The Six Pack/BBL on the 440 is definitely legendary but does anyone have speculation on why Ma Mopar didn't offer dual AFBs? That video Of Nicks Garage using a 1959 dual quad setup (from a 413 or 426 RB?) on a stout 451 stroker B engine made me wonder. The engine made 25 hp less and 30lb ft less with the ancient dual quad as opposed to RPM intake and 750 Holley carb. So with the duals power dropped form 535 to 505 and torque from from 550 to 520. But the power loss would be less dramatic on the level a 440 magnum made stock. On top of this the 1959 manifold is a big open plenum single plane typical of the era- look at the Offenhauser dual quad manifolds. Offenhausers are of the same era tech wise (meaning the true dual plane design that came soon after would have been even more powerful). I remember a display set up circa early 1970ish by one of the Mopar greats (Dick Landy?) on a recipe for the 383 to go faster in the quarter mile. One of the items on display was the late 50s 383 dual quad intake and Carter carbs. Remember this was early 70s. But multiple carbs are always cool and two AFBs inline on a wide B/RB looks so right. Its an older video thats already been discussed here- but here's the link regardless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wYHE3BlxlQ&t=334s

That would have made the 440 too close in horsepower to the 426 Hemi.

Probably because they offered the 6 pack. Wonder if any where available through direct connection/dealer back then? I have 383 6 pack set up from the era.

the test was not competed because Nick did not bolt a 6 pak on there to see what happens...

Six paks still rule, go get your hemi or your hellcat and let's go play.

Have a history lesson, no speculation required :

Remember Tom Hoover? He gave seminars at the NEHOA meets back in the 80's when these were just used cars; well they still are.
The seminars were held in the ballroom of the host hotel, The meets were always well attended & we had some interesting speakers beside Tom Hoover.
One stand out besides Tom but that is another story for another day Anyways Tom would show slides and talk- keeping everyone spellbound till at least midnight. btw there is vhs tape of these seminars out there in the hands of a former NEHOA member.

Anyways, the 1972 production hemi car was to be a 4bbl. Tom talked about the 1972 hemi development and what they were doing to pass 72 emissions
Dual quads were inefficient so they were going to single 4 barrel to pass emissions and improve driveability. Per Tom the 72 hemi production intake became the 4bbl intake sold by direct connection/mopar performance P4452034. Note the stove pipe connections for manifold heat. I don't recall other than the 72 hemi six pak was not being considered as there was no production hemi six pak intake, but they had tested prototypes and knew the six pak was more efficient feeding fuel to the 8 cylinders - ie faster than any dual quad set up.. He spoke of this more than once and there other informal conversations with him regarding the 6 pak hemi development etc. I have only been in few so called fast street hemi cars over the last 40 yrs that had a secondary hit like a six pak. Gary and Pam built a hemi six pak and Gary and I talked about it at length as he had spoken to Tom as well - see the six pak hemi pic.

And of course in the world of street racing the inevitable question would come up

Which is faster?? A dual quad hemi or six pak wedge?

Well according to Mr Hoover if it's a six pak hemi - it's faster.

Probably because by the time the 440 came out, and the musclecar era was ramping up, they had learned their lesson that dual quads don't really work well for street driven cars. The fuel distribution is very poor at low rpm use. The rear carb primaries are too far away from the front cylinders, resulting in uneven mixtures from the front of the engine, compared to the rear. Great for full throttle racing, but pretty bad in a daily driver. I think they installed them on the 426 Hemi mostly because it made the dual quads factory equipment, which made them legal for racing classes. The Six Pack however has excellent fuel distribution. The center carb is perfectly spaced front to rear, offers high vacuum for great throttle response and driveability, and the outer carbs feed evenly when all 3 are open. The Six Pack is a very good system compared to dual quads. Tom Hoover had planned to put the Six Pack on the Hemi too. They really should have. But by about 1970, they knew the end of performance cars was near, so they would not have bothered developing new performance parts and packages for factory built cars.

^^^^^^ hmm, a sixpac Rat Roaster..

Gary and I had lunch with Tom Hoover at Carlisle, and he told us what he remembered about the prototype Six Pack intakes for them Hemi. Supposedly there were two of the intakes produced and tested,but they didn't yield the emission standards they were hoping to achieve,but he was pleased with the performance of the Six Pack on the Hemi. He couldn't remember the horsepower numbers it put out.though. Gary had talked to Mopar Performance about producing the Six Pack intake manifold for the Hemi which they eventually did produce and offer the intake to the public.

