thesiren74
Well-Known Member
Wanna see a bunch of old guy's get their panties in a bunch? Talk **** about 340s! Lol i know the 340 is a great engine.
340 4 speed vs 5.2 5 speed
- Thread starter ValerianMagnum
- Start date
-
I don't see any panties in a bunch at all. I'm just trying to figure out where you're trying to go and if you think 13s and 14s are slow for a stock street car. Especially one in the 4K pound range. That's all.
Then u know the 318/5.2 will always be what it was intended from the factory. Kim
Indeed, and for good reason. The midrange and top end power will make a believer of you. The last 340 car I was in was a 68 barracuda fast back with 3.55 gears. While it was somewhat heavy too, it was an interesting experience to see the wind buffeting making inch wide gaps start opening and closing at the tops of the windows with the 120 speedometer needle buried.
Those that have never been in a 340 powered car will never know or appreciate the rush of adrenaline that comes upon u when u mash the loud pedal. Kim
thesiren74
Well-Known Member
It's cold and snowing and im bored.
thesiren74
Well-Known Member
I buried my 120mph speedo with my 318 2 barrel 2.45 geared duster.
Send some down here. We ain't had a flake all year.....well....cept for me.
thesiren74
Well-Known Member
We had none until yesterday, got about 6 or 7 inches. Blecccchhhh!
thesiren74
Well-Known Member
Yuck!
ILL TAKE THAT BET BECAUSE ITS STEELING CANDY FROM A SLEEPING BABY!
Incorrect, your Disillusioned in miss lead.
Incorrect. 100%, incorrect.
Not because of legendary status, because the bore is larger, a lot larger. The bore of an engine has a DIRECT impact on power, particularly the HP level.
3.91 vs 4.04 is a huge .130 increase. In terms of cylinder size, that’s huge! Any overbore you add to your 3.91 bore can be equally matched by the 4.04.
Like the down town hoe always say,
“The bigger THE BETTER BABY!”
The addition of an overdrive is an excellent idea I say everyone should go for if it is within there reach or build parameters. What is the OD ratio of that transmission above? It would be a math equation of 3.55 X OD ratio = final drive ratio.
I 50/50 agree. The 318/5.2 is normally stupid cheap if not sometimes free (318) They can be made to hussle quick and even go fast. I am so not breaking anybody’s balls on there use in any form at all. But to think it can beat a 340, yeaaaaa, not so much.
Being they share the same stroke, they will basically rev the same and produce similar curves on the dyno. The 318/5.2 will just be lower and end sooner.
Ignoring a 318/5.2 for a build is stupid but it should be looked into and pondered before ether ignoring it or going with it. It can be a very good engine for the purpose at hand.
Creating a hot rod engine from one can be done as easy as any other engine for roughly the same price. Piston selection and cost are the variant. Everything else is the same. The only other build parameter to be aware of is the cam size. The cam tends to act bigger in a smaller engine. The 318 is on that side of the fence and the 340 is not on that side.
Ditching a 318 in favor of a 340 is a recommended move if spending the extra money on a 340 block and then sonic checking it to see if it is a suitable block is OK for you, then OK, do it, go 340, but be aware that block might be a turd and you have just wasted your money.
I don’t like to gamble but sonic checking an old 340 is a gamble. I have lost twice.
1990 to 93 World class T5 has an od ratio of .68, with the first gear at 3.35, second 1.99, third 1.33. Should make for tons o' fun!
@ValerianMagnum , This is just how I would build a 5.2/318 for mileage and some power with the manual OD trans. (Generalization)
Top to bottom;
750 cfm
RPM AG or not
Ported iron or Edelbrock Magnum heads
Roller rockers - Final ratio TBD based on cam lift and available space in the piston.
Set slugs at zero deck
1-3/4 headers 2-1/2 X pipe exhaust to the bumper
A cam in the 218@050 area with as much lift as I could squeeze in.
4.30 gears on a 28 inch tire. (Max size) No less than a 4.10.
Im not sure of your gear ratio, so the one listed above is with use of the MP auto OD ratio of .69 to end up with about a 3.00 or so final gear ratio. A .71 OD ratio (MP OD ratio IIRC) is super close to that.
This should allow 20 mpg’s or more and make an easy 330+ hp. That should work really well with the 5 spd manual transmission.
(Edit, thanks @missing linc for the OD ratio listing. I didn’t know and winged it.)
