Runner/Super Bee exhaust manifolds (I can actually believe that). Problem with that theory is that the 68 and 69 A body 383 exhaust manifolds are the same, so you have to believe the same manifolds are 30 horsepower worse than B body (non hi-po) 383's one year, but only five horsepower worse than the (hi-po) 383's the next. (And of course, 440 A bodies had the same horsepower rating as 440 B bodies, so what's the deal there????) 10. Through the 1970 model year, only Road Runners, Super Bees and the 69 A body 383's (and 440's) used the 440 hi-po cam. In 1971, all 4-barrel 383's used the hi-po cam. Two barrel 71 383's continued using the prior years 2/4 barrel cam. So in 71, but not 67-70, it would be accurate to talk about a "two barrel cam." I call it a "2bbl cam" to note the difference between it and the cam used in the 383 335HP engine.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: JohnRR] #1159478 01/18/12 12:29 AM 01/18/12 12:29 AM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Quote: I call it a "2bbl cam" to note the difference between it and the cam used in the 383 335HP engine. Fair enough until someone uses that as the reason the 67 A body 383's had less hp than the 67 B body 383's, then you have to explain, well, they have the same cam. Now maybe if it were better understood that all 67-68 383's had the "two barrel cam" except for the Road Runner and Super Bee, then there wouldn't be such confusion about just what the differences were between the A and B 383's. Somewhere on Allpar is a history of the Road Runner telling how much trouble the product planners had convincing the engineers to put the 440 hi-po cam in the Road Runner's 383, and you understand why that cam didn't make it into the Barracuda in either 67 or 68.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159479 01/18/12 01:18 AM 01/18/12 01:18 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,541 Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy Rhinodart Rhinotruck
Rhinodart Rhinotruck Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,541 Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy	413 Coronet, the 67 383 manifold is indeed a low rise compared to the 68-69. I have owned 4-67 383 Darts and I have no idea where you got your information. They were indeed rated at 280 HP and the drivers side exhaust manifold was restricted due to it having to wrap around the steering column. In 1968 the manifold was opened up a little more and again in 1969, hence the different part numbers for each year. Also the AFB in 67 had less CFM than the AVS in 68 and 69. Last edited by Rhinodart; 01/18/12 01:21 AM. The funny thing about science is that if you change one miniscule parameter you change the entire outcome to the way you want it. JB Rhinehart, Realist A-Body's RULE!

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Rhinodart] #1159480 01/18/12 01:47 AM 01/18/12 01:47 AM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Quote: 413 Coronet, the 67 383 manifold is indeed a low rise compared to the 68-69. I agree. It is not low rise compared to 67 B body 383 intakes. Quote: I have owned 4-67 383 Darts and I have no idea where you got your information. They were indeed rated at 280 HP and the drivers side exhaust manifold was restricted due to it having to wrap around the steering column. I don't disagree with anything you say here, but IMHO, there is no way the 67 A body manifolds are 45 horsepower worse than the 67 B body 383 logs - especially on a 300-or-so horsepower engine. In fact, I don't think they are any worse, because the 67 B body logs are pretty bad, but I haven't flowed them or dynoed them to know for sure; just my opinion. Quote: In 1968 the manifold was opened up a little more and again in 1969, hence the different part numbers for each year. I recognize that the 68 A body 383's driver's side exhaust manifold is different than the 67's. But the 69 driver's side is the same as the 68 driver's side. And the passenger side is the same all three years. I get this information from Galen's White Book. Is his info wrong? Quote: Also the AFB in 67 had less CFM than the AVS in 68 and 69. I agree here, too. Did I say anything different? Some of the comments posted above yours have suggested there were differences between A and B body 383's other than the exhaust in any given year; I don't believe that my comments ever implied that there were no differences between A body 383's from one year to the next. The most differences were between 67 and 68 (carb, heads, intake manifold, driver's side exhaust manifold, and probably pistons); the only differences I'm aware of between 68 and 69 A body 383's are the cam and also the 69's were upgraded to 2-1/2" exhaust pipes.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159481 01/18/12 01:48 AM 01/18/12 01:48 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A.	Quote: Quote: I call it a "2bbl cam" to note the difference between it and the cam used in the 383 335HP engine. Fair enough until someone uses that as the reason the 67 A body 383's had less hp than the 67 B body 383's, then you have to explain, well, they have the same cam. Curtis , here is what I said above .... Quote: I don't know a lot about the 67 , they would have had 516 heads and I think it was based off the 300HP 383 , the left manifold was more restrictive on the 67 , they changed the manifold for 68 and used it on 69. I never compared the specs on the 68 , based on the lower HP engine, and by the way the 68-69 330HP 383 used the 2bbl cam. I never claimed the 67 used the "2bbl cam " only 68 ... I don't remember clearly but I had a 330HP 383 in a 68 b body , pretty sure it had the 2bbl cam when I looked up it's specs ... but definitely in 69 the 330HP engine had the smaller cam. If you look at NHRA specs , not that I agree that they are definitive , it shows the 330HP engine with the smaller cam . Now I have to look at it to see what cams it calls for in 67 and 68 . Jim , best I can tell 68 and 69 used the same exhaust manifolds , but you would no better than myself .

