My '71 Newport

71newport

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
98
Reaction score
251
Location
N. California
I joined several years ago and have been lurking around ever since. Thought it might be a good time to share pics of my Newport (given that I've been sitting around the house a lot lately!). I bought it in 1997 from a kid for $850. The choke wasn't working and he was frustrated with it. The paint was faded so I had a buddy re-spray it in the original Winchester Gray Metallic. That's really all I've done to it. It had about 85K miles when I bought it.
P8250002.JPG
P8250017.JPG

As Chrysler C-bodies go it's somewhat of a stripper. Power disc brakes and AC. That's about it. I love the fact that it doesn't have a vinyl top to break up the beautiful lines. I also find some charm in it's starkness. When I first took another Mopar buddy for a ride he said it felt like a Plymouth inside.
P8250018.JPG

I've had several Mopars and I'm not sure I've ever had one that was smoother down the road. It has an unglamorous 383 2bbl, but I've never felt like it was underpowered.

P8250016.JPG


P8250008.JPG
P8250003.JPG

I'm a teacher in the S.F. Bay Area. On Spring break now, so time to do a project I've been dreading and putting off for a few years: need to replace the Heater/AC control switch. I really hate working under the dash. Wish me luck!
 
I joined several years ago and have been lurking around ever since. Thought it might be a good time to share pics of my Newport (given that I've been sitting around the house a lot lately!). I bought it in 1997 from a kid for $850. The choke wasn't working and he was frustrated with it. The paint was faded so I had a buddy re-spray it in the original Winchester Gray Metallic. That's really all I've done to it. It had about 85K miles when I bought it.
View attachment 364913View attachment 364914
As Chrysler C-bodies go it's somewhat of a stripper. Power disc brakes and AC. That's about it. I love the fact that it doesn't have a vinyl top to break up the beautiful lines. I also find some charm in it's starkness. When I first took another Mopar buddy for a ride he said it felt like a Plymouth inside.
View attachment 364915
I've had several Mopars and I'm not sure I've ever had one that was smoother down the road. It has an unglamorous 383 2bbl, but I've never felt like it was underpowered.

View attachment 364916

View attachment 364917 View attachment 364918
I'm a teacher in the S.F. Bay Area. On Spring break now, so time to do a project I've been dreading and putting off for a few years: need to replace the Heater/AC control switch. I really hate working under the dash. Wish me luck!


Luck!
The 383-2 always felt underpowered to me ...

Beautiful car.
 
Thanks. My other Mopar is a '71 Charger R/T 440 that I bought in 1982 when I was 16. When I need to snap my head back I drive that one. Nice having different cars for different moods!
 
Nice car. Looks like you have standard air so the switch replacement is not that bad of a job. Usually easier to pull the screws from the cluster and move it out to get a hand in there to remove the switch. Tryning to get at the switch from under the dash is all but impossible.

Dave
 
Thanks. My other Mopar is a '71 Charger R/T 440 that I bought in 1982 when I was 16. When I need to snap my head back I drive that one. Nice having different cars for different moods!

I agree and understand the sentiment but that 383-2 was a disappointment to me. I always felt the 360 was stronger.

BUT you have a beautiful original car, I hope it stays that way ...:thumbsup:
 
That is a beautiful car and you got a hell of a deal. Congrats and thanks for keeping it original.
 
Beautiful car! Plus that it was "a deal" when you bought it.

The 360 has a longer stroke, so off-idle response might feel a bit better than the short-stroke 383. BUT the '71 360s were the first year for the Holley 2210, which had some drivability issues, from what my service station guy related, back then. So the 383 with the Carter BBD 1.5" 2bbl carb would be a much better deal.

Designed for the open road, rather than the drag strip or "Stop Light Grand Prix".

Congrats!
CBODY67
 
Nice car. Looks like you have standard air so the switch replacement is not that bad of a job. Usually easier to pull the screws from the cluster and move it out to get a hand in there to remove the switch. Tryning to get at the switch from under the dash is all but impossible.

Dave

I don't think I can agree with your assessment Davea, as getting the cluster loose is not so easy at all on these models.

