Both in 100% stock form...…. will a 225 slant in a Duster beat a 440 in a motor home??
Both in 100% stock form...…. will a 225 slant in a Duster beat a 440 in a motor home??
Hell yeah, I got $10 on that race.Both in 100% stock form...…. will a 225 slant in a Duster beat a 440 in a motor home??
My Commando wasn't a dog, it was a bone stock 273-4 auto with nothing added. 20 year garaged survivor. Could smoke the tires through an intersection and the power kept coming all the way to the miserable factory tachs 6000 rpm. I spun a rod bearing 3 months after I got it and it was faster for me to move everything over to a $100 68 318 short block from a wrecking yard than to get the crank turned (I didnt know what was wrong with it until I tore it down later). Put all the 4bbl stuff on that 318 (minus the intake I cracked so I put a Performer on it) and it made that still lower compression 318 way quicker than the 273-4 ever was. That got me looking at published numbers and lo and behold in 68, the 318-2 was rated at 230HP (how? because that year they measured it off the crank, no the rear wheels) , 5 shy of the 273-4 and ~25% more torque. WTH? When I see builds of 273-4's with new $$ Egge pistons, E-4 cams, Performer intakes...I gotta ask why and that was the basis for this great debate. There is nothing 4bbl left in these new builds except the stock intake and maybe the #s AFB. Both too small for the motor. For power, Ford guys dont build 260's, Chevy guys dont build 283's because both are simply so much better for 99% of applications in their larger bore higher torque cheaper to build forms. If your going to build a 273/318 for torque, build a 318. If your going to build one for 5 more published horsepower at another 1000 RPM but far less torque in street range, build a 273-4. I know what I will do. Heck, Im building almost a zero deck 273-2 right now because I have one on hand. Fact is a 318 would be better in this app again as it has lower compression for a turbo. Let it ride.....
You know it but the page don't say it.It does in Allpar.The Mopar 340 V8 high performance engines
You know it but the page don't say it.
I'm not arguing specs from a different page, I'm calling bs on the page in Post #65. If you never saw any other information than that in #65,you would get a hopelessly wrong picture of Mopar comparative horsepowers.
My Commando wasn't a dog, it was a bone stock 273-4 auto with nothing added. 20 year garaged survivor. Could smoke the tires through an intersection and the power kept coming all the way to the miserable factory tachs 6000 rpm. I spun a rod bearing 3 months after I got it and it was faster for me to move everything over to a $100 68 318 short block from a wrecking yard than to get the crank turned (I didnt know what was wrong with it until I tore it down later). Put all the 4bbl stuff on that 318 (minus the intake I cracked so I put a Performer on it) and it made that still lower compression 318 way quicker than the 273-4 ever was. That got me looking at published numbers and lo and behold in 68, the 318-2 was rated at 230HP (how? because that year they measured it off the crank, no the rear wheels) , 5 shy of the 273-4 and ~25% more torque. WTH? When I see builds of 273-4's with new $$ Egge pistons, E-4 cams, Performer intakes...I gotta ask why and that was the basis for this great debate. There is nothing 4bbl left in these new builds except the stock intake and maybe the #s AFB. Both too small for the motor. For power, Ford guys dont build 260's, Chevy guys dont build 283's because both are simply so much better for 99% of applications in their larger bore higher torque cheaper to build forms. If your going to build a 273/318 for torque, build a 318. If your going to build one for 5 more published horsepower at another 1000 RPM but far less torque in street range, build a 273-4. I know what I will do. Heck, Im building almost a zero deck 273-2 right now because I have one on hand. Fact is a 318 would be better in this app again as it has lower compression for a turbo. Let it ride.....
You lost me; at what rpm is your 225-Marine rated at?My 1968 318 marine is rated at 225 hp, with a 4 barrel, cam, mechanical advance Distributor, and low compression pistons. I will never believe the 230 hp 2 barrel numbers. Besides, I have actually raced a 318 2 barrel in an A Body with a 66 Barracuda 4 speed, stock 273 Commando and know who won. If you want to race benches or computers, I’m not interested.
Good question. A 273 marine would have to have a 3.73 prop.You lost me; at what rpm is your 225-Marine rated at?
