Replacement 68 340 four speed cams

-
I think there prices might have gone up over the last couple of years. If I remember correctly I paid $180 with lifters....new cam blank. Cheap.
 
LO23M8B said:
As I went thru this thread again lots of folks say there is better stuff out there but I owned a 68 F/S 4 speed car. All stock except the carb. and that son of a gun just would rpm all day long even in high gear. I've used this cam a lot thru the years and no one ever complained but I got a lot of thumbs up from my customers.
Click to expand...
i'll brook no dissent in that the 340 cam is a stout piece. but it was always a compromise because it was a factory piece.

if you want no muss, no fuss and just put something in and it'll work, and it'll work great. yeah, that's your huckleberry.

but with the advent of modern lobes and more/better valvetrain tech, why not take advantage?
 
junkyardhero said:
i'll brook no dissent in that the 340 cam is a stout piece. but it was always a compromise because it was a factory piece.

if you want no muss, no fuss and just put something in and it'll work, and it'll work great. yeah, that's your huckleberry.

but with the advent of modern lobes and more/better valvetrain tech, why not take advantage?
Click to expand...

We can also put whatever we want in these cars now and the wide LSA isn't in my favorites category.

I agree in this respect about the factory built it and it was good at the time. Just because they put it in the car back then doesn't mean it was the best choice, or the one the really wanted to use in the engine. With the advent of emission controls, they had to work inside a box. Without the "box"" the choice likely would have been very different. Plenty of better available choice out there.

I've always like the 214/224 cam that was from the replacement outlets like melling as a slightly hotter than stock auto stick. Another that was cut on a wider LSA, UGH. Cut that on a 108, instead of the 112-114, and it would be better IMO.
 
You can't just look at one piece though and say "that couldda been better". That was the whole mystique behind these cars.....the whole package. While they weren't slow, the B & E bodies with the 340s weren't as feared on the street as the A body cars. It was just a good all around package. Chrysler did pretty good considering the boxes they had to stay in. One of the things I've always wanted to do was build a hybrid of sorts. I'd love to blueprint every aspect of a 68 340 4 speed engine, but put the 71 340 iron TQ manifold on it with a TQ....and add a set of good headers.
 
RustyRatRod said:
You can't just look at one piece though and say "that couldda been better". That was the whole mystique behind these cars.....the whole package. While they weren't slow, the B & E bodies with the 340s weren't as feared on the street as the A body cars. It was just a good all around package. Chrysler did pretty good considering the boxes they had to stay in. One of the things I've always wanted to do was build a hybrid of sorts. I'd love to blueprint every aspect of a 68 340 4 speed engine, but put the 71 340 iron TQ manifold on it with a TQ....and add a set of good headers.
Click to expand...

The nice thing was that you didn't see air pumps on muscle mopars like you did on the Chevies. Chevy ran a different deal and had to have that air injection in the exhaust to get past emissions stuff. Different approach to meet the regs. Neither would have done what they did without them "rules". :)

Mopar had a good package. Funny that they ran with the other stuff with much bigger camshafts, carbs, etc.
 
crackedback said:
The nice thing was that you didn't see air pumps on muscle mopars like you did on the Chevies. Chevy ran a different deal and had to have that air injection in the exhaust to get past emissions stuff. Different approach to meet the regs. Neither would have done what they did without them "rules". :)

Mopar had a good package. Funny that they ran with the other stuff with much bigger camshafts, carbs, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Chevy had stuff with over 320 advertised. The little 340 A bodys wasted um on a regular basis. lol
 
oldkimmer said:
Blueprinting is the way to go if u want max performance out of your stock engine. Kim
Click to expand...
I agree. That's why I always wanted to do one. Just leave it stone stock, save for the changes in the intake and carburetor and headers. I bet it'd get the dyno to 350 plus HP. That'd be impressive for such a mild build.
 
