392 vs 440/426

[super-bee_ski]

Ha ha...funny huh?
Wish I had Richard Rawlings $$

Funny rthing, after I bought it, I got a phone call from a "Steve reicht here in Los Angeles or somewhere near here.
He buys and sells cars for Celebs.
He told me "Jeff Dunham" wanted to buy it from me but I refused the sale.

"Jeff Dunham"= Achmed the Terrorist/suicide bomber ventriloquist.

 

[snakeoil24]

The OP asked how the 392 compared to the 440's and 426 in brute torque and fun to drive. The bottom line is, the 392 does compare favorably to both. The numbers are the numbers.

440+6 390HP/490tq
426 425HP/472tq
392 470HP/470tq

The 392 is every bit the motor as its ancestors and then some. As far as fun to drive, I actually prefer driving the older cars. They require a great deal more driving skill IMO. All the modern wizbangery is far more forgiving of driver mistakes than the older cars. BUT, driving a new one with braking and handling in the same car with the functional equivalent of a 426 hemi under the hood is just freaking awesome.

Sounds good on paper But not even close in reality. I lived the old and have the new. The new 392 is nice but continue to dream. The Hemi has no equal. The new small block is nice but not even in the same league. Come here with your small block I'' take you for a ride and then tell me if your small Block is even close. When you get out of the car I think nothing will be needed to say.

 

[70rr-brian]

Sounds good on paper But not even close in reality. I lived the old and have the new. The new 392 is nice but continue to dream. The Hemi has no equal. The new small block is nice but not even in the same league. Come here with your small block I'' take you for a ride and then tell me if your small Block is even close. When you get out of the car I think nothing will be needed to say.

Well, we will disagree then. STOCK being the key. I have had several stroked BB wedge's that would shame a STOCK hemi. So you are not going to shock and awe me in a stock hemi. I agree there is nothing quite like the feeling of being pinned back in your seat that only a BB can provide. But with that feeling comes an illusion of more being there than actually is. Ever ride in a high revving Jap car running mid 12's or lower? There is very little sensation of acceleration yet when the time lights up there you are in the mid-12's. STOCK numbers I have seen for a 426 hemi in a quarter are low 13's high 12's. Yes, I know there were factory produced light weight a-bodies that would turn in much faster times, but they were in much lighter cars. The new 392's in heavier cars (4100lbs give or take) are capable of mid 12's. A 70's car weighing in at 3800 lbs give or take sporting an auto, 3.54 and a hemi show consistently low 13's or high 12's depending on what rear gear was being run. Those power to weight ratio numbers and quarter mile times are consistent with published HP numbers.

All that being said, I know full well that a modified 426 hemi BB can and will kick the living $hit out of the small block all day long no matter how you modify them. The BB's potential is FAR greater. I get that. I have nothing but love for the BB wedge and Hemi motors. But stock for stock they ARE comparable.

 

[tallhair]

How are older cars "maintenance heavy" compared to newer ones? When was the last time you had to spend days chasing down a Check Engine Light problem on a Road Runner? When was the last time you had a failed injector on a Fury? When was the last time you had a no-start due to a bad CPS on a 440? When was the last time you had to spend five hours dismantling most of the top end of the engine to change out a bolt-on part on a 440? And as my favorite parts guy once told his co-worker, "when was the last time you sold someone a computer for their car for $20?" My road runner needs three things to run: gas, air, and spark, and a failure of any three of these can be troubleshot at home and in quick order. One of my newer cars fails to start, whoa boy.

I remember back in 1991 I was driving a 73 Road Runner and beat a Ferrari 308 GTi coming out of four red lights. I stopped at a shopping center and the Ferrari owner pulled up and said "yeah, you can beat me in acceleration but there's no way you would beat me in the curves", to which I responded "First, where do you see any twisting, windy, roads around here? The only curves we have are the on and off ramps to I-95. Second, your car cost $80,000. Mine cost $1,700. Give me one half what you paid for your car and I'll have my car ready to take you on the curviest road you can find!" Now I look at this discussion and my mindset hasn't changed much. I can't remember the last time I ever drove my 74 Road Runner on anything but roads with mild curves that any car can handle, and I'm going to be into my car for a little over $8,000 once my 440 is in there. So why would I ever want t blow $30K on a new Challenger?

