 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / September 200469 383 Ply Roadrunner Top Speed?
Whats the top speed of a 69 383 rr auto with 3:23 rear end? Hi A little shy of 140. Larry Larry opines: >Hi > >A little shy of 140. Maybe, . . . with a shiney, slick new aerodynamic body, a huge diet losing at least 500 lbs, a perfect tune-up, and a 7% downhill grade, and a steady, 25 mph tailwind. Having owned one, brand new, the Dodge Superbee version, I can attest that Larry's still full of it, and knows not, . . . of that which he opines. God Bless, Dan'L Fun to Read: http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id15.htm http://www.johnkerrytruth.com/ http://www.usvetdsp.com/main.shtml >Larry opines: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > http://www.johnkerrytruth.com/ > http://www.usvetdsp.com/main.shtml Well, it depends a bit what options the car had installed. The low numeric rear axle and wide ratio 4 speed combination WAS significantly faster than the standard setup, although it suffered a bit in accelleration. It was very easy to do 120MPH in third gear. How much shy of 140 in 4th is hard to say. >>Larry opines: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >accelleration. It was very easy to do 120MPH in third gear. How much >shy of 140 in 4th is hard to say. I had missed the first post, where automatic was specified - along with 323 gears. The 3 speed automatic with 323 gears was "significantly " slower. Mabee 120 on a real good day. >. It was very easy to do 120MPH in third gear. How much >shy of 140 in 4th is hard to say. I can see some personal experience here. Yes your right. The B body with a healthy 383 mag would easly run to 120 and even 125. Although it took some roadway to get it past 130. I can hear that 383 singing now. Going through several deep 5000+ rpm tones from 125 on it's way to something just shy of 140. Larry > >. It was very easy to do 120MPH in third gear. How much > >shy of 140 in 4th is hard to say. > > I can see some personal experience here. Yes your right. The B body with a > healthy 383 mag would easly run to 120 and even 125. Although it took some > roadway to get it past 130. Not likely. The air drag at those speeds is enormous and those old magnetic-slip speedos read a lot higher than true speed (like 10- 15 mph higher). A 383 installed in the car with the factory exhaust and air cleaner probably made around 250hp, SAE net- that's not a lot of oomph to push a 4000+ pound brick through the air. All the muscle cars had grossly inflated horsepower and top speed capabilities- the manufacturers did it to sell cars and the motor press went along with it to sell magazines- but those numbers just don't hold up on a dyno or on the track. Hell, a lot of newer econoboxes can run the kind of ET's that those pony cars used to post. -Carl >A 383 installed in the car with the factory exhaust and air cleaner >probably made around 250hp, SAE net- that's not a lot of oomph to push >a 4000+ pound brick through the air. Although some stripper RR's weight in at around 3250, many BB were at that 4000 lb level. And sure it was a brick but even a brick with a tail wind will do some speed. I think some people in Florida have actually seen this last week. So I still say a RR with 323 gears would do just shy of 140. If it be only 132 because of speedo errors so be it. Larry > Larry opines: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > God Bless, > Dan'L Or add a JATO and who knows.... :-) Richard http://www.the-clearing.org/Jato/rockit.htm > Fun to Read: http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id15.htm > http://www.johnkerrytruth.com/ > http://www.usvetdsp.com/main.shtml > Hi > > A little shy of 140. > > Larry In order to run 140 the motor would have to be turning 6100 rpm (figuring 5% converter slip). Quite a task in 1st gear let alone high gear. >> Hi >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >In order to run 140 the motor would have to be turning 6100 rpm (figuring 5% >converter slip). Quite a task in 1st gear let alone high gear. If you will notice my friend I said A LITTLE SHY OF 140. A good healthy 383 mag can easly do about 5800 rpm and hold it. That means that the motor will go very quickly to 125 and then pull over 130 slowly heading on it's way to 140. Yes personal young dumb experience. Ask any old cop who had a 383 mag 4door Bbody and yes they were made. The big CHP C bodies with 440's would do about the same. God you are an idot. Larry Larry > >> Hi > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mag can easly do about 5800 rpm and hold it. That means that the motor will go > very quickly to 125 and then pull over 130 slowly heading on it's way to 140. What a motor can turn in 1st gear and what it can turn in high gear are worlds apart considering parasitic drag increases exponentially. If you consider 120 mph a "little shy of 140" then you must have a penis a "little shy" of 12 inches. > Yes personal young dumb experience. Considering your propensity for bullshit I'll take your claim with a grain of salt. In my equally dumb youth my near new '68 GTX with a 440 would barely do 130 with 3.23 gears and I gave it a good run at sea level on a cool day. > Ask any old cop who had a 383 mag 4door Bbody and yes they were made. The big > CHP C bodies with 440's would do about the same. 440's yes, 383's no. A '69 CHP 440 Polara with 2.76 gears and 28" pursuit radials would barely touch 140. > God you are an idot. No, that's your domain. >In my equally dumb youth my near new '68 GTX with a 440 would >barely do 130 with 3.23 gears and I gave it a good run at sea level on a >cool day. I would believe that since GTX's usually ran closer to 4000 lbs then 3000 lbs, that 130 figure is correct. Where as, many stripper RR's bounced around the 3250 weight figure. So your GTX going 130 would be about the same as a stripper RR going 130 pulling a 700 lbs trailer. Larry > >In my equally dumb youth my near new '68 GTX with a 440 would > >barely do 130 with 3.23 gears and I gave it a good run at sea level on a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 3250 weight figure. So your GTX going 130 would be about the same as a > stripper RR going 130 pulling a 700 lbs trailer. The only way you'll find a 3250 lb. RR is if it has no motor. The difference between a 383 and a 440 is about 80 lbs. The RR and the GTX are based on the same