That's right, but I think the original mistake was just a simple typo -- the famous Cuda engine was the 383.

loedman1(a)juno.com wrote: Chrysler had a 383, although, I'm not sure if it was in production in 74. Chad Fernandez Michigan, USA

OK. Chrysler Corp. had a 273. It was used in early Barracudas (before the 'Cuda, which was introduced in '70). The 273 was superceded by the 318 in somewhere around '67 or so. Chrysler never made a 283. Neither did Ford. That displacement was only made by Chevrolet as one of the early Small-Block Chevy engines (a follow on to the original 265 CI Chevy Small Block). In '70, the Barracuda and the sportier 'Cuda model could both be ordered with a 383. The 318 small block was avaialable in the Barracuda, as was the 383. The 'Cuda could be had with a 340 Six Pack (a very hot setup with 3 2-barrel carbs which was called the AAR 'Cuda -- a very highly-sought after collector car today), a 383 four-barrel (the standard engine in the 'Cuda), a 440 four-barrel, a 440 Six Pack (very rare), and, the cream of the crop, the 426 Hemi (also very rare). The same basic engine lineup with the exception of the 440 Six Pack was available in '74. By this time, though, the 383 was crippled with smogisms, lowered compression, and was a mere ghost of the 325 (Gross)HP 383 that was available in '70'. So, it's likely tha the original poster of the message simply typo'd when the message was composed putting in '2'83 rather than '3'83. What relationship all of this has to classic computers is a mystery to me...but it just happens that I'm a fan of '60's and early '70's musclecars, so I thought I'd chime in. Rick Bensene The Old Calculator Web Museum http://www.geocities.com/oldcalculators