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: JohnRR] #1159482 01/18/12 01:57 AM 01/18/12 01:57 AM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	John, see post #2 above.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159483 01/18/12 02:01 AM 01/18/12 02:01 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A.	Quote: John, see post #2 above. I see it now , I don't think 69 had upgrade pipes at least not the tailpipes , my original tips are the small inlet type , same as a 340 car, headpipes I'm pretty sure are 2.25.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: JohnRR] #1159484 01/18/12 02:02 AM 01/18/12 02:02 AM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	As for the NHRA specs for the 69 330 horsepower 383, is that the B body 330 horse engine or the A body 330 horse engine? I don't think they are the same, and the B gets that rating with the smaller cam, while the A gets it with the bigger cam. At least that's what I've always understood. It's not inconceivable that I've always been wrong.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: JohnRR] #1159485 01/18/12 02:05 AM 01/18/12 02:05 AM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Quote: Quote: John, see post #2 above. I see it now , I don't think 69 had upgrade pipes at least not the tailpipes , my original tips are the small inlet type , same as a 340 car, headpipes I'm pretty sure are 2.25. My 69 Cuda 383 has 2.5" headpipes, and I think some of the literature references that, as does the Accurate LTD website. I think some early 69's may only have had 2.25. I agree that the 69 A body 383 tailpipes are the same as 69 A body 340 tailpipes.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: JohnRR] #1159486 01/18/12 02:18 AM 01/18/12 02:18 AM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	As to which cam the 69 383 A body had, for what its worth, my 1969 shop manual shows two cams for the 383 engine: the standard 256/260 cam and for the "Barracuda" and "Road Runner" the hi-po 268/284 cam. My 67 shop manual shows only the 256/260 cam for 383's and I don't have a 68 shop manual.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159487 01/18/12 02:19 AM 01/18/12 02:19 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A.	Quote: As for the NHRA specs for the 69 330 horsepower 383, is that the B body 330 horse engine or the A body 330 horse engine? I don't think they are the same, and the B gets that rating with the smaller cam, while the A gets it with the bigger cam. At least that's what I've always understood. It's not inconceivable that I've always been wrong. it does reference A body engine different than b body for 68 , have to check 69 . My dart is a late build car, end of May 69, I don't think it had the original exhaust so I don't know about the headpipes, just that it had the tips and they were the tiny ones. I now have a mandrel bent 2.5" manifolds to tips using the accurate SS 2.5" tips .

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: JohnRR] #1159488 01/18/12 03:39 AM 01/18/12 03:39 AM
Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,187 USA B big-block-dave super stock
big-block-dave super stock B Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,187 USA	Reason for left exhaust manifold configuration...you need to steer the car! 7024522-BBLtexhaustproblem.jpg (94 downloads) I'm the CARETAKER of Weinstats '69 440 'cuda registry and have 104 of the 360 cars to date. 84 fastbacks/20 coupes. Always looking for new(REAL M-code) '69 440 'cudas to add to the registry so drop me a note if any are found or known. This isn't a publicly released registry. Thanks, Dave

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: big-block-dave] #1159489 01/18/12 11:51 AM 01/18/12 11:51 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A.	Quote: Reason for left exhaust manifold configuration...you need to steer the car! they could have make something freer flowing and still been able to steer the car . I put a C body HP manifold into my Dart with the column in place , if they had just extended the outlet pipe lower by an inch or 2 and left it at that sideways angle they would have had a better flowing manifold and still cleared everything , it's the turn to make the flange point down that screwed that manifold up .

