Are 340’s rare

-
AJ, that stock 70 340 Swinger would have pulled hard to well past highway speeds and break the tires loose easily. A lot of fun to drive and I'm betting it would be enough for 95% of the guys on this site.
Of the membership i often wonder how many actually race their cars. In my area I know hundreds of guys with musclecars and i don't think any of them race at the track, but they sure do when standing in front of their cars in the cruz nite parking lot! And although it's hard to believe they are all cam experts...this hobby is just plain fun!
 
Sooooo much BS information here.

The whole idea about short stroke engines being "rev happy" is straight bull****. That's a myth that's been completely debunked. An engines ability to rev has much more to do with cam timing, carefully matched valve train components, and head flow capabilities. Not jack s*** to do with stroke.

There are an ABUNDANCE of very high revving big block, long arm engines.
 
abodyjoe said:
that out of a 69 340? my valiant ran 14.2's all day long with a stock 79 360 long block with a performer intake and 600 holley being choked down by 273 manifolds. 3.55 gear too..
Click to expand...
When I had my stock 340 in there 600 Holley some under steering linkage headers, 2 1/4 exhaust, stock 1 5/8 inner diameter chrome tips, 323s, street radials, some crap mufflers, it usually ran 14.2 to 14.0. One time at Cecil Co track it went 13.90, it hooked, all the stars aligned, tail wind ect. But was always 14.0 or so every other time.

There were usually other 340 Dusters or Demons at track running 12s. I ask what they had done they said headers, 750 carb, cam, gears, tires. That was a common answer I got. A lot of ppl could get em in 12s pretty easily from what I saw it was very common. This was early 80s time frame when no one cared about A bodies at all. They were cheap cars the average guy could afford.

I remember ppl telling me put some 2 1/2 pipes on mine the 2 1/4s are holding it back ect
 
ValiantRacing said:
The best dyno is the one with 2 lanes and a timer.
Click to expand...

For some things, yes. A true inertia dyno that hooks to the crank will show you exactly how well the engine makes RPM.

But, without some way to load the engine down there are things you can’t do with an inertia dyno that you can do with a water brake dyno.
 
AJ/FormS said:
Thank you for the words of wisdom.
I've had three cams in my engine and can tell you that your notion of rpm being a streeter's utopia is fullofchit.
For every minute of rpm a street engine sees on the rev-limiter, in second gear, it will likely spend many, many hours at under 4000 rpm. and if the Bottom end sucks for lack of cylinder pressure, well, that is your fantasy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the timely response. It’s clear you are not an engine builder or tuner. Limited skills make it hard for you to grasp that you can’t do certain things.
 
What a great topic.............you're stupid. No you're stupid. No you are. You don't know what you're talking about......

340's are getting rare. :)
 
Allow me to jump in here and show my ignorance.
I thought stroker engines were a torque thing and high rpm would kill them, piston speed and all that?
Guess not ?
 
Molnar different cranks for 318 so close to 340 would be 349

  • The 3.580 stroke crank with a .030 oversize bore = 349 cubic inches
  • The 3.790 stroke crank with a .030 oversize bore = 370 cubic inches
  • The 4.000 stroke crank with a .030 oversize bore =390 cubic inches
  • The 4.125 stroke crank with a .030 oversize bore = 402 cubic inches
 
You think a 408 revs, try a 451 with a light rotating assembly. lol
 
MILO said:
Molnar different cranks for 318 so close to 340 would be 349

  • The 3.580 stroke crank with a .030 oversize bore = 349 cubic inches
  • The 3.790 stroke crank with a .030 oversize bore = 370 cubic inches
  • The 4.000 stroke crank with a .030 oversize bore =390 cubic inches
  • The 4.125 stroke crank with a .030 oversize bore = 402 cubic inches
Click to expand...
Why so small. lol :D
 
gdrill said:
What a great topic.............you're stupid. No you're stupid. No you are. You don't know what you're talking about......

340's are getting rare. :)
Click to expand...
I don't think guys are stupid. But I do think a lot of guys are ignorant and/or stubborn and hanging onto old beliefs.

There was once a time when I, too, believed a short stroke equates to a revver. I was ignorant. I saw a lot of not exotic builds proving the contrary and realized I was ignorant.

There are those that, despite data to the contrary, will continue to repeat bad information. This is keeping other people ignorant. I think it's a good thing that we call this out. Because people will plan out and build engines based on bad information otherwise.
 
You didn't understand the point that was illustrated. It was comparing two engines with the same displacement, cam heads and specs except for the stroke.
 
abodyjoe said:
that out of a 69 340? my valiant ran 14.2's all day long with a stock 79 360 long block with a performer intake and 600 holley being choked down by 273 manifolds. 3.55 gear too..
Click to expand...

Yep. 3 year old 69 GTS.
If you look back at factory drag tests from the day, typical cars were more mid 14’s
 
33IMP said:
Disagree. Have you ever seen a dyno sheet? Valve float doesn't necessarily mean parts on the ground.... but power sure goes away.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about if it's built for it, dummy. As in no physical limitations other than hard parts like crank, rods and such. One in every crowd, I swear. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top