340 Vs 360

-
DJC said:
Once we get this topic decided we should move on to Republican vs Democrat, or Jesus vs Bhudda...
Click to expand...

Well, of course, Jesus would be running a real cool 1971 340 while Bhudda would be behind the cheap 360.Republicans would pass legislation to buy the expensive 340s but end up getting a 426 Hemi with several tax increases to pay for it. The Democrats would pass legislation to buy the cheap 360s but end up with 318s at 426 Hemi prices with several tax increases to pay for them.
 
well the dust will never settle on this issue.The original post was based just on a performance upgrade so the most economical is usually the 360.
but...sometime in the future if the vehicle is sold,the 340 will likely sell at a higher price and be more desirable by most purchasers.

as for Jesus and Bhudda...what about Higgs Boson?
 
ir3333 said:
as for Jesus and Bhudda...what about Higgs Boson?
Click to expand...

LOL, good one.
The Higgs boson is a particle with no spin and no charge. Using the 340-360 analogy, that would mean you have a dead engine (that is, no torque) suitable only as a boat anchor.
 
DFX 340 Duster said:
LOL, good one.
The Higgs boson is a particle with no spin and no charge. Using the 340-360 analogy, that would mean you have a dead engine (that is, no torque) suitable only as a boat anchor.
Click to expand...

ok, I'm sensing the start of a new thread. . . . What would (blank) drive, 340 or 360?
 
A fair comparison of 340 vs 360 would be the 73 340 duster vs the 74 360 duster. That is the best factory apples to apples comparison Ican think of.
 
The HP vs torque argument is demonstrated well by the fact 300 ft lbs accelerates equally at 3000 rpm as it does at 6000 rpm but you are making twice the HP at 6000. That double HP provides no more acceleration. What you need is the whole area under the curve not just the peak number.
 
Hersbird said:
A fair comparison of 340 vs 360 would be the 73 340 duster vs the 74 360 duster. That is the best factory apples to apples comparison Ican think of.
Click to expand...
Added safety features made the 74 heavier so not a fair comparison.
 
There is absolutely no way anyone can make any point or points to settle the debate of 360 VS 340! Put motors on a dyno with equal compression and use the same heads, exhaust, intake, carb, ignition, ect. and someone will still debate that gearing changes, trans, vehicle weight, ect. will make one shortblock win out over the other.
 
65cuda360 said:
There is absolutely no way anyone can make any point or points to settle the debate of 360 VS 340! Put motors on a dyno with equal compression and use the same heads, exhaust, intake, carb, ignition, ect. and someone will still debate that gearing changes, trans, vehicle weight, ect. will make one shortblock win out over the other.
Click to expand...
which is why I don't see why both sides don't just forget the sides, and just admit both engines will work great... After all, they are both mopar motors and both will go fast and both run great....... only.....only.....only... THE 360 IS CHEAPER......:banghead::violent1::prayer::banghead::violent1::prayer::banghead::violent1:
 
318willrun said:
which is why I don't see why both sides don't just forget the sides, and just admit both engines will work great... After all, they are both mopar motors and both will go fast and both run great....... only.....only.....only... THE 360 IS CHEAPER......:banghead::violent1::prayer::banghead::violent1::prayer::banghead::violent1:
Click to expand...
My father has two 340 blocks in storage in Louisiana. My screen name is not 65cuda340. I'm a cheap bastard.
 
318willrun said:
Added safety features made the 74 heavier so not a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

My purestock 360 duster and Dave Watt's purestock 73 340 duster are nearly identical in weight with drivers. 3500 lbs according to mid michigan motor plex scales.In fact the cars are almost identical in all respects except for displacement.
 

Attachments

  • 2011 psmcdr 3.jpg
    82.8 KB · Views: 423
Car craft had a 74 duster 360 auto with 3:55 gears. It weighed 3242 and went 14.6 @ 95 mph stock. That sounds close or better then even a high compression 70 auto model w/o emissions.
 
Which is faster 340 or 360 ?

Seth Jones said:
My purestock 360 duster and Dave Watt's purestock 73 340 duster are nearly identical in weight with drivers. 3500 lbs according to mid michigan motor plex scales.In fact the cars are almost identical in all respects except for displacement.
Click to expand...
 
Sounds a bit slow , my stock 340 , 3:23 gear Dart turned a 14.1 @99.8 with the original motor .

Hersbird said:
Car craft had a 74 duster 360 auto with 3:55 gears. It weighed 3242 and went 14.6 @ 95 mph stock. That sounds close or better then even a high compression 70 auto model w/o emissions.
Click to expand...
 
On stock 1970 tires? And that was a bunch more compression then the 8.5 1974 model.
 
If you're talking show room stock, of course the 340 win's over the 360, it's a no brainer! If talking modified, given equal compression, heads, intake, cam, carb; the 360 wins every time, it has to, it's got 20 more cubic inches!!!!!!! There's no replacement for displacement!!!! DUHAAAAAA!
 
Nothing wrong with either one. I own both. I have a 340 in my Duster. I got it cheap, so why not? I ran it at Milan Dragway and a guy asked me if it had a "real" 340 in it. I said yes. Then he got mad and told me I shouldn't be racing it, and that it belonged in a museum. I smiled, shut the hood, and made my pass.
 
dustergal said:
Nothing wrong with either one. I own both. I have a 340 in my Duster. I got it cheap, so why not? I ran it at Milan Dragway and a guy asked me if it had a "real" 340 in it. I said yes. Then he got mad and told me I shouldn't be racing it, and that it belonged in a museum. I smiled, shut the hood, and made my pass.
Click to expand...
LOL :cheers:
 
And the polls are all closed and the votes are in..and the winner is;;;;;;;;6 of one and a half dozen of the other....
 
beatdeadhorse.gif
 
I figure if your really worried about torque and reliability throw a 440 in there. You'll get the respect of a 340 and reliability of a 360. Back in the day guys were ripping out 340's and throwing them in the trash and putting in big blocks.
 
I never had luck with a 360. I scattered many LA's 318's , 340's, and 360's. I put 340 top ends. on 318's and 360's. I would constantly take them to the limit with no regard whether they would live or die.

Its not the power they make its the strength they have compared to one another. I had 318's, and 360's. That ran better then 340's. But The 340's always withstood more abuse. I always assumed it was the steel crank . The 360's would always seem to break rods. I don't believe the rod was the problem nor the pressed pin. It always pointed to cylinder wall failure on the 360's I used.

I did have one 360 that was indestructible. That was from a 71 Fury. The rest I used were from later ramchargers and trucks. I believe "block flex" would cause cylinder wall failure and bind the piston causing the rod to break.

Mopar narrowed the left mount ears on the 340 which continued on the 360 on LA motors. I believe to take stress off of the thin area of the block.This was discontinued on magnums and resto 340 replacement block. Also the X Block? Was actually a 318 and used the 318 mount

So this said my opinion is the 360 LA block is great if you fill it half way with hard block or use motor plates. In A mild street car running,( HO slot car tires) this is not needed. Use what is cheapest and hammer it. No loss! Why have them live longer then us ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top