71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX - Moparts Forums

Register Log In Moparts Forums Unlawfl's Race & Engine Tech 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX

Print Thread

Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX #211331 02/01/09 09:43 PM 02/01/09 09:43 PM
Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 903 Oregon R rtplumcrazy1 OP super stock
rtplumcrazy1 OP super stock R Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 903 Oregon	which is faster-my friends 71 340 4 speed cuda has a balanced engine with cam headers intake and carb-with 3.55 rear end gears-or my other friends 67 GTX 440 automatic with 3000 stahl cam headers intake and carb with 3.23 gears-who would you bet on-i have seen them street race but who would win a 1/4 mile speed contest daren Last edited by rtplumcrazy1; 02/01/09 09:44 PM. Put a big block 4 speed Scat Pack Dodge in your garage.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: rtplumcrazy1] #211332 02/01/09 11:25 PM 02/01/09 11:25 PM
Joined: Aug 2003 Posts: 43,127 Bend,OR USA C Cab_Burge I Win
Cab_Burge I Win C Joined: Aug 2003 Posts: 43,127 Bend,OR USA	Quote: but who would win a 1/4 mile speed contest daren Have them line them up at the track and find out Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: Cab_Burge] #211333 02/02/09 12:10 AM 02/02/09 12:10 AM
Joined: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,495 Richmond , Virginia BEEQUIK top fuel
BEEQUIK top fuel Joined: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,495 Richmond , Virginia	I say the GTX. Big block with a converter to get it going should outrun the relatively stock smallblock.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: BEEQUIK] #211334 02/02/09 12:26 AM 02/02/09 12:26 AM
Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,138 Central NC gch master
gch master Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,138 Central NC	I would likely give the nod to the big block although the 3.23's may hurt a little. It could easily be a drivers race.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: gch] #211335 02/02/09 12:56 AM 02/02/09 12:56 AM
Joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 6,906 IL, Aurora A ademon master
ademon master A Joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 6,906 IL, Aurora	GTX should be lighter, right? gtx gets it.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ademon] #211336 02/02/09 01:28 PM 02/02/09 01:28 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard
ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington	Quote: GTX should be lighter, right? gtx gets it. Uh, no, not right

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ScottSmith_Harms] #211337 02/02/09 01:43 PM 02/02/09 01:43 PM
Joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 6,906 IL, Aurora A ademon master
ademon master A Joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 6,906 IL, Aurora	i bet the weight dif is not that much even with the hemi

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ademon] #211338 02/02/09 01:49 PM 02/02/09 01:49 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard
ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington	Break out your wallet, I'll take that bet!

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ademon] #211339 02/02/09 02:00 PM 02/02/09 02:00 PM
Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI MR_P_BODY Master
MR_P_BODY Master Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI	If the guy can shift a 4 speed I'd put my money on him, also if they are running slicks. If on street tires I might go with the GTX because of the gear

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ScottSmith_Harms] #211340 02/02/09 02:05 PM 02/02/09 02:05 PM
Joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 6,906 IL, Aurora A ademon master
ademon master A Joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 6,906 IL, Aurora	Well i'm not a Mopar expert like yourself, thats why in my post it was phrased as a question, so what is the weight difference? I have never owed the two cars we are talking about.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ademon] #211341 02/02/09 02:58 PM 02/02/09 02:58 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard
ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington	Both cars are similar in wiegh if equipped the same, the Cuda may have a 100-200 lb advantage as a roller without an engine. The small block vs big will be the biggest difference, and that will undeniably going to favor the Cuda. Overall you are probably looking at 2-300lbs difference between them, maybe more.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ScottSmith_Harms] #211342 02/02/09 04:30 PM 02/02/09 04:30 PM
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 15,478 the boonies aarcuda I Live Here
aarcuda I Live Here Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 15,478 the boonies	the car on the right

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: rtplumcrazy1] #211343 02/02/09 05:09 PM 02/02/09 05:09 PM
Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada D DPelletier I Live Here
DPelletier I Live Here D Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada	Way too many variables to say, but if all things were equal my money would be on the GTX. The 'Cuda's gearing and weight advantage are too small to make up for the difference in power...in theory anyway. 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: rtplumcrazy1] #211344 02/02/09 08:45 PM 02/02/09 08:45 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada R RUNCHARGER I Live Here
RUNCHARGER I Live Here R Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada	Way too many variables to call a winner here. Depends what cams, depends what headers, depends if the timing curve on both cars are set up correctly and the driver is a huge deal in these matchups. I would bet a no option 440 automatic 67 GTX weighs within 100lbs of a small block 4 speed 71 Cuda but that could depend on options and how much bondo is in each car (seriously). If both cars were stock I would bet on the Cuda if I was driving it, the 71 340's were the best year and the 67 GTX was hampered by a too small carb, a 71 340 Cuda 4 speed with 3.55's could touch a 14.0 if tuned and driven correctly, a lot of stock 67 GTX's were at 15.0 Sheldon