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: JohnRR] #1159490 01/18/12 12:51 PM 01/18/12 12:51 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,541 Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy Rhinodart Rhinotruck
Rhinodart Rhinotruck Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,541 Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy	Your car does not have power steering, John! I will say one thing, I have never compared B-Body 383's with A-Body 383 in 1967 because I have never cared about 67 B-body's! I have never referenced anything between a B-Body and an A-Body, but thanks for pointing it out. What is the CFM rating of a B-Body AFB compared to an A-Body, anyone got that info? Are you 100% sure that the A-Body and B-Body camshaft were the same? Last edited by Rhinodart; 01/18/12 12:54 PM. The funny thing about science is that if you change one miniscule parameter you change the entire outcome to the way you want it. JB Rhinehart, Realist A-Body's RULE!

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159491 01/18/12 01:03 PM 01/18/12 01:03 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 22,900 Gabba Gabba Hey! NYC Diego (not Ted) OP Too Many Posts
Diego (not Ted) OP Too Many Posts Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 22,900 Gabba Gabba Hey! NYC	This is a good discussion, folks.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Rhinodart] #1159492 01/18/12 01:29 PM 01/18/12 01:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A.	Quote: Your car does not have power steering, John! I will say one thing, I have never compared B-Body 383's with A-Body 383 in 1967 because I have never cared about 67 B-body's! I have never referenced anything between a B-Body and an A-Body, but thanks for pointing it out. What is the CFM rating of a B-Body AFB compared to an A-Body, anyone got that info? Are you 100% sure that the A-Body and B-Body camshaft were the same? Jim I think the C body manifold would clear the power steering box also ?? Anyhow I just looked at NHRA spec for 67, there is no note differentiating the A body 383 form any other. They show 5 different 383's, 2 rated at 270HP , Chrysler is stand alone from Dodge and Plymouth, with a different cam spec for the Chrysler along with a different piston spec pertaining to dish volume and piston height, these are 2bbl motors. ONE 280HP engine with a .430/.443 lift , which is the same cam as the 270 motor in the Dodge and Plymouth and 2 325HP motors again Chrysler separated from Dodge and Plymouth and using the same .430/.443 cam. BUT they show 2 different 280HP engines , Dodge being different than Plymouth pertaining to the Carb allowed. The Carb on the Plymouth appears to be the same size as the 325HP engine but a different part number, the Dodge appears to have a smaller carb with secondary size being smaller ???? Specs can be found here, I'm still looking at 68 . NHRA Blueprint specs Yes I know that this is not to be taken as factory built Gospel. The 68 specs are foggy as to Carbs as all the 4bbl engine; 300HP, 330HP, and 335 HP spec the same carb . The 300HP, 330HP and the 2bbl all spec the same cam ... same cam as 67... , 335HP is a different cam. Last edited by JohnRR; 01/18/12 01:37 PM.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: JohnRR] #1159493 01/18/12 02:00 PM 01/18/12 02:00 PM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	I'm not replying to anyone in particular here, but just for info, here's a pic of my 69 A body 383 exhaust manifolds lying next to a pair of 67 B body 383 exhaust manifolds. Even understanding that the 67 A body 383 driver's side manifold was at least a bit different than 68-9, I don't see the B body log manfifolds as being 45 horsepower better than the 67 A's. Also, the B body logs will fit a 383 A body, so if they were so much better, why didn't Ma Mopar use them in the A's? 7024928-DSCF0077.JPG (96 downloads) Last edited by 413coronet; 01/18/12 02:07 PM.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159494 01/18/12 02:01 PM 01/18/12 02:01 PM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	And here's a shot of the narrow part of the A body 383 driver's side exhaust manifold sitting next to a hi-po 340 driver's side manifold from approximately the same angle. And don't forget that the driver's side 340 pipe was something like 1-7/8" diameter for the first couple of feet, before feeding into a 2-1/4" pipe, and that even this dinky pipe was squished almost in half to clear the torsion bar. The exhaust pipe on my Cuda 383 is a full 2-1/2" diameter with no squishes. 7024931-DSCF0078.JPG (78 downloads) Last edited by 413coronet; 01/18/12 02:11 PM.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159495 01/18/12 02:13 PM 01/18/12 02:13 PM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Here's a pic of the factory 340 driver's side headpipe I copied from the Accurate LTD website. 7024949-340headpipe.jpg (115 downloads)

