Chasing the RT?

[StockMan]

I find that there are many that seem to prefer the RT look and forget that other charger models/configurations are quite attractive to.  The RT chargers, typically with the tail stripe, exhaust tips, 440 and the magnums are a very nice car but it seems that all you see out there.  Some even clone their charger to get to the RT look and the 440!  (Ok, if you've got the 6 in there, go ahead, swap it out)

Amazingly enough, the 383 chargers were never to far behind the 440 cars and some were actually quicker.  And, on top of that, the 383 cars were much easier on fuel (not that it matters eh).

I have a burgundy metallic 383 4bbl charger, black vinyl top with A/C and some other nice options.  I've got the buddy seat with column shift and I like it.  I would like to see more pics of non RT charges restored back to their build sheet specs.

Thanks for looking.

[craigandlynda]

the first 68 charger i ever saw was in the dealers showroom when they came out...it was a beautiful, sleek orange charger, with a white interior and vinyl roof...and when i lifted the hood,  it had a stunning....slant six staring back at me....if i found a slant six 68 charger, i would not swap it out- i'd restore that bugger as exactingly as possible!

[4speed]

the first 68 charger i ever saw was in the dealers showroom when they came out...it was a beautiful, sleek orange charger, with a white interior and vinyl roof...and when i lifted the hood,  it had a stunning....slant six staring back at me....if i found a slant six 68 charger, i would not swap it out- i'd restore that bugger as exactingly as possible!

[StockMan]

I was wondering if I would catch any "hard-cores" with that comment!  The six's were a rare item in the charger, and a good reliable motor to.  Shocking to see one nested under one of these hoods.  I also like the look that some of the wheel cover options gave these cars.  Yes, the dog dish weren't a great looking number but still a unique look.  Again, it seems hard to find pics of nicely restored non-RT chargers.  Everyone seems to chase that RT look.  Its a great look as well, but, its all you see out there.  I just had mine painted (RR1) by a fellow that used to sell these cars, he drove most configurations and said that some of the 383 4bbl cars were quicker than the 440 cars.  I try and imagine what it must have been like to drive a brand new charger off the lot.  He said some of them would arrive and would need all kinds of adjustments, they were rough around the edges from factory.  He said there was a couple of hemi cars came through and they never ran very well and were a chore to tune. 

Anyway, nice to see that there are some that still appreciate the way these cars were built from the factory.  I kringe when I see silly mods like cut up hoods, chopped tops, headers (yuk), late model buckets, etc.  I made two mods on my car, converted from 10 to 11" drums all around and a magnum style cam, instead of the stock cam in the 383 4bbl.  Going back, I wouldn't have changed the cam.

Take care.

[69bronzeT5]

Amazingly enough, the 383 chargers were never to far behind the 440 cars and some were actually quicker.  And, on top of that, the 383 cars were much easier on fuel (not that it matters eh).

I have a burgundy metallic 383 4bbl charger, black vinyl top with A/C and some other nice options.  I've got the buddy seat with column shift and I like it.  I would like to see more pics of non RT charges restored back to their build sheet specs.

I have a '69 with a non original 383 in it, a buddy seat and a column shift. I'm making mine an R/T clone (keeping the 383, buddy seat and column shift).

[craigandlynda]

stockman, the slant six charger i saw was at Springfield Dodge in Springfield, Delaware County, Pennsylvania..and it was actually a very nice looking car, with the orange and white combo...even had whitewall tires and full wheel covers....

i wonder if there is any way of tracing that car, not having the serial number...don't even know if dealer is still there...

[terrible one]

I'm with you StockMan. While I don't so much agree with the difference in gas mileage between the 383 and 440, I still am right with you in most of your thoughts. I like the Charger for the looks, and an R/T emblem instead of an arrow doesn't do shit for me. The VIN doesn't either. And I can put whatever I please under the hood, and can stripe the car however I'd like too. Hell, even if I had some mean ass 440 under the hood instead of the 383, I still wouldn't go through the trouble of switching out the emblems.

[1969chargerrtse]

I think all models look nice as the car as a whole is beautifully designed, but...........  I also think the R/T is the sharpest looking of all and why it cost more.  I have no problem seeing lots of R/T's.  I find it hard to believe any stock 383's beat stock  440's.  Last time I heard the 440 was the bigger engine.

