The 440 ‘Cuda — and its corporate sibling, the 440 Dart GTS — is a perfect examples of how the muscle car wars were taken too far at the end of the sixties. Stuffing the RB (raised block) 440 V8 into the engine compartment of the compact A-Bodies was simply an exercise in showing that it could be done, regardless of the many compromises and shortcomings. Those included excruciatingly heavy and slow manual steering, no power assist for the little 10″ drum brakes (front discs not available), no air conditioning, puny E 70-14 tires (equivalent to 205/70R 14s) on 5.5″ wide wheels and carrying over 57% of the weight on the front end. Just the recipe for turning the widely-acknowledged best-handling of the pony cars (and one of the fastest with the high-revving 340 V8) into a monster.
But even monsters have their charms, and the ‘Cuda 440 had one, but it’s probably not what you would expect: effortless cruising on the freeway. Just don’t ask it to stop or turn quickly. Or even make a truly impressive pass down the drag strip.
Given the 428 CJ Mustang (incorrectly called a 429 in the text), 396 Camaro and Firebird 400, Plymouth obviously felt the need to not only keep up, but stay ahead. But CL starts off by saying “it’s hard not to wish that the factory wasn’t quite so willing to keep up with the competition, or at least would wait until the rest of the car could be kept in balance with the thumping great engine”. True on both accounts, and of course the second issue would be addressed in the significantly bigger and better balanced 1970 E-Body Barracuda (and Dodge Challenger). As to the term “factory” in their statement, it’s important to point out that these 440 barracudas and Darts didn’t receive their oversized engines in the factory, but were cobbled up at Hurst’s facility in Madison Heights, MI. These cars were specced as 383 cars, and then shipped to Hurst; 400 ‘Cuda 440s and 600 Dart 440s were built in total there.
Speaking of the 383, the decision to implant that slightly physically smaller engine in the Barracuda back in 1967 involved similar compromises: no power steering or air conditioning. But the power assist for the brakes and optional discs were available. The result was a milder version of the 440 ‘Cuda. And the 383 became largely irrelevant when in late ’67 the brilliant 340 LA V8 became available. It weighed less but was an overachiever of an engine if ever there was one. In a 1968 C/D comparison of six high performance pony cars, the 340 Barracuda bested all of them at the drag strip despite having a substantially smaller engine than the rest. The 340 Barracuda became the gold standard for the serious driver who wanted it all.
But obviously there were some drivers who didn’t want it all; they just wanted the most cubic inches. So Chrysler indulged them. Here it is, the Super Commando 440. But note: this is not exactly a rip-snorting genuine high-performance engine; it’s the same engine that was available in big sedans, and came standard on the Plymouth GTX and Coronet R/T. It was not a hemi, but it did pack 480 ft.lbs. of torque.
CL makes it very clear that the 440 ‘Cuda is targeted for a specific kind of buyer. As presumably one who more than anything values the 440 numbers on the front fenders. Big time bragging rights. But for anyone who wants a “complete” car, the 340 was the way to go. CL flat out says that the 440 ‘Cuda “is a disturbing automobile”.
But it goes like a missile, right? Not, actually. In fact, “CL was disappointed in the ‘Cuda 440.” The expectation that it might equal or best the 13.68 second 1/4 mile time of the Hemi Charger 500 quickly went up in smoke; the best it could do was a 14 second flat ET. Which is just a hair quicker than the 14.2 seconds a 340 version would do. The challenges of launching 480 ft.lbs. of torque through the Torqueflite transmission and the skinny tires were great, and ultimately created an inherent limitation in the concept.
Oddly, the legendary Torqueflite came in for criticism: “it did not shift crisply, but was mild, smooth and slow, seemingly out of place in this car.” The explanation was that this version was straight out of the sedans, just like the engine, and did not have performance mods like the version used behind the hemi and some other hot Mopars. Among other reasons, this was done to help preserve the modest-sized rear end, which is also why no 4-speed was available. More compromises.
The 440 ‘Cuda was then taken to CL’s road test course. The very substantial understeer, significantly greater than the 340 version, had a significant negative impact. But powering out of corners was easy with the torque-rich 440 and the limited slip rear end.
The biggest single compromise was the slow, heavy and sloppy manual steering, which was simply not capable of dealing with the 440’s power surges. Having to throw the wheel lock-to-lock to try to keep the flopping fish in a straight line quickly wore out the testers.
The steering wheel was too high, thanks to sharing all the hard points with the Valiant sedan. The bucket seats were “stiffly upright”. And of course the unassisted 10″ drum brakes were not up to the job at hand.
