The 340 is the biggest POS V8 Chrysler ever made.

-
yellow rose said:
So you want to compare a naturally aspirated engine to a turbo charged engine? That's dumb.

Out a turbo on the V8 and it will drag that **** box 4 cylinder like the punk it is. To take the turbo off the 4 slug. And then it would be the slug it is.

It's easy to sit around and make up straw men to knock them down.
Click to expand...

If you want to bench-race historical data from road tests performed two generations ago, that's fine. I just don't see how you can look at a 14+ second 340 Duster and somehow use that to argue that it's not a POS. You'll be laughed at with anybody who knows anything about cars made after 1990.

Was the 340 impressive in its day? Sure. So was the '32 Ford V8, so was the '49 Rocket 88, so was the Tesla Model S. I don't see you worshiping those cars and any of those could be argued to be a bigger deal in their own time.

IMO what makes engines like the 340 great is what could be done with them back then and what can be done with them now and how they feel to drive. The fact that this motor that came out 50 years ago can run with the best (when properly built) is all the proof that you need.


Also, I can tell that you don't know your *** from your elbow about turbocharged 4cyl engines but do your research before you make a fool out of yourself. Plenty of guys are running in the 10s and a few in the 9s with those bloated EcoBoost S550 Mustangs.
 
Last edited:
TrailBeast said:
I just recently went through those exact scenarios with my two Sons, and the window crank thing with the Grandson.:D
Too funny.
Click to expand...
And having to use a key to lock/unlock it. They stood at the door clicking the button with a confused look on their face.
 
MRGTX said:
If you want to bench-race historical data from road tests performed two generations ago, that's fine. I just don't see how you can look at a 14+ second 340 Duster and somehow use that to argue that it's not a POS. You'll be laughed at with anybody who knows anything about cars made after 1990.

Was the 340 impressive in its day? Sure. So was the '32 Ford V8, so was the '49 Rocket 88, so was the Tesla Model S. I don't see you worshiping those cars and any of those could be argued to be a bigger deal in their own time.

IMO what makes engines like the 340 great is what could be done with them back then and what can be done with them now and how they feel to drive. The fact that this motor that came out 50 years ago can run with the best (when properly built) is all the proof that you need.


Also, I can tell that you don't know your *** from your elbow about turbocharged 4cyl engines but do your research before you make a fool out of yourself. Plenty of guys are running in the 10s and a few in the 9s with those bloated EcoBoost S550 Mustangs.
Click to expand...

It is understandable that after 50 years most everyone here talks about what the 340 could be,not what it was. As a factory new street car, it was considered to be a very quick car. Most people did not own or drive them, but drove 318 furys or 283 Impalas. Also, all the nostalgia and pumped up stories about built race cars is just that. stories. Most people did not have the money or Interest is modifiying them, as they were all pretty quick. The fad of owning them came and went very quickly.

Also, keep in mind the whole deal with wanting these cars was concentrated in a four year period, not long historically. By 1972 forward, most people didn't care about the muscle cars, and they were resold for very little. Then, the 1973 fuel crisis hit, and the muscle car market died. I had a friend that owned a beautiful little red Express type Ram short box with a 400, and traded it even up for a new Pinto!(1975)
I remember buying a 1970 roadrunner 440 six barrel in 1976 for $800 Bucks.48k miles, so it was somebodys daily driver.
About the most the average racer did to the cars was slicks and headers,if that.

Most everybody drove them to work, or school, rain or shine, snow and ice. so the whole deal about everybody racing all the time is not true.
 
oldmopardude said:
It is understandable that after 50 years most everyone here talks about what the 340 could be,not what it was. As a factory new street car, it was considered to be a very quick car. Most people did not own or drive them, but drove 318 furys or 283 Impalas. Also, all the nostalgia and pumped up stories about built race cars is just that. stories. Most people did not have the money or Interest is modifiying them, as they were all pretty quick. The fad of owning them came and went very quickly.

Also, keep in mind the whole deal with wanting these cars was concentrated in a four year period, not long historically. By 1972 forward, most people didn't care about the muscle cars, and they were resold for very little. Then, the 1973 fuel crisis hit, and the muscle car market died. I had a friend that owned a beautiful little red Express type Ram short box with a 400, and traded it even up for a new Pinto!(1975)
I remember buying a 1970 roadrunner 440 six barrel in 1976 for $800 Bucks.48k miles, so it was somebodys daily driver.
About the most the average racer did to the cars was slicks and headers,if that.

Most everybody drove them to work, or school, rain or shine, snow and ice. so the whole deal about everybody racing all the time is not true.
Click to expand...

That's some valuable perspective. Thanks for writing that up.
Your point about the short time span over which muscle cars ruled the earth is appreciated. This fact is certainly easy to overlook.
 
MRGTX said:
If you want to bench-race historical data from road tests performed two generations ago, that's fine. I just don't see how you can look at a 14+ second 340 Duster and somehow use that to argue that it's not a POS. You'll be laughed at with anybody who knows anything about cars made after 1990.