[CB]

my stock 69 Charger 383/4bbl will be delivered somewhere next week. They did a resto on it and kept it acurate.
All numbers matching.
CB

[charger_fan_4ever]

I think its all about the performance. Even now who buys a 6 cyl mustang? Maybe the person that is going to use it as an everyday car.

I'm sure the train of thought was the same back when these cars where new. Guys grew up peeking into the dealership window and always wanted to have that r/t to fullfill their dreams of laying rubber. Not the 318 that did a 1 wheel peel for 15 feet

I like all muscle cars(2nd generation r/t is my fav) But same goes with lets say the camaro. I wouldn't want a plain jane camaro. Step it up to a z/28 or SS is a different story.

Thats just my  on it.

[PocketThunder]

Stockman, how about guys that take their original 440 Chargers and put /6's in them?      

[charge69]

When I got back from Vietnam in 1968 (USMC 66-70) I was stationed at a small reserve base training reserves about 35 miles from Kansas City.  My first friend was Sgt. Garcia who was also from Texas (San Antonio) as I was from Houston. He had a brand new 1968 Charger with a 383-4spd that was orange w/ black interior! We drove the hell out of that car and I loved it.  I was driving a 1968 Triumph Bonneville motorcycle and a 1966 Mustang GT Convertible.  Always a MOPAR man, just got a deal I could not pass up on the Mustang at that time.

I told him I wanted the car if he ever decided to sell.  Well,   he volunteered to go back to Vietnam for a 3rd tour and about a month before he left he shows up in a brand new 1969 Charger R/T that is B5 blue with a white top and interior!  I said WTF man, where is the '68 ?  He sheepishly said they made him a deal on a trade-in he could not refuse (damn high-pressure salesmen) and it was traded in.  I was pissed for a month but he left shortly after that and said he was going to store his new R/T at his parents house in San Antonio while he was in Vietnam. I lost track of him a few months after he left and do not know the rest of the story about him!

I still remember and miss that old '68 non-R/T Charger but I will say, the '69 R/T was a LOT faster!  A love for Chargers was born back then that stays with me to this day and I feel so lucky to have a 1969 Charger.

[Kevin68N71]

A 383 can beat a 440.  It is all about the qualifiers, and what it means to "beat" something.

This is why those "musclecar shootouts" that you will see on magazine covers don't make alot of sense to me.  Many times the Buick wins out. (Not that I have anything against a Stage I Buick or a GSX, but nevermind). There are too many variables involved. 

Say you pit a 383 Charger against a 440 Charger:

You can have a 440 in a rotten state of tune.

You can have a 383 with a higher rear end and get the edge off the line.

What about a guy with a 4 speed in a 383 that knows how to use it and a guy with the 727 in the 440, but his throttle rod is not adjusted right?  How many times have I seen this? (gee, I thought my 440 would get up and go better than this!)

If you throw "stock" out the window, What about a 383 with Stage 4 heads, headers, windage tray, hotter cam, or totally built vs. a stock or mildly warmed over 440 car?

A tired 440 with burned valves or running on 7.5 cylinders?

I have both.  The 440 is definitely punchier--no surprise--but when I was driving my 383 daily it went like hell, and that was with the automatic.  Of course, back then, I always kept the 383 in a perfect state of tune.  I was more interested in how smooth I could get that thing then taking care of other things it needed!

It doesn't really matter.  These are both awesome engines that parts are cheap and plentiful for, you can do anything you want to them or keep them bone stock.  Either one will run A/C like it's nothing, either one will pull a trailer, either one will smoke your tires down the street, snap your head back, and growl like a monster. Either one can be built to race, or cruise for well over 100,000 miles.  My 383 had 150,000 miles on it before I rebuilt it, and that was only because I was being stupid and overrevved it and spun a main bearing.

And if anyone says your 383 "is no good", they simply are uninformed fools.

[firefighter3931]

And if anyone says your 383 "is no good", they simply are uninformed fools.