Pic of '71 charger with MP six pack intake.

I can't say I am right but I always figured that the 4bbls of 50's early 60's era were kinda small on the CFM side and to make big power on big cubic inches, you needed two or more carbs. By the time the 440 came out there were also other big cube engines so the Carb companies started making bigger carbs for them. With bigger carbs available the need for dual 4's wasn't there for daily driver's. I doubt the Hemi or 6-PAck engines were ever considered grocery getters or you would have seen more than just the two or three 4 door hemi cars made.

That has always been my take but I am probably wrong.

The Edelbrock STR14-6 was the rat roaster intake for the 440 Sixpack application.

Almost every two piece B or RB intake made for NA applications have a history of back firing and breaking the tops
The Eddy STR were real dogs below 3000 RPM and then turned into real rocket ships
Not real conducive to good street manners

They work well with a big cam,a tall converter,and a lot of gear!

One of the prototype Hemi 6-Packs

Mike

Monterverdi High Speed was initially (1967-68) advertised with single (375 S) och dual carb (400 SS) 440 engines.
Claimed performance for 1x4 bbl was 375 hp @ 4600 rpm and 480 ft lbs @ 3200 rpm, for 2x4 bbl 400 hp @ 5000 rpm and 485 ft lbs @ 3300 rpm.
The dual carb alternative was discontinued after about a year so sales numbers should be marginal if any at all.

Probably the same reason there was no large port version, and no solid lifter version.

The better question is why did they not put the 440 CID short block under the hemi heads??? There wouldn't be any of this stupid debate about 426 hemi vs 440 6bbl, the hemi would have had the TQ like a 440 6 pack PLUS the top end of the hemi.

All it would be is a 1/16” bigger bore

See "ball stud hemi" if I remember correct.

That's what Stage V was doing before Mopar Performance was making new Hemi blocks.

The extra 14 CID would have been good for at least 15 LBS TQ and another 5 or 10 HP, it would have added a little more throttle response for the roll racing type, as close as people think they are now that would have easily tipped the scales in the flavor of the Hemi.

The 426 Hemiriod motors is called that for a reason, the single head bolt holding the rocker stands down as well as the lack of quality control on all the factory rocker arm ratio is sickening

What were the warranty periods and mileage for the 440 engines over the years of fitment? It seems that the standard and the HP 440's had a 5-year/50,000 mile warranty but not the 426 Hemi or the '69 440 A12 cars. I know the 1969 A12 3X2 Lift-Off-Hood cars had a limited 12-month or 12,000 miles with a special sticker placed in the owner's manual stating the "Same as the 426 Hemi engine" but did 1970/1971 440+6 engine equipped cars also limit the warranty to 12 month/12,000 miles ?? Would dual quads or 3X2 carburetors really make a reliability issue by 4-years and 38,000 miles......maybe down a drag strip at a quarter mile at a time all day and night long. Just can't see the carbs being a warranty period issue. What am I missing?

RPMs and intended racing use. No warranty on clutches either. I know at our shop (Dodge) if they found you were racing ANY engine they would refuse warranty claims. 5-50 was normal driving. My friends 68 GTS 4 speed 340 cam ecentric broke, they refused service, said he was racing it. He got his lawyer cousin to have a talk, they fixed it.

Be a difficult thing to prove if the car was COMPLETELY stock and someone didn't see you at the track blowing up IMO. I street raced and went to several different drag strips back in '69 and at the beginning the my '69 Road Runner was completely stock. Then I put Hooker headers on it and a "cool can" for the fuel line, and a CDI ignition box (Mark 10) on it and that may have given it away. But I and my friends were smart enough to have removed those things before we would have had it towed to the Plymouth dealer if we hoped to get warranty on it. I'm sure others did the same thing including mechanics that worked at dealerships. Most of the dealers were on the side of their customers when it came to warranty if they could get their customers some help, at least in my neighborhood and not just the Mopar dealers. You had a better chance of getting warranty with a 727 automatic than a 4-speed IMO, seems most of the blown engines that I remember was from that MISSED SHIFT from 2nd to 3rd.......

Heard a story about someone wanting a 396 4 speed Nova, but his hometown dealer had a no 4 speed musclecar ban in place. They considered those to be warranty magnets.

