Help deciding on 400 or 440 powered

[streetmachine]

Just wondering if there is much performance difference in say a '77 400 4bbl Newport 4 door vs '77 440 New Yorker Brougham 4 door. I know it may seem like a silly question but, just seeing what car might perform better in stock or near stock form? I know these aren't hot rods by any means but, I am curious to what car might have better passing power and move off the line better. The other question is gas mileage as silly that sounds. I am wondering what the difference is; if any in mpg? I am figuring about 13-16 mpg which what Ram 1500 gets on the highway.

 

[tallhair]

If in identical tune and condition i'd go for the 440 .. RB have way more torque than the B engines in comparable build levels i.e. HP vs HP and non-HP vs non-HP

Esp true for low compression engines I'd say

 

[Mr C]

As mentioned a stock 400 is less torquey but will give better mileage. I used to get 18mpg hwy with my 400 in a 78 Newport. Still had Lean Burn too on that car (we're talking 1988 timeframe).

My 74 Imperial 4dr with the standard 440 and 2.76 Sure Grip gears has effortless passing power and gets 16mpg hwy routinely.

My 74 Imperial 2 Dr again stock 440 but with 3.23 Sure Grip is far peppier off the line, feels less effortless in hwy passing and gets @ 14 mpg hwy.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

A 400 lean burn with the stock TQ should be able to get 18 mpg fairly easy with dual exhaust.

 

[78Brougham]

Well, as strange as it seems, my 78 NYB came from the factory with a 360! It was imported from California. When I popped the hood I almost keeled over! I was looking forward to seeing the usual 440 or at least a 400 but it had a 360! It turned out that the car was in such good condition it really didn't matter. It is, what it is,and actually very rare from what I've seen. The 360 has more than enough power to get it down the road. These cars, just like a girl with a little extra baggage, are built for pleasure, not for speed! To me your splitting hairs, when it comes to 440 vs. 400, or 360 in my case... if you're looking for high performance, a Formal is not the place to be, and shouldn't even figure into the equation. Granted, there were a lot of high performance C-bodies in the early 70's that were really awesome. The 300's, the Sport Fury etc, but at the end of their era it was all about luxury.
So to me, if the car is in great shape, who cares what engine is in it. Just enjoy it for what it is!

 

[streetmachine]

Well, as strange as it seems, my 78 NYB came from the factory with a 360! It was imported from California. When I popped the hood I almost keeled over! I was looking forward to seeing the usual 440 or at least a 400 but it had a 360! It turned out that the car was in such good condition it really didn't matter. It is, what it is,and actually very rare from what I've seen. The 360 has more than enough power to get it down the road. These cars, just like a girl with a little extra baggage, are built for pleasure, not for speed! To me your splitting hairs, when it comes to 440 vs. 400, or 360 in my case... if you're looking for high performance, a Formal is not the place to be, and shouldn't even figure into the equation. Granted, there were a lot of high performance C-bodies in the early 70's that were really awesome. The 300's, the Sport Fury etc, but at the end of their era it was all about luxury.
So to me, if the car is in great shape, who cares what engine is in it. Just enjoy it for what it is!

I'll agree to disagree here lol. I'm just more concerned with moving off the line and being able to pass. I know the 440 would be king ideally but, on paper the specs aren't that far apart. The 400 formal I drove seemed alright but, I haven't drove a 440 one. But, the thing to consider is weight. I'm not sure how much difference there is in weight between say a New Yorker Brougham vs Newport Custom.

 

[78Brougham]

A 400 lean burn with the stock TQ should be able to get 18 mpg fairly easy with dual exhaust.

My 76 T&C has a 400 in it with the lean burn and TQ, I can barely muster 12 mpg out of it. Oh and it's only got 28k on it. Could be where I live though too, I rarely get on a highway with it. And lots of mountains up here in northern PA.
Of course if I was concerned about gas mileage I wouldn't even own one of these behemoths! It all averages out over the course of a year. My fleet won't be back on the road till spring now. So now I run the Honda that gets 27mpg. And the mini on nice days it gets 36.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

No that would be interstate and not steep hills either, SM is in Indiana I think, so I was just shooting high so to speak. The lean burn is not a bad system but its true ability is compromised by emission requirements. I just meant the TQ and not the ecu on the air cleaner, mileage would definitely increase with a regular electronic dist. and ecu and the dist tuning.

 

[78Brougham]

No that would be interstate and not steep hills either, SM is in Indiana I think, so I was just shooting high so to speak. The lean burn is not a bad system but its true ability is compromised by emission requirements. I just meant the TQ and not the ecu on the air cleaner, mileage would definitely increase with a regular electronic dist. and ecu and the dist tuning.

Agreed!

 

[streetmachine]

Yes, Indiana is pretty flat. Driving down to KY is flat going downhill most of the way.

 

[1978 NYB]

Well, as strange as it seems, my 78 NYB came from the factory with a 360! It was imported from California. When I popped the hood I almost keeled over! I was looking forward to seeing the usual 440 or at least a 400 but it had a 360! It turned out that the car was in such good condition it really didn't matter. It is, what it is,and actually very rare from what I've seen. The 360 has more than enough power to get it down the road. These cars, just like a girl with a little extra baggage, are built for pleasure, not for speed! To me your splitting hairs, when it comes to 440 vs. 400, or 360 in my case... if you're looking for high performance, a Formal is not the place to be, and shouldn't even figure into the equation. Granted, there were a lot of high performance C-bodies in the early 70's that were really awesome. The 300's, the Sport Fury etc, but at the end of their era it was all about luxury.
So to me, if the car is in great shape, who cares what engine is in it. Just enjoy it for what it is!