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159496 01/18/12 02:34 PM 01/18/12 02:34 PM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Here's another thing. I have a bunch of old road tests of 67 383 Barracudas. The best quarter mile time I remember seeing is 15.2; most were 15.4 or so. That sounds a bit anemic today, I know, but to put in perspective of 1967 (when drag strips were a lot slicker than they are today, and most road testers ran the quarter mile with two aboard and a couple hundred pounds of test equipment), every B body 383 tested in 1967 that I'm aware of ran low to mid 16 second quarters. That's a full second slower than the A body 383's. One would think that if the B bodies actually had 45 more horsepower, the extra power would have offset the B body's extra weight and they would have performed closer to, if not better than, the 383 A bodies. So here's my theory: The 67 A body 383's didn't lose any horsepower compared to their B body brethren, they just got a more honest horsepower rating. I'll stick to that theory until someone disproves it with dyno testing or whatever.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159497 01/18/12 04:12 PM 01/18/12 04:12 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,541 Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy Rhinodart Rhinotruck
Rhinodart Rhinotruck Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,541 Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy	Another insight into the 67 A-Body 383 manifold is that the steering column in a 67 has a longer bearing sleeve plus a spring that goes quite aways down the rod towards the sector, to the exhaust manifold had to have a deeper cast. They redesigned the entire column for 68. I am still of the opinion that the 67 GTS 383 had a smaller cam. I cannot find any documentation of that in any of my books though. Don't forget the wheelwell in the Dart could only hold a small tire compared to the Barracuda, even though the came with the same size tire from the factory. The funny thing about science is that if you change one miniscule parameter you change the entire outcome to the way you want it. JB Rhinehart, Realist A-Body's RULE!

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Rhinodart] #1159498 01/18/12 06:53 PM 01/18/12 06:53 PM
Joined: Feb 2005 Posts: 2,679 owt west Thread Ender1 master
Thread Ender1 master Joined: Feb 2005 Posts: 2,679 owt west	Quote: Another insight into the 67 A-Body 383 manifold is that the steering column in a 67 has a longer bearing sleeve plus a spring that goes quite aways down the rod towards the sector, to the exhaust manifold had to have a deeper cast. They redesigned the entire column for 68. I am still of the opinion that the 67 GTS 383 had a smaller cam. I cannot find any documentation of that in any of my books though. Don't forget the wheelwell in the Dart could only hold a small tire compared to the Barracuda, even though the came with the same size tire from the factory. Yes the 67 383 did have a smaller cam like.390 or .400 lift, i saw in print in a factory brochure.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Rhinodart] #1159499 01/18/12 08:46 PM 01/18/12 08:46 PM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	For what its worth - and realizing dealer brochures are not especially authoritative - but both the 67 and 68 Barracuda dealer brochures show the cam specs for all the available engines and both years show the 383 as having the 256/260 cam with .425/.437 lift. Then the 69 Barracuda brochure has no cam specs for any engine. I really don't understand why no one has documented this by now. I'm too far away from Detroit to do it myself but surely there are some records somewhere or someone who worked on bringing the big block A's to market that would remember. Plenty of documentation for Hemis, Max Wedges, A12's, or even relatively common 383 and 440 4-barrel B bodies. But no one knows anything about the big block A's? Can explain the horsepower ratings of A vs B? Or even answer the very simple question, what cams were used in what years?

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159500 01/19/12 02:11 AM 01/19/12 02:11 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A.	Quote: For what its worth - and realizing dealer brochures are not especially authoritative - but both the 67 and 68 Barracuda dealer brochures show the cam specs for all the available engines and both years show the 383 as having the 256/260 cam with .425/.437 lift. Then the 69 Barracuda brochure has no cam specs for any engine. I really don't understand why no one has documented this by now. I'm too far away from Detroit to do it myself but surely there are some records somewhere or someone who worked on bringing the big block A's to market that would remember. Plenty of documentation for Hemis, Max Wedges, A12's, or even relatively common 383 and 440 4-barrel B bodies. But no one knows anything about the big block A's? Can explain the horsepower ratings of A vs B? Or even answer the very simple question, what cams were used in what years? I don't have a scanner but in my 1969 Dodge service manual for Charger/coronet/Dart on page 9-96 ... engine specifications ... under Valve Timing is shows 2 different cam specs for 383's one is marked Dart & Superbee and it's specs are the same as 440 with Power Pack, duration is 268/284 , lift is .450/.458

