|
Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
[Re: BELVEDERE67]
#211352
02/04/09 11:35 AM
02/04/09 11:35 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,826
NY usa
540challenger
master
|
master
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,826
NY usa
|
Quote:
Back in the day...I whoped upon many a bigblock with a 68 dart 340...but I believe the 71 lost comp ratio. Weight is effectively the same. Cubes win in this case at 1/4 mile. GTX by a nose. 1/8 mile the cuda  
71 the 340 still had high compressionit was the last year thou.
I think the cuda could take this. i seen to many people not knowing how to drive on the street and just spinning the tires way to much off the line.
|
|
|
Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
[Re: 540challenger]
#211353
02/04/09 11:45 AM
02/04/09 11:45 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
The E-bodies are not all that light as they weigh just about the same as a B-body if equipped the same.
I'm going to have to disagree with that statement.
It's been shown here that the E-body '71 Cuda's are extremely light. Lighter than most people think.
My A/C equipped '71 smallblock was 3,260 lbs.!! With 440/727 it was 3,440. NO lightening had been done and it had full interior/accessories and 1/4 tank of gas.
I'm guessing the GTX is 3,800 lbs. +
So I'm going to say there is AT LEAST a 3-400 lbs. difference which equates to 4/10 in the quarter or half a second.
My vote is for the 'Cuda.
|
|
|
Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
[Re: ScottSmith_Harms]
#211355
02/04/09 12:14 PM
02/04/09 12:14 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
So it's pretty much set in stone that if both cars are relatively the way they came from the factory the 'Cuda is ~ 3,300 lbs. and the GTX is ~3,800 lbs. per owners with firsthand knowledge.
Should be a good race.
Oh yea, with a mild 318 with 360 heads and severe traction limitations my '71 ran 14.9's @ 95 with 3.23 gears. (340 would've probably been faster but my gross hp was around 320 according to calculators)
With mild 440 and same lousy traction/street tires it ran 13.5's @ 104 mph. HP was around 400 gross in this case.
|
|
|
Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
[Re: ScottSmith_Harms]
#211356
02/04/09 01:46 PM
02/04/09 01:46 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
|
Quote:
I owned a 67 BelvedereII Hemi 4 speed car, 100% stock with a half tank of gas it weighed 3880 lbs on the scales at Infinion Raceway.
GTX's had buckets seats (Belvedere had a bench) GTX had two lightweight hood scoops, Belvedere had none. Hemis weigh a tad more than a 440, auto's had 8.75 axles, 4 speeds had Dana 60's, so there's another 50 lbs difference between them. Otherwise a 67 GTX vs Belvedere would be near identical in weight. So there's a good baseline for you to guess from on the 440 GTX.Based on all this I'd guess a 440 auto 67 GTX would weigh in at right around 3,700-3,800lbs.
I'm not trying to be argumentative and you know this stuff better'n I do, but for giggles I checked the PS site since they weight the cars before the race and;
- '67 R/T Hemi: 3981 lbs with gas and driver
- '70 Hemi 'Cuda: 3930 lbs as above (Bob K's)
Obviously these are differently equipped cars from the ones discussed here, but this info would SEEM to suggest that all drivetrain options aside, the base cars should be close in weight? And FWIW, Bob isn't very heavy! 
Yes, I know some of the PS cars have "ballast" added in stratigic spots so maybe that's the reason for the weights being so close.
So what's the weight difference between a fully dressed 440 and 340? 150 lbs?
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: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
[Re: DPelletier]
#211357
02/04/09 01:55 PM
02/04/09 01:55 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
ScottSmith_Harms
Mr Wizzard
|
Mr Wizzard
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
|
Dave, Hard to say what's what there because as you said, too many variables. In GENERAL a Cuda weighs less than a 67 B-body, but options, driver weight, etc. can definately change that. Bottom line, both cars are mid to low 14 second cars on paper, the difference would be driver weight, driver technique, traction, etc. Having owned and raced examples of both cars my money would be on the Cuda by a slight margin if the same driver made passes in each car for the best time. 
|
|
|
Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
[Re: ScottSmith_Harms]
#211358
02/04/09 03:03 PM
02/04/09 03:03 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
So what's the weight difference between a fully dressed 440 and 340? 150 lbs?
Pretty close. There was 180 lbs. difference in my car but some of that was the aluminum intake on SB vs. cast iron intake on BB. The SB also had a 904 behind it so allthings considered about 150.
|
|
|
Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
#211359
02/04/09 03:29 PM
02/04/09 03:29 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 189
long island new york
kingdust
member
|
member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 189
long island new york
|
On street tires its going to be a close race, who ever can get off the line with the least amount of tire spin will probably hold that advantage to the stripe.gtx gets out first I don't think the cuda would run it down. If the combo was in a duster, duster every time!
