318 power?

-
Dartswinger70 said:
Id say the 5.0 HO of the 80s would be a good side by side comparison of the early 70s 340 definitely the detuned smog 340. 5.0 HO was 225 horse the later 340 was 240 HP. early 340 has it beat though at 275 Horse. they both were "performance" engines.
Click to expand...
But then the 5.0 is giving up 38 cubes. The 340 to 350 cube comparison is closer. The early 340s would probably win against most of the 350 cube comptition more often than not.
Used to be two friends in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada when we had the EIS facility. Both drag raced 340 Dusters. One had an automatic and the other was 4 spd. Winner depended solely on how they got of the lights. They could switch cars and the same happened. The General slush boxes were built for smooth Cadillac style shifts, not good for drag racing. Ford was in the middle.
The 5.0 HO was a bit slower when stock than the Camaro/Firechicken. However they sold like hotcakes as they were $10k less expensive. A couple of $k and they would leave the General in the dust. The 5.0 Mustangs were a couple of hundred pounds lighter, and that takes a lot of power to overcome. The Camaro/Firechickens had that, but a trip to a speed shop quickly cured that and brought power up to the Generals level. And that was giving up 48 cubes.
 
Last edited:
Dale Davies said:
But then the 5.0 is giving up 38 cubes. The 340 to 350 cube comparison is closer. The early 340s would probably win against most of the 350 cube comptition more often than not.
Used to be two friends in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada when we had the EIS facility. Both drag raced 340 Dusters. One had an automatic and the other was 4 spd. Winner depended solely on how they got of the lights. They could switch cars and the same happened. The General slush boxes were built for smooth Cadillac style shifts, not good for drag racing. Ford was in the middle.
Click to expand...
Those 340's ran good, but I think that a lot of people over rate them. I've seen 350 beat 340 and the other way around. It's how it's set up and the driver skills
 
Dale Davies said:
But then the 5.0 is giving up 38 cubes. The 340 to 350 cube comparison is closer. The early 340s would probably win against most of the 350 cube comptition more often than not.
Used to be two friends in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada when we had the EIS facility. Both drag raced 340 Dusters. One had an automatic and the other was 4 spd. Winner depended solely on how they got of the lights. They could switch cars and the same happened. The General slush boxes were built for smooth Cadillac style shifts, not good for drag racing. Ford was in the middle.
Click to expand...
the avg 5.0 5 spd with power options ran lx was 14.6 14.7 gt was 14.8 14.9 depending if had the optional 3.08 gears
good driver lx hatch 14.4 gt 14.6 93 to 96 mph
86 5.0 gt 92 93 94 trap spd
auto 5.0s 90 91 92 trap speed slow as piss
 
a-bodyguy said:
my stock 1987 lx notch 5.0 5spd 2.73 ran 14.2 98.73 mph with a piss poor 2.15 60* avg 60* was 2.25 bad 60* 2.41 tires up in smoke
advanced timming 2 degrees and remove air box otherwise stock
silly 225 60 15 goodyear gatorbacks worse more useless then bfg t/a
shipping weight was 2750 add fluids lets call it 100 lbs as i ran it almost empty add me 250 lbs 3100 lbs
rated 225 hp using 3100 lbs and 98.73 mph says rwhp would be 232 give or take
for new cars only a prepared 87 buick gn could beat it 3 cars outta the hole everytime 13.8 13.9 then even thruout stock gn with a jamoke behind the wheel 14.2 14.3 or worse 87 vettes coudnt beat it but more traction limted then me
many mustangs 14.7 hatchback avg cant drive 15.5 5.0 auto slow as chit
i could not launch it above 1200 rpm
rolling start on the street i could take a gn pretty even 1/2 a fender until 127 mph the factory shutdown for the gn then it was history
i beat a jamoke in 1969 427 vette ragtop he told me no way my car was stock ( coudnt be that he coudnt drive or tune his car) lol
i had it going 5900 in 4th 2.73s 25.63 tall tires thats just about 160 mph quite a few times 5th gear was to deep it woudnt pull it up there
i use to go sit in the break down lane on rte 95 and wait for vettes and porsches to try and get them to top end race
hot rod tested a yellow 5.0 5spd 87 notch with 3.08 gears used vht and ran 13.9 @ 100 and stretched it out in 4th got 146 mph there abouts others tests had top end rated in 5th gear 142 mph they were faster in 4th
paid 10k brand new a bargin
the gt was 16 to 17k silly
they made 52 black 5.0 5 spd notches in 87 with no power options now theres only 51 left now :( prolly less

