33IMP
Well-Known Member
Agree. Theoretically, a 74 360 has 10 more hp and tq than a high compression 340
Nope, ain't buying that for a minute.
360 vs 383
- Thread starter 318willrun
- Start date
-
Nope, ain't buying that for a minute.
thats just not true
its based on mph run and weight of the car for stock engines and its up to date
there is a reason 340 and 360 abodys hold 99.9% of the records
show me a stock 383 b body winning anything they dont
show me a 383 a body winning anything they dont
340 and later 360s hold a **** load records
It amazes me on an A-body mopar site folks dont know whats the best setup for class races
rmchrgr
Skate And Destroy
OK but you used NHRA specs to make a point and used them incorrectly at that.
Calculators are tools. Mock them all you want but I’ll base whatever I’m doing on data and fact.
None of that makes sense or has any relevance to the discussion. It also sounds as if you’ve been living under a rock for the last 50 years.
Which is true for all walks of life. Your point being?
No one needs it but it’s fun to have it. I don’t think anyone is talking about building a 700 hp street 383 engine either. I used the example to illustrate that to run a number within a particular racing class, you’d need *** hp to do it. Not sure how you twisted that around?
Why even bother with a V8 then? I personally wouldn’t be happy with such mediocre output. I wouldn’t advertise it either.
You make it seem like using tools to gain information is a bad thing. Don’t mock what you don’t understand. understanding comes from knowledge and knowledge comes from information. Right?
Honestly though, your arguments are mostly emotional ones. Engine building is a technological pursuit based in fact and hard numbers which is the opposite of emotion.
Have fun making less power than the engines originally came with.
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
I have been to Tijeras. Beautiful place.
What about piston speed at 5000 rpm's 360 vs 383
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 83
This is probably already been brought out , and I am sorry for resurfacing if it has, but. If we're going to compare magnum to 383, then why not compare Magnum to Magnum 5.9l-360 to 6.2l-383. I kinda feel disadvantage otherwise.
No, years go I decided I needed an inside job, when a Chevy starter literally froze to my hand. I have not scrapped many cars since the 80's when I got my Mech Eng job. I have no problem with 360's, I just have 340's and 273's a couple 383's, and a 440. I do have plenty of 360 heads still. My choice is hard to understand if all you want is hp. Where do you stop? Unlike you I do not drag race, I drive a lot on the street and have High Performance engines with multiple hundreds of thousands of miles on them. Fast, bullet proof, and longevity is my goal.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 83
Brought old memories for me there. I had a '67 that 383 commando w/2bbl. I ran 14.90s with it but it had nature's weight reduction also. The car originally was a Minnesota car. Open the trunk lid and see both back tires,lol
WOW!!!
I am a dinosaur, so I'll take the BB with all the terrible problems some have pointed out.
Tom
I am a dinosaur, so I'll take the BB with all the terrible problems some have pointed out.
Tom
rklein383
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,220
- Reaction score
- 1,839
I had a 71 340 Cuda and my best friend had a 383 Super Bee, similar hop ups. We raced many times and although my car with a four speed and better handling was funner to drive. His Bee would consistently be a car length or two faster than mine. I would say they were close enough in power that I would take the 340.
Sounds like you had a real world experience.
torqueIf you'd of had a 360, that'd have made up the difference!
20 cubes in a E body just might have paid off!!!torque
If you'd of had a 360, that'd have made up the difference!
plus that massive extra stroke.... 360 is the right choice...
HankRearden
Well-Known Member
Im not sure I understand. There is no modern 6.2 version of the 383. The magnum 383 still was discontinued around 1971.
Class racing is NOT what I am talking about. My friend raced Super Stock, I know most of what it takes. I am talking about street or street performance! Someone said 383's are dogs. That is not true, they are both in the same ballpark maybe a couple factored hp. Big deal. I prefer a 383 over a 360 and none of you guy's opinions will change that. Always have, always will.
I don't have a 383 that has no power and won't pull past 4,000 rpm. I have the information and experience, I just don't need what you are trying to give me. Do you build engines or have built engines for others?
DionR
Well-Known Member
I got it. The '71 340 was the last year for the 2.02 heads, right? I bet when the 340 and 360 moved to a 1.88 head they picked up power. Has to be the difference.
The 383 b body stock 4sp cars ran 15.0 low 90s 91 92 mph stock a couple 14.7s@94
imo thats slow as chit for a big block 4spd the 383 was over rated from the factory the 340 under rated
Anything can be made to go with money even 301 turbo ta dog even the 305 chevy dog
Now those stroked 383s impressive numbers
mopar should have left the over rated engines to cheby
Additionally, I want it all. I want mpg, speed, and plenty of power. I won't run headers, aluminum heads, or a stroker. I'm tired of chasing the supposed latest "best" thing. I have no problem making power with factory cast iron heads, forged cranks, on any block I choose. Think of a stock class race engine with a street cam, usually a custom Racer Brown solid flat tappet. I run full exhaust, since I sometimes drive at 70-80 mph for 12-15 hours a day. Not fun in a race car. That is my thinking.
I worked for Chrysler through the mid 70's and drove HP 360 Dusters. Sorry to report they were not that fast. I even looked into buying one but after the test drive, I passed because my 64 Barracuda with a 273 was quicker.
-
