273ci thoughts?

-
Gears do level the playing field. In two gears at least.
But the smaller the engine, the smaller the field. And the faster you go, the more power yur gonna need.
Streeters have several targets on the field, such as;
Ability to take-off in a timely manner.
The zero to 60 mph contest
Passing power
Cruise rpm (NVH)
cruise economy
and my favorite, the jump at 32 mph.
The bigger the engine is, the more targets it can hit.
If you need Power WITH Economy something has to give. Forget the 440Magnum, and forget the mini-me.
If you need Power, Economy, AND torque, really, you only have one or two choices
And if Power, Torque, economy and Cost to build, then your are down to one choice. A large enough bore, a long stroke, good heads, a small or modest cam,and easy Scr target, and as little machining as possible.
Which SBM does all that for low dollars?

And one thing nobody mentions is weight.
Those early As have about a 12 to 14% weight advantage over a 67 to 72 Dart, and maybe 20% on a later Dart. The 2bbl 8/1-318s might be a slug in a 2.76 equipped 75 Swinger; but dress it up like a Commando and swap it into a lightweight-A, and "fast" will become fast-er. There's a reason the 273 stopped being used in 1969, and I submit that cars were becoming porkers, and the 273 just ran outta juice for 2.76s and the taller tires.

And face it; a 318 is just a big-bore 273.
And a 340 is just a big-bore 318, with added breathing
And a 360 is at it's heart,just a stroked 340.
I never ever heard anybody complain about how slow his 340 revved, with those pig-heavy forged pistons. I mean they are ~ 200 grams heavier than the 273's ! Mostly, the E-70/14s gave up right away, and then they just spun, and spun, and spun.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is "very fast" ?

Since I never drag raced at a track, the best I can give you is my 64 Barracuda, it was the same power to weight as a 68 383 Road Runner. Both 4 speed both 3.23 gears. I remember being surprised I could not run him down. That was with the sorry 1850 Holley, Offenhouser intake, 64-65 273 heads and a TRW TP-141 solid cam. When I switched to 1.88 intake J heads 340 intake, TQ, 340 cam and 340 valve springs it was much faster than the Holley/Offenhouser intake, not even in the same league. Always have to laugh at "no replacement for displacement". I disproved that nonsense all the time. Of course my friend raced Super Stock when you had to run stock unported heads. By then I knew what I was doing and stopped reading magazine BS. A better adage is there is "no replacement for good machine work, combination, and flow".
 
Last edited:
i have another friend with a 340 dart that always raced his buddy who had a 440 GTX.Both cars were far from stock and they were always making changes to "one up" each other.They hit a point were at the strip the GTX would consistently inch the little 340 out.As a last ditch attempt to slay the gtx he installed a .489 gear set and took the big block out shifting just below 8000.
Next day took the .489's out and never used them again.
..I just love that story!

I have a similar story. Friends 68 340 Barracuda, auto, 3.23 gears vs 66 Nova Built small block, 4 speed, 4.10 gears. First race Nova edges the Barracuda. Second race Barracuda swaps for 4.56 or 4.86 gears. 340 becomes a monster. Automatic shifts at 7K. Barracuda takes the Nova by 6 or 7 lengths. 3.23's go back in. It was daily driver...
 
Last edited:
Debunked here: 273 & 318 Connecting rod weights

273-2 had a helluva piston pin. So much as to make it the same weight as a poly 318's bobweight. 273-4 had a thinner wall pin to offset the taller pistons weight.

Agreed, they all used the same crank, including the 318 Poly till 67. All piston and pin combinations weighed the same and used the same rods during the time period. 68 and 69 273's used the same 318 cast crank.
 
I knew it would; 273 guys all come out of the woodwork when you dis their little motors, just like the BB boys scorn the SBMers..
By 273ers thinking it seems a 383 would would outpower a 440 in same configuration. I mean it's the same plus 16.5% displacement.

