340 owners...are you happy with your engine choice?

Author Topic: 340 owners...are you happy with your engine choice?  (Read 19185 times)

Offline Super Blue 72

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12711
  • "Big 'n Little" Member since 8/9/05
    • Phil's Super Blue '72
Re: 340 owners...are you happy with your engine choice?
« Reply #75 on: September 18, 2011 - 02:50:58 PM »
Ok, without getting into the sb vs bb debate, also, I may have glossed over similar points in my reply so please forgive me for that...  ;D

I personally think the 340 is a cool little engine.  For 1973, I think you had only the choice of the 318 and the 340 as I believe the 6 cylinder was dropped after 1972 as an engine choice.  The 340 IMO has it's own little loyal following, some say it's cool because it never came with a 2 barrel carb, was only meant to be used as a "performance engine" although some may argue that point starting with the 1972 and up 340 engines due to the emissions tuning with a lower compression, possible different cam, etc.  With a decent rebuild like you perhaps have done, you've eliminated any vestage of the emissions control put on these engines froom '72 and up and from what I hear they can be pretty healthy performers. 

I have a 340 in my car, stock engine, never been rebuilt with about 106k original miles.  Although not a Sure Grip, it lights up the tires pretty easily (225/70-14 tires) in the driveway.  I only had it around the block a few times and just due to where I live drove very slowly.  It may not have the power of a big block  :worshippy but it has enough get up and go, sounds better than a 6 cylinder and if not heavy on the pedal, decent on gas.  Once I get it on the road I may be using it to go to work and such.  These are what's good for me, may not be good for the next person.  :2cents:

Eitherway, small block or big block, all these cars are pretty cool no matter what they have in them, IMO.  :2thumbs:
1972 Dodge Challenger Rallye 340, AT, Code TB3=Super Blue, SBD=8/17/1971.  Yes, a Rallye without the fender louvers from the factory because of the body side molding option.

Pic #2 and 3 of my ARII 1/24 scale model car 

Phil in New England-Massachusetts  Always thank God for what you have!

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/456046/1972-dodge-challenger




Offline Challenger6pak

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4084
Re: 340 owners...are you happy with your engine choice?
« Reply #76 on: September 18, 2011 - 09:44:46 PM »
The most fun I have had with a 340 was in a 67 Barracuda notch back with a 4 speed.  I also have had a 68 383 4 speed formula S Cuda.  It was a pain to drive.  In the Ebodies the big block feels faster and the 340 does not feel as fast or responsive. The 340 is plenty of motor for an Ebody unless you have to be the top dog out there.  Many car shows are around 200 miles round trip from me. I am putting together a Challenger with a 340 4 speed and Gearvendors overdrive to drive to these shows.  Will it be as fast as my 440 6 pack cars?  No.  I don't care.  IMO the 340 was designed to give more performance than a 225 or 318 and not be as powerful as a 383 or 440.  That is the 340's nitch.  It fills the nitch well.  It is a great all around motor. I have seen it said on this thread that the Ebodies are muscle cars and they need to have the fastest engine (whatever size you choose).  Most of the Ebodies that were ever built and most of the Ebodies that still exist came with a 318 and a flat hood.  When they were new they got you to work and back with some styling.  I have always been happy with the 340 motor when I have used it and I know I will be happy with it in the car I plan to build.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011 - 01:40:16 PM by Challenger6pak »
1969 Sport Satellite H code convertible, 1970 Cuda 440+6, 1970 Challenger R/T 440+6, 1970 Challenger 383 R/T auto, 1970 Challenger R/T 383 4 speed,1971 Challenger convertible.

Offline NCtrueconservative

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 484
Re: 340 owners...are you happy with your engine choice?
« Reply #77 on: September 19, 2011 - 09:32:49 AM »
The most fun I have had with a 340 was in a 67 Barracuda notch back with a 4 speed.  I also have had a 68 383 4 speed formula S Cuda.  It was a pain to drive.  In the Ebodies the big block feels faster and the 340 does not feel as fast or responsive. The 340 is plenty of motor for an Ebody unless you have to be the top dog out there.  Many car shows are around 200 miles round trip from me. I am putting together a Challenger with a 340 4 speed and Gearvendors overdrive to drive to these shows.  With it be as fast as my 440 6 pack cars?  No.  I don't care.  IMO the 340 was designed to give more performance than a 225 or 318 and not be as powerful as a 383 or 440.  That is the 340's nitch.  It fills the nitch well.  It is a great all around motor. I have seen it said on this thread that the Ebodies are muscle cars and they need to have the fastest engine (whatever size you choose).  Most of the Ebodies that were ever built and most of the Ebodies that still exist came with a 318 and a flat hood.  When they were new they got you to work and back with some styling.  I have always been happy with the 340 motor when I have used it and I know I will be happy with it in the car I plan to build.