Belvedere unibody, same trans, same rear end. Where's the 700+ lbs. difference you claim? >The only way you'll find a 3250 lb. RR is if it has no motor. The difference >between a 383 and a 440 is about 80 lbs. >The RR and the GTX are based on the same Belvedere unibody, same trans, same >rear end. Where's the 700+ lbs. difference you claim? Well so you say. Although I am gald you now see it my way. Years ago we had a big discussion about the weight difference between a 383 and 440. I said all you need to do is install an aluminum manifold and water pump assembly on that 440 and you have a 440 motor lighter then a 383. Now it looks like that is true which I knew all along. Larry > >The only way you'll find a 3250 lb. RR is if it has no motor. The difference > >between a 383 and a 440 is about 80 lbs. > >The RR and the GTX are based on the same Belvedere unibody, same trans, same > >rear end. Where's the 700+ lbs. difference you claim? > > > Well so you say. Although I am gald you now see it my way. See what your way? Where's the answer to my challenge to show the 700 lb. difference? >Years ago we had a > big discussion about the weight difference between a 383 and 440. I said all > you need to do is install an aluminum manifold and water pump assembly on that > 440 and you have a 440 motor lighter then a 383. Now it looks like that is > true which I knew all along. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. The weight of an iron intake and WP is about 38 and 20 respectively for a total of 58 lbs. The equivalents in aluminum are 13 and 8 for as total of 21. (Actual weights on a digital scale) If you remove your shoes you'll count a difference of 37 lb. Hardly enough to equal the weight let alone make the 440 lighter. >If you remove your shoes you'll count a difference of 37 lb. Hardly enough >to equal the weight let alone make the 440 lighter That other weigth is around you head or maybe even your behind since you such a fat a.s. I am not going to go back and forth about weight. If you think a fully loaded GTX is only 80 lbs heaver then a stripper Roadrunner go ahead. Although, most of the 700 lbs could be made up by your fat a.s alone. Larry > >If you remove your shoes you'll count a difference of 37 lb. Hardly enough > >to equal the weight let alone make the 440 lighter [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > GTX is only 80 lbs heaver then a stripper Roadrunner go ahead. Although, most > of the 700 lbs could be made up by your fat a.s alone. English as a second language? Never said the CAR weight difference was 80 lbs, engine weight was what I referred to. You just can't stand it when your off-the-wall bogus claims are countered with verifiable fact. In desperation you try to make it seem that I'm comparing a loaded GTX to a stripper RR. Next you'll claim I compared a /6 Dart to an Imperial. Don't you realize the entire thread is there for all to read? Hi So your facts are verifiable! Well give the manual and page number to any facts you might spout. Larry my 73 charger with a hipo 400 did a easy 145 but i never had the balls to try to bend the needle past the 160 speedo so i'm dam sure that r.runner would do it > Hi > > So your facts are verifiable! Well give the manual and page number to any > facts you might spout. > > Larry >> >The only way you'll find a 3250 lb. RR is if it has no motor. The >difference [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >If you remove your shoes you'll count a difference of 37 lb. Hardly enough >to equal the weight let alone make the 440 lighter. One thing you forget. A 440 has a larger bore than a 383, meaning less iron in the block (marginal, but there is a difference) It also has a longer stroke 0 meaning a difference in the crankshaft - likely heavier on the 440 - whick may more than make up for the difference. Then again, I think the 440 rods are shorter than the 383 rods - which would make them lighter. At any rate, there is more difference between a 383 and a 440 than just an aluminum manifold and water pump, and more diffewrence between a Runner and a GTX than just the engine. Actual factory shipping weights for440 gtx, 383 runner, 318 sport satellite, and 318 satelite (all hardtop coupe bodies) are 3465, 3450,3156, and 3151 lbs respectively. The GTX had heavier battery, heavier suspension, heavier duty tansmission, and different interior (not sure if the seats were heavier or lighter, but generally vinyl is heavier than cloth) > Whats the top speed of a 69 383 rr auto with 3:23 rear end? Depends on how many beers the owner has under his belt and how deep the BS is.<g> Realistically, probably around 120 mph in stock trim, but not for long- the cars weren't designed for continuous high-speed operation and something would fail rather quickly, likely with fatal results. -Carl >Realistically, probably around 120 mph in stock trim, but not for long- the cars weren't designed for continuous high-speed operation and something would fail rather quickly, likely with fatal results. ******** OK I'm putting my 2 cents in here: :-) First, I'm inclined to believe the "near 140" estimate. I had a '71 340 RR with the same rear, but straight shift & it would do the 140 with the air grabber up (only 135 with it down). The RR 340 was the "Cyote Duster" engine with 340ci, 340 HP, & 340 ft.lbs.torque - not sure what the specs were on the 383. Also, I could run my bird as long as I wanted to at WOT, & never had *anything* fail. The *only* problem I ever had with the car was a broken alt. bracket. I will also add that the GTX *was* heaver than the RR: it had a lot of extra "luxuries" as well as sound deadner, etc. The RR was a striped down machine. ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver" Giggle Cream - it makes dessert *funny*! >Realistically, probably around 120 mph in stock trim, but not for >long- the cars weren't designed for continuous high-speed operation >and something would fail rather quickly, likely with fatal results. > >-Carl Excellent observation. True for all cars. Those h.p. figures are to be taken with a large pinch of salt. They're probably good for about 75% of those values, continuously, AT THE CRANKSHAFT. That's not to say that auto engines couldn't be built economically for full-time operation at maximum advertised h.p., but that wouldn't pass the advertising department. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.