Let's go to 1969, and examine these 2bbl engines;
>The 2bbl 273 was advertised to make peak torque at 2400IIRC. And I think the 318-2bbl was at same.
>The 273 was advertised to be a 9.0 engine and the 318 was 9.2
>They both used the same heads, same cam, and same spec rods.
>The 318 pistons come in 43 gms heavier at 592, versus 549 to the 273
> in 69 all SBMs had steel cranks
SO,
lemmee get this right;
in 1969, the only differences were;
45 more cubes for the 318, and
0.2 point more compression for the 318 ..........
But somehow the 273 was the better engine?

I think what the 273 guys miss, is that in comparison, at low rpm, like you would find with 2.76s that most most of these cars were saddled with, and at same weight,and with the same TCs, the 318 can torque away with these, whereas the 273 couldn't torque it's way out of a wet paper bag.

One more; at 140ps cranking pressure, the 273 piston is applying 1450 pounds of force to the crank.
Whereas at same pressure, the 318 is pushing with 1681; there is that plus 16% again...
It doesn't matter what you do to a 273, labor wise it costs exactly the same to do it to a 318, and parts wise it costs MORE for the 273, and the bottom line is always
you just give up the cubes.
That makes no sense to me whatsoever. That will cost you more cam, more gear, and more stall... just to play catchup in third gear.

Where to start... some 383's did outpower 440's. where were you?
Most 318's were .12 down or more in the hole 8ish compression work horses.
318 heads except 67 flow about 170 cfm, 273's flow about 180 cfm as cast
piston pin combinations weigh the same between 273 and 318
Most forged cranks were gone by 1967, no big deal.
Any performance car would not run 2.76 gears except on long trips. the norm was 3.23 to 3.91
You "no replacement for displacement" guys, want to always make ridiculous restrictions on 273's Why would I run 2.76 gears when my rpm capability is higher. And Pishta wants to compare a 170 horsepower 318 to a 210 horsepower 273 Commando thinking they are equal as the published numbers would suggest.
just because an engine can rev to 6K, does not mean it pulls to 6K.
Cost is 300 and up for useable 318 pistons and 450 for Commando pistons
Nice try... I've had both, kept the 273, sold the 318.
 
not even close
I agree the 273 is a good small engine, not what I would consider a powerhouse.
Can they built for moderate HP , yes, but then you have a grenade at the 400 HP level.
I have to disagree with the 360 under powering the 273.
 
I used the word "Basically" not "Actually" adds displacement.
Again I'm talking about Dynamic Displacement, the amount of air it displaces while running.
True, however the message behind what you said is misleading!
When you say basically, some think “practically“ or “Partially” or “Will act like or do the similar or same as.”
 
Last edited:
True, however the message behind what you said is misleading!
When you say basically, some think “practically“ or “Partially” or “Will act like or do the similar or same as.”

Thats what I do mean a eg. 440 making peak power at 5000 rpm and a 273 making peak power 8060 rpm are practically/partially the same cause both are displacing 637 cfm of air at 100% VE, depending on the efficiencies of the builds should be within a relatively narrow horsepower output between the two. Obviously the 440 has more advantage of being a more streetable package, and yes you could build an 8000 rpm 440 which would need a 13,000 rpm 273 and be very impractical. And if both are geared for maximum ET's they put similar torque to the ground, and possibly similar ET's, It's up to the individual which way is best for them.
 
And Pishta wants to compare a 170 horsepower 318 to a 210 horsepower 273 Commando thinking they are equal as the published numbers would suggest.
just because an engine can rev to 6K, does not mean it pulls to 6K.
.
it will if it uses the same cam as the heads were the same,and the valves are not so small as to choke it off which is not the case here.
"...The power ratings of the new LA-series 318 (1967) were exactly the same as those for the old polyspherical-head design, 230 hp and 340 lb-ft." Allpar
This jives with published 1967 273/4 hp figures...
1967 273 V8 4 barrel
Gross hp 235 @ 5,200
Torque 260 @ 4,000

If its published.....it must be true. :lol:

>>>>Disclaimer...all these figures are for a blueprinted motor. How many 67 318's has a 0.02 in the hole piston? How many 273/4 had a true 10.50 compression? I can tell you no 273 running today in this forum has a .010 embosses head gasket in it unless it has never been opened, likewise no 318 has a 4.00 bore head gasket as they as well as the embossed head gaskets are long gone. There was also never a 67 318 4bbl..imagine where that power level would have been compared to a like cammed 273. <<<<
 
Last edited:
I get that. But the engine can not grow in size no matter how you say it. Your just dead wrong no matter how you slice it.