I have to agree with Kevin....the 383 can be made to run very strong. My very first car was a 68 Charger with a 383-4bbl, 727 and 3.23 suregrip. It had 56,000 miles on it when i purchased it from the original owner. I pulled the heads for a valvejob, installed a Crane Fireball cam, headers, Edelbrock Torker and Holley 780 vac secondary carb. Lets just say that it surprised a lot of "loudmouths" and plenty of folks got a look at those pretty tail lights. 


My most memorable late night adventure was aginst a friends fathers 67 GTO. He (the father) had been razzin me about the Pontiac being a far superior machine...ya right. Finally, i gave in one night and a little arm drop action happened at midnight on a deserted country road. I took him by a car length and a half. Pretty funny when you consider a 16 yr old kid handed a mid 40's dude his AZZ in a street race. Sure made for an interesting topic of discussion the next day at School. 


Built right a 383 will scream....bone stock they're not too shabby either. 



Ron


Ps. Here's a pic of the old girl....sure miss her. 

[Brock Samson]

  looks like a still from Christine.
I'm a R/T S.E. man myself I still remember sitting on the floor at the magazine stand pouring over the Magazines, when the new '69 pics came out. I made up my mind right then and there, that was the car for me. and I (eventually) built my car just as I envisioned in Nov. 1969.

Nothing wrong with 383, 318, or /6s either,.. I dunno about them hemis though, they just suck! 
I love 'em all.

[1970RT]

  I made two mods on my car, converted from 10 to 11" drums all around and a magnum style cam, instead of the stock cam in the 383 4bbl. 

Service manual indicates that the 383 4 bbl and 440 4bbl cams are the same.  383 2 bbl would have a different cam.

[69*F5*SE]

I have a 383 SE.  I have R/T envy 

[Chad L. Magee]

I think its all about the performance. Even now who buys a 6 cyl mustang? Maybe the person that is going to use it as an everyday car.

I'm sure the train of thought was the same back when these cars where new. Guys grew up peeking into the dealership window and always wanted to have that r/t to fullfill their dreams of laying rubber. Not the 318 that did a 1 wheel peel for 15 feet

I like all muscle cars(2nd generation r/t is my fav) But same goes with lets say the camaro. I wouldn't want a plain jane camaro. Step it up to a z/28 or SS is a different story.

Thats just my  on it.

Not everyone could afford an RT model (either the car or the high insurance it took to keep it on the road) back when they were new.  I have a feeling that the second gen look attracted many a kid into the showroom, but they just did not have the bank account to get even a 383 one.  Since alot of kids back then were into hot rodding during that time, a /6 Charger would more than likely get an engine swap to a larger displacement, which would make it a good sleeper (to both the insurance company and to the cars it was drag racing on the weekends).   While Dodge built 900+ /6 Chargers in 1968 and 450+ in 1969, the production figures took a dive in the following year (211 across all Charger types).  I know for the 1970 model year, Dodge kept the /6 in the base model Charger for advertising purposes.  That way, they could advertise 1970 model Chargers starting out at $3,001.00 to keep people coming into the showroom during the slower times.  They made their money on these /6 cars by trying to push additional (big money) options towards the buyer, so very few were priced at that advertised amount.  The decrease in /6 production trends continued into the third gen models.  Finding totally orginal /6 Chargers from the 1968-74 era can be a real challenge, as most ended up becoming either parts cars, wrecked or were crushed.  Most /6 second gens rarely have their orginal engines/transmissions when found.  The funny thing about not being typically desireable to most gearheads is that it leads into their rarity (since no one particularly wanted to save them since they were new, one of the reasons why I prefer to try to find them)  People might give you a hard time if you own one, but you will definately be noticed at the larger shows if you pop the hood, even in a sea of RTs......

I'm still looking for the holy grail of /6 Chargers: the 1 of 1 1970 Charger 500 SE (buildsheet is known, but where is the car?).......

[Chad L. Magee]

Stockman, how about guys that take their original 440 Chargers and put /6's in them?      

[triple_green]

My 68 stock 383 HP late model year (spring green 66-1).

I have been toying with the idea of a white R/T stripe for a couple of years.  Mostly just for something different. I have also toyed with the idea of a mild build up of the stock motor, when I next rebuild it.

