Chivvy owners always yapping about how much mopars weigh....

[Ghoste]

Not really.  I was teasing you about Lapeer's reputation for posting times that are a little quicker than other strips.  Do you live way up by Ubly?

[69Charger500]

Oh yeah.  I have heard that as well about Lapeer, but wasn't sure if that's what you meant.  By the way, that "stock" 440 did have a couple of "extra" non-stock things, like Mopar Electronic ignition, a 383 Mag convertor with about 2200 stall speed, and 3.55s, and lots of fine tuning!! 

The rest of the motor was a well worn original, though!

I live in Clarkston, near Pine Knob...

[Ghoste]

Been there many times.  I thought you lived closer to the tech center for some reason. You never said or implied as much.  I just assumed so for some reason.

[69Charger500]

Only 15 minutes away (10 minutes if I'm driving the 500)!!!

[Ghoste]

And no wrecks on 75.  Just think how quick you could be there in a nice light Shovelle.

[TK73]

Weren't the factory weight ratings usually low, say using the weight of a stipper 6cyl for all models so that they could save $$ on shipping costs (rail mainly) because the shipping co's used weight as a measure of cost?

[69Charger500]

I believe that is still true today regarding shipping costs versus the low EPA weight classes.  There are lots of reasons to advertise the cars are lighter than they end up being as ordered/delivered.  They all have to do with $$$......

I always considered the Mopars being heavier was part of their over-engineering back then.  Chrysler did not have the time and resources and dollars to "nickel and dime" everything out of the cars, like some other companies did.  They made them strong to pass the testing, and let it go at that.  with the other companies, if the cars passed the testing (durability primarily), then it was assumed they were "wasting money" if they didn't lighten them up (read: cheapen them up).

I guess the Dana 60 in my 500 was not the lightest choice axle available, but it did the job, and it was in the parts bins for the trucks, so it was easily adaptible to the muscle cars, and it was already available (meaning they did not have to design something from the ground up and tool it up for production).

Those decisions save big money in the immediate time being, although with the bigger production runs over at GM and Ford, they had a lot more to benefit from by taking out every nickel they could.

In the auto industry, there are many basic axioms.  One of them is weight = cost.  Reduce weight, and you save money.  Although this is not always true, it generally prevails..................

[Ghoste]

Absolutely true.  Look at a 69 Chevelle.  Eventhough it's full frame, it has that light rearend (and even the mighty mighty 12 bolt is a chintzy affair beside an 8 3/4) the puny axles, the dinky coil springs, the front suspension is all lighter duty components, the brake drums were usually smaller than Mopars or Fords.  The car is smaller when you start to actually measure it.  The Chevelle styling leads the eye to think it is as big as a Charger but line the two up.
Not completely relevant, but a few years ago I started a bet with a buddy of mine who was working on a 68 Cyclone GT.  He said some offhand remark about it being the only car on the road bigger than mine so we had a three part bet.  Overall length, overall weight, and elapsed time.  My car was two inches longer and nearly 300 lbs heavier (I forget the exact amount, it was like 276 or 278 something like that).  Quarter mile was a little tougher.  I beat him two out of three and my car's best is quicker than his best but that wasn't the bet.  On the day of, it was who's is quicker.  His third run he beat me by a tenth.  Not bad for a lowly 383 in a heavier car against a 428 CJ though.
I think you'd find similar results with the Chev except for the drag race part.

[69_500]

How much Mopars weigh? Now why would a Chevy owner bring that up? Every chevy owner I talk to just wants to talk smack about how his Chevelle will whip my charger. Now granted 99% of them have highly modified engines, and only want to race me because  they know my motor is bone stock.

[Ghoste]

It's part of their schtick to explain the many technical superiorities of things with engines named after rodents.

[chrisII]

lmao this is all funny schiznet. it really doesnt matter.  in circle track racing i mostly raced against the 73-77 montie carlo, cutlass malibu ect. those cars neaded much less weight added than my 69 runner, however i may have ben more carefull to remove every pound that i could when i buildt the car. there were a few 68-72 chevelles around and those neaded more weight added (all had to weigh 3500) i would say that stripped down with small blocks they are probably similar in weight. another thing i found , at least in circle track racing , and i think it follows to street use but notas much the strip is that a car really doesnt know 100lbs. ive seen guys have to add 100lbs and be faster than before and this is on 75 series street radials its all in the horsepower and how well it hooks up.

[Ghoste]

Where the 100 lbs is added makes a big difference too.  And I can assure you, it makes a big difference in drag racing.

[69_500]

I've always heard that 100lbs out of a drag car equates to .1 in the quarter. Which if you leave the weight in there, you'd have to generate a lot more horsepower to also get the .1 in the quarter.

[Mike DC]

It's hard to get a handle on the weight issue because so much of the cars' weight varies with what stuff is in it.  Published weight figures can be off wildly because of drivetrains, power steering/brakes, A/C compressors, bench or bucket seats . . .

We can split hairs all night, but all the Detriot companies were using more or less the same building techniques & raw materials back then.  And how much weight does the unibody construction method really save?  Maybe 5-6 feet of C-channel frame are eliminated on each side of the car?  Probably 50 extra pounds at most.  (And of course, the first thing we do with our beloved unibodies is to weld in a set of thick 1/8" wall frame connectors between the subframes.)

.