Does the proven “real world” success of the Six Pack actually prove that the concept of a 4 barrel carb is faulty?

“Big” carbs should be 6 barrel,
with the center 2 working in everyday road conditions,
and the outside 4 only coming in together during high load?

All the in line dual quad engines that Mopar built that I have seen all came with cast iron single plane intakes
Dodge, Plymouths De Soto and Chrysler all offered motors with in line dual quad motors, originally with Carter WCFB and later with AFB. All the ones I drove were doggy at light part throttle driving, I had a 1957 Chrysler 300 C car that I swap the inline dual Carter WCB on the cast iron in line 2x4 intake to a single 4 barrel dual plane stock intake and carb off of a 1957 New Yorker and it was way better to drive

NASCAR had a 427 cubic inch rule. 7.0 liters. That’s why there are so many mid 60’s engines that size.
A 440 couldn’t run in NASCAR

406 ford
410 mercury
413 mopar
421 pontiac
425 Buick
426 mopar
427 ford chev

The reason for the 440+6 VS the hemi debate is the huge valves and ports on the hemi give away bottom end. So the Sox pack is out front early. The hemi was designed for nascar racing, it’s is a racing engine on the steeet.

My 5.7 pulls hard right off idle with heads as big as the 426 hemi... could it be the lack of displacement had more to do with the TQ advantage of the 440 vs 426? Like I said above there is a guaranteed 15+ lb feet of torque just in the displacement alone. The argument goes that the 440 had more TQ (duh, it's bigger) and the 426 had more HP but what if they had equal displacement? 15 lbs tq X 2.45 trans 1st gear X 3.91 rear gear = 144 lbs more tq at the wheels just because of the bigger displacement.

Here's the reason Chrysler gave for the 440 HP and yes warranty, daily drivability, reliability, torque, etc., were the reasons. Where or at what RPM the torque was made went right along with what an engine design engineer once told me: "You don't drive an engine on the horsepower, you drive an engine on the torque". So true, as seen on page 2 with the standard 440 making the same amount of torque of 480 lb/ft at 2800 rpm or at 400 rpm lower than the 440 HP, great for towing or moving a large, heavy vehicle down the road. IMO Torque is KING.

I can't remember exactly which year GM came out with the 455 C.I. Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac motors. I believe 1971 was the first year of the 454 C.I. BB Chevy.

"Iron and Tin alloy" they basically made them out of tin cans!

All good posts! That CH28 Edelbrock dual 4 manifold with two 500s sure is a wonderful looking and performing set up though. Cheaper than a six pack with the same great looks IMO.

I fairly sure the 440 had a Six Pack setup because the powers that be stated the package was aimed at street guys who considered it the ultimate setup at the time.

The 440 might not have been sold with quads as it was felt unnecessary and might have cut into Hemi sales.

In the early 60s the big 3 had 2-4s offered on their ‘top’ engines, Fords, Chevys, Buick, Chrysler. Trying to sell their lower engines in everyday cars and trucks. I imagine the 6-pacs (440 and 340) were made because the Hemi was expensive and not to durable at that time so Chrysler made something affordable and durable, kinda after the fact. All in my day and time and me so poor I couldn’t even pay attention lol

1970 was the first year for the 454. The 427 couldn't pass EPA emissions.

455 started in 1969 I'm pretty sure Cab. 454 would have started in 70.

Kevin

I think your 5.7 pulls that off because it doesn't have to deal with a 2.45 first gear and a 3.23 or 2.76 diff and only 3 gears. Hi tech engine management certainly doesn't hurt either but put a 727 and a 2.76 behind it in a 5500 lb Ram pickup and I think the experience will come up somewhat short of sporty. Peak torque on a Gen 3 is 4000 rpm +/-. On a 440 it was 2800.

Kevin

How many hemis or 6 packs came with a 2.76 gear?

After model year 1971 what manufactures still offered multi carburetor engines?

I think your 5.7 pulls that off because it doesn't have to deal with a 2.45 first gear and a 3.23 or 2.76 diff and only 3 gears. Hi tech engine management certainly doesn't hurt either but put a 727 and a 2.76 behind it in a 5500 lb Ram pickup and I think the experience will come up somewhat short of sporty. Peak torque on a Gen 3 is 4000 rpm +/-. On a 440 it was 2800.

Kevin [/quote]

How many hemis or 6 packs came with a 2.76 gear? [/quote]

lLots of them with 3.23.

