350 hp out of a fairly stock 340

-
harrisonm said:
There was one more reason VERY close to your 383 comment. 1968 was the first year for the 340 AND the Road Runner. They did not want people to know that you would get a 335 HP V8 in a road Runner, and that it was ONLY 15 HP more than the 340. Plus, an A Body with a 340 can beat a 383 Road Runner every time.
Click to expand...

In 1968 the 340 only had 275 horsepower. That’s 60 less than the 383.
 
harrisonm said:
There was one more reason VERY close to your 383 comment. 1968 was the first year for the 340 AND the Road Runner. They did not want people to know that you would get a 335 HP V8 in a road Runner, and that it was ONLY 15 HP more than the 340. Plus, an A Body with a 340 can beat a 383 Road Runner every time.
Click to expand...
lets put that 340 in the Roadrunner and see if that 15 horsepower makes a difference. lol
Rat Bastid said:
In 1968 the 340 only had 275 horsepower. That’s 60 less than the 383.
Click to expand...
 
lemondana said:
No, I like Nick's videos, I watch them all. But the 340 should of had a Thermoquad on to start with-72 340's had TQ's.
Click to expand...
he builds what the customer wants , in this case the customer brought it in with an elderbrock , Nick just had THERMOQUAKER in the shop and decided to see if it would make a difference .
 
harrisonm said:
There was one more reason VERY close to your 383 comment. 1968 was the first year for the 340 AND the Road Runner. They did not want people to know that you would get a 335 HP V8 in a road Runner, and that it was ONLY 15 HP more than the 340. Plus, an A Body with a 340 can beat a 383 Road Runner every time.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. Thanks.
 
340 HP numbers from the factory , not sure I believe them back in 1970 my 340 ran 13.9@ 103 mph beat all kinds of Chevs and Pontiacs with higher ADVERTIZED hp depended on the day your 340 was built , some were strong some were dogs really was a crapshoot back then
 
Nat said:
he builds what the customer wants , in this case the customer brought it in with an elderbrock , Nick just had THERMOQUAKER in the shop and decided to see if it would make a difference .
Click to expand...
or thermobog quadrabog
i like both
 
I have a 340 and I can say it no way makes 350 horsepower even thought its not stock. I think the 275 factory rating is pretty accurate for a totally stock engine.
 
I agree it didn't make that...stock. but it's not hard to get to the 1hp/cu in mark
 
bobscuda67 said:
I have a 340 and I can say it no way makes 350 horsepower even thought its not stock. I think the 275 factory rating is pretty accurate for a totally stock engine.
Click to expand...
Your 340 or the one in the video don't make 350 hp?
 
I have a 340+.030 with the 3.58 crank and magnum heads and a mild Lunati cam. Comp ratio is 9.9 and a totally stock full exhaust.
It also has a Edelbrock intake and a 650 carb and I never had it on a dyno but I just don't see it making more than 300.
The 340 Barracuda's and Dart's in 68 ran 14:80's to 15:00 1/4 mile times.
 
bobscuda67 said:
I have a 340 and I can say it no way makes 350 horsepower even thought its not stock. I think the 275 factory rating is pretty accurate for a totally stock engine.
Click to expand...
its not there is a reason nhra rates it 300 to 320
a blueprinted stock 340 makes 340 its been proven over and over again
Really dont see how someone can be on here 15 yrs and think it makes 275hp
 
bobscuda67 said:
I have a 340+.030 with the 3.58 crank and magnum heads and a mild Lunati cam. Comp ratio is 9.9 and a totally stock full exhaust.
It also has a Edelbrock intake and a 650 carb and I never had it on a dyno but I just don't see it making more than 300.
The 340 Barracuda's and Dart's in 68 ran 14:80's to 15:00 1/4 mile times.
Click to expand...

Here's a stock longblock 5.9L with a mild 265 comp roller 4bbl and headers making 350 hp and about 300 hp stock cam.



low cr 360 LA making various hp from 225 hp stock 2bbl setup up to 380 hp with doing fairly mild mods

 
bobscuda67 said:
I have a 340+.030 with the 3.58 crank and magnum heads and a mild Lunati cam. Comp ratio is 9.9 and a totally stock full exhaust.
It also has a Edelbrock intake and a 650 carb and I never had it on a dyno but I just don't see it making more than 300.
The 340 Barracuda's and Dart's in 68 ran 14:80's to 15:00 1/4 mile times.
Click to expand...
You basic built a 373 magnum a 5.9L makes around 285-300 hp gross with stock cam and cr.
My jeep 5.9L is rated 245 hp net so I see no reason why it can't at least make 285 hp gross and the low output 340 was rated 245 hp net too, you'd think high cr 340 got to put out 20-30 hp net over the low cr one.
 
