Dr. Ebooger's comments make me wonder about the a/c bracket issue. I believe the Torker 383 I put on my '67 383 didn't need any, with the main brkt bolting to the front intake bolts. LA engines, my '80 Newport 360 has the Sanden-style factory compressor and needs the offset/twisted thermostat mounting to work with that combination.
From the 383RR motor forward, B/RB intakes seemed to change yearly, in the quest for more power. The earlier ones were decent for what they were, but they ALSO typically had log exhaust manifolds with 2" exit holes, which is probably one reason those earlier 413/426 wedge engines didn't make power as the 440s did. Free-up the exhaust and the intake will gain flow possibilities, which then leads to better intake casting designs.
I started to consider the self-learning EFIs when they came out, having watched the earlier products since the 1980s. It all looks so promising and can work well, BUT it's still mixing air with fuel (more precisely) at a greater investment. The TBI units are just electronic carburetors, to me. As long as we're using existing intake manifolds, the only real gains are in the precision of the metering and the fuel cut-off during "coast" periods of closed throttle. Throttle response will be tighter as as soon as the throttle moves, additional fuel is in the mix . . . rather than waiting a bit longer for air flow to move fuel from the float bowl to the venturis. But in a cruise condition, it's still getting fuel atomized in the throttle body and into an existing intake manifold. So, the $1500 investment will take a LONG time to recoup with fuel savings, the way I see it. Granted, quicker than when the kits were closer to $2K, but still "a while". Which is the reason I've put that off for a while, putting a Street Demon (with the phenolic float bowl) and an AVS2 in my carb stock for future use. Metering rod carbs always seemed to do better with fuel mixture curves than "fixed-jet" carbs, by observation.
I bought a new Holley 2bbl TBI kit for my '80 Newport 360. It has the BBD 2bbl on it (the ONLY year, that I know of) and needs something better. I bought the kit just before they tended to become obsolete, with Holley, for $500.00. Just needed the O2 kit for feedback control. It's still in the box (uses an inline fuel pump rather than a tank unit). As the engine still had the computer on it, I felt an EFI unit would be an upgrade and still keep with the "electronic engine control" orientation of that timeframe.
Thanks for the affirmation of the stock intakes, which I'd forgotten about years ago. I do remember that '68, '69, and '70 intakes seemed to be different each year, using the squarebore carbs they did. MUCH of the power increase the 440 brought us was MORE than just displacement-related. It was a little about displacement, but more about better cams, exhaust manifolds (bigger exit holes, even on the 350 horse motors!), and carbs that were a little larger, too. BUT none of this still was really radical . . . it just all worked together very well, the "
"Chrysler 'combination' engine" orientation that worked so well for them.
From the time I had put some 906 heads on my '67 Newport, I had the closed chamber heads to compare them too. Best I could tell, the ports were not that much different between the two, with the main issue being the open vs closed chamber. In a time when the open chamber heads were supposed to be better (other than the exh valve size). A few years later, David Vizzard comes up with the determination that closed chamber heads really work better than open chamber heads, performance-wise, for many reasons (read the book). If you angle-mill a B/RB open chamber head, you end up with a closed chamber head, by observation, although you have to mill the intake surface, too, so it all seals up nicely. AND, it tends to favor the normal Chevy small block chamber, for what it's worth.
So, before you dismiss the "factory cams" as "tiny" (and allegedly lacking, as Friberger tends to term them), actually look at the specs. All the way back to the 300F GT cam. All the way up to the "emissions, low compression" B/RB HO motors up to the '78 model year. To me, they are really better than many might suspect, with more lift and duration than the earlier RR/GTX cams, as Chrysler sought to increase the air flow THROUGH the motor to help compensate for the lower compression ratios needed for emission issues. Ford did the same thing with a 351HO in their optional motor in the Torino Elite ('74 model year).
I fully realize that the "tech" those cams were built with is definitely dated by now, BUT you can still use those cams to build pretty decent performance motors. Not really needing to upgrade unless the cam is worn, for example. You can also use the factory advertised specs to shop for newer-design cams, too. Seek out the "assymetrical lobe" cams with more "area under the lift curve", too. When I put one of those cams in a block and did the measurements, the intake valve was open a full 10 crankshaft degrees of duration, as the stock cam was at max lift for 1 degree of crank duration. Quick-open, longer time at max lift, slower closing can make a better way to do things without having to go to a roller profile.
Many times, it seems, we get into "Small Block Chevy Think" in looking at Chrysler engines and "what they need". This CAN be tricky, by observation, as Chrysler generally had better designs than Chevy ever did. Heads, intakes, exhaust manifolds, and cams. Back in the earlier days of our local Mopar club, many members believed in the Chrysler engineering approach and kept their stock combinations on/in their engines. Even the stock exhaust manifolds! They were well-finessed, but still stock. None of the internal porting things that Brezinski did on the Chevy circle track items!
End result was that our guys' cars with stock stuff on them would be competitive with what the Chevy guys had (but with headers, bigger carbs, etc.). We put down an "exhaust manifold, street tire" challenge to them. They probably snickered and went on . . . until they got beat . . . and retreated to race non-Mopars. Such fun!
When our guys might get together with some other Mopar clubs, when the "pairings" were done, they were surprised when the RB cars wanted to start with RB cars. Our guys said "No, you have to qualify by FIRST getting past that '70 Dart Swinger 340 over there. They looked surprised! But those were our rules. Stock Swinger 340, but well-finessed with Z-rated tires in the correct-dimensions as the original D70x14 stock tires. Optional 3.91 rear axle ratio, as I recall, but stock cam, stock intake, stock carb, stock exhaust. Surely, their 440 hot rods could easily handle that one. NOT! Sometimes, it was a "quick night". LOL Try that with a Chevy 350.
So, shop wisely!
CBODY67
