Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!shelby
From: shelby@rtech.ARPA (Shelby Thornton)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Chrysler 440 superior to 427 Chevy?!
Message-ID: <221@rtech.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 20:37:25 EST
Article-I.D.: rtech.221
Posted: Fri Mar  8 20:37:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 07:19:14 EST
References: <282@oblio.UUCP>
Organization: Relational Technology, Berkeley CA
Lines: 70

> If the Chrysler engines are so great, why did you buy a rat motor?

It was cheap horsepower for a boat.

> First of all, they DON'T produce the same horsepower with less compression.

Now that I think about it, you're probably right, the RAT probably does
have more horsepower.

> They DON"T produce more torque, and most of all, torque is not the
> dominating factor in street racing.

When I say torque, I mean usable torque.  Rat motors don,t know
what that is.  I've watched my 440's destroy any and all 427s and
454s that they've run across.  I know I don't have the horsepower
of some of these motors, but my mid-range torque destroyed them.

> Now I'm not saying Chrysler engines aren't good, in fact you might
> even be correct about small blocks, although I doubt it.  The rat
> motor is far superior to the 440 series "B" motors.  Look at the
> basic design of the two engines.  Canted valves on the rat vs
> in line on the Mopar.  Rat ports are much bigger, and the open
> combustion chambers are clearly better.  A 440 producing more
> ponies than an open chambered L-88?  Dream on, friend!

Did you know that the 440 was an open-chamber motor? Probably not.

Did you know that the smaller port produced a higher port velocity
to increase low and mid-range torque?  Porbably not.

Did you know that Chevy was a 3rd class citizen in racing in the
sixities (behind Chrysler and Ford)?  Probably not.

A factory "B" motor in the sixties was probably the best motor to 
hit the streets, the Chevies couldn't come close.  But now Cheverolet
has continued racing development for the past fifteen years, many
years after Chrysler stopped.  I hope todays factory Chevy equipment
is superior, it has a fifteen year technology advantage.

> as the hemi is concerned, now that's another matter.  To me, hemi's
> are the bad guys and rats "ride the white horse", so to speak, but
> I have to admit that they are a superior design.  However, in all my
> years of street racing in various parts of the country when REAL
> cars ruled the streets (60's, early 70's), I never heard of a good
> running hemi on the street.  Invariably, the 10 fastest cars would
> all be rat powered Camaros, Corvettes, GTOs, Novas, etc.  Then came
> your 428 Cobra jets, hemis, 440, small block Chevys.  If the Chrysler
> motors were so much better, how to you explain the overwhelming majority
> of super hot cars were Chevy powered?

It's funny to notice what dominates Super Stock racing, what was that you
said? Ah yes, the Chrysler hemi.

It would be nice if you noticed the factory cames that came in Chryslers.
Hemi's had .471 @ 284 degree duration (no cam).  The "B"'s came with .425
@ less duration (I forget the exact number).  Even Cheverolet books
admit that the Chrysler motors were under cammed from the factory and
that the factory horsepower ratings were ridiculously low!

Today, Chevy dominates all racing but Super Stock and Fuel classes, but they
should.  While no one else has been developing race parts, Chevy has been
going full blast.  I have alot of respect for the NEW Chevy parts, but
my "B" Chryslers still rule the streets.

						Shelby Thornton
						Relational Technology


P.S.	In defense of FORD, the 429 BOSS was probably the second best motor
	ever produced, but then it is a HEMI design.