Well yeah it sorta can. It's called forced induction. .....but I know we weren't talkin about "that". lol
 
Can't go be factory HP readings, If you took 3 identical stock manual trans 67 Darts one with a 2 bbl 318 one with 2 bbl 273 and a 4 bbl 273 commando and rear geared them for max quarter mile times, the 2 bbl 273/318 would be about even and the commando would dust the other two.
 
Thats what I do mean a eg. 440 making peak power at 5000 rpm and a 273 making peak power 8060 rpm are practically/partially the same cause both are displacing 637 cfm of air at 100% VE, depending on the efficiencies of the builds should be within a relatively narrow horsepower output between the two. Obviously the 440 has more advantage of being a more streetable package, and yes you could build an 8000 rpm 440 which would need a 13,000 rpm 273 and be very impractical. And if both are geared for maximum ET's they put similar torque to the ground, and possibly similar ET's, It's up to the individual which way is best for them.
LMAO! You just love to argue to try and save face in the face of being dead wrong. Your a hoot!
 
Well yeah it sorta can. It's called forced induction. .....but I know we weren't talkin about "that". lol
Right! He is just trying to argue for the sake of it trying to prove he is right. But he is not and he is arguing just for fun. He is so wrong is Hilarious! And to read how he tries to justify himself with back tracing flip flopping and “What I meh to say, I really mean, it’s just like....”

It it isn’t no matter how you word it.
 
Can't go be factory HP readings, If you took 3 identical stock manual trans 67 Darts one with a 2 bbl 318 one with 2 bbl 273 and a 4 bbl 273 commando and rear geared them for max quarter mile times, the 2 bbl 273/318 would be about even and the commando would dust the other two.
How does that song go?

Dream dream dream ... dreeeEEEEeeeem....
 
LMAO! You just love to argue to try and save face in the face of being dead wrong. Your a hoot!

I like how you always say I'm wrong without one theory, fact or even word to prove the contrary, all I did was agree with a statement you made but included rpm to the list.
I'm don't mind being wrong, if I am I would like to know how so I can learn. Until then yes I think I'm right, and continue to argue the point.
 
What ever bro. Go against the science and facts and racers that prove this daily from day one.

What ever! Your right! You must be! You’re convinced!
 
How does that song go?

Dream dream dream ... dreeeEEEEeeeem....

That wasn't even to you, I
What ever bro. Go against the science and facts and racers that prove this daily from day one.

What ever! Your right! You must be! You’re convinced!

I just realizing you just are a Troll, and all you do on here is trolling.
If you have something constructive to say, say it or just, I'm sure you can figure out the rest.
 
That wasn't even to you, I


I just realizing you just are a Troll, and all you do on here is trolling.
If you have something constructive to say, say it or just, I'm sure you can figure out the rest.
LMAO! Throwing crap to see what sticks?
Poor performance by you. Something constructive?
OK, you probably won’t take it that way but here it goes!

Your thinking is flawed and you like to ignore what has been proven to just simply argue.

THERE! That’s 3 things for you to test & correct.

Have a great day kid.
 
Can't go be factory HP readings, If you took 3 identical stock manual trans 67 Darts one with a 2 bbl 318 one with 2 bbl 273 and a 4 bbl 273 commando and rear geared them for max quarter mile times, the 2 bbl 273/318 would be about even and the commando would dust the other two.
I doubt the accuracy of your assumptions
 
-
Back
Top