Just remove the plastic air vent lever plate at the bottom of the steering column and get the a/c duct out of the way behind it, take out the ash tray on the left side, take out the radio from underneath which includes a single bracket at the bottom of the dash plus removing the knobs to the radio (just pull outward) and then the small, thin nuts behind them and then the radio drops out the back. Then you have access to the push buttom switch from underneath. Not that bad at all IMO.
 
Last edited:
I agree and understand the sentiment but that 383-2 was a disappointment to me. I always felt the 360 was stronger.

BUT you have a beautiful original car, I hope it stays that way ...:thumbsup:

After driving a number of 360s and 383s over the years, I feel the choice of torque converter is the biggest determinant of how well the performance of a 383-2 feels - all 360s in C bodies come with a high stall converter while only the 383-4 bbls came with high stall converters in C bodies, while the 383-2 bbl cars came with the low stall converter. C bodies with the high stall converters and 360s or 383s feel pretty strong, particularly around town/off the line because they generate good torque at the higher RPMs with the looser converter. The 383-2 bbls felt sluggish by comparison because of the low stall converter. To me, the 360s and 383s with the high stall converters felt pretty evenly matched around town especially and actually fun to drive.
 
After driving a number of 360s and 383s over the years, I feel the choice of torque converter is the biggest determinant of how well the performance of a 383-2 feels - all 360s in C bodies come with a high stall converter while only the 383-4 bbls came with high stall converters in C bodies, while the 383-2 bbl cars came with the low stall converter. C bodies with the high stall converters and 360s or 383s feel pretty strong, particularly around town/off the line because they generate good torque at the higher RPMs with the looser converter. The 383-2 bbls felt sluggish by comparison because of the low stall converter. To me, the 360s and 383s with the high stall converters felt pretty evenly matched around town especially and actually fun to drive.

And I praise the 383-4. I guess the converter is the reason why I'm impressed with both.
The 383-2 would hit passing gear while merging, screaming and not getting anywhere fast.
 
After driving a number of 360s and 383s over the years, I feel the choice of torque converter is the biggest determinant of how well the performance of a 383-2 feels - all 360s in C bodies come with a high stall converter while only the 383-4 bbls came with high stall converters in C bodies, while the 383-2 bbl cars came with the low stall converter. C bodies with the high stall converters and 360s or 383s feel pretty strong, particularly around town/off the line because they generate good torque at the higher RPMs with the looser converter. The 383-2 bbls felt sluggish by comparison because of the low stall converter. To me, the 360s and 383s with the high stall converters felt pretty evenly matched around town especially and actually fun to drive.

Would you noticed if you only change the 11.3/4 converter for a 10.3/4 in a orig 383/2bbl C-body...?
 
I believe there are "low stall" and "high stall" 10.75" converters. The main way to tell is the refill capacity when changing the atf, by observation, without taking the cover off and looking/measuring. My research revealed that a reman 383/335 (Road Runner) 383 converter and the Slant Six 727 were the same part number. The more power in front of the converter, the higher the stall speed. Just as the stock torque converter for a Chevy V-6 was used behind the 350 4bbls in the later-70s Z/28 cars . . . for a higher stall speed.

One of the hallmarks of the Chrysler TorqueFlite was always the tightness of the off-idle response, which relates to the torque converter stall speed. But it also could relate to "the creep at idle, with the foot brake off", too. This was addressed in about the '65 model year, but CAR LIFE tested it on a Belvedere 383-4 road test, as the car went through the 1/4 drag strip traps at about 8mph. One reason my relatives bought a new '63 Polara 318 was that their friends had told them that when they went into the mountains in New Mexico (for the horse races and such), that with a Chrysler TorqueFlite, you put it in "2" and didn't need to use the brakes nearly as much, due to the "positive engine braking" from the TorqueFlite (and Chrysler's torque converter design). So, that tighter torque converter on the Chryslers also has its benefits.

On our then-newer '66 Newport 383 2bbl, I didn't feel it was sluggish off-line at all. It would lay rubber as long as there was "pump shot" in the Stromberg WWC 2bbl. That was with the standard 2.76 rear axle ratio. Loved that it would cruise all day long at 75-90mph and get over 15mpg doing it. And right at 20mpg at the later-mandated 55mph speed limits.

By comparison, my '70 Monaco 383 N, with the smaller converter, didn't seem to have nearly as tight of lower rpm throttle response until the car got to 62mph, then each "rch" of throttle movement resulted in the speedometer needle moving. Lower than that, it felt a little soggy. That is with the standard 3.23 rear axle ratio.