my stock 68 gts 340 auto 3.23s went 14.3ish@97 mph hate to say it gts would have beaten it out of the hole my notch would have ran it down
the gts was easy to run that et compared to 5.0 if you didnt slip the clutch just right instant tire smoke

the 5.0 notch was and easy 13.0 car with bolt ons drag radials gears and long tubes low 12s on spray
Click to expand...
In the spring of 73 I bought a Mazda RX3 coupe, 100HP at 6500 RPM. Just over 200 pounds. The rotary tourque curve was dead level above 3500 RPM, so I reved it to 9000 to 9500. Do the math and it was about 150HP. I could beat most Ford or GM 350's but the 340's were just too quick. A bodies are lighter than the E bodies so a bit quicker.
I was going to put Volvo 240 series brakes on it so I could get the brakes on par with the engine. Intent was to enter the Cannonball, but work shipped me up north so I missed out.
 
Dan the man said:
Those 340's ran good, but I think that a lot of people over rate them. I've seen 350 beat 340 and the other way around. It's how it's set up and the driver skills
Click to expand...
dan what planet are you on over rated?
they were a drag strip terror with little to nothing down to them
your 350 gm with wheel hop lost the race in the 1st 60 feet
the 350 350 hp chebby motor was over rated
the 350 370hp lt1 also over rated
look it up its everywhere read the specs
350 nova slow
350 370 hp lt1 4spd vette 411 gears barely 13s
have you ever done any racing dan?
 
a-bodyguy said:
dan what planet are you on over rated?
they were a drag strip terror with little to nothing down to them
your 350 gm with wheel hop lost the race in the 1st 60 feet
the 350 350 hp chebby motor was over rated
the 350 370hp lt1 also over rated
look it up its everywhere read the specs
350 nova slow
350 370 hp lt1 4spd vette 411 gears barely 13s
have you ever done any racing dan?
Click to expand...
Meanwhile the 340s were under rated probably for insurance. NHRA took ETs and weight and figured HP up.
 
a-bodyguy said:
dan what planet are you on over rated?
they were a drag strip terror with little to nothing down to them
your 350 gm with wheel hop lost the race in the 1st 60 feet
the 350 350 hp chebby motor was over rated
the 350 370hp lt1 also over rated
look it up its everywhere read the specs
350 nova slow
350 370 hp lt1 4spd vette 411 gears barely 13s
have you ever done any racing dan?
Click to expand...
What did the 340's run off the show room floor? I've heard and read that they ran high 13's to low 14's off the show room floor. I'm not trying to degrade the 340 here, just saying what I saw, who knows what kind of suspension system either car had, tuning, driver skills. Seems guy's think that the 340 is unbeatable and that's not true. I do like the 340 the best and always will. I was simply saying what I seen at a dragstrip a few years ago and you guys come apart. Whether you want to admit it or not the mustang of the 80's was a strong runner and responsed well to bolt ons.
 
What most who never tore an early 340 down don't realize is, the internals were some of the best components available at the time. It was designed to rev ...I ve heard old guys who were around when they were new say "they were fast right our of the box..." meaning off the dealership lot. Then do some day 2 mods and it really ran. Get some Mopar performance or Direct connection parts and get it dyno tuned..400 horse easily. It was definitely a bang for the buick bargain package.
 
