commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Was the cop 400 swapped into the car?
I don't think it was available for civilian cars.
400 vs 440 in a 76-78 New Yorker - noticeable difference?
- Thread starter WissaMan
- Start date
I don't think it was available for civilian cars.
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
Terrain and stops and starts, as mentioned stop and starts kill mileage. Takes energy to accelerate a mass back to a speed.
Just Carbs
Senior Member
The 400 is fine for steady cruising at 75 on the highway and stop and go traffic around town.
The 440 has much better part throttle response.
The difference is very noticeable getting up to speed for merging at 60 to 80 and for passing on two lane roads at 45 to 60 and for climbing through winding mountain roads at 40 to 60. The 400 doesn't like doing any of that. The 440 generally does it in 3rd gear part throttle no down shift.
Also, big difference in wide open throttle acceleration.
My 1976 is a 440. No lean burn. Stock ignition. Carter replacement carb, it's ok. Dual exhaust, slight drone.
The 400s do run well, but with less of what the big cars need.
Get the 440.
The 440 has much better part throttle response.
The difference is very noticeable getting up to speed for merging at 60 to 80 and for passing on two lane roads at 45 to 60 and for climbing through winding mountain roads at 40 to 60. The 400 doesn't like doing any of that. The 440 generally does it in 3rd gear part throttle no down shift.
Also, big difference in wide open throttle acceleration.
My 1976 is a 440. No lean burn. Stock ignition. Carter replacement carb, it's ok. Dual exhaust, slight drone.
The 400s do run well, but with less of what the big cars need.
Get the 440.
6PKRTSE
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 452
- Reaction score
- 540
I have had (3) 440 and (5) 400 73-78 C Bodies and all (3) 440s car were definitely noticeably quicker that the 400 cars even though they were more loaded up with options which adds more weight. Although none of them are/were race car fast.
Last edited:
1975.Imperial
Member
Here's the horsepower/torque curves for a '77 NYB with either a 440 or 400 (courtesy of automobile-catalog.com). As seen here, the 440 would have more low end torque, but the 400 seems to catch up after around 3,000RPM.
The factory power specs are tuned for emissions compliance, with lazy timing, overly lean carburetors, and a variety of vacuum actuated emissions junk. You could actually get much better performance just by tuning them right and getting rid of the emissions stuff.
With these cars approaching 50 years old now, one other important thing to consider is the condition of the engine, a worn out 440 won't be able to keep up with a brand new 400.
My '75 Imperial has around 90,000 miles on it's 440 (emissions deleted & tuned decently) and although it's slow in a drag race, it's able to keep up with traffic around town, and even on the freeway. I just find that it needs about 50% throttle input to match any new car's 30%, but in a world where new cars rarely exceed 50% throttle input, I still have a high enough throttle ceiling to keep up
The factory power specs are tuned for emissions compliance, with lazy timing, overly lean carburetors, and a variety of vacuum actuated emissions junk. You could actually get much better performance just by tuning them right and getting rid of the emissions stuff.
With these cars approaching 50 years old now, one other important thing to consider is the condition of the engine, a worn out 440 won't be able to keep up with a brand new 400.
My '75 Imperial has around 90,000 miles on it's 440 (emissions deleted & tuned decently) and although it's slow in a drag race, it's able to keep up with traffic around town, and even on the freeway. I just find that it needs about 50% throttle input to match any new car's 30%, but in a world where new cars rarely exceed 50% throttle input, I still have a high enough throttle ceiling to keep up
PursuitSpecial
New Member
It's the original engine for the car, the vin is on it. It was originally an undercover police car, the fender tag says it has the A38 package with an E68 engine and it was a special order body in white. But it doesn't have roof light wiring and was painted the color it currently is from the factory which is why I'm assuming it was unmarked.
Thanks for the dyno plots, they are very insightful. Though it says they are approximations. I wonder how they come up with them?
Mort St. John
New Member
I had a 1977 with the 440 a few years ago and have a 1978 with the 400 now. I do not notice much difference. Let's face it, neither one had a whole lot of power, but both will happily glide down the freeway all day at slightly over the posted speeds. That keeps me happy.
vlodarty
Member
My 76 NYB St Regis 2 door has a 440 with factory TQ carb, before lean burn, 2.71 rear end, and has been with my wife and I for 40 years.