Kevin

V.W. did

I should have qualified that with American Cars subject to EPA and CARB for emissions and EVAP reasons. I know from my Dodge engineer ('62 - 2005) friend EVAP is what killed the 3X2 because Holley would not do the EVAP modification to all three carbs even though they (Chrysler engineers) had already done it. Bet it was too late and to close with all of the EPA/CARB emissions regulations already all most to the end of the two year phase in to even consider dual quads for any model. As I said they could even get the 3X2 carbs into production at that point.

I think the reason Mopar didn't offer dual quads on a 440 it's that there was no market for it. They already had their flagship performance motor with the dual quads. Most guys who bought 440's were looking to save money over paying up for a Hemi. Not many would have paid up for the 2x4.
All this hogwash about the dual quad Hemi not being a good street motor will never die. I know from thousands of miles, they are the best street motor. Huge torque AND high rpm power. Very smooth, reliable and easy to drive and maintain in stock form.

Well Edelbrock sure made a nice setup whenever their CH-28 came out. Rather than copy early Chrysler and Offenhauser with a big open single plane plenum they made a true dual plane good to 6000RPM.

Yeah I agree. They didn't do it because they didn't need to and/or they didn't want to. Mopar could've turned the wick way up in the horsepower wars but they didn't. Most likely because that wasn't the business they were in. It would've been very easy for them to put a 4.250 stroke crank in the 440 and make it a 505. They could've added the MW heads and a dual quad intake and buried the competition. Those parts all existed in the early 70's and hot rodders had built similiar combinations so they knew it was possible. They didn't need to do it and nobody really wanted to do it so it didn't happen.

I suppose they might have regretted killing the big block since GM was able to keep their big block around in the truck division. Mopar probably could've done a truck version of the big block and kept it around a bit longer. GM is still selling big block crate engines but Mopar exited the business. I just got a new 632 from GM last week. GM is selling these 632 inch big block complete with EFI and coil near plug ignition. Makes 1000 hp on pump gas with a hyd roller cam so it will work great in a street car. Mopar could make something similar if they wanted but obviously they don't since they haven't.

The biggest mistake is Chrysler and the after market STILL use that small bore spacing. IF they can make a Hemi head in standard form they can make one longer, make a longer block, longer crank (Chevy) Bilet cam, now there’s potential for really big cubes

Remember, Japan was invading the market with mpg 4 bangers, gas and insurance were getting expensive, and the government was talking emissions. The market was changing fast.

i ran 6paks for many years. had several sets. tried every carb combo i could my hands on. they will make power, but i've moved on. i run a ch28 with two 600's on one of my 440's and am very pleased with the low maintenance and excellent drivability i think the 6pak may have a small power advantage due to a little better flowing intake, but the 6pak doesn't make power as smooth as the quads, and i think the quads might have a torque advantage or at least a smoother torque curve.

I ran a dual 4 Edelbrock intake on my 383 for years with twin Carter 500's, loved the torque!

not sure if it's been mentioned or not but Chrysler did offer an over the counter dual quad set-up for rb engines. it was the 385hp 413 set-up with a cast iron single plane intake and two small afb's. chrysler never had the money to r&d and market a lot of combos for production the way gm and ford did. in the '60's most enthusiast were leaning toward single carb technology that was developing. this was basically born out of nascars ban on multi-carbs, and let's face it; most people can't work on one least wise two or three. i have far more problems with the single four on my stock '69 r/t than the dual quads on my '65 coronet.

Dodge's truck share market wasn't big enough to keep making big blocks, the bailout forbade them and the engine was ancient compared to the competition. The block hadn't done well when they put hemi heads on it originally just as issue's resurfaced when Indy brought out the 440-1 years later, Why Chrysler never made a dual quad 440? Why would they.

I think Chrysler just had a ridiculous number of engines as it was and needed another like a hole in the head.

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD for 1970

Slant Six (170, 198, 225) The 170 was available on exports out to 1971
318
340 (different cams for manual and auto? can't recall)
340 6-pack
361 (Industrial out to 1974)
383 2 bbl
383 4bbl
383 HP
413 (Trucks and RV out to 1979)
440 4bbl
440 HP
440 6 pack
426 hemi

I'm sure I missed a few variants but that is a lot of different engines to churn out and certify compared to today.

that is a lot to keep up with when you consider chryslers percentage of market share. when it came to performance they didn't r&d, and couldn't, like others. they just put a part number on aftermarket parts.

