Both the T and U code 440 had Forged cranks and were internally balanced in 70-71.
Question for the experts: 1970 440 vs 1971 440
- Thread starter Bossssssss
- Start date
Both the T and U code 440 had Forged cranks and were internally balanced in 70-71.
As to the possibility of some 440 6bbl Fury police-spec vehicles being built, I'm not going to rule it out. In TX, the DPS almost exclusively used the 383HP Furys. Their one year stint with 440s (in '68) apparently didn't work well for them? Be that as it may. There CAN be ONE item regarding the 440 6llb in anything, though. FACTORY A/C. Where the base of the 6bbl air cleaner interfered with the back of the RV2 a/c compressor. Which would have required some selective "cleanancing" in order to clear the a/c compressor/lines. I have seen some cars with factory a/c and the 6bbl installation, but ALL had some sort of modifications to clear the RV2 compressor and lines.
IF it was factory-installed (6bbl and a/c), that would have meant a different part number for the air cleaner base. As Chrysler and others didn't advocate factory a/c on their most-HP engines, that would have meant that factory a/c was not available on the SFGT 440 6bbl?
Back to the police car 6bbl issue . . . considering how much Chrysler was involved with the police car market (local and state), I highly suspect that they would have (and did, in many cases) build what the bid specs stated. So long as the combination (engine/trans) were ALREADY available for installation, in other carlines, with a minimum of assembly line disruptions resulting. Not unlike the Chevy COPO "special orders". AND, of course, they could always build some vehicles to put out "for evaluation" by the police operatives, too! Which is why some of the 5bbl police cars COULD exist, but not have any documentation outside of the original build orders at the particular assembly plant involved (records that are purged every so often, then as now).
Possibly need to search the "Police and Taxi" section of the parts book for something hiding in there? As the factory rear sway bar for LAPD C-bodies.
On the other hand, who's to say that the 6bbl wasn't added "after-built", by the police car purchaser's own technicians, with Chrysler supplying the parts? Completely doable with a non a/c car. Or with the air cleaner base on an a/c car.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
IF it was factory-installed (6bbl and a/c), that would have meant a different part number for the air cleaner base. As Chrysler and others didn't advocate factory a/c on their most-HP engines, that would have meant that factory a/c was not available on the SFGT 440 6bbl?
Back to the police car 6bbl issue . . . considering how much Chrysler was involved with the police car market (local and state), I highly suspect that they would have (and did, in many cases) build what the bid specs stated. So long as the combination (engine/trans) were ALREADY available for installation, in other carlines, with a minimum of assembly line disruptions resulting. Not unlike the Chevy COPO "special orders". AND, of course, they could always build some vehicles to put out "for evaluation" by the police operatives, too! Which is why some of the 5bbl police cars COULD exist, but not have any documentation outside of the original build orders at the particular assembly plant involved (records that are purged every so often, then as now).
Possibly need to search the "Police and Taxi" section of the parts book for something hiding in there? As the factory rear sway bar for LAPD C-bodies.
On the other hand, who's to say that the 6bbl wasn't added "after-built", by the police car purchaser's own technicians, with Chrysler supplying the parts? Completely doable with a non a/c car. Or with the air cleaner base on an a/c car.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
In 1985 I ran 3 2s on a 440 under the hood of my 4 door 71 Polara. The hood would not close with a air cleaner assembly on it.
69CoronetRT
Senior Member
We all wish unicorns existed but unless there is proof.....well....then they are still unicorns.
there is NO logical reason for Mopar to put a high maintenance higher cost 6bbl set up in a vehicle that demanded reliability, cheaper price and low cost Operation and maintenance. Installation of a 6bbl in cop cars was not needed for marketing halo. The performance upgrade wasn’t worth it. There’s no upside for anyone to do so.
Even if multi carbs was thought necessary for cop car performance, you would have seen that application earlier in development in the 50’s/early 60’s when multi carbs were more prevalent across all makes and not the 70’s when everyone else had moved on from multi carbs.
Starting in 1970, the high performance 440 engines got heavier rods, the T-Code engines retained the lighter rods. That is why the Magnum, HP and TNT got the egg shaped harmonic balancer and weighted torque convertor. The part number for the T-Code 440 rod was 2406770. for the U-Code 2951906. The 70-71 parts list is attached below. (Click on Mail0016 not the icon). For further reference, the Dampers are also different (pg 455 of 70-71 parts book) for T and U code as are the torque convertors. Pg563.