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: RUNCHARGER] #211345 02/03/09 12:56 PM 02/03/09 12:56 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,931 P Paul_Fancsali master
Paul_Fancsali master P Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,931	's on the Cuda all other things aside, the 340 was close to the real power output of the 67 440 the 340 was underrated the 440 was not making real 375hp in 1967

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: Paul_Fancsali] #211346 02/03/09 02:16 PM 02/03/09 02:16 PM
Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada D DPelletier I Live Here
DPelletier I Live Here D Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada	Quote: 's on the Cuda all other things aside, the 340 was close to the real power output of the 67 440 the 340 was underrated the 440 was not making real 375hp in 1967 We know the rated power shows a 100hp advantage to the 440, but I've never put that much stock in the ratings. I've heard the "real" gross flywheel number for a 340 is 320hp. How much power do you think a '71 340 makes? and the 440? Of course the 440 would still have a significant torque advantage even if HP levels were identical and I agree with Sheldon; I doubt the weight is that far off. I dunno....now if it was a 340 A body, then I could see the 340 out in front. 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] #211347 02/03/09 02:44 PM 02/03/09 02:44 PM
Joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 6,906 IL, Aurora A ademon master
ademon master A Joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 6,906 IL, Aurora	I love messing with big blocks, 4997876-ebay020.jpg (86 downloads)

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ademon] #211348 02/03/09 04:21 PM 02/03/09 04:21 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,931 P Paul_Fancsali master
Paul_Fancsali master P Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,931	Back in 1973 my friend had a 67 440 RT basically stock 440 4spd headers 3.54 Dana and slicks. I recall its 1st pass at the track was a 14.57 I know it went faster but not much that I recall can the 340 take a 440 Yes I have done it dozens of times I also have lost against the same 440 traction driving skills and In one case I blew my clutch apart. I love to watch and participate in races that are close

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: rtplumcrazy1] #211349 02/03/09 11:39 PM 02/03/09 11:39 PM
Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 903 Oregon R rtplumcrazy1 OP super stock
rtplumcrazy1 OP super stock R Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 903 Oregon	tough question-back in the day i raced my 71 340-4 speed Challenger against a 67 4 speed 440 GTX-it was prtty much a toss up-winner depended on who drove the best race-at that time my 340 was running 3.23 gears and the GTX was running 4.10 gears-i wonder what would have happened if i had 3.91's in the 340 challenger---previously the GTX had 4.56's---with the 4.56 gears it wasnt even a close race-the 340 car won every time-the GTX just didnt have enough top end to beat the 340 Put a big block 4 speed Scat Pack Dodge in your garage.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: rtplumcrazy1] #211350 02/04/09 01:49 AM 02/04/09 01:49 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 27,421 Balt. Md 3 383man Too Many Posts
383man Too Many Posts 3 Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 27,421 Balt. Md	I gotta give the edge to the bigblock GTX. The E-bodies are not all that light as they weigh just about the same as a B-body if equipped the same. Now if it was an A-body 340 it would be a very close race but in this race I like the bigblock torque to take the win. Ron

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: 383man] #211351 02/04/09 11:08 AM 02/04/09 11:08 AM
Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 731 Aurora Colorado B BELVEDERE67 mopar addict
BELVEDERE67 mopar addict B Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 731 Aurora Colorado	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

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 5 540challenger master
540challenger master 5 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
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	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 #211354 02/04/09 12:01 PM 02/04/09 12:01 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard
ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington	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.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ScottSmith_Harms] #211355 02/04/09 12:14 PM 02/04/09 12:14 PM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	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 D DPelletier I Live Here
DPelletier I Live Here D 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
ScottSmith_Harms 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
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	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 K kingdust member
kingdust member K 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
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	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: ScottSmith_Harms] #211361 02/04/09 08:57 PM 02/04/09 08:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada R RUNCHARGER I Live Here
RUNCHARGER I Live Here R Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada	I had a typical 440 automatic 1967 GTX, P.S. no P.B. radio, steel wheels, console it weighed 3700lbs. Not many 71 Cuda smallblock 4 speeds would weigh less than 3600lbs especially if they have P.S. P.B. and good sized tires and wheels on them. Sheldon

