70" 340 vs 72" 340 specs please

AdamR said
Im sorry I call b.s. on this statement. The 72-73 340 didnt make that much less power then the earlier ones. 1 point of compression and a smaller intake valve were the only down grades (actually measured compression of the early cars is less then advertised.) and some will argue the drop in valve size making a difference. Cam stayed the same, Intake and carb was an improvement.

Theres a reason guys run 71 and later cars in stock classes and Ive heard the smaller intake valve is actually a plus in that class.

a 70 318 has probably about the same actual compression as a 72 340, Less cam, worse flowing heads, intake, carb and exhaust so if it is out running any 340 then the 340 has serious issues.

Call B.S. all you want. I have owned and driven both early and late 340s. The 72-73 don't go that well stock. It is what it is. I did not say the 70 318 was out running the 72 340, but with only 15 more HP, they do seem to go about the same... If you would like you can try my uncles 70 318 duster w only 14K (bought new in 69) on it and my Fathers 72 340 Demon w 40k on it and you cant tell the difference in power driving the two. My father is disgusted with the 72 340 and the fact that my uncles 318 stays rite with it. Bone stock that is... Of course with a little work it can be made to go alot better. Im not trying to argue, Im just saying these two particular cars go very close to the same.