383 vs 440

[yamoda]

Regarding cam selection, you can, up to a point, have your cake and eat it.
A hydraulic roller will give you a glass smooth idle and still rev up to 6k sweetly. Its a lot more money but with the dollar in the state its in at the moment, its great value. I would also go with a custom grind rather than an off the shelf item as it can be ground to your exact engine spec although filling in some cam grinders forms can seem a bit intimidating, its more than worth it in the end. I'll be going this way along with a stroker kit from 440source for my 440 (Same price as the stock 440 with lighter pistons and rods? Has to be done!) and the initial quotes I have had are between $350 and $500 for a billet ground cam, that's less than I paid for an oem cam for one of my vans.

[John Lowney]

I have to take exception with the 1969 383 hp and torque figuires. The 1969 and 1970 Chrysler v8 engines were at the pinnacle of hp and torque ratings The 383 ratings were 335 BHP and 425 FT LBS of Torque. Again the 383 engine hads been maligned by the 440 boys!! Even MOPAR experts, such as myself know what a good 383 can do properly prepared. As you know, you can't go wrong with a Chrysler big block, but I have put many miles on 340,383 and 440 engines and my preference is the 383. The poor 383 was always over shadowed by the 440 AND the 426, for obvious reasons. The 383 is more economical to operate than the 440 exspecially on the road,where I have gotten a solid 15 MPG. Each has thier own opinions and I have expressed mine. Anyone who wants to come vist me and take the MKII is welcome!!!

[Kerry Moore]

The figures speak for themselves. Go to the link below for 383 and 440 rebuilds to stock 1969 Mopar rebuilds by Mopar Muscle magazine.

If a Mopar magazine can't get accurate dyno readings from these engines, then I don't know who will. And looking at the engines on the dyno's, they are both missing power steering, alternators, air con, etc, which gives the figures that the "selected rating" boys like to quote so much.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/jensenmonday ... Tuning.htm

It's fairly obvious that more capacity equals more power. Why else would you build a bigger engine? A bigger engine is a softer tune can produce the same power but at lower RPM, making it a better road engine. In a higher state of tune it will produce more power.

Most 383 guys like to have a go at the low compression 440 figures, but don't forget the 72-73 low compression 440's were still rated at 330bhp, the same as the highest compression 383. The last 383's (70-72) were low compression and rated at 300bhp.

So this means an 8.2:1 440 can run on low octane petrol, which will have a 10: 1 high compression 383 pinking and blowing holes in pistons, and still produce the same BHP.

I have driven Interceptors with both engines. The low compression 440 is a slug. But as soon as you need an engine rebuild, lob in some higher compression 9:5:1 pistons, and all things (cams, heads, etc) being equal, you will have a more powerful road engine.

The 383's disappointed me in that they felt flat torque wise compared with a high compression 440, but they did rev very eagerly.

I suppose it comes down to the thing that Porche Boxsters owners go through. It's a great car but is always viewed as being a car for some one who couldn't afford a 911. I suppose after years of people saying "is it a 440?", having to say that it's only a 383, and then explain how a 383 is a better engine to someone is now clearly disinterested must get to you after a while

[John Lowney]

We both drive Interceptors. They both have Chrysler V8 engines. My 383 was rebuilt top to bottom regardless of cost by a respected racing shop, Thier claim to fame is racing boat V8's. My engine has been bored .40 over, It was decked heads pockert ported,9.5 compression unleaded valve seats. 268 268 .454 lift cam. aluminium pistons, balance, blupriinted. A Holley 770 CFM carb. Easily 425 450 HP and over 425 FT lbs of torque. This engine will pull as well as a 440. The reason why Chrysler made the 440 was for the torque. The 440 replaced the venerable 413 that were in the big cars, such as the Imperial and the rest. Of course the 440 when built like my engine will run just as well. But the 440 won't run 15 mpg. I was just politly pointing out the differnces between the two engines and politly gave my opinion. Bloody Hell.

[taximan]

We all have more power than we can legally use on the road whichever engine we have, im happy if mine pulls well and sounds nice, i will never take my car on a track so stock plus a few minor improvements will suit me fine, probably frighten me to death having an extra 150 plus bhp anyway.
Shaun.

[Kerry Moore]

If a 383 is only returning 15mpg there is something wrong with it as I can do 16mpg cruising at 80 to 85mph in my 440 powered car.

We did 5000 miles to Istanbul in Chris Millers 440 powered car and regularly did 16mpg (we averaged 15mpg), so 15mpg out of a tiddler of a 383 engine is a bit poor as it seems to be using more fuel to develop less BHP and torque.

[Kerry Moore]

P.S, I'm only taking the pi*s. It doesn't matter what you have in it as long as your happy.

[Steve Prince]

If a 383 is only returning 15mpg there is something wrong with it as I can do 16mpg cruising at 80 to 85mph in my 440 powered car.

We did 5000 miles to Istanbul in Chris Millers 440 powered car and regularly did 16mpg (we averaged 15mpg), so 15mpg out of a tiddler of a 383 engine is a bit poor as it seems to be using more fuel to develop less BHP and torque.

US gallon capacity, octane and fuel quality are all lower than the UK.