And I'm positive I missed a few. I think the 426 Hemi had two cams as well but just can't recall.

Accountants hate part numbers, I bet they were positively bezerk back then based on my time working for Mopar in the 80's.

Reduction in part numbers to increase the profit margins and save money was a constant mantra.

As small was Chrysler is to the other 2 they had a DQ intake for all 3 early Hemi's, the Poly, both low deck and tall deck B, Crossrams long,short and 1 pc and 426H intakes I would think they would have had it figured out as good as anyone and better than most.

You think that is bad how about ford? They had twice as many different engines, often 2 or 3 of the same size that were totally different engines with nothing interchangeable between them... talk about a cluster! GM wasn't much better with different engines for buick olds pontiac cadilac chevrolet... all getting their own engines and sharing engines sometimes. Chrysler had like 3.5 engine families in total thru the 60s and 70s

I love multi-carb anything. I have always wanted a 440 dual quad intake. I currently have a sixpack car, a tunnel ram with two 1050's Hemi car, a 383/400 sixpack, a 340 sixpack, two dual four street Hemi intakes and carbs, a cross ram max Wedge and a magnesium cross ram Hemi also.

FCA has no interest in "heritage" engine platforms anymore. When they do have something like an intake for them, all they do is rebrand someone else's product and mark it up 30%.

I refuse to put anything with the Mopar Performance or Direct Connection logo on my car!

I go even a step further. I peel off any decals, ask a vendor to not supply with logo first if possible. If not , I weld up any logo or machine off any logo on everything I put on my car. Except for tires for safety reasons.

Are there multi throttle body fuel injected engines? How about carb body type EFI on multi carb intake manifolds.......just asking for a friend

Not talking like this

single carbs are great for lawnmowers.

Oldsmobile came out with their 455 in 1968
Buick and Pontiac released their 455s in 1970
Chevrolet 454 was 1970, also

JS

Just a reminder there was prohibitions on certain GM products over 400 CID for a few years. When GM saw the EPA writing on the wall they dropped it around 1970.

They got around it for a bit by having third parties install 400+ CID engines after the sale for a few years before that, Yenko Chevrolet maybe?

i used to see a guy a the local cruise-in who had a set of hilborns on his FE427 '61 starliner. hilborn "electrified" them for him and he told me it cost $1200 a hole, . anyhow, he liked it and said it worked great. it was a beautiful car.

I love the CH28, absolutely awesome IMO

The thread starts "why didn't mopar offer"................but does the original poster mean Mopar service parts, or Chrysler corporate, know or care about the difference?

If it really means corporate/selling vehicles and not parts, a person has to ask......

What was the original purpose of the 440? A race engine? No.
To sell as an over the counter high performance item? No...such ideas were in their infancy when the 440 was introduced

The first couple years of use showed the real purpose. To make huge heavy full size cars perform reasonably well, and to make the musclecar market vehicles respectable.

The average musclecar customer of the time wanted to buy something with a race car appearance, and drive it in 27 degree temperatures in a snowstorm, and expected it to perform perfectly with minimum maintenance.
We know that is not happening with a race engine with mid 60s fuel/air/spark technology, cold intake manifolds and so on. So, they got a barely warmed up version that felt fast, could do awesome burnouts
but really ran 14s and 15s and could be driven any day, anytime, in any weather.

In the time of the 440, the 426 Hemi was the corporate race engine and was bestowed with the racy stuff.

In modern times we assume the 440 platform to be all things to all people….it does an admirable job but wasn’t really intended for that.

Probably because a single four barrel in the right hands is usually quicker. Especially on a street build.

single 4 better on a street build? i have doubts. single 4 better at the track; maybe. modern manifold technology favors the single carb for peak power, but not a broad power band. has any single 4 race set-up made more power than a 2x4 tunnel ram? i think there are too many variables. people in general just embrace single carb stuff because the culture has told them to. i still think some of this boils down to most folks can't tune 1 so why do they want 2 or 3. i think on the street multi carb is far more versatile than any single 4 could ever be.

I think that is the key. Especially when talking about primarily street driven combos and the 'average' car guy.

Whether we're talking way back then or now, frankly very few guys can do much (if any) tuning on a carb. More carbs means more complexity and intimidates most guys. And that most certainly plays a role in the rush to the antiquated throttle body EFI kits today. 'Self tuning' is a huge draw when you want to 'bolt it on and go'.