Plus there's the big difference now one has mentioned yet... there are thousands and thousands of new hemi-powered cars out there, including Chargers and Challengers. No one really notices them anymore. You jump in a vintage Mopar with those 440 or 426 Hemi badges... you definitely get peoples' attention.

I am shocked that you have posted something I can completely agree with Bruz :VB toast:.

I think the old ones in stock form are pretty maintenance heavy as for as how often something needed attended too, like points and plugs had to be changed more often but you are spot on in that anyone who wanted to learn and get their hands dirty could easily learn and do it with fairly simple tools. Not the case with new stuff .. they rarely need any attention when new but when the do whoa boy.

Old stuff with added electronic ignition, better heads, fuel systems and other advances like tires, susp, and brakes eliminates the points and improves other things like braking and handling and really wakes up the power potential and planting it to the ground and holding a grip around corners in these old cars.

 

[Dennis H]

Apples. Oranges.

 

[MoparPhil]

Torque is not exclusive to big blocks. In the day, big blocks made more torque because of combinations of stroke and displacement. My bored and stroked old school 410 small block in my '65 Barracuda easily makes well over 500 ft lbs. (in a 2,700 lb. car). It's the the bore and the stroke. The size of the block has nothing to do with it. Granted, big blocks have more mass and therefore have more capacity for larger bores but there are a lot of big cubic inch small blocks out there making gobs of torque including 426 and larger modern hemis.

Back to the original question about how the modern 392 compares with those two legendary engines. It is more refined so you don't get the sense of raw power you feel in a Hemi or Six Pack car. It doesn't go rumply-rump because the computerized EFI controls the idle A/F ratios. It is quieter and has creature comforts that the older cars don't. But, make no mistake, you can still get the same "eyes pushed to the back of your head" acceleration just like back in the day. In fact, my good buddy, an excellent mechanic and owner of a transmission shop, owns a '70 Hemi Challenger and a '11 392 SRT Challenger. Both cars are basically stock. He says the new car will pull on the older one all day long.

 

[super-bee_ski]

I think its safe to say "We all have opinions on this matter"
Some are different than others, possibly based on perception.
(Mine are, plus years of reading etc.)

But; No car in the 60's was built to perform as the cars of today.
Yes, technology has been the key factor in this change.

Blame it on the Industry of the ERA?
Gvt. regulations?
Dont forget the Aero wars!
The quest for speed, typically top-speed.
But, nobody bought them! (At the time)

Again, the numbers on the "New Muscle" are significant!

1/4 Mile ET:

1. 2013 Shelby GT500: 11.6
2. Dodge Challenger R/T: 13.2
3. C7 Corvette (Z51): 12.23
(Not listed fast to slow)

These times are truly fast!

As many have stated...."Give me a 1969 *** or give me a 1970 YYY any day or give me a 1963 Max Wedge 330 car"
I too agree, I love the old stuff.

 

[Budnicks]

IMHFO we are in the ending of another great Muscle Car era {with new CAFE std. looming}, technology has made these cars "somewhat" way more reliable, way more powerful cube for cube, they actually handle & break way better than they ever did in the 60's-early 70's ever could, way better ignition systems/spark advance & control especially, way more tunable without interior/internal modifications, way bigger/better brakes & tires now, way better fuel systems, way better camshafts & designs, more dependable {unless you have a computer issue & don't know anything about such issues, like any other automotive knowledge, it too has evolved drastically}, much less frequent maintenances issues {less tune up frequency, some not until 100K}, way better extreme weather or cold starts, they now get way better mileage double per/CI & still have great performance capabilities, more than the 60's-early 70's hay-day per/CI, with out any extensive modifications... like others have said it's comparing apples & oranges or IMO much more like cherries & grapefruits, to compare the 2 eras to each other.... I still love my old dinosaur multi carbureted BB wedge stroker, but even them parts are far better than the hay-day of muscle cars, I trust my EFI Dakota, even with a ll the aftermarket parts I've put in/on it, to travel greater distances, with out any worries, doesn't mean they can't happen, just allot less to worry about, than an old & points condenser, carbureted engine combo... Doesn't mean, I won't or haven't, driven across country with an older 60's car with newer & better technology in it either...

