To Stroke or not to Stroke?

340 550HP, But how???

  • Total voters
    91
-
Stock stroke is the way to go! Every build now is a stroker. Nice to see a stock stroke free reving smallblock make quick zippy power based on rpm power!!:steering::thumbsup:
 
I will be very interested in your choice I will be going through my 340 next winter . how about a 340 to spray 200 hp don't hate me! :realcrazy:lol
 
Ok, this is all good, I love hearing what you guys have to say. But like I said, it's going to make the same hp no matter what direction. It's just going to sound different and come in at different rpm. The smaller I go, the nastier it will sound.
 
Hey, how about this!!?

Motor Trend Channel must have been "channeling" this thread! Pretty coincidental; they're even comparing stock v. stroker LA engines:

 
I'd keep it a 340 for the nostalgia factor. Going with more cubes is fine too but I'd rather have an old school screamer. It's part of what made the 340 cool to begin with, IMO. Keep the stock stroke and let her rip. That being said..... I'm probably a bit biased lol

A stroker would make for a "better" street engine, but a high revving 340 would be cooler to me. Gratuitous amounts of revs are always fun.
 
Personally I like strokers, IMO gobs of torque from way down low and can pull higher gears for cruising. I see a lot of guys comment on 340's and rpm's. How many rpm's are you guys turning your street driven pump gas 340's? My 434 has a 4.125" crank in it and it's as quick reving as any 340 I've owned. I think it's a common misconception that long stroke motors are slow reving.
 
justinp61 said:
Personally I like strokers, IMO gobs of torque from way down low and can pull higher gears for cruising. I see a lot of guys comment on 340's and rpm's. How many rpm's are you guys turning your street driven pump gas 340's? My 434 has a 4.125" crank in it and it's as quick reving as any 340 I've owned. I think it's a common misconception that long stroke motors are slow reving.
Click to expand...

What?.......I remember the Sales Ads back in the late 60s saying that the 340 was a high winding motor..........
 
Ok, I hear you that you want to stick with the cranks you mentioned, but I'd go for a 3.79 stroke because we don't see them very often in builds.
Kind of exotic... a screaming 395.
 
.. to match the rpm of a smaller stroke your piston speed will have to be faster because with a longer stroke the piston has to travel much further for each revolution... it's just physics.
all things being equal the short stroke should be more efficient..if it matters to you
 
my suggestion is to do whatever you need to do cubewise and meet your power goal, but on 87 octane cheap stuff.........I HATE having to fill up with a dollar a gallon more premium fuel.......
 
kielbasa said:
my suggestion is to do whatever you need to do cubewise and meet your power goal, but on 87 octane cheap stuff.........I HATE having to fill up with a dollar a gallon more premium fuel.......
Click to expand...

the original post is "the same power" regardless of cubes.
 
70aarcuda said:
What?.......I remember the Sales Ads back in the late 60s saying that the 340 was a high winding motor..........
Click to expand...

In the late 60's it was a high winding motor, and a very good one at that.
 
MRL Performance said:
Im going to build a 340 here pretty soon. But what way to go? Any size I choose it will make around 550HP. I know torque will go up as stroke goes up, but any way you slice it its going to make good power. Lets here what you guys/gals think? Im kinda leaning toward 340ci.
Click to expand...
for that many hp, you need to increase the cubes as much as possible to keep the rpm in a range the valve train can live a long happy life. A 340 inch motor would need about 7000 rpm to make an honest 600hp. Obviously a 416 would need a lot less. If this motor is to see street duty it is real important to go big, for obvious reasons.
 
MRL Performance said:
Im sticking with the 3.31, 3.58 or 4.00 stroke, nothing fancy and expensive. Im with you about strokers, I do a lot of them. Its hard to beat the power they put down. But there is something about a high rpm screamer too. It will be up for sale afterwards, so Im trying to get a good pulse of what the people want. I may lean toward the 3.31 stock stroke, but if the masses say STROKE THAT MOTHER, then I will.
Keep it coming, I love the discussions.
Click to expand...

What the people want you to gamble your money on (speculation engine) and what they are willing to buy, just might be two different things Mike. Just do what you are going to do.
 
IMO strokers are so overdone--been there done that. I love an efficient engine and that means high HP/CI . There is nothing like a 7000+ rpm engine on the street and that just isn't going to be a stroker. Plus as a builder it will be more of a challenge to pull off a 550HP 340. I'm building a high RPM 371 (3.58") right now that I will get rid of as a good 340 block has come my way. Going to stroke crank to 3.425" (356 cubes) and let it sing. J.Rob
 
Business is business. If it's a gamble regardless of the direction, thinking as a business, limit the odds and go for the biggest market. Strokers are "overdone" because a boatload of people want them (still).
 
moper said:
Business is business. If it's a gamble regardless of the direction, thinking as a business, limit the odds and go for the biggest market. Strokers are "overdone" because a boatload of people want them (still).
Click to expand...

Oh I totally agree and get where you're coming from, I'm just wanting to see another high RPM build. J.Rob
 
The thing about a high rpm small block mopar, is the valve train requirements to do it, which most likely will make it a more costly endeavor, not well suited to street use, as compared to a conventional 360 or even 408 strikers. High rpm can make big power, but it can be expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top