Could you order a 340 6 pack in a 70 Charger

[Chad L. Magee]

Well a slant 6 and a 318 in a Charger is a embarrassment (imo).

I'll take a slant 6 Charger any day...done right, they will attract more people at car shows than big block cars

Even better if the /6 Charger is sitting right next to a 426 hemi version of the same car.  It tends to catch people off guard to see polar opposites in power together....

[MaximRecoil]

3650 for an RT?  That seems kind of light, last time I had one on the scale it was over 3800 with a half tank of fuel.

10 gallons of gas = 60 pounds, which by itself would bring the weight to 3710. Then there is a matter of options and/or changes made by the owner. 3,650 pounds is for a base R/T. For example, a 426 Hemi is significantly heavier than a 440, and a Dana 60 is heavier than an 8-3/4". Power brakes are heavier than manual brakes, power steering is heavier than manual steering, air conditioning is heavier than no air conditioning, power windows are heavier than manual windows, a floor shifter and console is [probably] heavier than a buddy seat and column shifter, and so on. As for things that the owner changes, many people run bigger wheels and tires than the 14" wheels and F70x14 tires (about the same size as P215/70R14) that a base R/T came with stock (also, steel-belted radial tires are heavier than equivalent size bias-ply tires).

First, it was a 1972 Charger....NOT a 72 340. Actually, it was a 68 340.
2nd..I don't deal with curb weights, or shipping/title weights...I deal in real world. You put a 250 lb. Dude and his 140 lb. Ole lady in it, tank o gas, chairs, coolers, tools, etc. THAT'S where many reps are made/broken. The damn thing is 4000 lbs in the REAL world.

No, it isn't. A base R/T weighs ~3650 "in the real world". Last I checked, "a 250 lb. Dude and his 140 lb. Ole lady" was not on the option list for a base R/T, nor were a "tank o gas, chairs, coolers, tools, etc." Also, those things increase the weight of any car by the same amount, obviously.

You wanna attempt to argue weights on titles and such, or about a 275 hp small block vs a 375 hp big block, your arguement is invalid.100 hp is ROUGHLY worth a second, or 1000 lbs.
that 340 ain't gonna help in weight savings that much.

Yeah, except, I never compared "a 275 hp small block to a 375 hp big block", I compared the 340-4v (275 HP) to the 383-2v (290 HP); the 383-2v was very common in Chargers, and was no slouch. The 340 is also significantly lighter than the 383, which helps compensate for the difference in power, and also improves handling and gas mileage. Its higher compression allows it to use fuel more efficiently (i.e., more power per given quantity of fuel).

And the 340-6v, which is the subject of this thread, is 290 HP, and still significantly lighter than a 383. The 383-2v does have an extra 50 ft-lbs of torque over the 340-4v and 340-6v, but its extra ~100 pounds of weight would go toward negating that advantage.

Thank you. In his attempt at another run at the "fact" department, he's misinterpreted again.

I haven't "misinterpreted" anything. Your failure to read properly is the problem, along with your misguided notion that just because you know how to add ~350 pounds of weight to a car means that that car inherently weighs ~350 pounds more than it actually does.

[Ghoste]

Mine didnt have any options, it was a 440 4 speed car.  My 67 was a 383 car automatic and it was over 3800.  These are real world numbers taken at a scale, so I'm just curious Maxim, have you weighed your car or just picked up your fact elsewhere?

[Troy]

Mine didnt have any options, it was a 440 4 speed car.  My 67 was a 383 car automatic and it was over 3800.  These are real world numbers taken at a scale, so I'm just curious Maxim, have you weighed your car or just picked up your fact elsewhere?

Yeah, I'd love to see one of these 3,600 pound R/Ts in the real world! Must be "dry" with tiny factory bias ply tires. A small block base model with no A/C and the smaller (non-HD) brakes and suspension could probably come close. For what it's worth, the door tag on my 70 Challenger with 340 and A/C says it weighs a bit over 3,200 pounds. I find that hilarious and, one day, I'll stick it on a real scale.

While a 340 was a great performer in a light weight car (and I love 340s!), I don't think there was enough torque to make an intermediate sized car feel "spry". Even a 383 had the torque to get a big car rolling with decent acceleration. I had a 318 in my first 68 and it was plenty for a 16 year old. Today it probably wouldn't make me feel the same. With a modern small block stroker you can come a lot closer to big block numbers but that wasn't something you could get with a warranty back in the day.

Troy

[Cooter]

3650 for an RT?  That seems kind of light, last time I had one on the scale it was over 3800 with a half tank of fuel.