Was the 340 impressive in its day? Sure. So was the '32 Ford V8, so was the '49 Rocket 88, so was the Tesla Model S. I don't see you worshiping those cars and any of those could be argued to be a bigger deal in their own time.

IMO what makes engines like the 340 great is what could be done with them back then and what can be done with them now and how they feel to drive. The fact that this motor that came out 50 years ago can run with the best (when properly built) is all the proof that you need.


Also, I can tell that you don't know your *** from your elbow about turbocharged 4cyl engines but do your research before you make a fool out of yourself. Plenty of guys are running in the 10s and a few in the 9s with those bloated EcoBoost S550 Mustangs.
Click to expand...



No need to go full retard. I know your type. Left wing kook.

Jump in your Prius and blow.
 
I like the old school guys that were there and appreciate their posts. When I bought my 70 Swinger 340, I did a little research. there were about 13,000 340 Swingers built in 1970, and you can further sub divide by transmission, color, options etc. It is pretty clear that not everyone was buying the Dart equipped for performance. I have heard and agree that the 340 Dart was "fast out of the box" and that came form an older co worker who was a young man at the time. I would compare the Swinger 340 of the late 60's / early 70's to the Neon SRT that was around about 10-12 years ago, it was an economy car with a performance package. I don't argue that modern technology doesn't produce more power with less, I agree. But I also don't think its fair to compare old with new in terms of what the 340 A body was, a low priced performance package in an economy car. One would have to compare with a modern variant, like the Neon SRT, or whatever is comparable now. Does anyone know the quarter times of the factory stock SRT Neon? ( I would look it up. but dont really care, how many do you still see on the street 12 tears later?) or what the latest economy car performance package for that matter? I don't think that muscle cars "ruled the world", they were around at a time when the government didn't regulate emissions, fuel economy and all the other requirements that killed the original muscle cars off. Look at how long it took performance to come back. It wasn't untill the Fuel Injected 5.0 Mustang in the mid 80's that they actually started figuring out how to make "clean" horsepower. Fast forward to now, there are emissions compliant V-8's making horsepower, but its so expensive that not everyone is buying it. So comparing the old 340 to the new high tech expensive engines is like comparing Blueberries to grapes, yeah they are the same color, but that's about it. :)
 
Last edited:
Great points all around @Dartswinger70

Your comparison to the Dodge SRT-4 is a really good one. They cracked into the 13s evidentially! Tires not withstanding, that's probably still a bit better (or as good as) what a stock Swinger 340 could have run.

As for where they went...yeah. I recently wondered the same thing. I guess they were just used up?
Honestly, that gen Neon is a pretty decent car and pretty well built. They weren't particularly rust-prone. I think the owners may have been particularly crash-prone however. :D

The SRT-4 was a wrong-wheel-drive rocket, especially for 2004.

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 24.8 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.7 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 13.9 sec @ 103 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 153 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph @ impending lockup: 169 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g

Dodge SRT-4

Dartswinger70 said:
...So comparing the old 340 to the new high tech expensive engines is like comparing Blueberries to grapes, yeah they are the same color, but that's about it. :)
Click to expand...

It sounds like you draw the line at the cost of modern clean V8s making the comparison not worthwhile? If so, that's as fair of a reason as any...but the cost of cars in general has outpaced inflation (I believe).
 
MRGTX said:
Great points all around @Dartswinger70

Your comparison to the Dodge SRT-4 is a really good one. They cracked into the 13s evidentially! Tires not withstanding, that's probably still a bit better (or as good as) what a stock Swinger 340 could have run.

As for where they went...yeah. I recently wondered the same thing. I guess they were just used up?
Honestly, that gen Neon is a pretty decent car and pretty well built. They weren't particularly rust-prone. I think the owners may have been particularly crash-prone however. :D

The SRT-4 was a wrong-wheel-drive rocket, especially for 2004.

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 24.8 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.7 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 13.9 sec @ 103 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 153 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph @ impending lockup: 169 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g

Dodge SRT-4



It sounds like you draw the line at the cost of modern clean V8s making the comparison not worthwhile? If so, that's as fair of a reason as any...but the cost of cars in general has outpaced inflation (I believe).
Click to expand...
I never really draw a line as I don't really give a rats hind end, but I do believe the powers that be in these modern times make Horsepower unattainable for that common working class stiff by driving the cost up. Rough numbers, (and I haven't researched, Mustang GT - high 30's , Camaro- 40's Challenger 40's and up. A nice chunk of coin for a car that is impractical everywhere where there's winter from Oct to April.). Probably more so that back in the day when Musclecars were popular (68-72). That being said, would I like a brand new Shelby Mustang or Challenger with a hemi? you bet, I would probably not drive my old car much as the new car would have it beat technology wise. I am not a "new cars are junk" guy by any means. I like my old 340 dart because it is a classic car, and it is fun, I also don't drive it as my daily driver, it is purely a "lets have fun" ride, and then I park it. Can you convince the regulars in an A body forum to give up their 50 year old A bodies for something new? The comparison is comparing what? Horsepower that is measured on a different scale then back in the 60's, Net vs SAE? I dunno, if one were to pursue this seriously, you would need a stock pristine sample of each,old and new, as in a stock 68-71 340 ( The high compression , big valve version of the engine) vs a comparable modern vehicle in the same class, I am not talking a "Performance Economy " car against a new Corvette or Porsche or another "High performance road car". Then you would need a dyno, and a closed circuit track. The reason these cars were what they were is power to weight ratio, only a few cars have ever got it right. Fox Body 5.0 Mustang was one, 340 A body was another, I am sure there are more, but these ones mentioned were affordable and attainable performance cars. But, back on topic, the title of this post I want to address, from what I know from opening up a 340 and rebuilding it is, they weren't POS. They were Chryslers LA series engine with some stout performance internals and technolgy that was performance oriented "at that time".
 
