Here are some times I found on a website from magazine tests.


1968 Plymouth Barracuda 340-S (CL)

340ci/275hp, 3spd auto, 3.23, 0-60 - 7.0, 1/4 mile - 14.97 @ 95.4mph

1968 Plymouth Barracuda 340-S (MT)

340ci/275hp, 4spd, 3.23, 0-60 - 8.1, 1/4 mile - 15.2 @ 92mph

1968 Plymouth Road Runner (MT)

383ci/335hp, 4spd, 3.23, 0-60 - 6.8, 1/4 mile - 15.0 @ 93mph

1968 Plymouth Road Runner (HR)

383ci/335hp, 4spd, 3.55, 0-60 - 6.2, 1/4 mile - 14.74 @ 98mph

1968 Plymouht Road Runner (CD)

426ci/425hp, 3spd auto, 3.55, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 13.54 @ 105.10mph

It looks like my statement was correct. The little turbo car would eat most stock 383 and 340 cars.
The 383 was the most disappointing motor in Chryslers high performance line up. I have driven some healthy 340's over the years but the 383 required some work to become a respectable performer. I think the cam was what held it back.
Contrary to many statements from Chrysler guys I know. There is a night and day difference between the 383 and 440 in stock form.
I've seen impressive running 383's but they were not stock.
My Cuda 440 with a mild hyd cam intake carb and headers ran low 12's

---

Here are some numbers I happened to run across in this months MuscleCar Review:

Car & Driver; Jan. 1969 test: 1969 Dodge SuperBee - 383 4bbl: 14.04 @ 99.5
Motor Trend; Feb 1969 test: 1969 Plymouth RoadRunner - 383 4bbl: 14.35 @ 101.
Car & Driver; Feb 1970 test: 1970 Duster - 340 4-bbl: 14.39 @ 97

Guess you're not exactly "Eating" those cars, huh?

Put some sticky tires on it, see what you come up with and make sure to report back. My guess is the report will include broken parts. Oh, and by the way, it didn't take sticky tires, aftermarket transmissions, and axles to get the above cars to run these times.