10 gallons of gas = 60 pounds, which by itself would bring the weight to 3710. Then there is a matter of options and/or changes made by the owner. 3,650 pounds is for a base R/T. For example, a 426 Hemi is significantly heavier than a 440, and a Dana 60 is heavier than an 8-3/4". Power brakes are heavier than manual brakes, power steering is heavier than manual steering, air conditioning is heavier than no air conditioning, power windows are heavier than manual windows, a floor shifter and console is [probably] heavier than a buddy seat and column shifter, and so on. As for things that the owner changes, many people run bigger wheels and tires than the 14" wheels and F70x14 tires (about the same size as P215/70R14) that a base R/T came with stock (also, steel-belted radial tires are heavier than equivalent size bias-ply tires).

First, it was a 1972 Charger....NOT a 72 340. Actually, it was a 68 340.
2nd..I don't deal with curb weights, or shipping/title weights...I deal in real world. You put a 250 lb. Dude and his 140 lb. Ole lady in it, tank o gas, chairs, coolers, tools, etc. THAT'S where many reps are made/broken. The damn thing is 4000 lbs in the REAL world.

No, it isn't. A base R/T weighs ~3650 "in the real world". Last I checked, "a 250 lb. Dude and his 140 lb. Ole lady" was not on the option list for a base R/T, nor were a "tank o gas, chairs, coolers, tools, etc." Also, those things increase the weight of any car by the same amount, obviously.

You wanna attempt to argue weights on titles and such, or about a 275 hp small block vs a 375 hp big block, your arguement is invalid.100 hp is ROUGHLY worth a second, or 1000 lbs.
that 340 ain't gonna help in weight savings that much.

Yeah, except, I never compared "a 275 hp small block to a 375 hp big block", I compared the 340-4v (275 HP) to the 383-2v (290 HP); the 383-2v was very common in Chargers, and was no slouch. The 340 is also significantly lighter than the 383, which helps compensate for the difference in power, and also improves handling and gas mileage. Its higher compression allows it to use fuel more efficiently (i.e., more power per given quantity of fuel).

And the 340-6v, which is the subject of this thread, is 290 HP, and still significantly lighter than a 383. The 383-2v does have an extra 50 ft-lbs of torque over the 340-4v and 340-6v, but its extra ~100 pounds of weight would go toward negating that advantage.

Thank you. In his attempt at another run at the "fact" department, he's misinterpreted again.

I haven't "misinterpreted" anything. Your failure to read properly is the problem, along with your misguided notion that just because you know how to add ~350 pounds of weight to a car means that that car inherently weighs ~350 pounds more than it actually does.

Sooner or later, you'll see the light until then, your still incorrect.
wise man once told me wallowing in the mud with a pig seems ok, until you realize the pig likes it.
I can only assume you actually think the compression/HP numbers given by the factory are correct too.

[A383Wing]

obviously Max can't read what the original question was in this thread

[MaximRecoil]

Mine didnt have any options, it was a 440 4 speed car.

440, 4-speed means it had a Dana 60, which is heavier than the 8 3/4" that came with automatics. So it had manual steering and manual brakes?  

My 67 was a 383 car automatic and it was over 3800.  These are real world numbers taken at a scale, so I'm just curious Maxim, have you weighed your car or just picked up your fact elsewhere?

Factory shipping weights, base models, no fuel (link).

My mechanic friend routinely takes scrap metal to metal recycling places, and is always ranting and/or raving about the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the scales. Sometimes it works in his favor, and other times it doesn't. On the other hand, I believe that Chrysler knows what their own cars weigh.

Sooner or later, you'll see the light until then, your still incorrect.

You've established no such thing.

I can only assume you actually think the compression/HP numbers given by the factory are correct too.

So says the guy who quoted factory HP figures in his previous post:

"You wanna attempt to argue weights on titles and such, or about a 275 hp small block vs a 375 hp big block, your arguement is invalid.100 hp is ROUGHLY worth a second, or 1000 lbs."

Those of course are the factory HP figures for the 340-4v and the 440-4v. And yes, I think the factory compression numbers are ~correct; do you have any evidence to the contrary? The HP numbers are close enough for government work, especially for relative comparisons. For example, in this Mopar Muscle article, a stock 1969 440 Magnum made 357.8 HP @ 4900 RPM, within ~17 horsepower of the factory rating. Considering they were all built by humans within given tolerances (which means a different example of the same engine might make a little more power), that's not too shabby. Simply swapping to a different carburetor and swapping the stock exhaust manifolds for headers brought it to 391 HP @ 4900 rpm.

obviously Max can't read what the original question was in this thread

The original question was already answered in the first reply to this thread, and in my first reply on this thread, I tacitly answered it as well. In other words, your post is a non sequitur, and following your own "logic", "obviously you can't read what the original question was in this thread".