Top to bottom;
750 cfm
RPM AG or not
Ported iron or Edelbrock Magnum heads
Roller rockers - Final ratio TBD based on cam lift and available space in the piston.
Set slugs at zero deck
1-3/4 headers 2-1/2 X pipe exhaust to the bumper
A cam in the 218@050 area with as much lift as I could squeeze in.
4.30 gears on a 28 inch tire. (Max size) No less than a 4.10.
Im not sure of your gear ratio, so the one listed above is with use of the MP auto OD ratio of .69 to end up with about a 3.00 or so final gear ratio. A .71 OD ratio (MP OD ratio IIRC) is super close to that.
This should allow 20 mpg’s or more and make an easy 330+ hp. That should work really well with the 5 spd manual transmission.
(Edit, thanks @missing linc for the OD ratio listing. I didn’t know and winged it.)
ValerianMagnum
the little car that could
I have a 5.2...i have the 71 340 and i might grab a 5.9 for cheap....4 speed tunnel needs mods but i really want a 5 speed trans
ValerianMagnum
the little car that could
@rumblefish360 it sounds like a great combo ! Woah..nothing less than 4.10 gears..Jesus that will be a screamer !!!
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 24,913
- Reaction score
- 12,264
Why not just slide the 340 short under all the 5.9 junk.
You could probably take one cam size outta that performance combo, as compared to the 5.2, and still make more average power than the 5.2 with it's one size bigger cam.
That would also let you run one rear gear smaller, and help in the fuel-mileage dept. That's a double win.
EDIT: Ok that made sense when I wrote it,lol. What I mean is this; You could run a 340 with a 210 cam, to match a 5.2 with a 218 cam, and the 340 car could run 3.23s compared to the 5.2 with 3.55s; AND, both cars might have similar WOT performance, while the 340 car might post 8 or 10% better fuel economy;there, now it makes sense.
You, OP, have to understand that x amount of horsepower, on two different cubic inch engines, produces two different power curves.
On the street,
with two same vehicles, the one with more average power over the rpm range you are limited to, is gonna pound the other.
If both engine were built to 300hp, with no tricky porting work, and by the combo, both are set up the same; then the
Smaller one is gonna need more rpm to make the same 300, which means a bigger cam. The later closing intake of the bigger cam, is gonna reduce the cylinder pressure, which is gonna reduce the low rpm power. So; the
bigger one is gonna blast off harder and be quicker to redline...... cuz it has more power down low.
But say you fixed the pressure problem. Now, the smaller is less lazy on the bottom, but it can NEVER match the larger because the smaller has a cam designed to operate at a higher rpm.
So therefore, again, the smaller gets left behind.
But say, you also re-geared the smaller so that it matched the take-off torque of the larger, and now they both take off the same. You still have two problems;
1) you are gonna run out of revs sooner, and have to shift, and then the bigger is gonna blast by you, and
2) your bigger cammed engine is still gonna have a weaker midrange, and it could well be that the bigger will still make more average power, before you have to shift, again leaving you in the dust.
Ok, on the street, average power and TM (TorqueMultiplication) are king.
The only way you are gonna match or surpass the bigger engine, is if your gears are gonna multiply your smaller power, to a higher level than the larger.
And guess what; if you are both running the same trans, then the only option is more rear gear. And if it requires a lot of rear gear, then tirespin becomes an issue. And, at the other end you get into a higher reving cruise rpm, with it's attendant lower fuel economy, exacerbated by the bigger cam.
So whenever Performance WITH Fuel Economy is important, it always points to lower cruise rpm, and an earlier closing intake valve...... and that points to a bigger engine. And if that bigger engine happens to have a longer stroke....... guess what, you can put a slightly bigger cam in it, before losing cylinder pressure. This can be used to advantage, by reducing the low-rpm power and easing the tirespin problem.
On the street, it's not always about absolute power. It is about having the right amount of power at the right time, and for the most amount of time.
To this end, the 5-speed manual trans is the right starting point .......... as long as the engine doesn't blow it up.
And finally, You can diss the 340 all you want, that doesn't change the facts;
It's still nearly 7% bigger,
It has a bigger bore to fit bigger valves into
It came with a higher compression ratio, which will always produce more cylinder pressure, with all other parameters being equal.
The heads have bigger ports and bigger valves. Which, on the street may not be a big deal, but nevertheless the potential is there.