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: JohnRR] #1159501 01/19/12 06:54 AM 01/19/12 06:54 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 393 ILLinois DartGTS super street
DartGTS super street Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 393 ILLinois	Hello: Intrestering post, lots of good information. However unless I missed it the horsepower ratings used are factory published figures. One item that some of you may not be aware of is that at that point in time the Insurance companies and the auto industry were in a tug of war of over horsepower. It is entirely feasible that the 67 383 A Body was factory detuned on paper too satisfy insurance companys. Now mind you I do not doubt the equiptment was a factor, it certainly was. The exhaust manifold on driver side was a comprise at best. Unfortunley my stock camshaft is long gone so I can't help there. I can tell you that a bigger cam with an Edelbrock DP4B and good carb feel much better in seat of pants. Any way my opinion on this is to not rule out the factory playing numbers games. My 67 GTS was insured as a compact car. Maynard

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159502 01/19/12 11:20 AM 01/19/12 11:20 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 22,900 Gabba Gabba Hey! NYC Diego (not Ted) OP Too Many Posts
Diego (not Ted) OP Too Many Posts Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 22,900 Gabba Gabba Hey! NYC	Quote: I really don't understand why no one has documented this by now. I'm too far away from Detroit to do it myself but surely there are some records somewhere or someone who worked on bringing the big block A's to market that would remember. The AMA specs would tell the tale, and I know where to get 'em - the AACA library in Hershey. It's actually a project of mine to get copies of those for a few cars, so it's been on my mind to stop by the next time I head to Carlisle. Certainly you don't need Detroit to find the answer.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 #1159503 01/20/12 07:51 PM 01/20/12 07:51 PM
Joined: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,313 Prospect, PA BSB67 master
BSB67 master Joined: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,313 Prospect, PA	Quote: 8. The 68 A body 383's are identical to the 330 horse B body 383's except for the exhaust manifolds. Both have the same 256/60 cam. Since the A body 383's are rated at 300 horsepower and B's at 330, either the A body exhaust manifolds are 30 horsepower worse or either one engine is overrated or the other is underrated. 9. The 69 A body 383's are identical to the Road Runner/Super Bee 383's except for the exhaust manifolds. Both have the 440 hi-po 268/276 duration, .450/.465 lift cam. Since the 69 A body 383's are rated at 330 horsepower, one would assume that their exhaust manifolds are only five horsepower worse than the Road Runner/Super Bee exhaust manifolds (I can actually believe that). Problem with that theory is that the 68 and 69 A body 383 exhaust manifolds are the same, so you have to believe the same manifolds are 30 horsepower worse than B body (non hi-po) 383's one year, but only five horsepower worse than the (hi-po) 383's the next. (And of course, 440 A bodies had the same horsepower rating as 440 B bodies, so what's the deal there????) I too have enjoyed this thread. I was in the attic looking for skis and grabbed some measurements from the original exhaust pieces from my 68 383 GTS. Head pipe is 2 1/4" expanded to 2 1/2" at the manifold flange. The tail pipe is 1 7/8". I don't know what was on the 69, but maybe this is the reason for the 30 hp rating difference between them. I see now that JohnRR said that the 69's were small too. Last edited by BSB67; 01/20/12 08:00 PM.

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: BSB67] #1159504 01/21/12 12:21 AM 01/21/12 12:21 AM
Joined: Sep 2005 Posts: 232 Tennessee C CUDASCOTT enthusiast
CUDASCOTT enthusiast C Joined: Sep 2005 Posts: 232 Tennessee	This post is awsome! Anyone have pics to compare the 67 383 a-body LH exhaust manifold to the 68-69 manifolds?

