70 Buster 340
Carbon Footprint
Stock 340s
My 73 car ran 15.0 at 90
My 71 ran 14.6 at 94
That's what compression will do.
My 73 car ran 15.0 at 90
My 71 ran 14.6 at 94
That's what compression will do.
Today, dollar for dollar, is the 318 faster than the 340 ???
- Thread starter 318willrun
- Start date
-
- Status
My 73 Challenger was a stock 340 and never ran faster than 9.75 in the 1/8th. That's a 15.21 1/4 mile time. I wonder if my 2 barrel teen Swinger or 273-4 would run about as fast.
Good to see a comparison there. My 73-340 ran pretty average then.
you broke the rules , was between a 318 340 and a 360 , no hellehants or big blocks
my dead stock 340 ran a 13.8@ 102 mph
73 had the extra big honking bumpers and other added weight
70 Buster 340
Carbon Footprint
13.8 - Is that in 'metric' time?
I know a lady that bought a '72 Demon brand new. 3.91 gears. 100% show room stock, except they bolted on slicks, ran 14.20. Another guy bought a 70 340 Duster brand new with a 4 speed and 3.91's. He only added slicks and tried to get a 100% show room stock car with only traction to go 13's and couldn't do it. 14.0's was the best of the best.
Yep, gotta be more to that story. Year and car makes a big difference. Rear gear is big as well. I had L60-15's on my Challenger with 3.23's Probably equal to a 3.08 or even slower. I just raced it. I didn't care about going faster. LOL
Nice !
ir3333
Well-Known Member
most 340 A bodies would run mid to low 14's with a factory tune, skinny stock tires and a 3.23 gear. Most big blocks were the same with the tires of the day.
I think Ronnie Sox ran a well tuned factory 340 '71 'Cuda to a 13.99 at 100 flat.
..might have had a cheater slick, can't remember?
I think Ronnie Sox ran a well tuned factory 340 '71 'Cuda to a 13.99 at 100 flat.
..might have had a cheater slick, can't remember?
70 Buster 340
Carbon Footprint
Times I posted were both on everyday street tires - and 3.23 gears.
Last edited:
rmchrgr
Skate And Destroy
These threads are always kind of silly. You couldn't give me a 318, even just for a "peppy" street motor. About 12 years ago had a '71 Dart with a bone-stock 318 2bbl. It could actually smoke the tires easily, made some torque but would not rpm past 3,500-4,000, tops. Took it to the track in this form once just for fun, ran a 17.67 1/4 mile at like 71 mph or something. I was laughing all the way down the track, like c'mon Nelly! Shifting myself it picked up a little, maybe a hundredth. You'd be foolish to argue that any bone-stock 340 car will go low 15s without trying. Tune it up and get it to hook, you could be in the 13s without too much effort.
I've stated my opinion on this before but I'll say it again, its not worth spending money on a 318. The 318 was never intended to be a performance engine from the factory. Even the 273 had the Commando package for a few years but to my knowledge there was never a 318 package like that. That should give some insight into the root of this discussion.
The 318 was your garden-variety basic transportation passenger car mill. Pull any model year out of a hat and check the 318 specs.; they were all low compression, were alnost always 2bbl equipped and placed in front of a basic 904 with 2.94 open rear ends in low-level couples and sedans. Thrifty secretary cars.
That said, can a 318 be built to perform? Sure, why not? It's an engine, just like a 340, 360, 440 etc. Throw enough money at it and maybe you'll make some steam. Everyone knows heads and cams make power but how to enable that on a 3.9xx" bore? Sleeve the block and bore it to at least 4.00", that way you can run a decent size valve without shrouding. ($3k budget out the window) Without the extra bore size you're pissing in the wind because you'll never take advantage of heads that have any air flow potential.
Besides, whether it's a 318 or 340, building any engine for $3,000 is not realistic, speed costs money. So if you're going to spend some coin to go fast, (even if the block is free) why waste it on a handicapped platform? Unless you get free machine work done by a really experienced machinist, you're going to spend at least $1,500 to start. Boring with torque plates and honing to the correct finish, square decking the block, line honing the mains yada yada yada. Plus, whether you put them on a 318 or 340 block, any decent-flowing cylinder heads are going to cost at least $2K so IMO you're over $3K before you even put the thing together. If you have Ricky-racer parts 'laying around' that you're willing to throw at a 318 that's been sitting for years you've spent money to own that stuff already so there's no free lunch.
You can argue it's not the bore but why? Why handcuff yourself with a smaller bore when you can get a 360 and start with a 4.0" bore. OK, some LS motors that the whole world loves are less than 4.0" bore but that's not a fair comparison, those are modern engines with way more sophisticated controls, aluminum parts and roller cams.
Another small cubic inch motor that often seems to get thrown into these discussions is the Ford 302. Even though it's less cubic inches, the 302 has the magical 4" bore. Sure a good many of them were lo-po stump pullers in trucks but the 5.0 Mustangs were pretty good performers for what they were. Pretty hard to argue that your basic '80's 5.0 Mustang wouldn't smoke any factory 318-equipped muscle-era Mopar. Don't even argue that, it's not worth the bandwidth. Maybe ask Tony Defeo about it.
Even de-stoked the 4" bore will always make more power. Tell me what you think about the car in the video below. It's 292 cubic inches which is a de-stroked 302 so it's got a 4.+xx" bore. This is a quick car no matter how you slice it. Yeah, it's a high compression race car but for comparison sake you just don't see this type of combo with a 318. Guy revs the piss out of this thing, must be 9,000 rpm, insane.