Between 4,500 and 5,000 rpm. Does not really matter.You lost me; at what rpm is your 225-Marine rated at?
Just one thing to throw into this Pishta, if it has not been mentioned...I have not followed this thread much ...I spun a rod bearing 3 months after I got it and it was faster for me to move everything over to a $100 68 318 short block from a wrecking yard than to get the crank turned (I didnt know what was wrong with it until I tore it down later). Put all the 4bbl stuff on that 318 (minus the intake I cracked so I put a Performer on it) and it made that still lower compression 318 way quicker than the 273-4 ever was. That got me looking at published numbers and lo and behold in 68, the 318-2 was rated at 230HP (how? because that year they measured it off the crank, no the rear wheels) , 5 shy of the 273-4 and ~25% more torque. WTH? When I see builds of 273-4's with new $$ Egge pistons, E-4 cams, Performer intakes...I gotta ask why and that was the basis for this great debate. There is nothing 4bbl left in these new builds except the stock intake and maybe the #s AFB. Both too small for the motor. For power, Ford guys dont build 260's, Chevy guys dont build 283's because both are simply so much better for 99% of applications in their larger bore higher torque cheaper to build forms. If your going to build a 273/318 for torque, build a 318. If your going to build one for 5 more published horsepower at another 1000 RPM but far less torque in street range, build a 273-4. I know what I will do. Heck, Im building almost a zero deck 273-2 right now because I have one on hand. Fact is a 318 would be better in this app again as it has lower compression for a turbo. Let it ride.....
I agree with you there. The factories numbers can't be trusted so until someone has dyno numbers for both engines off the same dyno with both original stock engines, there's no definitive answer. I wouldn't trust drag strip time slips much. Unless you could run one engine in a car and swap it out the same day for the other and run that. Then it would be fairly accurate. Unless the weather changes.Gross hp numbers are worthless. 318 specs didn't change much over the years until the magnum. Theres a dyno of a stock 70's 318 with headers and it only dyno a gross 175 hp. They added a 4bbl and xe262h and got 282hp showing the 318 responds well to a cam. Since a 67 2bbl 318 and 273 are identical besides pistons and bore. Imagine there real hp numbers are fairly identical. And the commado has more cr carb cam and probably gear can't see it being the losser between the two.
The 64 2bbl I have is almost zero deck itself. I chose a 67 318 (it was a 67, as I remembered the snout size issue) as it had the same snout bore as the 273. My mistake back in the original post.I went and measured CH on my '68 2 BBL 273 pistons, and low and behold.... those pistons were also near or zero deck. CH is 1.828" on those lowly 2BBL 273 pistons..
is it quicker to 60? Thinking Chrysler was making a street car motor instead of a 1/4 miler. Look where the torque peaks. Were still talking stock motors here with an emphasis on what you could build with similar 'hop up' variables.My 273 with a .400 lift cam has gone 12.20s and its slow for my class, 4 bbl much faster than 2 even given the extra cubic inches.
??? Huh???My 273 with a .400 lift cam has gone 12.20s and its slow for my class, 4 bbl much faster than 2 even given the extra cubic inches.
you know; we can always fall back on the NHRA factors. They give us a horsepower factor, and the blueprint to get there.
They give us;
67.... 273 2bbl@180hp with; 9.5Scr, 57.3cc heads, -.011 decks, and .028 gaskets
67.... 273 4bbl@235hp with; 11.5Scr, 57.3cc heads, +.129decks, and .028 gaskets
67/69 318s not spec'd with. ; 9.5Scr, 57.3cc heads, close to zero decks.................
78/80 318 4bbl@230hp with; 9.0Scr, 65.5cc heads,, -.041 decks, and .030 gaskets
71.... 340 4bbl@330hp with; 11.0Scr, 63.3cc heads, +.045decks, and .028 gaskets
72/73 340 4bbl@275hp with; 9.3Scr, 64.7cc heads,, -.054 decks, and .036 gaskets
74/76 360 4bbl@300hp with; 9.0Scr, 64.7cc heads,, -.067 decks, and .032 gaskets
78/80 360-4bbl@250/265 w/; 8.6Scr,68.4cc heads,, -.067 decks, and .030 gaskets
My Bulletin Book does not show the early Hi-compression 318s