A friend had a 78 4 door with the 400 engine in it and you could feel the difference in torque of the 440, but still both were great cruisers, and passing cars on a 2 lane 2 way road was no big deal if the kick down to 2nd gear was set correctly.
Here is what she looks like, I did other minor mods, message me if you need more info on the mods.
Just wanted to post a little update here to this thread for reference. I now own a 77 New Yorker with 440. It's got some bolt-on upgrades (dual exhaust, AVS2 carb, Edelbrock intake), no emissions junk, and is tuned properly. And I have to say I am in no way disappointed with the power. It's a little sluggish off the line, but once it gets going it has plenty of power to get around. The transmission works very well too and upshifts/downshifts very appropriately.
sixpkrt
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,537
- Reaction score
- 7,610
I liked Bob's blue 78 New Yorker because of what he did to the engine.
I don't remember if Bob @1978NYB posted anything about the performance, but it's probably safe to say that car rolled with some high torque specs when needed.
I always wondered what ever happened to that one.
I don't remember if Bob @1978NYB posted anything about the performance, but it's probably safe to say that car rolled with some high torque specs when needed.
I always wondered what ever happened to that one.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
He gave it to a young man who Bob mentored and was with Bob up to his final moments.
RIP, Bob.
toyak
New Member
Some amazing gas mileage being noted here. I have had several 76-77 NY’s (granted mostly beaters) and never saw gas mileage above 12mpg. My current one (not a beater) managed a best 14.2 mpg with essentially all highway at 60-70mph. I then deleted the lean burn d/t drivability issues around town which fixed that issue but highway dropped to 12-13mpg.
I haven't driven my 77 a ton yet, but best I got was 13.4 mpg. I'd estimate that tankful was about 70% highway miles. That's with the AVS2 650cfm carb tuned very lean in the part-throttle/cruise area (verified ~16:1 AFRs), no emissions junk, all new ignition components, no AC running. My Toyota highlander v6 running the same roads would be at about 21mpg. On all highway, the highlander will get about 24, so by extrapolation maybe I'd get close to 15mpg with the NYer all highway. But I think it would be a miracle for it to give more than that...
Well, "miracles" seemed to exist for the then-new 1974 Chryslers. That was back in the days of the 55mph national speed limit. With those concerns, Fenner Tubbs C-P in Lubbock, TX did a mileage check of their own. They took one each of the Formal C-bodies from their demo fleet. A '74 NY 440, a '74 Newport 400 2bbl, and a Fury 360 2bbl. Being on the southern part of town, on the main highway south out of town, plus across the street from a Shell station, they took those three cars over there and filled them up. Then headed south with the factory cruises set at 55mph once they gotr to that speed limit area. Drove south to the edge of the Caprock, turned around, and drove the same route back to the Shell station. Cars were filled up again for a mileage check.
They printed some pages of teh results for each car, notorized, and put them on a table on the showroom floor. The results were higher than I suspected. Basically a 100 mile trip.
'74 NY 440 20.66mpg '74 Newport 400 2bbl 20.33 mpg '74 "big" Fury 360-2bbl 19.66mpg Being West Texas, NO hills, just rises and such, which means the fuel mixture was always in the "cruise" orientation.
As a point of reference, I was driving our '66 Newport 383 2bbl, which at that time had the Holley 2210 (1970 version, OEM replacement from Holley). I had gotten a bit nerdy on the mpg numbers, documenting my trips home by how many miles on the highway, how many through towns and city streets, throttle amount (in per cent), etc., etc., etc. For the highway segments, me and my K+E slide rule concluded the highway segments were right at 20mpg. Phillips 66 FliteFuel, which was 95.5 pump octane back then. 15* BTDC with stock advance curve. B ias-belted tires inflated to 30f/28rr, cold. 2.76 and H78x14 tires.
In normal driving back then, average mpg was usually in the low 15s, except when the vac advance stopped working and the way I knew it wasn't working was that the normal mpg went to the 12mpg range. Same when the airhorn on the old Stromberg WWC3 warped and the power valve mixture was operative all the time, city and highway.
