302s on 72 340

-

rigger3006

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
866
Reaction score
251
Location
north america
i know its not recommended but its what i have to work with for now, thinking of putting 60cc 302s on wifes 72 340, the 915s i pulled off were 73ccs, she just wants a cruiser for around town, probably nothing above 4500-5000, unless i take it for a spin, ive also got 028 thin head gaskets for it and voodoo 60401 cam, 323s and a stock T|C with 727. dont beat me up too bad on this one!!!!
 
Oh boy....'let us know how it works..... Did you do the math on compression?
 
Might run decent if the compression isn't too high.
 
I would make sure that's a low compression 340 before I bolted those heads on. It should be, but I would definitely confirm that the pistons are below the deck (or at least not above the deck) before I went to a closed chamber head like that.

High compression 340's have pistons that sit above the deck, usually in the neighborhood of .018" out of the hole. Closed chamber heads don't always clear those. I run ported 308's on my '68 340, with 65cc chambers and a .039" head gasket I'm at 9.8:1. But my pistons are .018" over the deck.

If it's a low compression 340 (again, it should be) then you shouldn't have any real problems. I would definitely check the math on the compression ratio, especially if the 302's are actually checking at 60cc's. The cam is fairly small, so your dynamic compression ratio will stay high. And of course you do know that the 302's have 318 sized ports right?
 
If it is an out-of-hole 340 with .028 gaskets there will be contact sooner or later.
 
No. Even if the 340 has 8:1 boat slugs you're likely going to have problems running 93.
 
No. Even if the 340 has 8:1 boat slugs you're likely going to have problems running 93.

I am not that familiar with 340's but at 0 deck height they would have ~11.25:1 compression... obliviously too much. How far down are the low compression 340 pistons usually?

.030 down would yield a bit over 10.25:1, which still may not work with the cam he has selected, but with a thicker heads gasket would work.
 
pistons are in the hole, theyve got the eyebrow valve reliefs, ya i know about the ports, i spent 1400 on a set of 302s for my demon last year, i just cant spend that kind of money right now, ive also got a set of 308s and i think? 587s, i could always use a thicker gasket i guess, its just that i have 2 sets of thin ones in the parts pile
 
Something wrong with the 340's 915 ??

If so it will cost you a few Hp but they will work
 
I don't think the ports are a big deal with the requirements you described. It is the compression that could be troublesome.
 
915s need total rebuild, 308s look about the best shape besides the 302s , theyre in nice shape with MP 500 lift springs on them, i could do some work on the chambers and make them a bit bigger. im just lookin for a peppy responsive car for the wife, no serious power effort here
 
I don't have experience with the 302 heads but I did once bolt a set of stock 273 closed chamber heads on a 1969 out of the deck 340. I also had the small port ld4b manifold with it. How did it run? It ran like a scalded ape. It spun the tires at will at any speed. Performance was never a problem. I had a 150 horse nitrous kit on the car but never used it as it would spin all the way into 3Rd gear.
The bad is it dieseled to a stop when it was warmed up and shut off. If it was running hot which it did from time to time , it would diesel smooth. Like run on all 8 cylinder well with the coil wire off the cap. Only way to shut it down is to choke the carburetor.
If. You can keep it cool and get good gas it should run well. Lots of torque.
 
thats what im lookin for! ive got the ld4b, ld 340 and holley street dominator, thinking ld4b
 
I am not that familiar with 340's but at 0 deck height they would have ~11.25:1 compression... obliviously too much. How far down are the low compression 340 pistons usually?

.030 down would yield a bit over 10.25:1, which still may not work with the cam he has selected, but with a thicker heads gasket would work.
I think it's supposed to be like 8.8:1 with 68ccs. I think I remember the stock 340 pistons being in the ballpark of the higher 318 pistons below the deck. I'd be lying if I said I remembered the exact, but while not absurd it's not small enough to be a challenge to measure either.

915s need total rebuild, 308s look about the best shape besides the 302s , theyre in nice shape with MP 500 lift springs on them, i could do some work on the chambers and make them a bit bigger. im just lookin for a peppy responsive car for the wife, no serious power effort here
308s and 587s should be right around the same ccs as the 915s.

To me your comment says something that will act right. Response should be nice regardless, but you don't want an overheating mess of a street motor that can't run on street gas. The better flowing heads should have no troubles making up for the lower compression that lets you run street (or even cheap) gas.
 
.........I've did that swap a few times....U should be approx. .080 in the hole............the 302s will be great on that motor if the pistons are at least .040 in the hole.......there was a good write up in the mopar performance manual in the late 80s or early 90s showing that the 302s were a 25 hp increase over the 2.02 valve X or J head.......don't under estimate the swirl ports.......kim.........
 
ya ive read that, and about a hundred other articles , just got old cam out tonight, any idea why some cams have narrower journals than others? will measure how far in the hole tomorrow.