[Ghoste]

Yes manual steering and manual brakes and as a matter of fact, when I was drag racing it, it happened to have an 8.75 in it.  Listen, you can nit pick it all you want but the simple fact is I have weighed several B-body Mopars at a variety of scales and not one, NOT A SINGLE ONE was ever close to 3600 lbs.  Your mechanic friend can rave about scale accuracy and you can deny all you like but the simple truth here is that you haven't actually weighed one have you?

[Ghoste]

And I don't run my cars with a full tank of fuel.  Five gallons max because believe it or not, the whole reason I weigh the damned things is because I'd like them to be as light as possible.  I'm sure even you are aware that five gallons of fuel can't weigh over 200lbs.

[Ghoste]

And what the hell makes you think a shipping weight is determined without fuel in it?  How the hell do you think they drive them off the end of the line and out to the holding yard, then onto the delivery truck and off at the dealer?  Tinkerbell's magic fairy dust?

[MaximRecoil]

Yes manual steering and manual brakes and as a matter of fact, when I was drag racing it, it happened to have an 8.75 in it.  Listen, you can nit pick it all you want but the simple fact is I have weighed several B-body Mopars at a variety of scales and not one, NOT A SINGLE ONE was ever close to 3600 lbs.  Your mechanic friend can rave about scale accuracy and you can deny all you like but the simple truth here is that you haven't actually weighed one have you?

I'll take a published authoritative source (Chrysler) over anecdotes any day.

And I don't run my cars with a full tank of fuel.  Five gallons max because believe it or not, the whole reason I weigh the damned things is because I'd like them to be as light as possible.  I'm sure even you are aware that five gallons of fuel can't weigh over 200lbs.

You said earlier that you had half a tank, which is about 10 gallons, so now your story has changed, as anecdotes often do.

And what the hell makes you think a shipping weight is determined without fuel in it?  How the hell do you think they drive them off the end of the line and out to the holding yard, then onto the delivery truck and off at the dealer?  Tinkerbell's magic fairy dust?

What makes me think a shipping weight is determined without fuel in it? I'm not the one that said it; I only quoted it, which you would already know had you actually clicked on the link.

Also, why did you reply to one post with 3 separate posts?

[polywideblock]

another thread off topic and heading down the gurgler 

[A383Wing]

 

[ws23rt]

another thread off topic and heading down the gurgler  

I agree ---We can be easily led into this downward spiral but only if we play.

Symantics and speculative details are the trap and if we want to play the effort is not worth the bragging rites.

Some need to be correct all the time but more importantly all that are reading must understand this. If they don't and question anything their is no rational end.

[bill440rt]

No. You could not order a 340-6 pack in a '70 Charger. 

[ACUDANUT]

Nuked.

Another useless post from you.  (getting you back)  

[Cooter]

And what the hell makes you think a shipping weight is determined without fuel in it?  How the hell do you think they drive them off the end of the line and out to the holding yard, then onto the delivery truck and off at the dealer?  Tinkerbell's magic fairy dust?

Forget him Ghoste. There's debating, then there's this guy and his quoting from the Internet and not the real world. He always has to have the last word as if posting some fact from Chrysler is 'law', when we all know if it's on the internet, it must be true, and there's no way, I mean, NO WAY he could be wrong. There's no talking to these types. Hard headed and arrogant.

[Ghoste]

I know Cooter but in all of the years of participating in a variety of internet forums, Maximrecoil is truly a singular form of jackass.  He makes a post about a kid arguing stupidly with him?  Wow, pot meet kettle.
Anecdotal?  Unpublished?  What is his buddies rant about scale accuracy?  An anecdote.  The scale tickets are printed so that makes them published.  Chryslers shipping weights on these cars are all over the map, they have printed numbers from 3300 to 4200 lbs fercrisake.  My changing fuel tank?  I didn't say the 10 gallons was a race prepped car, I said I had one on a scale with a half tank of fuel and that I like to run my cars at the track with no more than 5 in there (that's partly to keep weight down and partly to keep weight consistent but he wouldn't know about that).  I've also weighed them nearly empty and pretty much full.  I've weighed them with me in it and without.
The worst part is, he allegedly has a 69 Charger and he could take it to a scale and weigh it himself but I somehow think he lacks the balls to find out the truth, he'd much rather bring one of his pointless arguments here.

[MaximRecoil]

Forget him Ghoste. There's debating, then there's this guy and his quoting from the Internet and not the real world. He always has to have the last word as if posting some fact from Chrysler is 'law', when we all know if it's on the internet, it must be true, and there's no way, I mean, NO WAY he could be wrong. There's no talking to these types. Hard headed and arrogant.