3X(green)

http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4567832&page=0&fpart=2&vc=1
(picture 11)

[charger_fan_4ever]

I think its all about the performance. Even now who buys a 6 cyl mustang? Maybe the person that is going to use it as an everyday car.

I'm sure the train of thought was the same back when these cars where new. Guys grew up peeking into the dealership window and always wanted to have that r/t to fullfill their dreams of laying rubber. Not the 318 that did a 1 wheel peel for 15 feet

I like all muscle cars(2nd generation r/t is my fav) But same goes with lets say the camaro. I wouldn't want a plain jane camaro. Step it up to a z/28 or SS is a different story.

Thats just my  on it.

Not everyone could afford an RT model (either the car or the high insurance it took to keep it on the road) back when they were new.  I have a feeling that the second gen look attracted many a kid into the showroom, but they just did not have the bank account to get even a 383 one.  Since alot of kids back then were into hot rodding during that time, a /6 Charger would more than likely get an engine swap to a larger displacement, which would make it a good sleeper (to both the insurance company and to the cars it was drag racing on the weekends).   While Dodge built 900+ /6 Chargers in 1968 and 450+ in 1969, the production figures took a dive in the following year (211 across all Charger types).  I know for the 1970 model year, Dodge kept the /6 in the base model Charger for advertising purposes.  That way, they could advertise 1970 model Chargers starting out at $3,001.00 to keep people coming into the showroom during the slower times.  They made their money on these /6 cars by trying to push additional (big money) options towards the buyer, so very few were priced at that advertised amount.  The decrease in /6 production trends continued into the third gen models.  Finding totally orginal /6 Chargers from the 1968-74 era can be a real challenge, as most ended up becoming either parts cars, wrecked or were crushed.  Most /6 second gens rarely have their orginal engines/transmissions when found.  The funny thing about not being typically desireable to most gearheads is that it leads into their rarity (since no one particularly wanted to save them since they were new, one of the reasons why I prefer to try to find them)  People might give you a hard time if you own one, but you will definately be noticed at the larger shows if you pop the hood, even in a sea of RTs......

I'm still looking for the holy grail of /6 Chargers: the 1 of 1 1970 Charger 500 SE (buildsheet is known, but where is the car?).......

I was reffering to why everyone now wants an r/t or a r/t clone. Just because they always wanted an r/t and couldn't afford one then.

14 years ago i bought my first car (wanted a 2nd generation charger) couldn't afford it at 14, so i ended up settling for a 70 6cyl duster. Bought a junked 340 car to swap over. 14 years later and the want never went away. (watched Bullit too many times, or too many episodes of the Dukes )
Finally found a 70 r/t that was solid enough to restore.  14 plus years of chasing and i'm sure others have chased longer than that.

[1969chargerrtse]

I think its all about the performance. Even now who buys a 6 cyl mustang? Maybe the person that is going to use it as an everyday car.

I'm sure the train of thought was the same back when these cars where new. Guys grew up peeking into the dealership window and always wanted to have that r/t to fullfill their dreams of laying rubber. Not the 318 that did a 1 wheel peel for 15 feet

I like all muscle cars(2nd generation r/t is my fav) But same goes with lets say the camaro. I wouldn't want a plain jane camaro. Step it up to a z/28 or SS is a different story.

Thats just my  on it.

Not everyone could afford an RT model (either the car or the high insurance it took to keep it on the road) back when they were new.  I have a feeling that the second gen look attracted many a kid into the showroom, but they just did not have the bank account to get even a 383 one.  Since alot of kids back then were into hot rodding during that time, a /6 Charger would more than likely get an engine swap to a larger displacement, which would make it a good sleeper (to both the insurance company and to the cars it was drag racing on the weekends).   While Dodge built 900+ /6 Chargers in 1968 and 450+ in 1969, the production figures took a dive in the following year (211 across all Charger types).  I know for the 1970 model year, Dodge kept the /6 in the base model Charger for advertising purposes.  That way, they could advertise 1970 model Chargers starting out at $3,001.00 to keep people coming into the showroom during the slower times.  They made their money on these /6 cars by trying to push additional (big money) options towards the buyer, so very few were priced at that advertised amount.  The decrease in /6 production trends continued into the third gen models.  Finding totally original /6 Chargers from the 1968-74 era can be a real challenge, as most ended up becoming either parts cars, wrecked or were crushed.  Most /6 second gens rarely have their original engines/transmissions when found.  The funny thing about not being typically desireable to most gearheads is that it leads into their rarity (since no one particularly wanted to save them since they were new, one of the reasons why I prefer to try to find them)  People might give you a hard time if you own one, but you will definitely be noticed at the larger shows if you pop the hood, even in a sea of RTs......