9
 
there was a good write up in the mopar performance manual in the late 80s or early 90s showing that the 302s were a 25 hp increase over the 2.02 valve X or J head.......don't under estimate the swirl ports.......kim.........
The 1.78 intake closed chamber 318 head they advertised as less HP than 1.88 valve smog head cop car motors? Or the 308- the 1.88 intake open chamber swirl port head they sold as the dream child from its introduction in '89 until after the Magnum's introduction?

Seems odd they'd claim a head rated below the 596s were a HP gain over 2.02 X heads.
 
The 1.78 intake closed chamber 318 head they advertised as less HP than 1.88 valve smog head cop car motors? Or the 308- the 1.88 intake open chamber swirl port head they sold as the dream child from its introduction in '89 until after the Magnum's introduction?

Seems odd they'd claim a head rated below the 596s were a HP gain over 2.02 X heads.


It's all relative right?

It's all (relatively speaking LOL) about port velocity or air speed. A large port is a dog, until you get some RPM aka air speed through the port.

A small port, has velocity or good air speed RIGHT NOW! but will choke sooner preventing it from revving any higher at that point.

He's not trying to turn it 7000 rpm and 4.56 gears to get it out of the hole
He is looking for a max of 5000 rpm with 323 gears........

Although it sound miss matched at first. I thing its the perfect match. And a little extra fuel economy to boot!:thumblef::thumbrig:
 
your compression may make it a premium fuel car, if you live at a low elevation.

Do the compression math, decide Now if you're going to be willing to live with Premium fuel.
 
The 1.78 intake closed chamber 318 head they advertised as less HP than 1.88 valve smog head cop car motors? Or the 308- the 1.88 intake open chamber swirl port head they sold as the dream child from its introduction in '89 until after the Magnum's introduction?

Seems odd they'd claim a head rated below the 596s were a HP gain over 2.02 X heads.

The only reason those 302 heads in the article worked so well, is that they were professionally ported. Stock they are way down on flow compared to 360 heads. 308's are good, but have them magnefluxed before putting any money in them, I have given up on finding a good set. A 72 340 runs very nice, even stock. Sounds funny to put small port heads on anything, let alone a big port engine. I always did the opposite, MOPAR, Ford, or Chevy...
 
this 72 340 doesnt run very nice, its been parked since 92, anything past about 4000 rpm it just starts breaking up,, imo the heads are shot, cam was looking a little suspect also, it had been reringed in 85, still has crosshatches in bores. plus i dont mind experimenting, especially against the given norm, otherwise you'll never know for sure
 
The only reason those 302 heads in the article worked so well, is that they were professionally ported. Stock they are way down on flow compared to 360 heads. 308's are good, but have them magnefluxed before putting any money in them, I have given up on finding a good set. A 72 340 runs very nice, even stock. Sounds funny to put small port heads on anything, let alone a big port engine. I always did the opposite, MOPAR, Ford, or Chevy...
Yeah, close to stock in a 340 or 360 set up to run on pump is quite an adequate driver engine.

this 72 340 doesnt run very nice, its been parked since 92, anything past about 4000 rpm it just starts breaking up,, imo the heads are shot, cam was looking a little suspect also, it had been reringed in 85, still has crosshatches in bores. plus i dont mind experimenting, especially against the given norm, otherwise you'll never know for sure
It's much less against the norm than you think. Many who rebuild 340s put smaller cams in them, worse intakes, smaller carbs, and that all combined with higher compression pistons makes a dog that's unpleasant to drive too. Swapping to unworked inferior stock parts will not be increasing performance.

If you're going to try to go very high in compression, it better have the power to be worth the fuel. Being restricted to pump premium in a 200hp motor won't be exciting and having to run E85 or mix fuel in a motor that's not even making 300hp won't be a great payoff.
 
this 72 340 doesnt run very nice, its been parked since 92, anything past about 4000 rpm it just starts breaking up,, imo the heads are shot, cam was looking a little suspect also, it had been reringed in 85, still has crosshatches in bores. plus i dont mind experimenting, especially against the given norm, otherwise you'll never know for sure

Only two ways to diagnose ,two ways to find out piston/deck height : Latter first:Do a leakdown rent/ beg borrow a b oroscope ,or yank the heads. Sounds like the heads you have ,are better than what you have on it. Run a thicker head gasket, if needed. Grinding those chambers down: Get some dykem, scribe it against the head gaskets you decide to use. Cam timing comes into effect,about bleeding off compression. Some of the slower ramp camshafts ,( budget grinds,most likely..)work really well here.
 
heads are off, 302s have been mildly worked, considering doing a bit more, 750 sllayer will be the carb, thinking 040 gaskets are in my budget which is basically nil right now. and by norm i mean all the "norm" advice given on this forum. once again, this is NOT a
performance build
 
pistons are in the hole, theyve got the eyebrow valve reliefs, ya i know about the ports, i spent 1400 on a set of 302s for my demon last year, i just cant spend that kind of money right now, ive also got a set of 308s and i think? 587s, i could always use a thicker gasket i guess, its just that i have 2 sets of thin ones in the parts pile

Dude you coulda had a set of EQ's for that--along with 50+ points in HP/TQ. J.Rob
 
-
Back
Top