That factory 5.2 intake is very heavily biased for torque production..... which limits it's power production. When you put a regular 4bbl on the 5.2, you are gonna have a whole nuther opinion of the 5.2. The 340 already has probably the finest cast-iron intake ever factory installed, and the TQ spreadbore set-up, on the street is hard to beat.
That 5.2 cam is also heavily biased towards torque production. That's why as a stocker, the 5.2 seems very powerful...... Then couple that with gearing, and you get the impression that the 5.2 is a powerhouse. Remember earlier I said that on the street,it's not always about absolute power? Here is your prime example of that.
The 340 was heavily biased towards power production but was handicapped with two things; log-manifolds and lazy gearing; the two exact things that a racer would immediately change. For many guys,Nothing else needed to be changed. This took a 14.5second car waay down into the 13s, just these two changes.
So just because you read about the factory 340 only having 275 gross/240 net-hp, doesn't mean the factory 230 Net 5.2 is gonna be anywhere near the 340car, going thru the traps.
Install new lightweight pistons into the 340, get it balanced, and then, Slide her under the 5.2 junk, with a proper modest cam.... and headers ............ the follow it up with the right rear gear and make a two-gear street monster, that still get decent mileage.
No!
No, I'm not hating the teener. You can get just about whatever performance level you want,on the street, with a well thought out 5.2Combo. You just can't cover all the bases with it, as well as you can with a bigger engine.
And it doesn't have to be a stroker either, with it's preponderance of low-rpm torque, that you are gonna either have to figure out how to harness .... or live with it.
At 10 cubes per pound,(3400pounds car and driver) the 340 just naturally falls into a nice performance slot. For a 5.2 to fall into the same slot, the vehicle would need to be 3180 car and driver. Then, badaboom! Line 'em up and see what happens.
You could probably take one cam size outta that performance combo, as compared to the 5.2, and still make more average power than the 5.2 with it's one size bigger cam.
That would also let you run one rear gear smaller, and help in the fuel-mileage dept. That's a double win.
EDIT: Ok that made sense when I wrote it,lol. What I mean is this; You could run a 340 with a 210 cam, to match a 5.2 with a 218 cam, and the 340 car could run 3.23s compared to the 5.2 with 3.55s; AND, both cars might have similar WOT performance, while the 340 car might post 8 or 10% better fuel economy;there, now it makes sense.
You, OP, have to understand that x amount of horsepower, on two different cubic inch engines, produces two different power curves.
On the street,
with two same vehicles, the one with more average power over the rpm range you are limited to, is gonna pound the other.
If both engine were built to 300hp, with no tricky porting work, and by the combo, both are set up the same; then the
Smaller one is gonna need more rpm to make the same 300, which means a bigger cam. The later closing intake of the bigger cam, is gonna reduce the cylinder pressure, which is gonna reduce the low rpm power. So; the
bigger one is gonna blast off harder and be quicker to redline...... cuz it has more power down low.
But say you fixed the pressure problem. Now, the smaller is less lazy on the bottom, but it can NEVER match the larger because the smaller has a cam designed to operate at a higher rpm.
So therefore, again, the smaller gets left behind.
But say, you also re-geared the smaller so that it matched the take-off torque of the larger, and now they both take off the same. You still have two problems;
1) you are gonna run out of revs sooner, and have to shift, and then the bigger is gonna blast by you, and
2) your bigger cammed engine is still gonna have a weaker midrange, and it could well be that the bigger will still make more average power, before you have to shift, again leaving you in the dust.
Ok, on the street, average power and TM (TorqueMultiplication) are king.
The only way you are gonna match or surpass the bigger engine, is if your gears are gonna multiply your smaller power, to a higher level than the larger.
And guess what; if you are both running the same trans, then the only option is more rear gear. And if it requires a lot of rear gear, then tirespin becomes an issue. And, at the other end you get into a higher reving cruise rpm, with it's attendant lower fuel economy, exacerbated by the bigger cam.
So whenever Performance WITH Fuel Economy is important, it always points to lower cruise rpm, and an earlier closing intake valve...... and that points to a bigger engine. And if that bigger engine happens to have a longer stroke....... guess what, you can put a slightly bigger cam in it, before losing cylinder pressure. This can be used to advantage, by reducing the low-rpm power and easing the tirespin problem.