The one thing the ‘Cuda did well was roll down the California freeways at 70 miles per hour. Passing was effortless, and the stiff springs and shocks kept it stable. I’m guessing that’s not exactly what its 400 buyers were placing a priority on.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1968 Plymouth Barracuda Formula 340 – The Worst Selling But Best Pony Car Of 1968
Vintage Review: Car and Driver Compares The Hot 1968 Pony Cars – Which Is The Hottest Of Them All?
On the brake booster front, Chrysler could have easily used a VH 44 style remote booster.
That’s the brakes sorted at least.
The lack of front discs was the real issue. Drum brakes are self-energizing, and power assist is not really needed. In fact many preferred manual drums because the assisted ones were often over-boosted.
Front discs were an option on all other 1967-1969 MoPar A bodies.
I have retrofitted a few of my projects that came with the crappy (less than safe in modern traffic) 9″ Durms all around to the Kelsey-Hayes four-piston calipers without Power assist.
Since Ma MoPar kept the 5 on 4″ A body Bolt Pattern as standard fare until 1972 on those cars, the K-H Factory discs are an adequate upgrade to do on mopar A bodies from this era without having to swap out the hubs and axles to the much more common corporate 5 on 4 1/2 Bolt circle.
I do not understand why these 440 or 383 models in ’67-’69 for both the GTS dart and ‘Cuda Would not have had the Discs as standard. Seems bizarre to me.
For one reason only: there was no room for the vacuum power booster. Unassisted discs require too much pedal pressure.
I guess so. I drive cars with unassisted discs / unassisted steering all of the time. Saves $ on my gym membership for more fun car parts!🙂
That statement, in real life, is not correct. I converted our 1965 Barracuda, you’ve seen that one, to disc brakes without a booster.
It truly is no harder to stop, foot pressure wise, than with the 9” drum brakes without a booster.
That statement, in real life, is not correct.
Tell that to the Chrysler engineers as well as those from all the other companies. It’s a well established fact that discs require a relatively higher pedal pressure for the same amount of braking power. It rather makes sense when you think about it: how many square inches of braking surface are on the disc pads versus the linings on a set of drum shoes? And drums have a natural “self-energizing” characteristic (see below); disc don’t.
Your subjective experience may tell you otherwise, but it’s not consistent with the rest of the worlds’ engineers and drivers.
I owned a non-assisted disc brake Peugeot 404 and several drum brake versions. The difference was quite palpable. And these cars were much lighter, which is why in Europe non-assisted discs were used in the early years. But only very rarely in the US.
Here’s a good explanation from Wikipedia:
Drum brakes have a natural “self-applying” characteristic, better known as “self-energizing.”[5] The rotation of the drum can drag either one or both of the shoes into the friction surface, causing the brakes to bite harder, which increases the force holding them together. This increases the stopping power without any additional effort being expended by the driver, but it does make it harder for the driver to modulate the brake’s sensitivity. It also makes the brake more sensitive to brake fade, as a decrease in brake friction also reduces the amount of brake assist.
Disc brakes exhibit no self-applying effect because the hydraulic pressure acting on the pads is perpendicular to the direction of rotation of the disc.[5] Disc brake systems usually have servo assistance (“Brake Booster”) to lessen the driver’s pedal effort, but some disc braked cars (notably race cars) and smaller brakes for motorcycles, etc., do not need to use servos.[5]
Were drum brakes centrifugal in nature, inertia of the rotating wheel force the shoes outward, assisting their braking effort?
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/article/duo-servo-brakes
Big block engine, no power brakes and no power steering. ..Drag spec for just going in a straight line with a run off.. Not a road car A one trick pony but the road test suggested that the car underperformed on the drag strip.
These Look like 1969 “A Body” ‘Cuda – not the 1970 “E Body” ‘Cudas which are a completely different car and chassis.
Of course it’s a ’69. Typo; fixed now. Thanks.
Another minor error: the 1969-70 Mustang used a 428 engine.
Weirdly, the similar 429 started in the 1970 Torino but didn’t go into the Mustang until 1971.
So, for 1970, the Mustang had a 428 CobraJet, while the Torino had a 429 (Thunderjet or CobraJet).
That’s straight from the text. But I’ll amend my commentary.
I bet changing sparkplugs would be a challenge. Looks mighty tight in the engine compartment.
Changing the spark plugs on most any Chrysler B/RB Block can be tricky, even in the Big C body cars as the exhaust manifold looms above the plugs It’s a blind job, unless you have access from underneath.
My ’77 Ramcharger with a 440 was a bit easier as it had tubular headers. I never had the pleasure of changing plugs on a big block A body.