IMHFO the originals in stock form, from Chrysler, with all but a select few exceptions, weren't all that fast, maybe 13's {12's with Ronnie Sox driving} & most were more lie actually high 14's-15 second 1/4 mile cars with an average Joe driver, hence the "day 2", term of the day, almost everyone all ditched weak OEM stuff, intakes carbs, cams, rockers, exhaust/mufflers, headers, clutches/converters, ignitions, etc., for the performance/aftermarket or Direct Connection parts of the day, to make them run how they're capable of running....

 

[67Satty]

I don't think the new Challengers with the new Hemis can leave that hard, at least the SRT8 Challenger I raced at Barona one time couldn't. His 60 foot time was way past 2 seconds and my pile was more than a second faster by the end of the 1/8 mile even though I would think he had way more HP than me.

 

[super-bee_ski]

Budnicks...
I beleive you are correct and I too beleive this is the "end" of another ERA.
.

 

[70rr-brian]

I don't think the new Challengers with the new Hemis can leave that hard, at least the SRT8 Challenger I raced at Barona one time couldn't. His 60 foot time was way past 2 seconds and my pile was more than a second faster by the end of the 1/8 mile even though I would think he had way more HP than me.

Well two possible reasons why.

1- The driver sucked
2- It was a pre-2011 model. The 6.4 replaced the 6.1 in 2011. Assuming an SRT. Basically 50 more horse and torque. The RT's are sporting the 5.7 which is running almost 100 less hp and torque.

 

[67Satty]

It was for sure an SRT8 and not an R/T. Maybe he had his traction control on when it should have been off or vice versa (I forget which is supposed to work better for those things)?

 

[snakeoil24]

Was the listed horse power of the 426 a true listing?

The horse power was not true on the Hemi. It was more on the order of 520 HP.

 

[MoparPhil]

Yes, but that was gross hp. The new cars are rated at brake hp.

 

[Dennis H]

Apples. Oranges. Big Block. No replacement for Displacement. Balls and Yankee ingenuity 45 years ago. Now, milleniums and cad design. No comparisin.

 

[black64]

When it is all said and done the performance back then was also held back by the tires that were available, so it is hard to really compare them without leveling the playing field. Most of the 1/4 mile times back then were traction related. I worked at Chrysler and was involved in the development of the viper and prowler vehicles most all comparisons reverted to a target vehicle from back in the day. The viper was to be the rebirth of the cobra, which was raw horsepower and handling combined without the creature comfort. There was always a push to bring out a 2 door sedan hemi 4 speed(actually 6 speed). I remember before I retired we heard they were going to use the Hemi in a remake of the Challenger. The 392 is a tribute to all that went before it and can perform with the best of them, but each has their own story. I have a first Gen 1957 392 hemi in my 40 ford and that hemi was the one that started all this.

 

[kb67mopar]

Now I can honestly say I have never driven or even ridden in a hemi powered 60's car. I have ridden in a 440 powered charger. When the time came to figure out what to do for my Coronet, for me it was hands down MODERN. I can with great reliability put 345 hp and 375 tq under my hood, get 20 mpg while doing it and have a great time. While the car isn't done it does run and really its not complicated. Today's engine technology is advanced, that is true but the basics still apply. These modern engines only need a few sensors to run properly and they are quite easy to diagnose. I have owned carburated cars and they were always a pain to start, difficult to get tuned properly and never ran for years on end with little attention. The new engines will run 200k miles, start when its -15 outside (I did it last week), get good fuel economy, and in most cases they TELL you what is wrong by plugging in a $50 scanner. (in the case of most Chrysler products by turning the key off and on 3 times) So while the Hemi of old may be legendary for its brute force, I'll take the reliability, availability, and ease of maintenance of my late model.

to each his own and I am glad they all exist!