On the street, it's not always about absolute power. It is about having the right amount of power at the right time, and for the most amount of time.
To this end, the 5-speed manual trans is the right starting point .......... as long as the engine doesn't blow it up.
And finally, You can diss the 340 all you want, that doesn't change the facts;
It's still nearly 7% bigger,
It has a bigger bore to fit bigger valves into
It came with a higher compression ratio, which will always produce more cylinder pressure, with all other parameters being equal.
The heads have bigger ports and bigger valves. Which, on the street may not be a big deal, but nevertheless the potential is there.
That factory 5.2 intake is very heavily biased for torque production..... which limits it's power production. When you put a regular 4bbl on the 5.2, you are gonna have a whole nuther opinion of the 5.2. The 340 already has probably the finest cast-iron intake ever factory installed, and the TQ spreadbore set-up, on the street is hard to beat.
That 5.2 cam is also heavily biased towards torque production. That's why as a stocker, the 5.2 seems very powerful...... Then couple that with gearing, and you get the impression that the 5.2 is a powerhouse. Remember earlier I said that on the street,it's not always about absolute power? Here is your prime example of that.
The 340 was heavily biased towards power production but was handicapped with two things; log-manifolds and lazy gearing; the two exact things that a racer would immediately change. For many guys,Nothing else needed to be changed. This took a 14.5second car waay down into the 13s, just these two changes.
So just because you read about the factory 340 only having 275 gross/240 net-hp, doesn't mean the factory 230 Net 5.2 is gonna be anywhere near the 340car, going thru the traps.
Install new lightweight pistons into the 340, get it balanced, and then, Slide her under the 5.2 junk, with a proper modest cam.... and headers ............ the follow it up with the right rear gear and make a two-gear street monster, that still get decent mileage.
No!
No, I'm not hating the teener. You can get just about whatever performance level you want,on the street, with a well thought out 5.2Combo. You just can't cover all the bases with it, as well as you can with a bigger engine.
And it doesn't have to be a stroker either, with it's preponderance of low-rpm torque, that you are gonna either have to figure out how to harness .... or live with it.
At 10 cubes per pound,(3400pounds car and driver) the 340 just naturally falls into a nice performance slot. For a 5.2 to fall into the same slot, the vehicle would need to be 3180 car and driver. Then, badaboom! Line 'em up and see what happens.
Last edited:
67autocross
A new iron curtain drawn across the 49th parallel
I would guess if you took a stock 1970 340 long block and a stock 1990’s 318 magnum and bolted the same size headers,cam,intake and carb on them ... bolted them on your favourite dyno you would not see a lot of power differences between them.
It’s the overdrive that calms it down. The 218@050 could still use a stock converter if you were equipped with an automatic trans. The OD trans has a very deep first gear. The tall tire calms that down. Make it a 10 wide tire for grip. (Probably still won’t have a whole lot of it....)
You’ll need to run down that path to make the 318 seem larger than it is. You’ll come blasting out of the hole and into 2-3-4 like a normal trans and then relax into 5th for a cruise or a run above a 130.
1st gear is short lived. Near useless. But at the track (and if there is ANY traction on the street, LOL!) you’ll use it to make that leap out and bang second gear and stomp it and go!
When you hit the OD gear, it works out mathematically like this:
3.55 X .68 = 2.41. Very very tall for even small cams. Readjust the ratio to:
4.10’s, 4.10 X .68 = 2.78 That’s .02 shorter than the easy to find factory 2.76 ratio. That’s gas mileage right there and with a reasonably small cam, it’s possible.
Let’s do:
4.30’s X .68. It equals 2.92. still Hwy friendly.
3.91 X .68 = 2.66 (2.6588) This may feel a little lethargic on the highway.
Thanks!
It did produce good tire smoke in my Duster w/3.21 gears, a 904 and stock sized tires. Ultimately, at the track, it had very bad wheel spin and the best I could muster was high 14’s with a lot of rpm to go. I did the best of 18 mpg’s. And that was traveling on the slow side. I’d loose a single mpg around 65 mph and another one @ 70. I regret not getting down and dirty with the tuning. The car was sold.
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 24,913
- Reaction score
- 12,264
There is one other aspect to think about;
Take two identical cams, except for the LSAs. Make one a 114 and the other a 108.