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: rtplumcrazy1] #211362 02/04/09 08:59 PM 02/04/09 08:59 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 24,562 Brookeville, Md Mr.Yuck Not enough dumb comments...yet
Mr.Yuck Not enough dumb comments...yet Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 24,562 Brookeville, Md	depends on the driver...my bone stock 67 GTX (only mod was Summit 488 cam) went 13.86 thru logs and complete exhaust, 727 auto, 3.55's and on BFG radials..not drag radials either. The 440 will probably pull hard out of the hole.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: rtplumcrazy1] #211363 02/04/09 09:15 PM 02/04/09 09:15 PM
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 413 p.a. 4 420duster mopar
420duster mopar 4 Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 413 p.a.	My guess is the cuda, here's why. I weighed my survivor 74 318 3 speed stick cuda,1/2 tank gas, I added 2.5 dual exhaust.Car weighed in at 3290 w/o me in it, not too heavy in my book, being the last year, bigger bumpers,ect,ect.

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
Mr.Yuck 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 3 383man Too Many Posts
383man Too Many Posts 3 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
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	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 #211367 02/05/09 11:38 AM 02/05/09 11:38 AM
Joined: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,805 Arlington, Texas B bobby66 master
bobby66 master B Joined: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,805 Arlington, Texas	Well the Cuda looks kinda like a Camaro and the GTX looks like the crate the Camaro came in so I'd vote for the GTX.

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 D DPelletier I Live Here
DPelletier I Live Here D 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: DPelletier] #211369 02/05/09 12:31 PM 02/05/09 12:31 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard
ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington	Good idea Dave, but will you be weighing it with or without the snow tires & tire chains?

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ScottSmith_Harms] #211370 02/05/09 01:23 PM 02/05/09 01:23 PM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	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...

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ScottSmith_Harms] #211371 02/05/09 01:30 PM 02/05/09 01:30 PM
Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada D DPelletier I Live Here
DPelletier I Live Here D Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada	Quote: Good idea Dave, but will you be weighing it with or without the snow tires & tire chains? It'll be "race ready" so that'll be WITH the snow tires and chains! 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: rtplumcrazy1] #211372 02/05/09 01:52 PM 02/05/09 01:52 PM
Joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 22,873 Chicken coop dustergirl340 Chicken Little
dustergirl340 Chicken Little Joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 22,873 Chicken coop	My '73 Duster 340 weighs 3,500 pounds.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: rtplumcrazy1] #211373 02/05/09 02:31 PM 02/05/09 02:31 PM
Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 4,254 Canada WO23Coronet master
WO23Coronet master Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 4,254 Canada	Have you ever seen these cars street race each other? If so who won. And why don't you get these 2 guys on the track and see who wins and answer the question once and for all. Personally, I think the GTX would take it.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: WO23Coronet] #211374 02/05/09 03:14 PM 02/05/09 03:14 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,931 P Paul_Fancsali master
Paul_Fancsali master P Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,931	My 1970 weighs in at 3052 when it was stock >CAT scales. I realize they are not all that light but my 1973 Sat weighed in at close to 4000 + there is a big difference in weights the best way is a cert scale. This thread is good I like to hear the difference's but the best part would be a actual race between the two cars just for the heck of it!

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX #211375 02/05/09 05:20 PM 02/05/09 05:20 PM
Joined: Mar 2006 Posts: 9,826 MI, usa dvw master
dvw master Joined: Mar 2006 Posts: 9,826 MI, usa	My 73 Challenger. 3545 w/o driver. 4 speed, 8 3/4, 360, aluminum intake, aluminum wheels, aluminum master cylinder, headers w/2 1/2"exhaust. It has 70 bumpers & grille. Also has power steering. I can't believe a stocker with iron intake, power brakes ,cast manifolds, steel wheels would be lighter. This car was wieghed at Norwalk raceway park on a electronic scale. Doug

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: dvw] #211376 02/05/09 05:40 PM 02/05/09 05:40 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,931 P Paul_Fancsali master
Paul_Fancsali master P Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,931	DVW sorry I was referring to my a body car . My brothers 73 Cuda 340 pushed close to 3650 with alum intake and headers

