E-Bodies.org Cuda Challenger Forum
- Welcome to E-Bodies.org Cuda Challenger Forum.
Recent posts
#1
Your Restoration project (ROSEVILLE MOPARTS) / Re: 74 Challenger with twins
Last post by daaboots - Today at 01:59:58 PMCongrats on getting it fired up!
#2
Cuda & Challenger General Discussion (ROSEVILLE MOPARTS) / Re: differences in shakers?
Last post by mccannix - Today at 12:04:12 PMIf I were to show that my friend who worked at Fram assembling these he would say that base is a 'bastard' base that somehow got into production.
He told me during peak periods lots of summer students worked there and quality control was not at its best.
Adapters rings with the nuts welded on top instead of the bottom as per the blueprint is one example of mistakes that occurred.
Your base may have been destined to be a 71 340 base with feet brackets but got sidetracked.
Not every production base had the green 383 stripe or the orange 440 stripe, only a few in the beginning until a better system of grabbing the right base for the right application happened.
Here a few 4 barrel 'bastard' bases I have owned.
Feet spotweled on facing wrong location, top base is a 340 that also had the '383' stamped hole but Fram welded it over.
Second picture of part number stamped backwards 4672153.
All these are NOS bases that I have had.
Most early 340 bases in 1970 had the large bridge and the large headed studs with shorter height threads.
Some early 383 bases also used the large bridge.
All the over the counter, later NOS 383 bases with the hole not punched that I have seen used the small bridge.
Part of the print that calls for green stripe on 383 and location where to apply.
383 base and adapter that I have from an early production 383 Cuda, adapter attached and adapter removed.
One exists for the orange stripe for 440 as well
Hemi base always the twin small bridges, never the large one
He told me during peak periods lots of summer students worked there and quality control was not at its best.
Adapters rings with the nuts welded on top instead of the bottom as per the blueprint is one example of mistakes that occurred.
Your base may have been destined to be a 71 340 base with feet brackets but got sidetracked.
Not every production base had the green 383 stripe or the orange 440 stripe, only a few in the beginning until a better system of grabbing the right base for the right application happened.
Here a few 4 barrel 'bastard' bases I have owned.
Feet spotweled on facing wrong location, top base is a 340 that also had the '383' stamped hole but Fram welded it over.
Second picture of part number stamped backwards 4672153.
All these are NOS bases that I have had.
Most early 340 bases in 1970 had the large bridge and the large headed studs with shorter height threads.
Some early 383 bases also used the large bridge.
All the over the counter, later NOS 383 bases with the hole not punched that I have seen used the small bridge.
Part of the print that calls for green stripe on 383 and location where to apply.
383 base and adapter that I have from an early production 383 Cuda, adapter attached and adapter removed.
One exists for the orange stripe for 440 as well
Hemi base always the twin small bridges, never the large one
#3
Cuda & Challenger General Discussion (ROSEVILLE MOPARTS) / Re: differences in shakers?
Last post by Mr Cuda - Today at 10:58:45 AMSo, more information.
I stripped the adapter ring off and straightened the air horn bridge as it was massively bent.
The bridge is the smaller,"late" type and had been welded on. It does have witness marks underneath of the original resistance welds, and brazing for the support washer, now gone.
Definitely 1.5 inch drop, with factory punched 383 style support rod hole. That combo shouldn't be together.
Service package part? Do I turn it into a 340 with feet, or close hole for the 440 application?
I'm not shakerizing my U code and don't need a spare 340 base.
My 12/70 340 base has the large bridge. I don't know when the cutoff was from early/late.
I stripped the adapter ring off and straightened the air horn bridge as it was massively bent.
The bridge is the smaller,"late" type and had been welded on. It does have witness marks underneath of the original resistance welds, and brazing for the support washer, now gone.
Definitely 1.5 inch drop, with factory punched 383 style support rod hole. That combo shouldn't be together.
Service package part? Do I turn it into a 340 with feet, or close hole for the 440 application?
I'm not shakerizing my U code and don't need a spare 340 base.
My 12/70 340 base has the large bridge. I don't know when the cutoff was from early/late.
#4
Plastic vs and antique porcelain, not a huge amount. Also, the shipping would be a challenge, so it'd be better to state where it is to narrow buyers to those that'd be able to drive to your door. Lots of variables.
#5
Cuda & Challenger General Discussion (ROSEVILLE MOPARTS) / Re: differences in shakers?
Last post by mccannix - Today at 07:46:35 AMYes Hemi bases used feet brackets and feet although like everything, some slipped through without them.