Lets choose the venerable 268/276 size. Lets look at the whole cam; and install them at split overlap;First the 114., then the 108
It works out to
A)268/276/114+2/44 o'lap(44 effective)/114 comp/106 power/Ica of66*
B)268/276/108+2/56 o'lap(56 effective)/120 comp/112 power/Ica of60*
C)268/276/108+4/56 o'lap(52 effective)/122 comp/110 power/Ica of58*
What's it mean?
1)Check out the Icas; there is a 6* difference, so at about 1.25 psi per degree, you could be looking at difference in cylinder pressure of ~7.5 psi.
2) look at the power degrees of 112 vs 106. the 108cam is extracting energy out of the expanding gasses for 6 extra degrees. For a streeter, that points to less fuel being used most of the time, and for a hiway cruiser it points to a potential for more mpgs.
3) look at the overlap; 56 vs 44 degrees. This here is a huge difference. With headers, doing what they do, this has the potential for a nice lil power bulge at the top of the curve, and a lil fatter midrange.
4) Look at the Effective overlaps;these are installed at split overlap. If you have to bandaid your low-cylinder pressure engine by advancing the cam, then you are stealing from the overlap on one end and stealing from extraction on the other... both with negative results. This is, IMO, a very poor way to pick up cylinder pressure. You can see the results at C) above.
So the question then is; Why would anybody chose a wide LSA cam?
Well, in a low-rpm engine, with a Torqueflite engine, the 1-2 split is 59% so when you shift at say 2400 rpm, about the torque peak of an old 318LA, the rpm falls to 59% of 2400=1400 ... so the engine better have some juice down there to get out of that hole, and one of the ways to get it is with a wide LSA. It reduces the absolute power, in favor of some grunt, to pull those 2.45s and 2.76s etc..
So why did the 340 come with a 114LSA cam? Aye there's the 64,000 dollar question. Go back and look at the A) example, above.
Notice the 44* meager degrees of overlap. That engine came with log-manifolds, which killed the overlap anyhow, so they sure were not hunting for absolute power.And those engine already came with a generous Scr so the cylinder pressure was always pretty good too.
That just leaves the Late closing EXHAUST valve with it's attending EGR. Notice that Mopar was one of the last to employ air-pumps and such.
And finally, I guess they were satisfied with the unmistakable sound of an Idling 340 to not mess any more with it. Or
perhaps it was a de-tuning effort for insurance purposes.
IDK.
I can tell you this;
All my hi-school chums, slammed headers and a cam into their 340s just as quick as they could earn the money to do so. And gears were not far behind. I'll bet there are thousands of 340 logs that went to the scrap bins. And I myself still have a few of those and some 268 factory cams, kicking around taking up shelf space.
That's the best I got.
Oh the summary,lol
I can see no good reason to run a 114 cam in a Hi-Po street application, and with a tight ratio manual trans, I could easily see a 108 or less LSA. When it comes time to replace my current cam, I will definitely NOT choose another 110*Lsa. Furthermore; it will NOT be an FTH.
Take two identical cams, except for the LSAs. Make one a 114 and the other a 108.
Lets choose the venerable 268/276 size. Lets look at the whole cam; and install them at split overlap;First the 114., then the 108
It works out to
A)268/276/114+2/44 o'lap(44 effective)/114 comp/106 power/Ica of66*
B)268/276/108+2/56 o'lap(56 effective)/120 comp/112 power/Ica of60*
C)268/276/108+4/56 o'lap(52 effective)/122 comp/110 power/Ica of58*
What's it mean?
1)Check out the Icas; there is a 6* difference, so at about 1.25 psi per degree, you could be looking at difference in cylinder pressure of ~7.5 psi.
2) look at the power degrees of 112 vs 106. the 108cam is extracting energy out of the expanding gasses for 6 extra degrees. For a streeter, that points to less fuel being used most of the time, and for a hiway cruiser it points to a potential for more mpgs.
3) look at the overlap; 56 vs 44 degrees. This here is a huge difference. With headers, doing what they do, this has the potential for a nice lil power bulge at the top of the curve, and a lil fatter midrange.
4) Look at the Effective overlaps;these are installed at split overlap. If you have to bandaid your low-cylinder pressure engine by advancing the cam, then you are stealing from the overlap on one end and stealing from extraction on the other... both with negative results. This is, IMO, a very poor way to pick up cylinder pressure. You can see the results at C) above.
So the question then is; Why would anybody chose a wide LSA cam?
