70 Challenger A66 (340) car brake question. • The Dodge Challenger Message Board

by **roadrunner** » 16 Dec 2005 22:24

The car has the stock 15 " rims. I assume without looking it has 11" drums. Does anyone know what shoe size I need for the front and rear brakes?

by **dave-r** » 17 Dec 2005 12:37

Despite anything I may have written elswhere around here over the years the 340 package came with 14" wheels not 15s.

It did come with "heavy duty" brakes which I asume are the 11" drums.

It is a 10 minute job to check the drum size so just to be sure you had better do that.

The 11" drum shoes were 11"x3" front and 11"x2.5" rear.

by **Jon** » 17 Dec 2005 15:12

Hey Dave . My stock wheels are 15" with front disc brakes. The motor is a 340 matching with the VIN. :wink:

Maybe it is the R/T package that determines the wheel size.

Jon

by **roadrunner** » 17 Dec 2005 15:28

dave-r wrote:Despite anything I may have written elswhere around here over the years the 340 package came with 14" wheels not 15s.

It did come with "heavy duty" brakes which I asume are the 11" drums.

It is a 10 minute job to check the drum size so just to be sure you had better do that.

The 11" drum shoes were 11"x3" front and 11"x2.5" rear.

Mine is a numbers match orginal and I am the third owner. All three of us live within 1.5 miles. It came originally with 15" wheels. And the original wheels are still on the car. Thanks for your help on this!!!

by **dave-r** » 17 Dec 2005 18:39

15" wheels were optional. But not "standard".

I used to think the 340 came with 15" wheels as standard but I was corrected on that. :wink:

by **dave-r** » 17 Dec 2005 18:41

Jon wrote:Hey Dave . My stock wheels are 15" with front disc brakes. The motor is a 340 matching with the VIN. Maybe it is the R/T package that determines the wheel size.

Jon

No such thing as a 1970 340 R/T.

As far as I know only the 340 T/A and Hemi came with 15" wheels as "standard".

by **six pack** » 17 Dec 2005 20:49

dave-r wrote:
Jon wrote:Hey Dave . My stock wheels are 15" with front disc brakes. The motor is a 340 matching with the VIN. Maybe it is the R/T package that determines the wheel size.

Jon

No such thing as a 1970 340 R/T.

As far as I know only the 340 T/A and Hemi came with 15" wheels as "standard".

I would agree.

by **Jon** » 18 Dec 2005 15:52

I may be confused again. :s008:

Did you say Dave there is no such thing as a 1970 340 R/T. My VIN is JH23HOE... Is that not a 340-4? I have owned the car since 1975 I think I am the 3rd owner.

The car has R/T all over it (Not just the emblems) hood, rallye dash, dual ex. thru the valence. 15" stock wheels. I don't have the fender tag though. I must have removed years ago during a restoration.

Jon

by **dave-r** » 18 Dec 2005 17:51

Don't worry Jon. :wink:

R/T cars start the VIN with JS. Yours starts JH which is the base model.

The 340 was not an option on the 1970 R/T. That is what the A66 340 performance package was for.

A66 gave you all the R/T type stuff like the power bulge hood, HD brakes and suspension. But it was not an R/T.

So why has the car got R/T emblems on it?

I have never found out why. But there seems to have been some production line confusion.

All the convertibles with this package built at hamtramck got R/T badges that's for sure. I don't know if any or just some hardtops built there got them.

The hardtops built at the LA plant all seemed to get them. At least I have seen a few examples on the internet. We need more examples from you guys to find out. Both LA and Hamtramck examples.

The confusion is understandable because R/T and non-R/T convertibles have the same chassis and there is no difference between a 318 version and a Hemi version.

The same can also be said of the 383 R/T hardtop and non-R/T hardtops. No difference in the chassis. Just differences in the other stuff like suspension and hood.

Only the 440 and Hemi got the extra bits in the chassis that the convertibe also got for strength.

So there is no mechanical difference between a JH23HO (340 pakage) and a JS23N0 (383 R/T)

The JH23N0 383 base model had a flat hood and I don't know of any of them getting R/T badges by mistake.

So my conclusion is that the 340 package cars LOOKED like R/T cars so the guy on the line fitted them. Simple as that.

Unless anyone knows otherwise?

by **Jon** » 18 Dec 2005 18:32

So my car has an A66 package and mistakenly received the R/T emblems at the L.A. plant? :shock:

Do we have a list of items included with the A66 package? I will check around.

Thanks

Jon

by **dave-r** » 18 Dec 2005 20:43

If you look in the VIN and Options section you will find the dealer brochure which has the options listed.

http://challenger.mpoli.fi/forum/viewto ... 2898#12898

Note it says not available with the S.E. or the R/T.

by **Christer** » 19 Dec 2005 7:45

dave-r wrote:The 340 was not an option on the 1970 R/T. That is what the A66 340 performance package was for.

A66 gave you all the R/T type stuff like the power bulge hood, HD brakes and suspension. But it was not an R/T.

So why has the car got R/T emblems on it?

I have never found out why. But there seems to have been some production line confusion.

So my conclusion is that the 340 package cars LOOKED like R/T cars so the guy on the line fitted them. Simple as that.

Unless anyone knows otherwise?

Well, if none of us knows the truth, maybe we through discussion can come a little bit closer to the truth!? :s022:

I have another way of seeing it (or maybe you can call it a different approach). I think the badges were mounted on the cars because the bosses wanted it to be that way :!:

Why? People who had bought the A66-package simply started complaining about not getting the R/T badges as well. The fact is that they had bought a car: 1) with similar performance figures as the base R/T 2) and with the same options as were standard on the R/T. Why on earth couldn´t they get the R/T badges as well?

If I have understood US culture correctly, they have used the phrase "The customer is always right" (or something similar), for quite a long time now. They are very responsive to customer needs, wishes and demands. The bosses got complaints when the cars didn´t have the R/T badges on them and everything was peacefully when the cars came equipped with R/T badges. Conclusion: They simply started to mount them on cars that had enough performance and enough options: That is why the A66-cars got them! :p:

(if you ask me...... :s023:

)

by **roadrunner** » 21 Dec 2005 1:27

Dave, is it fair to say the following:

1. There was NO "R/T package" for 340 cars in 1970.
2. Some 340 rag tops and hardtops DID have R/T emblems on them from the factory.

Fair enough????

by **Jon** » 21 Dec 2005 2:50

I think it is fair to say that the A66 car looked like and had the options of an R/T so, they stuck the emblems (badges) on it accordingly.

Jon

by **dave-r** » 21 Dec 2005 9:06

roadrunner wrote:Dave, is it fair to say the following:

1. There was NO "R/T package" for 340 cars in 1970.
2. Some 340 rag tops and hardtops DID have R/T emblems on them from the factory.

Fair enough????

Not quite. Because R/T was not a "package". A package is something added on. The R/T was a different line altogether. Hence the VIN starting JS instead of JH.

It was 1973 before performance became a package and the Rallye became nothing much more than a couple of fender scoops and decals.

It is better to say that the 340 engine was not an option for the R/T. All 1970 R/Ts were big blocks.