Stop discarding good 340 engines ! !

-
jos51700 said:
****, when I was a kid in Central MO in the '90's, you couldn't find a 340, and couldn't afford it when you did.

God made the 340, and mankind created the cylinder sleeve to bless it and keep it holy when it got holey.
Click to expand...
I had 318s bored to 4.04. That’s a .130 overbore. Never had any block checked. Only 1 ever ran a little hotter than I liked. Kim
 
I've had several 340s since 1970 all of them "hi compression, and meh they were ok.
and
I've had two hi-compression 360s...... which were, IMO, "better"
All but one of mine have had manual transmissions behind them, with all sorts of rear gears.
The one I have now, as tired as it is (going on 23 years), you couldn't trade me two good running 340s for.
And, I still have several disassembled 340 shortblocks kicking around, since the 70s. When my Hotrod was in the planning stages, a 340 never even crossed my mind.
 
harrisonm said:
I would rather have a 340 that needed sleeves than a 360. I have NOTHING against 360s at ALL. They are great engines. There is just some sort of a mystic aura about them.
Click to expand...
How about a 360 sleeved up to a 340 bore size?
 
AJ/FormS said:
but the 360 was born with a generous stroke, and is easily bored to 4.04
This not gonna go anywhere is it, lol
I still like DYs comment. the 3.58 stroke is very street friendly.
Click to expand...
DY?
Mean416 said:
How about a 360 sleeved up to a 340 bore size?
Click to expand...
Hand slap on the forehead! SMACK!!!!!


Here we go! More wasted time on a 340 vs 360 thread!
 
Mean416 said:
How about a 360 sleeved up to a 340 bore size?
Click to expand...
Dude, I totally hear you. I am not disagreeing that a 360 can be built as a very awesome motor. It's just that the 340 was SO popular and has a kind of magical power that it just kind of talks to some of us. It's a sort of "If you build it, they will come" thing. I know I can build an awesome 475HP 360 for less money than a 475HP 340, but I'd still rather have the 340.
 
Kern Dog said:
The entire bullshit line about thin wall castings was pushed on us for too long. Larry Shepard should be kicked in the dick for repeating this blatant lie for all those years. Friggin idiot. 340s, 440s, all of them had plenty of cylinder wall thickness.
Click to expand...
Yeah I've read time and again from good sources that Chrysler never made a "thin wall" casting.
 
My 340 virgin X block was made so it could be used as a 273-318-340.
Lets just say the bore to 4.040 frpm a rough cast smaller than needed for 273 Was alot.
It was sonic tested. Was done at a mostly race shop. They were even surprised how ma made the old race blocks and impressed that even after bore-hone it was almost 40 pounds more than a stock 340 they had there.
I guess I could have had a solid cam 273-SIX PACK used the stock steel 340 crank and rods and just added custom pistons.
 
Y’all do know a stock 383 906 head flows more than a stock 340 X head.
 
rumblefish360 said:
DY?

Hand slap on the forehead! SMACK!!!!!


Here we go! More wasted time on a 340 vs 360 thread!
Click to expand...
IMO they both rock!!
Each engine has a proper application for what the owner is doing.
I cant wait to run the nuts off my 360.
The cheapest 340 in my area is a 73 bare block no caps for a grand.
I’m not restoring so 360 will be fine.

Youz guyz wanna debate tapered bearings vs. Green!!??
Just kidding. No one respond to that.
 
The 340 rein was short lived, but made a hell of an impression. It pretty much got replaced by the 360 when the epa stepped in. There way of making the torque and horsepower with lower flowing heads and emissions due to the longer stroke. Just my thoughts both great engines. But when they came out with the hemi, to make it a 5.7 that’s just wrong. IMO they should have based it on the 5.6 and made the hemi. That would have been monumental, and a great sales pitch
 
Built both, equally stout, hard to tell which cuza all the smoke . lol

The 340 had a "magic" like the small journal chev 327/365 HP , Z-28/302 .
Big journal 327/350 wasn't the same .
 
Last edited:
It's fun to think about the differences between the 340's and 360's. The 340 was always a performance engine. It was never a 2 barrel that was used in a big car or truck. The 360's were used in cars and trucks with 2 and 4 barrel's and in the mid 70's as a replacement for the 340's in performance cars and trucks. Every manufacturer was building bigger engines and reducing compression, valve size, and camshaft to meet emissions and try to help fuel mileage.
 
It’s all theory, there’s some science out there to. The 340 with a shorter stroke and slightly larger bore didn’t have to work as hard to make rpms. (Pistons not moving as fast as a 360 at the same rpm) the force on the piston in a 360 is magnified by the longer stroke making more torque than the 340. Torque x rpm over 5250. Each has there advantages. Seems like minuet differences but makes an impact on the overall out come. Not saying you can’t get good rpms with a 360 but the combustion chamber is expanding faster than the 340 which utilizes more of the fuel burnt throughout the powerstroke making more power that way. As far as stock engines go:poke:
 
6,000 rpm for less than $3,000.




522_Print_Ads_602dd1b5-377e-4ef7-83bd-8ffdfcbce3e6.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top