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: CUDASCOTT] #1159505 01/22/12 03:21 AM 01/22/12 03:21 AM
Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,187 USA B big-block-dave super stock
big-block-dave super stock B Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,187 USA	I found this on a newly re-opened post on here, wondering if this is the answers we're looking for? As for the 383's hp it goes like this: In 67 the 383 in the Darts and Cuda's had the small exh valve (1.60) heads and the restictive exh manifolds along with a small 383 cam and the hp was 280. In 68 the A-body 383 got the 906 heads with the larger (1.74) exh valves and the hp was raised to 300 hp. In 1969 the A-body 383 got the larger 383 Roadrunner-SuperBee cam and the hp was raised to 330. The Roadrunner 383 was 335 because it had better flowing exh manifolds then the A-body 383. I'm the CARETAKER of Weinstats '69 440 'cuda registry and have 104 of the 360 cars to date. 84 fastbacks/20 coupes. Always looking for new(REAL M-code) '69 440 'cudas to add to the registry so drop me a note if any are found or known. This isn't a publicly released registry. Thanks, Dave

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: big-block-dave] #1159506 01/23/12 12:20 AM 01/23/12 12:20 AM
Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 664 Stuart, FL G Grassosgarage mopar
Grassosgarage mopar G Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 664 Stuart, FL	Quote: I found this on a newly re-opened post on here, wondering if this is the answers we're looking for? As for the 383's hp it goes like this: In 67 the 383 in the Darts and Cuda's had the small exh valve (1.60) heads and the restictive exh manifolds along with a small 383 cam and the hp was 280. In 68 the A-body 383 got the 906 heads with the larger (1.74) exh valves and the hp was raised to 300 hp. In 1969 the A-body 383 got the larger 383 Roadrunner-SuperBee cam and the hp was raised to 330. The Roadrunner 383 was 335 because it had better flowing exh manifolds then the A-body 383. I have a 67 Dart GTS 383 all #s matching. It was assembled 3/67. The correct date-coded heads on this one are closed chamber 915s with 1.74 exh valve., NOT 516s. I can't speak for the cam. BTW, I'm looking for an original air cleaner for '67 383 if anybody has one!

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Grassosgarage] #1159507 01/23/12 12:31 AM 01/23/12 12:31 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,541 Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy Rhinodart Rhinotruck
Rhinodart Rhinotruck Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,541 Round Lake Beach, Illinoisy	Quote: Quote: I found this on a newly re-opened post on here, wondering if this is the answers we're looking for? As for the 383's hp it goes like this: In 67 the 383 in the Darts and Cuda's had the small exh valve (1.60) heads and the restictive exh manifolds along with a small 383 cam and the hp was 280. In 68 the A-body 383 got the 906 heads with the larger (1.74) exh valves and the hp was raised to 300 hp. In 1969 the A-body 383 got the larger 383 Roadrunner-SuperBee cam and the hp was raised to 330. The Roadrunner 383 was 335 because it had better flowing exh manifolds then the A-body 383. I have a 67 Dart GTS 383 all #s matching. It was assembled 3/67. The correct date-coded heads on this one are closed chamber 915s with 1.74 exh valve., NOT 516s. I can't speak for the cam. BTW, I'm looking for an original air cleaner for '67 383 if anybody has one! Well I have documented a dozen 67 GTS's and they ALL had 516 heads, so your car must be special. I have personally owned 4 of them and have judged 6 in car shows across the country and none of them had 915 heads. In fact the poster Dart GTS above is an original owner and still has his car that I have judged a couple of times, and he can tell you what heads his has. BTW, there is no such thing as a numbers matching 67 Mopar anything, numbers did not appear on engine and trans until 1968, and not all of them have numbers stamped. I have an original air cleaner that I may consider selling, and I just saw one for sale at the Mopar swap in Florida on Saturday. PM me if you are interested. Last edited by Rhinodart; 01/23/12 12:32 AM. The funny thing about science is that if you change one miniscule parameter you change the entire outcome to the way you want it. JB Rhinehart, Realist A-Body's RULE!

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Rhinodart] #1159508 01/23/12 01:04 AM 01/23/12 01:04 AM
Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 664 Stuart, FL G Grassosgarage mopar
Grassosgarage mopar G Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 664 Stuart, FL	In this case I'm saying its the original drivetrain to the car and all the dates are correct. I missed that show in Melbourne but sent you a PM. Thanks!

Re: Question on 1967-69 A-body 383 [Re: Grassosgarage] #1159509 01/23/12 01:41 AM 01/23/12 01:41 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,004 U.S.S.A.	Quote: In this case I'm saying its the original drivetrain to the car and all the dates are correct. I missed that show in Melbourne but sent you a PM. Thanks! Have you owned the car since new ?

Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

Moderated by Al_Alguire, Hotwheelsjr, moparts, not_a_charger, RangerDan440, tboomer

Hop To

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1