1968 Match Race ~ Barracuda 340-S vs. Camaro SS 350

-
A-1 Transmissions was one of the first companies to make 'good'
Power-Glide components and had also developed a good Torque-Converter.

I do remember a few 1968 Camaro SS 350's running 13.40's in Stock Class
"Automatic', with 'A-1' components in their Power-Glides.

The problem, the Transmissions would only hold up for half the racing season.

Headers, 4.88 Gears, 7" Slicks, Lakewood Traction Bars were the standard add-ons.

The 68' Camaro SS 350 was a decent competitor for Class Trophy.

They were light, and they were 'everywhere'.
 
I owned a 1968 340/4-speed in 1976, all stock.
This thing was stout!
It incinerate the tires at will.
 
mikedevore said:
Wind them up & count on one hand before they come apart.
Try finding one with the original engine. If it got hotrodded, it didn't last.
I made a living off these for 20 years in the parts buisness.
Lousey valvetrain, studs pulling out of the heads when reved high.
Most were dead by 30-40k.
Yea, they would rev, just wouldn't live.
I'm talking OEM to OEM, the 340 was quicker & more durable than any stock small block chevy.
This is why there is a big aftermarket support for them, about all chevy did was provide the aftermarket with customers.
Click to expand...

Original engines don't exist because they WERE hotroded all the time..I agree 340 against a 350/290 hp the 340 would win and especially with the power glide ( and the fact the 340 HP was closer to 330 so it should be put against a 302/290 then the 340 would come up short) ..there is a huge after market because GM built 100 MILLION of them ..not bad for an over rated engine ..I've worked on them since 1966 at 15 built a 301 (283,.125 over) and have found them to be the best bang for the buck out there ..I'm a fan of them all including, god help me Fords ..
 
If you like the chevy's so be it.
I only can go off what I have seen during my years of racing.
I have ran 340's & 360's since I got my license.
The thing I noticed, My 340 was just as quick or quicker, than the small block stuff.
Most of the chevy stuff had lots of comp, roller cam, aftermarket heads.
I'm doing it with stock heads, solid lifter cam, TRW stock replacement pistons & running as quick or quicker.

I don't agree that the 302 Z engine would outrun the 340 in a pure stock battle.
Don't care for the Ford stuff either, they always seem to have good all-out race stuff, but it never transferred over to their street cars.
Not much run in a 351W-2V Mach 1 Mustang.
 
Mike I like and have owned them all over MMany years... I would love to see a 302Z and a 340 in an equal weight/geared car go at it..and as you said small block Ford's just are not in the same class in stock form ..owned a 428 back in early 70's and it was stout and no one could argue with the 427 FE being "close" to a Hemi class engine..I have two 440 cars now a Dart and Polara and would not go back to a small block anyway
 
I do love the torque of them big blocks.
Ran an very mild 440 in a bracket car.
.060 6-pack pistons, 915 heads with port matched, 620 Crane Roller, stock rods & crank.
It ran 10.60's.
 
DusterKrazy said:
With a SBC, you pay extra for the stuff that comes standard on the Chrysler LA engine.
*6 inch rods
*Deep skirted block that clears stroker cranks easier
*Shaft mounted rocker arms

The only advantage to the sbc is maybe the valve/pushrod angle and of course cheaper. I still stand tall saying the LA engine is a better engine.
Click to expand...

I have never seen or heard of a LA with a deep skirt block.
maybe your'e thinking of the B or RB?
 
cudamike13 said:
I have never seen or heard of a LA with a deep skirt block.
maybe your'e thinking of the B or RB?
Click to expand...

No. It is not that they are a deck skirt block per say but there is more room in the LA for stroker crank clearance. I may have misworded that.
 
1968 Output Numbers,

340/275 HP
* 275 Horsepower.......... @ 5000 RPM's
* 340 Ft/Lbs. of Torque.. @ 3200 RPM's

350/295 HP
* 295 Horsepower.......... @ 4800 RPM's
* 380 Ft/Lbs. of Torque.. @ 3200 RPM's

Advertised numbers........
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
1968 Output Numbers,

340/275 HP
* 275 Horsepower.......... @ 5000 RPM's
* 340 Ft/Lbs. of Torque.. @ 3200 RPM's

350/295 HP
* 295 Horsepower.......... @ 4800 RPM's
* 380 Ft/Lbs. of Torque.. @ 3200 RPM's

Advertised numbers........
Click to expand...

Was GM fudging their numbers or was Chrysler?
 
one of the magazines rebuilt a 340 to stock '70 specs (i know,who believes those anyway)
the engine dyno showed 281 hp but they said the original carb was suspect.Then they bolted on an eddy 750 and the pull went a bit over 300 hp,but i can't remember how much
..so with the original small carb they were probably around 280 - 290 which isn't a lot but the 340 is a quick revving engine...
 
The 71 340 is said to have the most stock HP due to the better spreadbore intake and the 800 cfm T-Quad.
 
Engine Number

The 1968 - 340/275 HP was re-factored by the NHRA in January 1968
to 310 HP.

Over the years, the HP factor slowly came down, and now it is at 290 HP,
which seems to be 'dead nuts'.

The 1968 - 350/295 HP always stayed at that Rating for Stock Class, but
had a minor correction to 286 HP.

Those Horsepower 'numbers' also are 'dead nuts'.
 
Mikedevore-

You and I must have been reading the same engineering material and having the same street experiences.

That's EXACTLY what I remember.
 
Camshaft Specifications

1968 340 {4-Speed}
* .444"/.453" Lift
* 276*/284* Duration
* 114* Centerline
* 60* Overlap

1968 340 {Automatic}
* .430/".444" Lift
* 268*/276* Duration
* 210*/220* Duration @ .050" Lift
* 114* Centerline
* 44* Overlap


1968 350/295 HP {L-48}
* .390"/.410" Lift
* 300*/310* Duration
* 195*/202* Duration @ .050" Lift
* 114* LSA
* 78* Overlap
 
After working on many of these engines way back when, the 340 was much stronger. The general use #929.....390/410" @ 195/202*@.050 Chevy cam was a broomstick. I installed several 327/350 .447" cams in these engines, and man, what a difference. With [email protected], they ran strong even in low comp (8.5) engines, especially with some gear, 3.55 and up.

If anyone overrated these two engines.....my opinion is, it was chevy.


P.S. Just beat me to it Paul.......lol.
 
That's a pretty crazy cam in the bowtie.

Almost a 318 cam by lift...and outf'n landish duration.

Were they trying to waste fuel?
 
That's the identical engine as the 350 rated at 300hp in the Corvette, Chevelle, Impala, Caprice, etc. The only reason it ran "decent" in the Camaro and Vette is the lighter weight. It was really just a passenger car engine.
 
Old-Man-Rick,

Back in the Day, at my fathers Machine Shop we sold a lot of 'General Kinetics'
Camshafts for the 350 {300, 295 and 255 HP} Chevy's.

I think the Grind was 292-H {.450" Lift ~ 292* Duration}

It was the 'popular' Cheater Camshaft for the Chevy Guys running in Stock Class.
 
When I lived Md in the 70's, i took a ride up thru Pennsylvania and stopped at "Grumpy's" shop. He wasn't there...lol, but the guys that showed me around, were big on the GK cams. I was hooked after that as far as the Chevy stuff I worked on. Mainly bought solids from them for a few race big blocks and a couple personal engines, big and small. They all ran good, and I never had a complaint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top