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: Paul_Fancsali] #211377 02/05/09 07:30 PM 02/05/09 07:30 PM
Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada D DPelletier I Live Here
DPelletier I Live Here D Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada	Quote: DVW sorry I was referring to my a body car . My brothers 73 Cuda 340 pushed close to 3650 with alum intake and headers Thanks for the clarification: you really had my scratching my head! Still, though; these weights are all over the place. I mean your A body is almost 600lbs lighter than your brother's small block e-body with some lightweight goodies but Dustergirls Duster is 100 lbs HEAVIER than her Challenger! I'm more confused than ever! Dave (ps. I'm NOT questioning the honesty of anyone here; I realize that we are talking different cars, years, engines, options etc. I'm just surprised about the spread) 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] #211378 02/05/09 07:48 PM 02/05/09 07:48 PM
Joined: Jul 2003 Posts: 6,342 SE PA. Q QuickBpBp master
QuickBpBp master Q Joined: Jul 2003 Posts: 6,342 SE PA.	IMO the GTX will handle it easily. The 71 340's horsepower is something like 290hp while the 67 440 is 375hp that in itself will quickly overcome a few hundred pounds even with 3.23's....

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: QuickBpBp] #211379 02/05/09 09:08 PM 02/05/09 09:08 PM
Joined: Sep 2003 Posts: 650 Kansas R racincuda mopar
racincuda mopar R Joined: Sep 2003 Posts: 650 Kansas	Well I find this discussion quite interesting cuz I BEEN THER, I DUN IT It all started at one stop light and ended b4 th next, a half mile away. We agreed to start at a roll, 30 or 35 mph, Just right for my mostly stock 3:23 gear auto trans GTX I had headers and DP dist, short but wide tires We both hit th pedal at the same time, good even start. He was drivin A 70 sumthin 340 4 spd Cuda with lots of typical aftermarket stuff along with better gears, 3:91 or 4:10s. I remember that driver looking frantic in th other lane banging th gears while I calmly click my auto into another gear He was already in 4th before I ever got the 440 into high. Nothing light about my GTX, well it did hav drum brakes but th air conditioning made up for any weight savin I had We were pretty much dead even untill I got hi gear, pulled him by about half a fender and we both lifted. I dont kno who's cars above is faster, Lets see some video from them at th strip. With that said I think I need a smoke and a beer.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX DELETED [Re: rtplumcrazy1] #211380 02/05/09 11:47 PM 02/05/09 11:47 PM
Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 903 Oregon R rtplumcrazy1 OP super stock
rtplumcrazy1 OP super stock R Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 903 Oregon	Post deleted by rtplumcrazy1 Put a big block 4 speed Scat Pack Dodge in your garage.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: rtplumcrazy1] #211381 02/05/09 11:53 PM 02/05/09 11:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard
ScottSmith_Harms Mr Wizzard Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington	Daren, do yourselves and any others that may be watching you race a favor. Please race the cars, love to know which one will win, but do it at the drag strip where it's the safest for all involved.

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: ScottSmith_Harms] #211382 02/06/09 09:00 AM 02/06/09 09:00 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 24,562 Brookeville, Md Mr.Yuck Not enough dumb comments...yet
Mr.Yuck Not enough dumb comments...yet Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 24,562 Brookeville, Md	I got $10 says the GTX wins...and I'll spot the small block a tenth.....

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: Mr.Yuck] #211383 02/06/09 09:39 AM 02/06/09 09:39 AM
Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,695 nc E emarine01 master
emarine01 master E Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,695 nc	Waaaa back in 1976 my first car was a 68 rt charger, stock engine with headers , alu intake and holley dp with auto trans , 4.11 posi and a 10" tire , for 2 years I searched for any car to race , when I had the bucks for gas ,Most small blocks were 4 to 5 cars behind in high gear, mopar , chevy , ford ,I lost once to a guy 10 years older than me who had a hot big block chevy & he would only run from a 20 mph roll , I now race & favor small blocks , go figure?

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX [Re: Mr.Yuck] #211384 02/06/09 12:14 PM 02/06/09 12:14 PM
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Quote: I got $10 says the GTX wins...and I'll spot the small block a tenth..... I'll take that bet! ...jeez, and I'm a Bigblock fan and have long since swore off smallblocks. Color me a glutton for punishment!

Re: 71 340 Cuda vs 67 440 GTX #211385 02/06/09 12:46 PM 02/06/09 12:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada R RUNCHARGER I Live Here
RUNCHARGER I Live Here R Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada	I had a 67 440 GTX with headers and torker intake with a 750 Holley in the 70's. I figured it was the hottest car in town until I met a 69 340 4 speed Cuda with 3.91 gears one night. A 69 Cuda is quite a bit lighter than a 71 but I still maintain the 71 with a good driver will whoop that 67 GTX. I love 67 GTX's and don't like 71 Cuda's but I still give the edge to the Cuda. Sheldon

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