I'm still looking for the holy grail of /6 Chargers: the 1 of 1 1970 Charger 500 SE (buildsheet is known, but where is the car?).......

"The funny thing about not being typically desireable to most gearheads is that it leads into their rarity (since no one particularly wanted to save them since they were new, one of the reasons why I prefer to try to find them)"

Well, rarity doesn't always mean desirable.  I had a 69 Camaro Indy Pace car with the 396 325hp motor in it.  It was rare not to have the factory tach and console gauges.  I thought it was odd at first, but within a year I added them, and I tend to try to keep things original.  It was rare without the tach, but Pintos are rare today also and who wants one?  Some things are rare for a reason.  As for 383's, I love them and they are fast.  My teen love was a 69 383 Charger that we raced all the time.  But take 2 equal good running engines ( 383/440 ) and  " there ain't no replacement for displacement."

[1970RT]

If my RT was instead a 383 car it would have the 383 in it.

If it was a 318 car it would probably still have a 318 but I'd waver a little here because to me charger = big block

[Chad L. Magee]

"The funny thing about not being typically desireable to most gearheads is that it leads into their rarity (since no one particularly wanted to save them since they were new, one of the reasons why I prefer to try to find them)"

Well, rarity doesn't always mean desirable.  I had a 69 Camaro Indy Pace car with the 396 325hp motor in it.  It was rare not to have the factory tach and console gauges.  I thought it was odd at first, but within a year I added them, and I tend to try to keep things original.  It was rare without the tach, but Pintos are rare today also and who wants one?  Some things are rare for a reason.  As for 383's, I love them and they are fast.  My teen love was a 69 383 Charger that we raced all the time.  But take 2 equal good running engines ( 383/440 ) and  " there ain't no replacement for displacement."

Comparing Pintos and /6 second gen Chargers is like comparing rotten apples to ripe oranges.  Pintos never had a high horsepower engine option (like a 427 or 460), so that is part of their crappy image and low desirablility.  They also had alot of durablility issues which compounded the problem (exploding gas tanks anyone?).  My point to all of this is simple: To each, his own.  I am attracted to collecting oddball Chargers much like some are attracted to collecting Hemis or sixpack cars.  Since I have some of the higher horsepower ones already, my thirst for the big block cars is mostly quenched, for now.  I would rather be on the hunt for things that are not as easy to find than another RT.  Remember, to have a full, complete set of 1970 Chargers, you have to include the lower engines too.  No one has a set like that that I am aware of, so I am setting it as a future goal.  As for /6 Chargers not being desirable, of all of my project cars, it is the one car that gets asked about the most if it might possibly be for sale......

[Kevin68N71]

And if anyone says your 383 "is no good", they simply are uninformed fools.

I have to agree with Kevin....the 383 can be made to run very strong. My very first car was a 68 Charger with a 383-4bbl, 727 and 3.23 suregrip. It had 56,000 miles on it when i purchased it from the original owner. I pulled the heads for a valvejob, installed a Crane Fireball cam, headers, Edelbrock Torker and Holley 780 vac secondary carb. Lets just say that it surprised a lot of "loudmouths" and plenty of folks got a look at those pretty tail lights. 


My most memorable late night adventure was aginst a friends fathers 67 GTO. He (the father) had been razzin me about the Pontiac being a far superior machine...ya right. Finally, i gave in one night and a little arm drop action happened at midnight on a deserted country road. I took him by a car length and a half. Pretty funny when you consider a 16 yr old kid handed a mid 40's dude his AZZ in a street race. Sure made for an interesting topic of discussion the next day at School. 


Built right a 383 will scream....bone stock they're not too shabby either. 



Ron


Ps. Here's a pic of the old girl....sure miss her. 

I like the old girl, what happened to her?