The internet wasn't around when Chrysler published the weights of their late '60s cars, so no, the source is not "the internet", the source is Chrysler:

Code Select Expand

Factory Specifications & Production

Model Number  Body/Style Number  Body Type & Seating  Factory Price  Shipping Weight  Total Production

Base Line - Six-Cyl

XP      29         2 Dr Hardtop       $3,020     3,103 lbs      Note 1

Base Line - V-8

XP      29         2 Dr Hardtop       $3,126     3,256 lbs      Note 1

Charger R/T

XS      29         2 Dr Hardtop       $3,592     3,646 lbs      20,057

What else do you disregard from Chrysler? Did they get fastener torque specs. wrong too? What about the firing orders? Are those nonsense as well? I mean, why should anyone expect that Chrysler would know the first thing about the cars that they manufactured? Clearly someone on the internet with an anecdote trumps Chrysler, right? Or, let's go with your 4,000 lbs. figure, you know, the one you arrived at by throwing a couple of fat people in the car, along with some junk?

I would like to hear your theory as to why you believe Chrysler made up these numbers out of whole cloth. What was their motive, for example, for publishing what you believe to be false shipping weights for their cars?

I know Cooter but in all of the years of participating in a variety of internet forums, Maximrecoil is truly a singular form of jackass.  He makes a post about a kid arguing stupidly with him?  Wow, pot meet kettle.

This statement from you proves that you don't know the first thing about arguing, given that you think your anecdote trumps published information from an authoritative source (you know, the company that actually built the car), and you think the person presenting published information from an authoritative source is the one "arguing stupidly". In the post you are referring to, the kid claimed that the RTE limiter is a "rev limiter", which is in fact "arguing stupidly", because it is not only false, but it is outlandishly false, and shows that he hasn't the first clue about the subject he is arguing about.

Anecdotal?  Unpublished?  What is his buddies rant about scale accuracy?  An anecdote.  The scale tickets are printed so that makes them published.

All of these posts in this thread are published as well; they are published online as soon as you click the "post" button. However, I guess you missed the key word: authoritative. And yes, it was an anecdote, but it is also not what I'm using to support my argument (plus it is common knowledge that scales vary in accuracy); Chrysler's published shipping weights are what support my argument.

Chryslers shipping weights on these cars are all over the map, they have printed numbers from 3300 to 4200 lbs fercrisake.

Show me where Chrysler published a 3,300 or 4,200 lbs. shipping weight for a base '69 Charger R/T, or any shipping weight other than 3,646 lbs., for that matter.

The worst part is, he allegedly has a 69 Charger and he could take it to a scale and weigh it himself but I somehow think he lacks the balls to find out the truth, he'd much rather bring one of his pointless arguments here.

My car is full of steel patches covered with Bondo. It has much larger tires than stock (235/70R15 all around), and it is far from an R/T (it is a 318 car with a 904 transmission and an 8¼" rearend). In other words, its weight is meaningless to this argument, even if I did know of a set of scales with enough guaranteed accuracy to trump Chrysler. A scale that is only off by e.g., plus/minus 4% could show the weight of a 3,650 pound car as anywhere from ~3,500 to ~3,800 pounds.

[bill440rt]

Oh.

[Cooter]

See what I mean Ghoste. This clown actually buys this sh*t. Which only serves to show his real world experience is limited at best. Maybe he should stick to figures and calculations.

I know for a fact you've run across a few cars that the holy God Chrysler said was/wasn't built, yet, in the real world, they were. And I'M the one who's never wrong? LMFAO!!!

Some people.

[Ghoste]