Thats the kind of post I was looking for.  How people with 340's felt about them, since they get to drive them and I dont...yet!  Can't wait though.  Thanks for a thoughtful post
1973 Dodge Challenger Rallye (pictured), 340, Slap Stick

1998 Dodge Ram, 5.2, Black, tinted windows, dual exhaust, blackout headlights, tailights

Offline Super Blue 72

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12711
  • "Big 'n Little" Member since 8/9/05
    • Phil's Super Blue '72
Re: 340 owners...are you happy with your engine choice?
« Reply #78 on: September 19, 2011 - 09:48:11 AM »
Don't know if this was posted already, sorry of it was, but a little info on the 340 from Allpar.com.  Not sure how accurate their info is but here it is anyways....

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/mopar340.html

One of the best engines of the 1960s and 1970s for performance enthusiasts was the 340 V-8. It had high-flow heads, big ports, a two-level intake manifold, and a six-barrel option (three two-barrel carbs). The package allowed for high speed with the light weight helping handling.

The 340 cars gave away nothing to the 383 cars in a straight line, and were ahead of the 383 cars on anything involving turns — and spark plug access.

When the 340 came out in late 1967, it was a street fighter from the start. Separating the 340 from the standard-performance 318 were not just 22 cubic inches, but also:

a dual timing chain with a windage tray to improve top end engine RPM by keeping the crank counter weights from 'churning the oil' in the pan.
2.02 inch intake valves and 1.60 inch exhaust valves
a high-rise dual plane intake
an 850 cfm carburetor (from 1971 to 1973)
a forged steel crank (through 1972’s engine #39118000, when a cast iron crank was used)
high-performance heads
a revised oil pump with a 90 degree adaptor
a special carburetor and cam

The 340’s best power rating was 290 horsepower; even in 1973, it still managed 240-245 net horsepower.

A good-running, early 340 in a lightweight A-body or Road Runner embarassed many big block engines. Though relatively few were made, many parts interchange with 318s and 360s.
1972 Dodge Challenger Rallye 340, AT, Code TB3=Super Blue, SBD=8/17/1971.  Yes, a Rallye without the fender louvers from the factory because of the body side molding option.

Pic #2 and 3 of my ARII 1/24 scale model car 

Phil in New England-Massachusetts  Always thank God for what you have!

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/456046/1972-dodge-challenger

Offline GranCuda1970

  • Sr. Resident
  • ******
  • Posts: 5515
  • Rev 20:4. Mat 6:33 John 1:3 Mat 26:41
Re: 340 owners...are you happy with your engine choice?
« Reply #79 on: September 19, 2011 - 09:52:01 AM »
One of my favorite muscle car DVR recordings was on the ECONOMY MOVERS! Basically the show showed lighter bodied cars with the 340 and how they were heavy contenders on the street and the track. Power to weight ratios. Especially with the dusters.

Offline Super Blue 72

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12711
  • "Big 'n Little" Member since 8/9/05
    • Phil's Super Blue '72
Re: 340 owners...are you happy with your engine choice?
« Reply #80 on: September 19, 2011 - 10:06:05 AM »
One of my favorite muscle car DVR recordings was on the ECONOMY MOVERS! Basically the show showed lighter bodied cars with the 340 and how they were heavy contenders on the street and the track. Power to weight ratios. Especially with the dusters.

Good point on the power to weight ratio.  Sort of like some modern cars.  A Lotus Elise Series 1 supposedly can do 0-60mph in 5.8 seconds with only 118hp due to it's weight of 1600lbs.
1972 Dodge Challenger Rallye 340, AT, Code TB3=Super Blue, SBD=8/17/1971.  Yes, a Rallye without the fender louvers from the factory because of the body side molding option.

Pic #2 and 3 of my ARII 1/24 scale model car 

Phil in New England-Massachusetts  Always thank God for what you have!

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/456046/1972-dodge-challenger

Offline RCCDrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1380
Re: 340 owners...are you happy with your engine choice?
« Reply #81 on: September 26, 2011 - 03:58:26 AM »
I know I'm  :horse: but...



Seems like the 340 cuda could hold its own back in the day. 

Offline GranCuda1970

  • Sr. Resident
  • ******
  • Posts: 5515
  • Rev 20:4. Mat 6:33 John 1:3 Mat 26:41
Re: 340 owners...are you happy with your engine choice?
« Reply #82 on: September 26, 2011 - 11:48:45 AM »
too bad she got wrapped around a tree or power pole!! :eek4: :crying:
  That was a pretty car and never saw a AAR with the argent tail panel before!!