| From | Message |
WhiteOn
Dodge Dakota
6/16/2001
20:45:05
|
 Subject: 4.7 vs 340
IP: Logged
Message:
Now that I'm older and much more mature, I often think back to two of my absolute favorite cars of my youth, my 68 Dart 340 GTS, and my 69 Dart Swinger 340 especially when I've got a little too much vodka in the Mountain Dew like right now. What a blast those two were, the 68 had a Torqueflite auto and the 69 a four speed. I fondly remember the many evenings spent in friendly competition, only being spanked once by a modified GTO. Chevelles, Roadrunners, Superbees, Mustangs, Camaros, you name it, and the 340 Darts just smiled. Spent my only jail time due to the 69 wanting to stretch it out a bit and being busted doing 147 in a 60, yup, 87 over the limit and still accelerating. Two days in the slammer and 200 dollar fine. Tough in 1972. Anyway, my recollection is that the early 340s were pushing an unadvertised 300hp stock and by the feel of my 4.7 in a heavy AWD 4x4, it can't be too far off the power and torque of the 340. Considering the two different HP standards of then and now, do any of you have similar thoughts? I would be very interested in actual bench dyno readings from both of these little sweethearts.
|
Bernd
Gen III
6/16/2001
21:51:05
|  RE: 4.7 vs 340
IP: Logged
Message:
I don't know about that. The 4.7's do run very well...but man, you just don't want to mess with a properly tuned 340.
(Got my old BB Chevy's butt whipped quite a few times by those 340's. High revvin', High HP, engines.) :)
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT - V6
Supercharged @ 10#
|
Swampdak
Gen III
6/16/2001
22:09:03
| RE: 4.7 vs 340
IP: Logged
Message:
My buddy had a 69 Swinger 340 4 spd. He could not shift worth a sh*t but it did not matter he beat everything anyway!!!
2000 CC 4.7 AUTO 4X4 3.55 TRAC-LOK SLT 16.35/82.41
|
sandman
Dodge Dakota
6/16/2001
23:30:00
| RE: 4.7 vs 340
IP: Logged
Message:
My Dad had a 70 Dart Swinger with the 340. He said pretty much the same thing you did about the awsome performance that it had. I would agree that the new engines are definately produceing about the same HP as the early muscle cars. Remember that back in the 60's and 70's HP was gross and today we use net. I will say though that the torque output is less with these high reving small displacement engines and the power bands are totaly different. I can say that I am very happy with the performance of my 4.7 liter QC Dak. I would like more torque though.
|
Ry
Dodge Dakota
6/17/2001
00:47:52
| RE: 4.7 vs 340
IP: Logged
Message:
Not to add any further thought to this conversation, but the 340 is my favorite all time Mopar engine created, along with the 426 hemi of course. The engine simply rips! I've been in two cars with it, a racing valiant, and a 69 cuda fast back. I'd have to say that the experience driving those engines was unreal and loads of fun!! It was like having the rpms of a 318, but the deliverly of a 360 and then some! Felt like everything you could ever want out of a motor. Even though it ran a little on the hot side, once dialed in like that guy said above, it's hard to touch!
If I could, I'd throw a 340 in my 91 Dak any day!
Thanks for posting your thoughts back from those days.....What an engine!
|
Jeke
Dodge Dakota
6/17/2001
10:14:10
| RE: 4.7 vs 340
IP: Logged
Message:
I have both a 4.7 Dak and a 71 challenger 340
4 speed, its basically stock except for victor jr
intake ,750 holley ,mopar performance ignition
with gold box whatever the hp an t/q is can you
drop down into 3rd an stomp on it and roast
the tires doin 50 mph,well the challenger can
and my dak cant that car has scared the shit
outa me on a number of times ,basically the
4.7 is nice aint no 340 tho uh uh :) you could
RY its the same housing 273,318,340,360 all
can be swaped just need diff combos of motor
mounts
|
WhiteOn
Dodge Dakota
6/17/2001
21:49:42
| RE: 4.7 vs 340
IP: Logged
Message:
Thank you all for the interesting comments. Yeah, the 340 was one of the all time greats to be sure. I was offered a straight across trade for a 62 Vette convertible one time and turned it down, the Swinger would simply spank that bowtie baby. Finally a girlfriend was driving the 69 one day and stacked it up back in 1978, it had 80K and still ruled the roads. If I remember correctly, the Swingers weighed in at around 2800 lbs for a little over 9lbs/horse under the old rating. My Dak is around 4000lbs. I'm guessing with my exaust and intake upgrades that my 4.7 is near 250HP. Now, if I can figure a way to get the Dak down to 2333lbs, I'm gonna have something. Let's see, 1667lbs, hmmm. My dream car for the future is a 68 340 sixpack Cuda. Jeke, if your 71 ever scares some good sense into you and you want to unload the Challenger, let me know!
|
Suckma Balls
Dodge Dakota
6/18/2001
17:19:27
| RE: 4.7 vs 340
IP: Logged
Message:
There is no replacement for displacement. Why don't we all just put a 426 Hemi in our Dakotas, It would all be good then. Does anyone here actually have a Hemi in their Dakota? I think it would be pretty cool to see.
|
lil red dak
Dodge Dakota
6/18/2001
20:58:55
| RE: 4.7 vs 340
IP: Logged
Message:
hot rod mag had a story on one several months ago. 472 hemi crate with 525 hp and 540 lbs. ft torque if I remember right. More power then even the 2002 Viper
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