RustyRatRod said:
You can't just look at one piece though and say "that couldda been better". That was the whole mystique behind these cars.....the whole package. While they weren't slow, the B & E bodies with the 340s weren't as feared on the street as the A body cars. It was just a good all around package. Chrysler did pretty good considering the boxes they had to stay in. One of the things I've always wanted to do was build a hybrid of sorts. I'd love to blueprint every aspect of a 68 340 4 speed engine, but put the 71 340 iron TQ manifold on it with a TQ....and add a set of good headers.
Click to expand...
I did build a 69' 340 with the 68', 4-speed cam (purple DC cam). The car runs good when the RPMS are up, but I always wanted to install headers for an improvement. I never wanted to install the TQ set-up, due to the carb bowl leaking or cracking. I do have a Holley single plain on my 72' van with a Purple DC auto cam and it also works awesome. The 340 is a happy motor.
 
Swinger 340 said:
I did build a 69' 340 with the 68', 4-speed cam (purple DC cam). The car runs good when the RPMS are up, but I always wanted to install headers for an improvement. I never wanted to install the TQ set-up, due to the carb bowl leaking or cracking. I do have a Holley single plain on my 72' van with a Purple DC auto cam and it also works awesome. The 340 is a happy motor.
Click to expand...
I've never seen the 4 speed cam in the aftermarket. Do you have a part number?
 
For anyone thats interested, I just spoke with Ken from Oregon Cams regarding the 1970 340 core i sent him, he was honest and told me that he would not recommend re-grinding that core because of too much wear.
he did say that he had a more suitable core that we could use for the 68-4 speed re-grind, super nice guy and very down to earth.
re-grind fee $99
core fee $40
 
mad dog said:
For anyone thats interested, I just spoke with Ken from Oregon Cams regarding the 1970 340 core i sent him, he was honest and told me that he would not recommend re-grinding that core because of too much wear.
he did say that he had a more suitable core that we could use for the 68-4 speed re-grind, super nice guy and very down to earth.
re-grind fee $99
core fee $40
Click to expand...
Yeah Ken is good people.
 
RustyRatRod said:
I've never seen the 4 speed cam in the aftermarket. Do you have a part number?
Click to expand...
Rusty, it took a while to dig up my info. The work order back around 1990 said R-4452761 DC, the stock #P3412044 (276 and .460 lift. (Manual)

DC Purple shaft P3690213 (268 and .450 lift) Stock #2899206 (auto)

Not sure of the odd # on the work order, but it was a Purple DC. I did have the box the cam came in until 4 years ago when tossed out in my move, with the original cam in it.
 
Swinger 340 said:
Rusty, it took a while to dig up my info. The work order back around 1990 said R-4452761 DC, the stock #P3412044 (276 and .460 lift. (Manual)

DC Purple shaft P3690213 (268 and .450 lift) Stock #2899206 (auto)

Not sure of the odd # on the work order, but it was a Purple DC. I did have the box the cam came in until 4 years ago when tossed out in my move, with the original cam in it.
Click to expand...
That's a different grind than the 4 speed cam. The 4 speed cam was a dual pattern, just like the auto cam. It had more duration though and it may have had more lift too.

Yeah, here it is from @krazykuda right out of the 1968 service manual.
68 340 4 speed cam:

276°/284° duration
.444"/.453" lift

Int open: 26° BTDC
Int close: 70° ABDC
Exh open: 78° BBDC
Exh close: 26° ATDC

Overlap: 52°

Per the 68 factory service manual
 
here's the spec straight from the DC catalog page

P3412044 68 340 Man.-114 276/284 .444/.453" 112

P3690213 Street Hemi GT-112 284 .471/.474" 109

auto 340: 430/444 268/276
manual 340 (68 only): 444/453 276/284

comp *used* to make a very similar cam to the manual 340 unit. i'll root around in my notes to see what i can find.

most all the aftermarket makes a version of the standard 340/360 4bbl cam. i like the melling piece personally.
 
junkyardhero said:
here's the spec straight from the DC catalog page

P3412044 68 340 Man.-114 276/284 .444/.453" 112

P3690213 Street Hemi GT-112 284 .471/.474" 109

auto 340: 430/444 268/276
manual 340 (68 only): 444/453 276/284

comp *used* to make a very similar cam to the manual 340 unit. i'll root around in my notes to see what i can find.

most all the aftermarket makes a version of the standard 340/360 4bbl cam. i like the melling piece personally.
Click to expand...
That's the DC version, not the factory Chrysler version. I am almost 100% certain the factory version was on a 114 and possibly on a 115.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top