Show me where Chrysler actually weighed these cars.  Do you know for a fact that they did, can you prove it?  I dispute the published weight you choose to argue is correct from Chrysler because I have actually weighed several of them at several different scales so my evidence is not irrelevant nor is it anecdotal.  The fact that you weren't there when I did it makes it no less accurate than what Chrysler published since you were not there when they established these figures.  Unless of course, you can provide evidence to the contrary.  Can you?  I didn't think so.  There are many many published road tests of these vehicles which further back my claim that they weighed more than 3600 lbs. so my argument is valid.  Furthermore, this is not a debate to prove who knows more about the proper form of argument, it is about the weight of 2nd generation Chargers.  A weight which you put forth as being 3600 lbs.  I (and others) disputed your claim stating that you may have seen this in print but when you actually put these cars on a scale, they weigh more.  You have nothing but a single sourced which you have chosen to declare as the only correct figure in spite of many road tests, many actual weighings from myself and others, and other sources within Chrysler which demonstrate my case not yours.  You challenge me on these other Chrysler sources and I respond thusly, they are widely available and commonly known so I put it to you to research, not to challenge me.  You are the one who insists he is the only one with knowledge so plunge into the Chrysler archives and prove me wrong.  I would love to hear your theory as to why you think the number you have sele3cted is gospel.  My theory as to why your number could be wrong is manifold.  They could have published lower weights to beat shipping costs, they could be estimates, it could be to class the car within a certain taxation group, it could have been to place the car within a certain race class, it could have been from an outside source that Chrysler hired to publish such information.  Again, provide me with your evidence that Chrysler actually weighed a single one of these vehicles.  Your argument against weighing one yourself to actually see is a wonderful exercise in deflection but it is a red herring and it has everything to do with this argument.  It matters not in the sense that if your car weighs more or less you would provide some other irrelevant excuse but its a coin toss.  Your car could weigh exactly 3646 lbs and you could erect cyber statues to your genius in such a case.  But if you are afraid to be wrong I understand.  You could lie about it and I wouldn't know would I?  So I call coward on his faith in his own stance in this case.  Your attempt to deflect about firing order and torque specs is also a laughable non sequitur quite unrelated to this question.  At which point did I indicate no faith in anything Chrysler published?  I am debating a single point or I would have introduced things such as Chryslers published 425 hp rating on the Race Hemi or Chryslers published statement that they made no 72 Six Pack cars.  I could have went far enough into your delfection style to talk about parents claim that there was an Easter Bunny and a Santa Claus (I have yet to see actual evidence that there isn't).  the point is that an intelligent person will often be able to discern the difference between accurate and inaccurate information and your attempt to take it somewhere else makes your entire argument irrelevant and thereby a tacit admission of your incorrect position.  Your entire debate to this point is therefore declared irrelevant and meaningless.
For someone who would take screen caps of DOH episodes and trace the graphics out in order to perfectly dulpicate GL flags, font and so on I have to say I am truly truly shocked at your inability to do research beyond a single published figure which you recite in this case.  Do some research, weigh your car, read some road tests.  The truth in this matter is so widely available that it is even a little sad that you need to be told this.

[MaximRecoil]

See what I mean Ghoste. This clown actually buys this sh*t. Which only serves to show his real world experience is limited at best. Maybe he should stick to figures and calculations.

I know for a fact you've run across a few cars that the holy God Chrysler said was/wasn't built, yet, in the real world, they were. And I'M the one who's never wrong? LMFAO!!!

Some people.

*Ching*
*Ching*

By the way, simple fellow, Ghoste's claim is about 200 lbs. lighter than your "4,000 lbs." claim, which you laughably tried to justify by throwing people and crap into the mix. With that "logic", any sub-4,000 lb. car can weigh 4,000 lbs., or more.

Show me where Chrysler actually weighed these cars.  Do you know for a fact that they did, can you prove it?

And you have officially descended into absurdity.

I dispute the published weight you choose to argue is correct from Chrysler because I have actually weighed several of them at several different scales so my evidence is not irrelevant nor is it anecdotal.

Yes, it is anecdotal, by definition. The funny thing is, you're arguing over a difference of what, about 100 pounds? You said you had half a tank of gas and it weighed "over 3800 lbs."; of course you didn't say exactly what it weighed; vagueness being a common feature of anecdotes and all. Exactly half a tank of gas weighs 57 pounds, so if the car started out at 3,646 lbs., it would weigh 3,703 lbs. So yours weighed "over 3,800". I'll go ahead and fill in one of the many blanks in your anecdote and say it weighed 3,801 lbs. according to that particular scale, which is 98 lbs. more than what it would be expected to weigh based on Chrysler's published shipping weight, which is a 2.65% difference. To put that into perspective, if a 150 lb. person's bathroom scale were off by 2.65%, it would show that he weighed just under 154 lbs.

Also, did you run the stock, base 14" wheels with F70 bias ply tires for drag racing? Did the car have any body work? The weight of welds and plastic body filler can be significant if there's a lot of it. Was the car repainted? If so, how much primer and paint did they use on it, and did they completely remove all of the original paint down to the bare steel? Paint/primer weighs about 10 pounds per gallon. Did it have subframe connectors? How about a rear sway bar?

If you were to establish that your car was in fact a base R/T when you weighed it, and establish the accuracy of the scales at the time, then you'd have something more than an anecdote. Until then, published information from an authoritative source trumps any anecdote, by default.

[A383Wing]

all this knowledge from a kid that does not know how to get a speedometer needle off

[Indygenerallee]