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.