Dan the man said:
What did the 340's run off the show room floor? I've heard and read that they ran high 13's to low 14's off the show room floor. I'm not trying to degrade the 340 here, just saying what I saw, who knows what kind of suspension system either car had, tuning, driver skills. Seems guy's think that the 340 is unbeatable and that's not true. I do like the 340 the best and always will. I was simply saying what I seen at a dragstrip a few years ago and you guys come apart. Whether you want to admit it or not the mustang of the 80's was a strong runner and responsed well to bolt ons.
Click to expand...
i owned both i had the fastest 80s model mustang and a gts i speak from racing them both
the coupe 5.0 5sp was faster then the 93 cobra with the updated intake throttle body and gears why is that? weight they ran 14.3 and had bigger traction issues
only the coupe had a shot at a proper 340 stock to stock the gts is far more consistent prolly wins 7 of 10 races
the lightes 69 a-body cuda with nothing more then tm5 and a 700dp 3.55s and 50s went 13.1@104 thru the mufflers factory manifolds everytime for 20 flippin
years
ive seen 340s run 15s built ive seen 5.0s run 16s 350s run 17s
340 with nothing but a carb an traction is mid 13s the notch low 13s
who cares what asshats do
the 340 a-body was a terror anybody with a clue knows this
they were not overrated they were underrated
 
Dan the man said:
What did the 340's run off the show room floor? I've heard and read that they ran high 13's to low 14's off the show room floor. I'm not trying to degrade the 340 here, just saying what I saw, who knows what kind of suspension system either car had, tuning, driver skills. Seems guy's think that the 340 is unbeatable and that's not true. I do like the 340 the best and always will. I was simply saying what I seen at a dragstrip a few years ago and you guys come apart. Whether you want to admit it or not the mustang of the 80's was a strong runner and responsed well to bolt ons.
Click to expand...
the avg 5.0 stock 5spd hatch ran 14.7@94 thats a 5dpd
the auto 5.0 was 15.0@90 mph lol lose by 6 to 8 cars to 340 auto
 
a-bodyguy said:
the avg 5.0 stock 5spd hatch ran 14.7@94 thats a 5dpd
the auto 5.0 was 15.0@90 mph lol lose by 6 to 8 cars to 340 auto
Click to expand...
The 14.7 is pretty close to what the 340 ran. I think the last time I looked it up the 340's ran mid 14's
 
Dan the man said:
What did the 340's run off the show room floor? I've heard and read that they ran high 13's to low 14's off the show room floor. I'm not trying to degrade the 340 here, just saying what I saw, who knows what kind of suspension system either car had, tuning, driver skills. Seems guy's think that the 340 is unbeatable and that's not true. I do like the 340 the best and always will. I was simply saying what I seen at a dragstrip a few years ago and you guys come apart. Whether you want to admit it or not the mustang of the 80's was a strong runner and responsed well to bolt ons.
Click to expand...
Yep. To some people this is a religion, and "blasphemy" will not be tolerated.
 
Dan the man said:
Those 340's ran good, but I think that a lot of people over rate them. I've seen 350 beat 340 and the other way around. It's how it's set up and the driver skills
Click to expand...
Ode to the mighty 340 and 350. lol
 
fishmens67 said:
Ode to the mighty 340 and 350. lol
Click to expand...
350 Chevrolets there were many of them of varying horsepower 2 and 4 barrel, same with the 327. A 327 in a Corvette wasn't the same 327 in your aunts Biscayne... 340 only ever came with 4 or 6 barrels LOL! it was a performance offering only. Chevys are good viable contenders, but you have to know what ya have. I have always made it a point to start with a good engine vs trying to ,for example make a 307 chevy a performer. I wouldn't even start there, the 307 would come out and a good HP rated 327 or 350 would get built and put in.
 
Dan the man said:
What did the 340's run off the show room floor? I've heard and read that they ran high 13's to low 14's off the show room floor. I'm not trying to degrade the 340 here, just saying what I saw, who knows what kind of suspension system either car had, tuning, driver skills. Seems guy's think that the 340 is unbeatable and that's not true. I do like the 340 the best and always will. I was simply saying what I seen at a dragstrip a few years ago and you guys come apart. Whether you want to admit it or not the mustang of the 80's was a strong runner and responsed well to bolt ons.
Click to expand...
dan read ready
5.0 auto mustangs ran 15.0 the fastest @90 mph most were 15.4 in the 87 88 mph area in 3300 lb car
340 auto ran 14.3@97 mph 3400 lb car
getting beat by 7 cars or more is 2 bus lengths
4 cars is getting your doors blown off
if you ran 14.7 in a 340 A-body you should quit racing and buy a scooter
 