#6
C
Cuda & Challenger General Discussion (ROSEVILLE MOPARTS) / Re: differences in shakers?
Last post by Cuda_mark - Today at 05:58:39 AMDid the Hemi assemblies use feet as well?
#7
General Topics / Re: HOT RODS,RAT RODS,CUSTOMS,...
Last post by Chryco Psycho - Today at 05:52:13 AMThe short nose vans are awesome & yes a 440 will fit , even a 6 pack !
I prefer the look of the 70 Javelin / AMX
I prefer the look of the 70 Javelin / AMX
#8
Your Restoration project (ROSEVILLE MOPARTS) / Re: 1970 Challenger T/A Conver...
Last post by erik70rt - Today at 05:10:23 AMQuote from: cuda hunter on May 30, 2024, 06:19:20 PMQuote from: erik70rt on May 30, 2024, 07:23:00 AMQuote from: cuda hunter on May 29, 2024, 05:37:58 PMQuote from: erik70rt on January 11, 2024, 09:20:34 AMQuote from: anlauto on January 11, 2024, 08:57:37 AMWhy are they not stripping the car completely down to bare metal first ? Isn't that just asking for problems down the line ?
In that pic he had just removed the side stripes. I'll have to ask him why he didn't strip all of the paint.
I'm just curious if you had received an answer from Wayne as to stripping or not stripping the previous paint.
No, he didn't.
Not trying to prod the wound, but wasn't there some bondo under the paint?
There was on the front fenders, but I replaced them. There was also a small skim on the very lower quarters in the rear when they were patched before I bought the car. After the trailer incident, that will be removed.
#9
Cuda & Challenger General Discussion (ROSEVILLE MOPARTS) / Re: differences in shakers?
Last post by mccannix - Today at 05:07:52 AMThere appears to be a mistake in that chart.
Row 3 should read " Same base as 71 340 but uses no feet brackets.
Both these bases have the 1 1/2 measurement.
The change to the 1 1/2 base for 340 in 71 was in part because the thermoquad is slightly higher than the AVS in 1970
Speaking of measurements, when doing this you must check the top bridge and
make sure it is level straight across.
I have seen many bases where overtightening the lid causes the bridge to sink down so to speak,
giving an inaccurate measurement.
The 440 had no strut rod and no feet brackets.
The 383 base was the only one that used the rod and it was discontinued late in 71 according.
The strut rod hole was also not stamped in the later 383 bases because of this.
Many NOS or over the counter ordered 383 bases had no hole at the front.
When I mentioned the overtightening of the bridge, if you look at the first picture posted by Mr Cuda
it appears the top bridge is pulled down some but perhaps he can clarify that.
Also regarding measurements, the fact that two different top bridges where used on these bases, the earlier bridge being slightly taller.
Mr Cuda appears to have the shorter bracket, perhaps he can let us know or show a top picture of the bridge.
Also , just curious that since some drilled two holes for an oval lid use, did they perhaps drill the front hole in the base ?
Notice the divots on each side of Mr Cuda's baseplate picture, indicating where to spotweld the feet brackets if used
First picture shows the early taller bridge, second picture the shorter one.
The two pictures posted by 1971Y13 of his bases in this thread show the different bridges as well
Row 3 should read " Same base as 71 340 but uses no feet brackets.
Both these bases have the 1 1/2 measurement.
The change to the 1 1/2 base for 340 in 71 was in part because the thermoquad is slightly higher than the AVS in 1970
Speaking of measurements, when doing this you must check the top bridge and
make sure it is level straight across.
I have seen many bases where overtightening the lid causes the bridge to sink down so to speak,
giving an inaccurate measurement.
The 440 had no strut rod and no feet brackets.
The 383 base was the only one that used the rod and it was discontinued late in 71 according.
The strut rod hole was also not stamped in the later 383 bases because of this.
Many NOS or over the counter ordered 383 bases had no hole at the front.
When I mentioned the overtightening of the bridge, if you look at the first picture posted by Mr Cuda
it appears the top bridge is pulled down some but perhaps he can clarify that.
Also regarding measurements, the fact that two different top bridges where used on these bases, the earlier bridge being slightly taller.
Mr Cuda appears to have the shorter bracket, perhaps he can let us know or show a top picture of the bridge.
Also , just curious that since some drilled two holes for an oval lid use, did they perhaps drill the front hole in the base ?
Notice the divots on each side of Mr Cuda's baseplate picture, indicating where to spotweld the feet brackets if used
First picture shows the early taller bridge, second picture the shorter one.
The two pictures posted by 1971Y13 of his bases in this thread show the different bridges as well
#10
1970 AMC AMX Javelin