And because of the intimidation factor, the demand for carbs, manifolds and collateral pieces for multi combos is less. So, there are more parts for the single set-ups.

As to "on the street multi carb is far more versatile than any single 4 could ever be", that is simply not true for the 'average' car guy if for no other reason than the inability to tune. And I haven't seen a lot of testing each way to prove that conclusively for the guys that can tune them. Certainly, there are combos that would favor one or the other individually, but saying that multiple carbs are always or even usually superior, faster, or more versatile is way oversimplifying the subject, at least in my opinion.

And correct me if I'm wrong but outside of the Hemi, wasn't a big part of the multiple carb factory offerings the fact that there weren't any single carbs big enough? That and the marketing side of it? Not so much for the superiority of multis over singles?

i believe the single most driver for single carb technology was NASCAR. by the early '60's they outlawed multi-carb. this brought about the large holley carbs like 3bbl and dominator plus manifold technology upgrades. for street guys this was really driven home by 1965 375hp 396 chevy (396 cuin's was a nascar thing). there were large afb's and even a 3bbl afb but they simply had some air flow deficiencies compared to an 850 or 950 holley. another driver was holley developing the center pivot float bowl that handled G forces better than carters. i'm pretty sure all this major developement with holley was funded by ford. for most people it was a simpler path to performance. there were very few people in the '60's who were carb smart especially multi-carb; i know i was there. as far as my belief the multi carb thing can be and is in my builds more versatile is that i can run on small primaries for better fuel mix and still have larger venturi and throttle bore area for power. i think some of this is a perpetual discussion that most people have picked sides long ago. the "common culture" in this matter baffles me.

I'm one of those people that goes either way on the subject having spent many hours tuning carbs with a portable af gauge and vacuum meter.

Max HP? Tunnel Ram with a pair of fuel mixers can't be beat and if you know how to tune extremely streetable.

Same car I ran very successfully with a single tricked out Thermoquad with a TM7 intake.

The average person hasn't a clue how to tune a carb and the situation has only gotten worse.

I talked to my friend and Dodge engineer ('62-05) who was in charge of Dodge engine development during the time about why no '72 3x2 when the brochures and a few examples somehow were made and at the last minute the 3x2 440 was dropped. He said because of the 2-year phase-in for the evaporative emission standard or EVAP ( 2-year phase-in from '70 had to be completed by model year '72) could not get done because Holley would not modify the front and rear 2-bbl carbs with the necessary captured float bowl venting. He said they did the in-house modifications tested them and then submitted them to Holley and Holley turned them down. With that and all of the other models that had to come into EVAP compliance during the two years since the '70 regulation (remember the '70 models with the vacuum butterflies on the air cleaner snorkels and the vacuum hood scoops, the charcoal canisters, gas tank vent bottles, etc. yep EVAP) Holley had no time to mess with multi carb Chrysler engines. So if you asked me why no 440 dual quad in production after only three years of a 440 3x2 I'd have to say the same reason for no 72 3x2 or any multi carb engines from that '72 date forward. The SIX PACKs enjoyed some healthy sales from '69-1/2 to '71 and spending more time and money to make a 2x4 anything for one or at best two years made no sense at all to the bean counters, marketing and the engineers. EVAP and all of the other EPA/CARB emission standards and then add in the gas crunch just try and sell the idea of a 2x4 (8-bbl) massive 440 cubic inch V8 for an on-highway vehicle (car) to the powers to be. Just look at all of the crap, development and money that had to go with and comply with EVAP and all of the other emissions regulations at that time and how it affected the cost of the car. As stated, "it's all about the MONEY $$$$$$".

A cool one to add to the mix was my 1965 Century Coronado. Had a 426 wedge with inline AFBs. Very stout, very reliable.

I can see where an OEM would prefer to keep the induction system as simple as possible (AKA single carb) for a car that will be a passenger car. The dual inline 4 bbl carbs are just so cool and scream Hot Rodding though. Its interesting that Ford was the first to use the 3 Holley 2 bbl carbs on the 406- then a variation of those carbs used by Chevy on their 427 and finally Mopar on their 1969 440 B bodies. In the 1970s movie Hot Rod the main character is speaking to a babe. He says something like: " If you blow up it up rebuild it with dual quads. If you blow it up again put a blower on it." Such great advice!

was that intake a single or dual plane type ?

looks like the factory iron single plane set-up.