307 Chevy
Dartswinger70 said:
350 Chevrolets there were many of them of varying horsepower 2 and 4 barrel, same with the 327. A 327 in a Corvette wasn't the same 327 in your aunts Biscayne... 340 only ever came with 4 or 6 barrels LOL! it was a performance offering only. Chevys are good viable contenders, but you have to know what ya have. I have always made it a point to start with a good engine vs trying to ,for example make a 307 chevy a performer. I wouldn't even start there, the 307 would come out and a good HP rated 327 or 350 would get built and put in.
Click to expand...
Gets dumped unfarely into the junk engine bin. They were an economy engine generally with a mild cam and 2V carb. Put a stroker crank in with a properly selected cam and you can have a good engine. Of course head selection on any engine is important.
One year for the Engine Masters a competitor built just such a 307. Now I realise those are no budget builds, but it did quite well.
The 340 is a performance engine from the gitgo, so they got all the good parts required to make them performance.
340 4V factory rating was 275 HP. NHRA rated them at 325 HP. Mopar rated the 6V at 290 or 320 HP while NHRA rated them at 375 HP.
 
What did the 340 4 gear cam option 444/453 276/284 run never hear much about it had to make more power ?
 
I'm just kidding anyway. SB Ford is a good engine. They make excellent boat anchors.
 
Since we're mostly off-topic bench racing now lol...

I never experienced a fox body but a friend of mine had a 1994 SN-95 Mustang GT with the 5.0L and auto trans. Even with CAI, long tubes, catless mid-pipe, premium-fuel tune and 3.73 gears it wasn't any quicker/faster than my Duster when it had a worn-out 318 with 4-bbl, duals off stock manifolds and Voodoo 256/262 cam going through a stock 904 with 2.76 gears. With the first 360 I swapped in it wasn't even close. That Stang looked and sounded fast but really wasn't. I know the manuals are faster but still, 3.73 vs. 2.76 gears should have given it a big edge. I suppose that car did weigh at least 300 lbs more than my Duster though.

I wouldn't mind a newer Mustang with the 5.0L Coyote and 6-speed especially since the new Challenger is so damn fat and heavy. If I ever got an LX/LY/LC Mopar it would likely be an SRT Chrysler 300 with the 6.4L.
 
MopaR&D said:
Since we're mostly off-topic bench racing now lol...

I never experienced a fox body but a friend of mine had a 1994 SN-95 Mustang GT with the 5.0L and auto trans. Even with CAI, long tubes, catless mid-pipe, premium-fuel tune and 3.73 gears it wasn't any quicker/faster than my Duster when it had a worn-out 318 with 4-bbl, duals off stock manifolds and Voodoo 256/262 cam going through a stock 904 with 2.76 gears. With the first 360 I swapped in it wasn't even close. That Stang looked and sounded fast but really wasn't. I know the manuals are faster but still, 3.73 vs. 2.76 gears should have given it a big edge. I suppose that car did weigh at least 300 lbs more than my Duster though.

I wouldn't mind a newer Mustang with the 5.0L Coyote and 6-speed especially since the new Challenger is so damn fat and heavy. If I ever got an LX/LY/LC Mopar it would likely be an SRT Chrysler 300 with the 6.4L.
Click to expand...
94 and 95 were dogs they were fat pigs weight going up slower then fox body 94 95 cobra was 14.5 avg 14.2 good driver shamefull cheby smoked was 14.0
the auto mustangs were really slowwwwwwww
chevy top offering the 87 88 89 idog i mean iroc 350 coudnt get a manual in it was a high 14 second car low trap speed quick out of the hole then rolled over
the 1le version was better 305 5spd could almost beat the 350 auto lol
the 89 turbo ta was mid 13s stock 162 mph top end all turbo v-6 chit were low 12s with bolt ons
the zr1 fastest i saw at the strip was 13.2 on street tires 12.9 on slicks 172 top end
1994 and up the camaro smoked the mustang until the 2003 cobra
 
Funny how family sedans Now come with basically muscle car power just put in overweight cars my Dodge Avenger rated net 283 hp @ 6400 rpm and from what's posted 14.5-15 second et.
Put it in a well setup A Body be quite the combo, especially light weight early A.

A Turbocharged AWD 3.6L in a Early A would make a Cool daily driver :)
Or a mid engine Turbocharged 3.6l
 
Last edited:
In all honesty though, the Boss 302 was a pretty cool engine. They were powerful for what they were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top