Do this with a 318 and I'll be impressed.
I've stated my opinion on this before but I'll say it again, its not worth spending money on a 318. The 318 was never intended to be a performance engine from the factory. Even the 273 had the Commando package for a few years but to my knowledge there was never a 318 package like that. That should give some insight into the root of this discussion.
The 318 was your garden-variety basic transportation passenger car mill. Pull any model year out of a hat and check the 318 specs.; they were all low compression, were alnost always 2bbl equipped and placed in front of a basic 904 with 2.94 open rear ends in low-level couples and sedans. Thrifty secretary cars.
That said, can a 318 be built to perform? Sure, why not? It's an engine, just like a 340, 360, 440 etc. Throw enough money at it and maybe you'll make some steam. Everyone knows heads and cams make power but how to enable that on a 3.9xx" bore? Sleeve the block and bore it to at least 4.00", that way you can run a decent size valve without shrouding. ($3k budget out the window) Without the extra bore size you're pissing in the wind because you'll never take advantage of heads that have any air flow potential.
Besides, whether it's a 318 or 340, building any engine for $3,000 is not realistic, speed costs money. So if you're going to spend some coin to go fast, (even if the block is free) why waste it on a handicapped platform? Unless you get free machine work done by a really experienced machinist, you're going to spend at least $1,500 to start. Boring with torque plates and honing to the correct finish, square decking the block, line honing the mains yada yada yada. Plus, whether you put them on a 318 or 340 block, any decent-flowing cylinder heads are going to cost at least $2K so IMO you're over $3K before you even put the thing together. If you have Ricky-racer parts 'laying around' that you're willing to throw at a 318 that's been sitting for years you've spent money to own that stuff already so there's no free lunch.
You can argue it's not the bore but why? Why handcuff yourself with a smaller bore when you can get a 360 and start with a 4.0" bore. OK, some LS motors that the whole world loves are less than 4.0" bore but that's not a fair comparison, those are modern engines with way more sophisticated controls, aluminum parts and roller cams.
Another small cubic inch motor that often seems to get thrown into these discussions is the Ford 302. Even though it's less cubic inches, the 302 has the magical 4" bore. Sure a good many of them were lo-po stump pullers in trucks but the 5.0 Mustangs were pretty good performers for what they were. Pretty hard to argue that your basic '80's 5.0 Mustang wouldn't smoke any factory 318-equipped muscle-era Mopar. Don't even argue that, it's not worth the bandwidth. Maybe ask Tony Defeo about it.
Even de-stoked the 4" bore will always make more power. Tell me what you think about the car in the video below. It's 292 cubic inches which is a de-stroked 302 so it's got a 4.+xx" bore. This is a quick car no matter how you slice it. Yeah, it's a high compression race car but for comparison sake you just don't see this type of combo with a 318. Guy revs the piss out of this thing, must be 9,000 rpm, insane.
Do this with a 318 and I'll be impressed.
Oh my God I just choked on my spit reading this. The LS guys and old school small block chevies go at each other hard, real hard. And you don’t see many of them building 307’s. LMAO.
Man sometimes I wish I still had my 6 cylinders Maverick. It was undefeated running against 318’s in anything. They were delicious. Mmmmmm. Lol
What did those have in em' 240's?
Believe what you want, 4" bore is not "magic".
Making HP is an easy recipe. It is all about airflow. I always stuck with factory parts, so no strokers, no aluminum heads, no money for roller cams, and it has to live on the street. It is the same whether you are building a 302 Ford, I prefer 289's, or a SBC, or a SBM. Get a set of the best factory heads, calculate what compression that will work with the gas you will run, figure what pistons/ head milling will get you there. Talk to a Cam Manufacturer that knows what they are talking about, and order it. Get great machine work. Get a great intake and carb. Balance everything. Put it together. Enjoy! There are advantages and disadvantages with most motors, .090 of an inch in a bore won't make any difference. If you think 318's can't be performance motors, look at what Stock Class racers were running before the cry babies got NHRA to allow aluminum or ported heads in that class.
70 Buster 340
Carbon Footprint
LOL
My pure stock 71 Chevelle 307 2bbl .... 18.12
Buddy Mike K had the same car, added duals and it went 18.34.
All times posted were at Raceway Park Englishtown
Years later I bought his Chevelle , daily for a while, kept the American Daisy mags that was on another buddies Corvair of Danger that I almost died in.
Then sold that Cheby Chebelle to a mexican guy I worked with. He Love It.
My pure stock 71 Chevelle 307 2bbl .... 18.12
Buddy Mike K had the same car, added duals and it went 18.34.
All times posted were at Raceway Park Englishtown
Years later I bought his Chevelle , daily for a while, kept the American Daisy mags that was on another buddies Corvair of Danger that I almost died in.
Then sold that Cheby Chebelle to a mexican guy I worked with. He Love It.
I thought I ended this debate . lol 451- 512 cubes if you want to make real power.I'm going to end this debate now, dollar for dollar I'm stroking a 400 and smoking little brother.
If we're not using the 318 model.
If we're not building a 3000 buck 318.
70 Buster 340
Carbon Footprint
My girl friend (now wife) had a orange "Pinto" with a 2.3L when I met her. She loves 71 Grand Prix SJ so I found and bought her a perfect one $850 and I got the Pinto.
Loved it !
Redline, Banging gears, beat the **** out of it.
I love low powered stick cars, you can play race car driver all day and skip all the tickets cause cops didn't eyeball them.
- Status
-