Last edited:
273 said:
Here's a stock longblock 5.9L with a mild 265 comp roller 4bbl and headers making 350 hp and about 300 hp stock cam.



low cr 360 LA making various hp from 225 hp stock 2bbl setup up to 380 hp with doing fairly mild mods

Click to expand...

Yep. I was going to reference holdener. He also did a 6 pack 340-fairly stock- and it did pretty damn well.
 
My mild 360, .040 over, around 9:1 cr, stock stroke, stock heads, hyd flat tappet cam, with an Edelbrock air gap and 750 carb, running a .444/.467 cam, TTi headers through a full 3 inch exhaust and a 727 trans and 3.23 gears in a full steel body, full interior 1970 Dart ran 13.80 @100 mph 1/4 mile.
bobscuda67 said:
The 340 Barracuda's and Dart's in 68 ran 14:80's to 15:00 1/4 mile times.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that motor made more than about 350 hp.
 
Mean416 said:
Yep. I was going to reference holdener. He also did a 6 pack 340-fairly stock- and it did pretty damn well.
Click to expand...
I link that in post 5, 340 6bbl vs ford and chev small blocks
 
bobscuda67 said:
I have a 340 and I can say it no way makes 350 horsepower even thought its not stock. I think the 275 factory rating is pretty accurate for a totally stock engine.
Click to expand...
I'm not mean enough to hit the red X for this, but I will have to say that you are wrong about the 275HP. It has been discussed here a zillion times. If the 340 really did only make 275HP, why did it beat SOOOOO many muscle cars back in the day on the street and on the strip with much higher HP ratings?
 
harrisonm said:
I'm not mean enough to hit the red X for this, but I will have to say that you are wrong about the 275HP. It has been discussed here a zillion times. If the 340 really did only make 275HP, why did it beat SOOOOO many muscle cars back in the day on the street and on the strip with much higher HP ratings?
Click to expand...
Because I was a better driver. Yea I said it someone else was going to.
 
In 1978 My modified 340 out ran my buddies 68 camaro 327 that had same mods. Both of us had cars so fast that they jumped beer cans.
I once had it wide open on the interstate, we went so fast we got where we were going before we left.
We would both put 100 dollar bills on the dash ahh never mind you would never believe me
 
Last edited:
I don't believe a 425 LBFT 383 would lose to a 340 A body "every time". Get the Road Runner with a four speed and 4.10 gears and I just bet with two good drivers the 340 would have a hard time. Let me say it again. 425 LBFT. Nuff said.
 
bobscuda67 said:
I have a 340+.030 with the 3.58 crank and magnum heads and a mild Lunati cam. Comp ratio is 9.9 and a totally stock full exhaust.
It also has a Edelbrock intake and a 650 carb and I never had it on a dyno but I just don't see it making more than 300.
The 340 Barracuda's and Dart's in 68 ran 14:80's to 15:00 1/4 mile times.
Click to expand...
Not my 68 340 Cuda. ps you have a 3.58 crank in a 340? So you have a 374 and you can't get 300hp.
 
bobscuda67 said:"The 340 Barracuda's and Dart's in 68 ran 14:80's to 15:00 1/4 mile times."

Back in the fall of 1970, I purchased a lightly-used, low-mileage, run of the mill Swinger340/4spd/3.55s. The following summer, it ran 14.4@98mph, in pure-stock class, on the stock E70-14s, flaming them a good way out; it was a one of one run. I was happy. Ima guessing the mileage was in the range of 12,000 to less than 14,000.
The car scaled at 3310 pounds with me in it and about a half a tank of gas. IIRC the track was at ~800ft
The Wallace calculator makes that out to be ~240 hp. Like I said "run of the mill". But, on the street from 30 to 85 mph, it beat all comers. But I could feel the power nose over at about 85mph; which was ~5800 in third gear. If someone wanted to race to 100, I passed. I worked with what I had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top