Dave
I'm just making the case THAT it was a possible deal, for other C-bodies to have a 440 6bbl under the hood, mainly police u units, from the factory. Easy to do, IF anybody really thought they needed one in a police unit.
Now, I also rather doubt that anybody that knew anything about the 440 6bbl, or the prior Ford 406cid V-8 from 1962 (which was a regular production option in T-birds, using 3 2bbl Holleys), and also knew how "finnicky" the factory Holleys could tend to be on Chrysler products, might well advise against multiple Holleys, when they probably had enough issues with just ONE Holley. Reason I mention that is that one friend in our Mopar club had a 440 6bbl Super Bee. If it even THOUGHT about spitting-back when starting, it'd blow the power valve in the center carb. Not fun. Wouldn't take too many of those in a municipal or state police garage for them to say "NO More of these!"
I understand that AZ had some "black cars" that were used to cover large numbers of miles as quickly as possible, back in the earlier '70s period. In that scenario, a 440 6bbl might have made sense. But considering that in 1969, a Polara 440/375 with 2.76 rear axle and L78-15 police-spec tires set the top speed record that stood until Chevy started putting the IROC-Z in a plainer wrapper for their police offerings. Right at 150mph! Other than the gear ratio and tire size, 1969 was the ONLY year the 440/375 in a C-body had the factory Street HEMI mufflers under the car (with matching C-body configuration tail pipes (according to my old Walker Exhaust catalog). So, in that respect that extra power from a 440 6bbl might have meant only another 5mph in top speed potential, I suspect. For most, not worth the effort and related issues, to be worth it.
BUT, my suspicion is that as easy as it was to put the 44- 6nn; om a civilian SFGT, it could have happened in a similar Plymouth or Dodge police car . . . providing the car was not factory air conditioned AND there was hood clearance for the air cleaner assy. IF Chrysler did built some 440 6bbl C-body police units "for evaluation by law enforcement", when that "tour of duty" was completed, the cars would have been spiffed up and sent to the Chrysler Dealer's auctions, for sale to whomever. Period.
To verify these allegedly non-existent 440 6bbl "for evaluation" units, the ONLY ways would not be normal sales literature, BUT letters to dealers to inquire if they had any police dept customers who might be interested in evaluating one of these units, PLUS the production records of the particular assembly plant in which the cars might have been built (which were probably purged as a normal business activity).
As for "non-existent vehicles" (according to the sales literature), I have one. It's a 1970 Dodge Monaco Brougham 4-dr hardtop. With an N-code 383 4bbl by the VIN, data plate, and from the factory. NO WHERE in the owners manual that came with the car, does it list the 383 4bbl as an option! Even in teh "Tune Up Specifications". Didn't exist according to the owners manual. Yet it's there, in all of its dual snorkle/HP exhaust manifold glory. But being it's in a C-body, it's the 383/330 motor, not the 383/335 motor. In the Polara/Monaco FSM, it does list the 383 "N" there, but not in the sales lit that I've seen. It was built in March, 1970, fwiw, although most of the sales literature items would have been configured/printed in about August, 1969. BTAIM
So, respectfully, in that pre-1974 era, I'm going to be of the orientation that IF it can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt that it didn't happen, it MIGHT have happened. IF it did happen, I also suspect it was the LAST 440 6bbl the particular police garage ever wanted to be involved with, ever. Whether it came from the assembly plant/conversion facility or was installed locally.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
69CoronetRT
Senior Member
"IF it can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt that it didn't happen...." It's not possible to prove a negative.
The A76 Brogham package was an optional dress up group. Why would there be any prohibitions against combining that option with an optional engine on qualifying cars? I can find no reason not to. The combination makes total sense.
330dTA
Senior Member
Now that is something I’ve always wondered... how come the gross hp ratings are so close to each other, whereas the net ratings are way apart? Like ’71: SAE gross difference is 35hp, but SAE net difference is 85hp...
Not that I value the gross ratings much. They always seemed like something made for bragging only. Back in the day, my late father’s colleague had a Mercedes 350SE with only 215DIN hp, and it would wipe the floor with my old man’s ’70 E85 NYer from the stoplights, everytime. Not to mention the winding back roads, where the only thing you could see were the Merc’s backlights vanishing into the night.
Similar threads