C/D was disappointed with the straight line acceleration? 14.01 at 103 mph was damn good for a “family sedan” 440 in a Barracuda. I hate to see what they think is real slow LOL
Given that it was only one or two tenths of a second faster than the vastly better all-round 340, yes, they were rightly disappointed. A lot of serious trade-offs for such a small improvement. With a few minor tweaks, a 340 could beat that time.
Once you get into tweak territory the 440 starts to become more alluring as well, (wider rear tires and wheels, headers) 440s in A bodies have many inherent compromises but it’s still a potent recipe if your main aspiration is drag racing.
I think you may have hit on the whole point of the car: it was a pure, straight-line, drag car for someone who couldn’t afford the asking price or maintenace requirements of a 1968 Hemi-Dart or ‘Cuda.
If going down the quarter mile was all you wanted to do, slicks and a set of open headers were all that was needed for a 440 A-body.
Not to mention some other pluses of the 340 – likely lower insurance rates (which were a major factor in the demise of the muscle car), and fuel economy (though likely not a big concern of the era).
It’s worth noting that the impetus for the 1969 ‘Cuda RPO 440 (which was also offered in the Dart GTS) was from Mr. Norm’s Grand Spaulding Dodge which had began doing the dealer swap in 1968.
It’s not much different from Tasca Ford creating the 1968 Ford Mustang 428CJ which also quickly became a Ford RPO.
But, unlike the Ford, the ‘Cuda/Dart didn’t gain much of a performance advantage over the 340-powered cars.
I wasn’t aware that a 4-speed wasn’t even available with the 440 A-body. Sheesh, what an overall disappointment that car must have been.
The lack of an available 4-speed was the least of the issues. The TF was just as fast unless you were a pro and could speed-shift the 4-speed and not blow it up doing so. And even then, the difference was very small. The magazines all recommended the TF.
I agree that the performance wouldn’t have been markedly different. Still, I ‘think’ that it was possible to get a 4-speed with the 383 A-body.
If so, it’s odd that Chrysler wouldn’t offer it with the 440, too. I wonder if you could get a 4-speed with Mr. Norm’s 1968 Dart GSS.
The reason why there was no 4-speed available was clearly stated in the article: concern about the ability of the A-Body rear axle to take the shocks from speed shifting. This did not have a stronger rear axle than the other Barracuda V8s. That’s also why the shifts in the TF were not tightened, like in some other applications.
I guess that kind of negates previous comments about using the 440 A-body for pure dragstrip use if the rear axle wouldn’t survive that kind of severe duty.
The whole thing sounds odd: put Chrysler’s biggest big-block into the A-body, but then not equip it with an axle stout enough to open up the 440’s full potential.
Evidently, there was a reason (cost?) they couldn’t get the Hemi’s Dana 60 rear axle in there, which I think was how the 440/4-speed B-body (GTX/Coronet/Charger R/T) was equipped.
The Dana 60 is top of the line in strength and no doubt there was likely a cost factor in not making a bespoke width axle for the A body, however I’m skeptical about a strength issue, the 383 Barracuda came with the 8-3/4”, which wasn’t as stout as a Dana, but among muscle car rear ends like the Ford 9” or GM 12 bolt is right on par. In fact it’s the same axle that was used in the Max wedge era factory racers, in the heavier B body chassis.
From a new comment below, by an owner of a ’69 383 Barracuda:
I replaced the rear end. twice
He didn’t say whether it was an automatic or 4-speed.
The article clearly states that Chrysler engineers nixed the 4-speed for the reasons stated.
Also, the short 12 months/12k mile warranty on these stated:
“This warranty shall not apply if the vehicle shall have been subject to misuse, negligence, or accident. Misuse of the vehicle includes, but is not limited to, all forms of extreme operation, such as racing or other sustained high-speed use, acceleration trials, or wide-open throttle operation or other high-speed acceleration, or shifting transmission gears at high engine RPM.”
Use at your own risk, in other words.
I’d be curious to know if it was a failure of the 8-3/4 rear end or broken axle shafts? There’s plenty of additional anecdotal claims out there that the 8-3/4″ is durable well beyond the factory outputs of these engines and durable behind enhanced manual transmission 383s and 340s/360s. It’s also notable that this same axle was used on the 69 440 and Hemi cars with the Torqueflite, same 8-3/4 as he A body apart from width, and while the shock loads of a manual transmission differ from a TF greatly, sustained high-speed use, acceleration trials, wide-open throttle operation or other high-speed acceleration outside of the shifts seemed to be deemed perfectly OK on those (notably heavier) cars.
Is it possible this was Chrysler’s way of pulling a Firebird 400/GTO? For those unfamiliar, Pontiac installed a small screw in the Firebird’s carburetor linkage to prevent the butterflies from fully opening, ensuring that the GTO with the same engine would be faster.
