The 340 is the biggest POS V8 Chrysler ever made.

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).

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".