Of course, the mpg numbers mentioned above were for "real" gasoline. When ethanol was minimally used for an octane enhancer rather than a oxygenate. So the above figures can be reduced by 6% for ethanol'd fuels.
When I upgraded my '67 Newport CE23 to a 9801 TQuad and an Edelbrock Torker 383, from the OEM AFB the car came with, the mpg did NOT increase enough to worry about, if at all. In spite of teh more efficient primaries on the TQ and the more equal A/F mixture distribution o fhe Torker intake. Never saw anything over 15mpg on trips. 3.23 and P225/75R-14 radials on it. Kind soured my on the alleged efficiency of the triple-boost primaries on the TQ! AND that it was allegedly "matched" to that intake on an existing OEM 4bbl motor. The car ran well and I could afford the fuel, so I just dealt with it. Adding the MP electronic ignition made it start a bit easier, but no mpg improvement either.
Just my experiences. I got tired of messing with it. Whatever works for y'all.
Fenner Tubbs used those mileage statements to sell lots of NYs that model year. If an Oldsmobile of Buick customer came in "laughed" at their results, they got offered the keys to a NY for the weekend. The vast majority bought a NY on Monday.
The cotton crop had been good that year, so money was available for vehicle purchases. None of the test drivers complained that their mpg did not match what the statements claimed. So the mpg was definitely better than what their existing cars did and maybe the better access to the rear seat (as they might take another couple with them to go out dancing on the weekends) played a role, too
CBODY67
They printed some pages of teh results for each car, notorized, and put them on a table on the showroom floor. The results were higher than I suspected. Basically a 100 mile trip.
'74 NY 440 20.66mpg '74 Newport 400 2bbl 20.33 mpg '74 "big" Fury 360-2bbl 19.66mpg Being West Texas, NO hills, just rises and such, which means the fuel mixture was always in the "cruise" orientation.
As a point of reference, I was driving our '66 Newport 383 2bbl, which at that time had the Holley 2210 (1970 version, OEM replacement from Holley). I had gotten a bit nerdy on the mpg numbers, documenting my trips home by how many miles on the highway, how many through towns and city streets, throttle amount (in per cent), etc., etc., etc. For the highway segments, me and my K+E slide rule concluded the highway segments were right at 20mpg. Phillips 66 FliteFuel, which was 95.5 pump octane back then. 15* BTDC with stock advance curve. B ias-belted tires inflated to 30f/28rr, cold. 2.76 and H78x14 tires.
In normal driving back then, average mpg was usually in the low 15s, except when the vac advance stopped working and the way I knew it wasn't working was that the normal mpg went to the 12mpg range. Same when the airhorn on the old Stromberg WWC3 warped and the power valve mixture was operative all the time, city and highway.
Of course, the mpg numbers mentioned above were for "real" gasoline. When ethanol was minimally used for an octane enhancer rather than a oxygenate. So the above figures can be reduced by 6% for ethanol'd fuels.
When I upgraded my '67 Newport CE23 to a 9801 TQuad and an Edelbrock Torker 383, from the OEM AFB the car came with, the mpg did NOT increase enough to worry about, if at all. In spite of teh more efficient primaries on the TQ and the more equal A/F mixture distribution o fhe Torker intake. Never saw anything over 15mpg on trips. 3.23 and P225/75R-14 radials on it. Kind soured my on the alleged efficiency of the triple-boost primaries on the TQ! AND that it was allegedly "matched" to that intake on an existing OEM 4bbl motor. The car ran well and I could afford the fuel, so I just dealt with it. Adding the MP electronic ignition made it start a bit easier, but no mpg improvement either.
Just my experiences. I got tired of messing with it. Whatever works for y'all.
Fenner Tubbs used those mileage statements to sell lots of NYs that model year. If an Oldsmobile of Buick customer came in "laughed" at their results, they got offered the keys to a NY for the weekend. The vast majority bought a NY on Monday.