New 1978 NYB's and Newport's in California only came with 360's.....440 was optional (but very, very rare in California cars).....no 400's in California in 1978.

 

[1978 NYB]

Another thing.....no 400's had an air pump. The bracket is there but no air pump. If there was a reason for no air pump and I knew the answer....I just can't remember the reason. Sorry.

Another note....every Mopar small block and big block engine and including the Slant 6 had an air pump in 1978....again the 400 was the only engine without one.

 

[commando1]

Bob. You amaze me....

Posted via Topify on Android

 

[Mr C]

Another thing.....no 400's had an air pump. The bracket is there but no air pump. If there was a reason for no air pump and I knew the answer....I just can't remember the reason. Sorry.

Another note....every Mopar small block and big block engine and including the Slant 6 had an air pump in 1978....again the 400 was the only engine without one.

Well it's hard to broad brush what every engine had since Chrysler corp had to make engines in different configurations to suit differing emissions standards.

Canadian emissions spec engines from Chrysler corp did not have air pumps until 1988 (With the exception of the EFI 80's Imperials that did have them). prior to that they had other items (most notably the metal tube with the one way air valve that went from the exhaust manifold to the air cleaner.). There were also special rules that started in 77 regarding what was dubbed "high altitude areas above 4000' elevation" areas (I'm assuming Colorado?) where the 360 was standard equipment and the 400 was not available.

As well truck engines had different rules too.

 

[1978 NYB]

I'm baffled by how many different emission diagram configurations that are in the FSM's for each engine back then and for Chrysler to achieve consistent emissions for those configurations.

 

[1978 NYB]

Well it's hard to broad brush what every engine had since Chrysler corp had to make engines in different configurations to suit differing emissions standards.

Canadian emissions spec engines from Chrysler corp did not have air pumps until 1988 (With the exception of the EFI 80's Imperials that did have them). prior to that they had other items (most notably the metal tube with the one way air valve that went from the exhaust manifold to the air cleaner.). There were also special rules that started in 77 regarding what was dubbed "high altitude areas above 4000' elevation" areas (I'm assuming Colorado?) where the 360 was standard equipment and the 400 was not available.

As well truck engines had different rules too.

Both of my 1978 400's have that tube. I believe it was standard on all 400 engines in 1978 at least. I'm not 100% sure on previous years but I suspect that if had a catalytic converter it probably had the air tube to the air cleaner. There is also a block off plate and gasket part numbers in the 1978 parts catalog for the port on the right side exhaust manifold for the tube going to the air filter for the 400's or for whatever emission package that Chrysler built that was exempt from having all of that stuff....possibly Canadian cars, fire or police, or government vehicles.

 

[1978 NYB]

Well it's hard to broad brush what every engine had since Chrysler corp had to make engines in different configurations to suit differing emissions standards.

Canadian emissions spec engines from Chrysler corp did not have air pumps until 1988 (With the exception of the EFI 80's Imperials that did have them). prior to that they had other items (most notably the metal tube with the one way air valve that went from the exhaust manifold to the air cleaner.). There were also special rules that started in 77 regarding what was dubbed "high altitude areas above 4000' elevation" areas (I'm assuming Colorado?) where the 360 was standard equipment and the 400 was not available.

As well truck engines had different rules too.

You're 100% right about the high altitude engine restrictions...I forgot about that.

 

[Mr C]

Both of my 1978 400's have that tube. I believe it was standard on all 400 engines in 1978 at least. I'm not 100% sure on previous years but I suspect that if had a catalytic converter it probably had the air tube to the air cleaner. There is also a block off plate and gasket part numbers in the 1978 parts catalog for the port on the right side exhaust manifold for the tube going to the air filter for the 400's or for whatever emission package that Chrysler built that was exempt from having all of that stuff....possibly Canadian cars, fire or police, or government vehicles.

No Canadian emission spec B or RB engines had those tubes or air pumps...here LB got the job done meeting the standard. I wonder if Canadian cars were a little faster than US spec cars because of the lack of paraphernalia under the hood?

My friend had an all stock California emissions 75 Imperial Crown Coupe and he couldn't keep up to my all stock Canadian spec 74 Imperial 4 dr hardtop.

But we all know California emissions cars were severely handicapped in the power deprtment.

 

[1978 NYB]

I didn't know that the Canadian 440's didn't have that tube.

Have you ever heard a B or RB engine run with that tube disconnected at the air cleaner? It's loud as hell. The air cleaner does a hell of a job to silence it.

 

[1978 NYB]

Eventually, I'm going to do a performance rebuild on 400 in the NYB. I'm going to use the 1971 pistons and it'll raise the compression to almost 10:1. Add a .484 lift cam. I'm undecided about heads.

I want to get rid of that exhaust manifold with the tube, I'm wondering if the 76 or 77 exhaust manifold has that tube?