When the compression ratio dropped in '72, then off-idle responsiveness dropped a bit, by observation. I tried to make our '72 Newport 400 operate as good as the '66 did, but just quite didn't get there. But it was still pretty good, to me.

But then, too, you have to remember that the cars are over 4000lbs with "highway gears", for the 2bbls. Laying rubber wasn't really in their operational dynamics, but great highway cruising WAS. Personally, I'd like that tradeoff myself, more than getting from one red light to another sooner, with a longer wait time at the light before it turns green again.

The way I got my cars to operate better and "more fun for them" was to put a tad bit more preload into the kickdown linkage, from the OEM stock adjustment. NOT enough to cause any problems, but just enough to raise the part-throttle shift points so that when the upshifts were made, the engine rpm was a bit higher for less converter slippage. On the '66, I learned to do manual 3-2 downshifts at part throttle that helped greatly on freeway merges. Mimicking the later OEM part-throttle downshift situation.

Chrysler, by observation, set their linkage adjustments for early upshifts. On the '66, adding two more turns of pre-load did the trick, from the OEM adjustment. At min throttle accel, it would get into high gear at about 28mph. In "fast traffic", didn't need to manually shift just to stay up with traffic, as a result. On the '70 Monaco with 3.23/H78-15, I got it to 2-3 at 25mph. It worked better, too. The '72 Newport 400 2bbl (2.76/H78-15) would upshift at about 25mph, with any acceleration past that "being on the converter", rather than in 2nd gear with a more locked-up converter, generating better throttle response and feel, with less converter slippage (on the earlier non-clutch-lockup converters).

On my '80 Newport, with the adjustments being under the car, I used a thin, black wire tie at the rear of the slot in the kickdown linkage at the carb. Just enough to do the trick. Just looped it over the bottom of the slot, at the rear of the slot.

These tweaks won't affect WOT upshift speeds, which are governor-controlled, just the part-throttle upshifts. And they are TWEAKS, just as putting in an additional 2.5 degrees BTDC into the base timing adjustment would be. Tweaks that help the car operate better and enjoy itself MORE, that have not caused any operational issues at all.

Now that I know about how the wire tie addition helped, no need to make the physical linkage adjustment changes, just add the wire tie to the bottom of the rear of the slot, where the throttle pin will contact it. Easy to undo, too, if desired. But I never went back.

Key thing is to know your vehicular equipment and LEARN what makes it work the best. You'll know when it feels happier doing what it does. When you get to that point, everybody smiles.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
Would you noticed if you only change the 11.3/4 converter for a 10.3/4 in a orig 383/2bbl C-body...?

Yes, I believe the same feel would occur around town at least with the same high stall converter used in the 383-4 bbl cars from the factory without the 4 bbl, as in the case of most 360s too. On the highway, the 4 bbl would feel better and less constrained in airflow in either case.

One difference is also that the 383-4 bbl cars use the 3.23 rear axle ratio instead of the 2.76 on the 383-2 bbl. cars, but I don't think that buys all that much in feel since the 360-2 bbl cars generally come with 2.76s and still feel very good. The purpose of the higher stall converter on the 383-4 bbl cars is to get the engine RPMs up into a higher range on launch where the pulling torque of the 383s starts to wake up compared to the lower rev ranges. 360s already have pretty good torque down low because of their relatively long stroke, but still are aided with the higher stall converter.

The obvious penalty of a high stall converter is fuel consumption, but since our vehicles are primarily for enjoyment, few are concerned about that unless you drive your vehicle quite a bit or fuel prices are very high where you live.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I believe the same feel would occur around town at least with the high stall converter without the 4 bbl, as in the case of most 360s too. On the highway, the 4 bbl would feel better and less constrained in airflow in either case.

The obvious penalty of a high stall converter is fuel consumption, but since our vehicles are primarily for enjoyment, few are concerned about that unless you drive your vehicle quite a bit or fuel prices are very high where you live.

I would change the carb and intake/exhaust if i would go for the H S Converter but yes ; if i look at the few miles i,m driving the monaco...…….
Lucky that i have other fun cars…..:)
 
Back
Top