340 cam specs?

AJ/FormS said

Sounds about right.
And that's about what I remember about my 340s: with a manual trans and 3.55s, I always had to use the flywheel to get moving, and mine had to be wound up to pull. And my stockers (69 and 70),quit pulling around 85mph. Shifting to Fourth was sorta dead. Still, the stockers went almost 100 mph in the quarter.
Those VPs suck. I always had to keep the Rs on the cam; the right hand was always on the shifter. It was better after I got the 4.10s,lol.
But I've only got about 10 years driving experience on three of those early models after which I switched to 360s.The Dart was peppier than the BarracudaFB, I guess because of the approximate 300 pound difference in the chassis weights.

Click to expand...

A lot folks like @VOETOM are happy with their 340 cams in a 340. Granted the one he mentioned is not the same as the one we're talking about. If my dynomation comparison is correct, it would be be even less peppy (less torque) in the same situation.
It looks to me like using an above deck piston was critical, and heads with smaller than as-cast chambers could only help.
Pep could relate to other things too as you mention; everything from vehicle weight to idle circuit tune.
My take aways are: this cam needs compression, and there is big difference in V/P when using different seat to seat measurement methods. So the second must be considered, along with equivalent altitude when comparing.
Granted this is mostly for historical purposes, but I think its a useful baseline when people are looking to make changes.