Well, in a low-rpm engine, with a Torqueflite engine, the 1-2 split is 59% so when you shift at say 2400 rpm, about the torque peak of an old 318LA, the rpm falls to 59% of 2400=1400 ... so the engine better have some juice down there to get out of that hole, and one of the ways to get it is with a wide LSA. It reduces the absolute power, in favor of some grunt, to pull those 2.45s and 2.76s etc..
So why did the 340 come with a 114LSA cam? Aye there's the 64,000 dollar question. Go back and look at the A) example, above.
Notice the 44* meager degrees of overlap. That engine came with log-manifolds, which killed the overlap anyhow, so they sure were not hunting for absolute power.And those engine already came with a generous Scr so the cylinder pressure was always pretty good too.
That just leaves the Late closing EXHAUST valve with it's attending EGR. Notice that Mopar was one of the last to employ air-pumps and such.
And finally, I guess they were satisfied with the unmistakable sound of an Idling 340 to not mess any more with it. Or
perhaps it was a de-tuning effort for insurance purposes.
IDK.
I can tell you this;
All my hi-school chums, slammed headers and a cam into their 340s just as quick as they could earn the money to do so. And gears were not far behind. I'll bet there are thousands of 340 logs that went to the scrap bins. And I myself still have a few of those and some 268 factory cams, kicking around taking up shelf space.
That's the best I got.
Oh the summary,lol
I can see no good reason to run a 114 cam in a Hi-Po street application, and with a tight ratio manual trans, I could easily see a 108 or less LSA. When it comes time to replace my current cam, I will definitely NOT choose another 110*Lsa. Furthermore; it will NOT be an FTH.
Ok, so how are you gonna make the 5.2 best the 340? Bigger valves? More compression? Bigger cam? More intake and carburetor? Big headers? Everything you do to the 5.2, I get to do to the 340. The 340 will win every time, unless somebody breaks something or cuts a really lousy tree. What's that you say? You wanna handicap the 340 with no mods since it's a 340? Nuthin doin. Everything you get to do, so do I, so that levels the playing field. Over and done, the 340 stomps butt every time.
66jim
Well-Known Member
Warm up the 5.2 with a small roller cam, clean up the heads ditch the factory EFI and get more power than a stock 340. Bonus! get 2X the gas milage on 87 with the 5.2 than the 340 on 93 octane.
Though the Magnum engine is not technically the same as an LA, I would have to disagree with this comparison.
Hot Rod Magazine dyno tested a lot of engines back in the fifties and sixties. The 340 was the ONLY one that actually made more than its rated horsepower. BTW, a 73 smog 340 made 240 net horsepower. The high compression 340's 275 rated horsepower was in my opinion actually its net horsepower despite being offered back in the days of SAE gross horsepower.
I'm sure one can build a 5.2 Magnum to perform well, but a 5.9 will run better with the same mods. Back in 94, I bought a new Ram 1500 with a 5.9 (I still call them 360's). Took it to the drag strip during a Mopar meet. A guy there had a 5.2 Ram 1500. Same as mine except for the motor. His truck was a full second slower than mine. He was saying, but you only have ten more horsepower. I said, yeah, but I have 42 more cubic inches and therefore more low and midrange. It ain't just peak horsepower that counts in a drag race.
Stock to stock, the 5.2 Magnum isn't really close to a high compression 340. Modified to modified, the 340 still has 22 more cubes and will make more power. Of course, a 360 has 20 more cubes than a 340, and equally modded, the 360 will make more power. Cubic inches matter. Why do you think people build stroker motors??
I'm sure one can build a 5.2 Magnum to perform well, but a 5.9 will run better with the same mods. Back in 94, I bought a new Ram 1500 with a 5.9 (I still call them 360's). Took it to the drag strip during a Mopar meet. A guy there had a 5.2 Ram 1500. Same as mine except for the motor. His truck was a full second slower than mine. He was saying, but you only have ten more horsepower. I said, yeah, but I have 42 more cubic inches and therefore more low and midrange. It ain't just peak horsepower that counts in a drag race.
Stock to stock, the 5.2 Magnum isn't really close to a high compression 340. Modified to modified, the 340 still has 22 more cubes and will make more power. Of course, a 360 has 20 more cubes than a 340, and equally modded, the 360 will make more power. Cubic inches matter. Why do you think people build stroker motors??
-