LIFE IS A LESSON,YOU LEARN IT WHEN YOUR THROUGH!
|
|
|
Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
[Re: kingdust]
#211360
02/04/09 03:40 PM
02/04/09 03:40 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
If the combo was in a duster, duster every time!
Dusters have AWESOME weight transfer!
I had a '75 and all I did was take the clamps off the rear segment of the springs and put more on the front. That car would hook on ice!
|
|
|
Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
[Re: rtplumcrazy1]
#211364
02/04/09 10:12 PM
02/04/09 10:12 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
Mr.Yuck
Not enough dumb comments...yet
|
Not enough dumb comments...yet
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
|
FWIW, my 67 coronet w/440 auto car full int, PS, AC car but not A/C stuff w/ me and a 1/2 tank of gas as raced was almost 3900lbs and I weigh about 180.
and my old 72 swinger w/ a 10.5:1 340, ported J heads, RPM air gap, 750DP, stock 340 cam w/ 1.6 roller rockers, TTI step headers into a 3" system, real nice 727, 2800 stall, 3.55's and MT et Streets ran a best of 13.82 on a nice cool night. Usually the car was in the 13.90-94 range.
|
|
|
Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
#211365
02/05/09 12:56 AM
02/05/09 12:56 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
383man
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
|
Quote:
Quote:
The E-bodies are not all that light as they weigh just about the same as a B-body if equipped the same.
I'm going to have to disagree with that statement.
It's been shown here that the E-body '71 Cuda's are extremely light. Lighter than most people think.
My A/C equipped '71 smallblock was 3,260 lbs.!! With 440/727 it was 3,440. NO lightening had been done and it had full interior/accessories and 1/4 tank of gas.
I'm guessing the GTX is 3,800 lbs. +
So I'm going to say there is AT LEAST a 3-400 lbs. difference which equates to 4/10 in the quarter or half a second.
My vote is for the 'Cuda.
I respectfully still have to disagree with you.  I know of more then one 440 E-body weighing in over 3700 without the driver and a Hemi E-body can push 3800 to 3900 fully loaded. And I believe a 340 E-body with P/S and P/B's can push 3500. I believe an E-body equipped the same as the average B-body would weigh within 100 lbs of each other. Thats just what I have seen. And of course I mean with both cars being all stock.  Ron
|
|
|
Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
[Re: 383man]
#211366
02/05/09 11:29 AM
02/05/09 11:29 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Hmmm, autoglasspro's Cuda weighed within 30 lbs. of my '71. My car was P/S, A/C, Console with buckets car. (True, no power brakes but that can't be 20-25 lbs.) It had heavy 15x7 Ralleye's on the back and 14x6's on the front. IIRC, the Ralleye's were around 5-7 lbs. per corner heaver than my cop rims and sticky tires. ( I weigh darned near everything!) I've seen the ultra heavy e-bodies you talk aobut and most of them are Challengers. For some reason they always seem to be heavier than the 'Cudas. All smallblock '70's and '71's Cuda's will weigh around 32-3300 lbs. That hemi adds a TON of weight to the frontend.
|
|
|
Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
[Re: bobby66]
#211368
02/05/09 12:26 PM
02/05/09 12:26 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
|
Not trying to  but there is a wide range of weights given for the Cuda. Most people seem to agree that the GTX would be 3700 - 3800 lbs but we have weights from 3200 - 3700 lbs for the Cuda. I personally was thinking along the lines that the Cuda would be maybe 150-200 lbs lighter primarily due to the big block vs. small block thing, but it there appears to be quite a bit of info suggesting the difference is much larger. I know one thing; I'm gonna weigh my 'Cuda on a certified scale as soon as the snow dissappears. It is a '74 Cuda survivor, 318, 904, 8 3/4, PS, PDB, no A/C, bone stock down to the plug wires. I know the '74's had the side impact braces in the doors and the bumperette pces, but it can't be THAT much heavier than a '70?  Dave
Last edited by DPelletier; 02/05/09 12:27 PM.
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: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX
[Re: ScottSmith_Harms]
#211370
02/05/09 01:23 PM
02/05/09 01:23 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
More food for thought on surprising vehicle weights:
My '75 Duster weighed in almost 200 lbs. heavier than my 'Cuda with a 440!!
The Duster was well over 3600 lbs.
It was a fairly loaded with 318, A/C, P/S, PDB, Bench seat, etc.
I would've guessed it was a LOT lighter!
'75 did have the HUGE bumpers though...
|
|
|
|
|