Last edited:
Without being there,one can't appreciate how fast the cars appeared to be. My 340 Dart at 70 MPH seems like it is going 90 compared to my daily driver, a 2016 V6 challenger.Those old cars on bias plys give you the sensation that you are going balls to the wall!
Now the big C bodies did not feel that way. Not to mention, my V6 is faster in the quarter than my Dart.But, 48 years is a long time. I run around in a 71' Demon slant six, and at 70 that car lets you know you are doing 70, and it is in perfect shape!
The news frequently was of dead drag racers back then, a common occurrence.
So Fast is a matter of perspective. In 1971 I owned a 68' Valiant slant six, and with 13 inch tires, that car was a handful above 65. I bought a 66' Polara 500 in November of 1971, and thought I had died and gone to Heaven, travelling as much as I did being in the USAF. In 1971 my Buddy had a new 71' GTX 440 six Barrel four speed. He was crazy, and I was in that car above 130 MPH. only once, and I told him: never again!
In North Dakota it was easy to go for miles with nobody, Including cops. But even then, they drove 440 Mopar police cars, and you could not escape them should you come across one.
My room mate had a new 71' Demon 318 stick, green in color, which is why I have one of those today.

1971 demon 20 June 1018.jpg
 
I would argue that while the SRT Neon package was a great comparison, Shelby and Dodge had the package already figured out before then. The ‘86 GLHS is where it got the ball rolling.
 
oldmopardude said:
Without being there,one can't appreciate how fast the cars appeared to be. My 340 Dart at 70 MPH seems like it is going 90 compared to my daily driver, a 2016 V6 challenger.Those old cars on bias plys give you the sensation that you are going balls to the wall!
Now the big C bodies did not feel that way. Not to mention, my V6 is faster in the quarter than my Dart.But, 48 years is a long time. I run around in a 71' Demon slant six, and at 70 that car lets you know you are doing 70, and it is in perfect shape!
The news frequently was of dead drag racers back then, a common occurrence.
So Fast is a matter of perspective. In 1971 I owned a 68' Valiant slant six, and with 13 inch tires, that car was a handful above 65. I bought a 66' Polara 500 in November of 1971, and thought I had died and gone to Heaven, travelling as much as I did being in the USAF. In 1971 my Buddy had a new 71' GTX 440 six Barrel four speed. He was crazy, and I was in that car above 130 MPH. only once, and I told him: never again!
In North Dakota it was easy to go for miles with nobody, Including cops. But even then, they drove 440 Mopar police cars, and you could not escape them should you come across one.
My room mate had a new 71' Demon 318 stick, green in color, which is why I have one of those today.

View attachment 1715190379
Click to expand...
If that engine was tuned right, 130mph was slow ,u wouldn`t believe what they would do wound tite on a new smooth 4 lane !
 
Yea, the new so called muscle cars are nice and some are fast. BUT, put the modern male, lol in the passenger seat of an A body with a potent big block, they won't be getting back in any time soon.
oh and the 340 is and was a great engine of the time. still is!
 
So took a young employee for a ride in my warmed up 360 69 barracuda convertible and although he has been in many faster cars what he described was "raw power". PS he doesn't want another ride.
 
fishmens67 said:
Yea, the new so called muscle cars are nice and some are fast. BUT, put the modern male, lol in the passenger seat of an A body with a potent big block, they won't be getting back in any time soon.
oh and the 340 is and was a great engine of the time. still is!
Click to expand...
I am a modern male, with a big block dart. Is talking crap and generalizing people normal on this forum? It would be nice to have some place that wasn't full of politics and ridiculous hot takes.
 
MRGTX said:
"Three hundred forty cubes to Happy Land!"

BUD LINDEMANN ROAD TEST 1968 1969 DODGE DART SWINGER 340 AUTOMATIC VS 4 SPEED - YouTube
Click to expand...
Wow, just wow. I remember watching that on a Sunday morning in 1969. I was driving my first new car, a 1968 Dart 270 with a 273 two barrel. In 68 while awaiting my ordered car to come in, I made one of my biggest mistakes. The salesman called and offered me a low mile repo GTS 340 for less money than my ordered car and I passed. Dumb ****, dumb ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top