The cotton crop had been good that year, so money was available for vehicle purchases. None of the test drivers complained that their mpg did not match what the statements claimed. So the mpg was definitely better than what their existing cars did and maybe the better access to the rear seat (as they might take another couple with them to go out dancing on the weekends) played a role, too
CBODY67
Last edited:
I don't think that's a miracle -- I think the flat roads have a lot to do with it. I live in hilly PA so even on the highway if you want to maintain speed you're putting the pedal down frequently. Again, referencing my Highlander that has the MPG readout: if I fill up (that resets the average mpg reading) and just drive on the nearly perfectly flat and straight highway between towns, it can get into the high 20's pretty easily ... until I start hitting traffic lights. Then it quickly drops down to the 21-22 range.
We started going to Mopar Nats in about 1988. That was about the time that Chrysler had the requisite "Traveler" trip computer. Later versions in the LH Chryslers got the full trip computer treatment, including "Instant MPG". I did lots of research/driving in that particular mode on various Chrysler and GM cars. I found some interesting differences in engine performance, too.
Those "tests" observed that with the more current units, it is easy to tell if a road surface is really as flat as it looks like or if it has a slight incline or decline. Just by watching the Inst Mpg readout. PLUS how using the cruise control can really save gas as on the downhill sections, at zero throttle, the Inst Mpg will go to 99mph over about 45mph, abt 33 or 66 at lower starting speeds. I also discovered the difference between 6mpg acceleration and 3mpg acceleration, in city traffic one night AND how accelerating briskly gets to cruising speed quicker for better average mpg.
So, keep the tires aired up, the front end alignment toe-in minimized, radial tires, and learn to "coast-up" to a stop sign rather than "driving up to it". A few little changes that will increase average mpg a bit. Whether carb or efi.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
Those "tests" observed that with the more current units, it is easy to tell if a road surface is really as flat as it looks like or if it has a slight incline or decline. Just by watching the Inst Mpg readout. PLUS how using the cruise control can really save gas as on the downhill sections, at zero throttle, the Inst Mpg will go to 99mph over about 45mph, abt 33 or 66 at lower starting speeds. I also discovered the difference between 6mpg acceleration and 3mpg acceleration, in city traffic one night AND how accelerating briskly gets to cruising speed quicker for better average mpg.
So, keep the tires aired up, the front end alignment toe-in minimized, radial tires, and learn to "coast-up" to a stop sign rather than "driving up to it". A few little changes that will increase average mpg a bit. Whether carb or efi.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
One thing fuel injected cars can do that carbs can't is fuel cut on decel. So above a certain RPM at 0 throttle, the injectors just cut off so no fuel usage. With a carb that can't happen, nor do I think you'd want it to. Reason being after a long coast down a hill with no fuel, the entire intake would be dry and the first stab at the throttle would probably result in a bad hesitation or stall even.
I also concur that accelerating too slowly seems to result in worse mileage than moderate acceleration. And I coast to lights all the time (unless I'm trying to make a stale yellow
) That's saves on brake pads too! Even coasting down to 5mph instead of a dead stop makes a noticable difference in fuel consumption. It's satisfying to coast up to a traffic light and time it so it changes to green before you have to touch the brake at all. Yes, as you say, pretty nerdy lol
I also concur that accelerating too slowly seems to result in worse mileage than moderate acceleration. And I coast to lights all the time (unless I'm trying to make a stale yellow
) That's saves on brake pads too! Even coasting down to 5mph instead of a dead stop makes a noticable difference in fuel consumption. It's satisfying to coast up to a traffic light and time it so it changes to green before you have to touch the brake at all. Yes, as you say, pretty nerdy lolI always figured the fuel went back to "idle" on a coast-down. Hence the higher numbers from higher speeds. On the off ramps in Indy, the LHS I rented would finally get to 99mpg by the time I got to the access road. Later systems do it much faster.
I also found that in a 2mph construction zone freeway traffic, the trip computer liked 1-2mph better than being stopped every so often. That little bit of speed kept zeros out of the time/computational mix, even if the speed was just barely turning rather than being stopped.
I also found that in a 2mph construction zone freeway traffic, the trip computer liked 1-2mph better than being stopped every so often. That little bit of speed kept zeros out of the time/computational mix, even if the speed was just barely turning rather than being stopped.
Similar threads