In Chrysler’s case, they softened up the TF’s shift points (as well as not using the 4-speed, at all) to accomplish the same thing, i.e., keep the 440 ‘Cuda just a tad slower than the same engine in the B-body.
You are not telling us that these Cuda cars came with a 7 1/4” rear end I hope. They got at least the 8 3/4” rear gear. I did also put one of them in our ’65 Barracuda.
That steering ratio of 29.1 with only 3.5 turns seems like a bit of a typo. But 480 lb/ft in a compact body shell is indisputable. What a beast!
It’s even quicker than Australia’s most rapid A-Body (265 cid & 320 lbs/ft).
Wow. I had a ‘69 383S back then n 1975-76. It did have power steering, no brakes to speak of and of Ouse no A/C. The later wasn’t a problem as I was still living in the North. I bought the thing cheap as it hams front suspension damage that had been improperly repaired. The dealer was anxious to dump it and as I knew I could fix it. I had planned to flip it after If ex it, but the car was so much fun I hung onto it until I moved to Tulsa. Hanging on to this car was not wise in retrospect. I replaced the rear end. twice and burned up quite way too many rear tires. Everything the testers said about the 440 was also true for the 383. But good gawd that thing was fun – for a short time anyway.
I don’t get dismissively calling the 440 just a regular passenger car engine. It’s the 10:1 compression 375 horsepower 440 that, until the A12 6 pack that arrived midyear 1969, was literally second in line to the 426 Hemi as the top Chrysler mill. It’s not like Ford where there was a country squire spec 428 and a 428 CJ.
As a point of perspective, that was in comparison to the Max Wedge and other hard-core mechanical-lifter hi-po Chrysler wedge engines that had been available before. The 440 was what I would call a semi hi-po engine. And it was available in the big sedans.
This is correct. The same 375hp 440 engine had the following names within each division:
Plymouth – Super Commando
Dodge – Magnum
Chrysler – TNT
Tough to call an engine in the same league as the old Max Wedge high-performance series when it also goes into any New Yorker or Imperial.
That’s fair to say but I don’t think that really changes the formula much, the street Hemi itself was toned down from the race Hemi which the latter was more the successor to the Max wedge 413/426. Outside of ZL1 427s and LS6 454s the 440 was a capable performance engine, as much as the various big blocks that found their way into other pony cars around this time.
The 440 Cuda existed solely to be Chryslers a 400ci+ entry in the ponycar field following the Mustangs move to the CJ 428 in 1968 – itself a much tamer performance engine than the side oiler 427s – , not be a max wedge type successor. Chrysler already made a handful “factory” Hemi Barracudas(and Darts) in that max wedge mold in 1968, that simply wasn’t the intent with the 440 ‘Cudas.
Had a 68 Dart 383 GTS in the late 70’s.
Manual transmission, I thought it had manual front disc brakes and a Hurst shifter but it was a long time ago could be mistaken.
Handling was horrible too nose heavy.
Not enough room for a wide rear tire on the old Darts just smoked the tires.
Had many Mopars the 8 3/4 rear axles were pretty stout.
Chrysler only put the Dana 60 rears in the Hemi and 440 6packs.
I think the 69 440 A-body didn’t get the manual transmission because of the small wheel bolt pattern but I could be wrong.
Power was down about 15hp due to the left exhaust manifold needing steering column clearance.
Great car if you only wanted to go straight!!
Beautiful-looking 375HP car with very ugly brakes, made at the same time you could get a 68HP Renault 10, which was an very ugly car with beautiful brakes – discs on every wheel, and sans power assist at that.
My experience of 10″ Chryco drums, in far less powerful cars, was that they were the worst of the big three’s generally bad lot, too.
Wonder not at the rise of Naderism. Selling this sort of thing for use on public roads was approaching the negligent
History has shown that handing out street- legal dragsters to 16-year-old boys may not have been the best idea…
Soo over the top!! For someone obsessed with that last half second on the quarter mile.
A 318 or 340 tweaked with a 4 barrel and revised intake manifold and headers would have been way sufficient for 95% of the street light races. Room for power steering and brakes, even A/C. I looked at the ’70 brochure, but no mention of disc brakes. Maybe a retro fit like Granadas and older Mustangs.
Surprising that big V8 only carried 4 qt of oil.
I’m fascinated by the sweep of change in technology and expectations. 15 years after this article, magazines were running pieces about the eyelid-peeling acceleration of the new muscle cars (“they’re back!”) that did 0-60 in under 12 seconds. And now I drive a PHEV Volvo crossover, chosen because it’s safe and efficient, which as a side effect of its efficiency does the *quarter* in 12 seconds. It doesn’t sound as good as a cuda but it’s probably a lot more fun on back roads!