Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? - Moparts Forums

Register Log In Moparts Forums Moparts Question and Answer Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine?

Print Thread

Page 1 of 5

1

2

3

4

5

Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? #1622022 05/19/14 06:04 AM 05/19/14 06:04 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Dont know HOW many times i've heard this. Never once has someone not knocked the inefficiency ov the 360... whether old style LA, or the newer Magnums (except ME... i thought my 78 Volare 360-2bbl was great on gas). Looking at ratings, the math makes the 318 far better for its size than the 360. I've rarely heard anyone rag on the 318 for its piggishness, or really, even for its sluggishness. Most 318 owners were happy with it for what it was, a far rarer sentiment with 360 guys, especially Magnum guys. Personally... i cant see how one relatively similar engine (360) can suck at efficiency when such a close relative (318) doesn't (lets say both are Magnums). It seems to me more an issue ov installation, tune, accessories. I know they pooched the factory tune on the 360 Magnums. Maybe the exhaust/intake is already too small for the 318, and dumping it on the 360 further chokes it up? I have a very light car (will be 3000lbs), with a stick, and it'd be nice to be as fast as a 12 second car from a roll (its not a drag car). I found a really nice 318 Magnum ('95 Ram), and i am really trying to find a reason why i need a 360? What i DONT want... is a pig. If i wanna suck gas i'll stick with the 400 lowdeck. Quite honestly... my 96 4.6L Mustang (3400lbs, 215HP) goes almost fast enough for what i need... a 318 Magnum as installed (Dougs headers, full race exhaust, RPM air-gap, Holley, cam, etc.) should make far more power, and in a lighter car. Do i keep looking for a 360? Instinct tells me the 318 Magnum (with my mods) should be plenty fast and efficient in a 3000lb stick car.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622023 05/19/14 06:15 AM 05/19/14 06:15 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 3,575 The Netherlands BigBlockMopar master
BigBlockMopar master Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 3,575 The Netherlands	Sorry but I stopped reading again until the first 'ov'. BigBlockMopar.com

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: BigBlockMopar] #1622024 05/19/14 07:25 AM 05/19/14 07:25 AM
Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT gdonovan I Live Here
gdonovan I Live Here Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT	360 is a "stroker motor" compared to a 318, will make a lot more torque than a 318 will all being equal. I have a 5.9 in my Duster, I'm very happy with it. I'll take any you want to get rid of. "I think its got a hemi"

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: gdonovan] #1622025 05/19/14 08:32 AM 05/19/14 08:32 AM
Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,526 North Carolina cjskotni pro stock
cjskotni pro stock Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,526 North Carolina	I think people tend to compare the 340 to the 360 (which replaced it) and the 360 did have a poor power/tune compared to the 340 despite the 20 extra cubes. I'm thinking the 360 (like the 400) was built with emissions in mind and less for performance. If you are satisfied with the 'Stang and have the 318 already, I'm sure you would be more than happy just building it and skip trying to find a 360. Of course, if you are looking for the most power, the 360 is the way to go. If I were building a motor (and had both engines to choose from), I'd take the bigger displacement of the 360 over the 318. I think you will have an advantage with the extra cubes if you are willing to build it with performance parts as opposed to leaving it bone stock.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622026 05/19/14 09:12 AM 05/19/14 09:12 AM
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,162 USA 3 360view Moparts resident spammer
360view Moparts resident spammer 3 Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,162 USA	You ought to clarify what you mean by "inefficient". Do you mean less capable of turning a pound of fuel into an hour of horsepower, or do you mean less capable of making of making high horsepower at high rpm? The 360 has relatively large main bearings, which may be good for low rpm heavy torque towing duties. This beefed up lower end also makes it about 57 lbs heavier than a 318, but race shops like Petty Enterprises found plenty of places on the stock block to machine away unnecessary and non-load bearing weight. Nearly all the American V8 manufacturers found that Honda's redesign of main bearing were both smaller, less friction and capable of higher rpm. The internally balanced 318 has one of the highest rod/stroke ratios which has inherent low friction advantages, and can allow slightly higher dynamic compression rations. The 360 is only slightly less. For high rpm horsepower production, cylinder head breathing mostly dominates, and valve size (and number) in turn is very important. Canted and opposed (Hemi) valve arrangements allow larger diameter valves and straighter runners than side by side valve Wedge designs in cylinders of the same diameter, so a 5.7 Hemi has a high rpm breathing advantage over a Magnum 5.9 Wedge. When comparing pickup truck duty Magnum 5.2 to Magnum 5.9 the dominant thing is the beer barrel intake manifold, which was designed for the 5.2 and when this 15.5 runner length intake manifold is bolted unmodified on a 5.9 brings peak torque and horsepower in at lower rpms. Drag racers consider this as choking off performance above 4000 rpm. For working pickup truck use available low rpm torque is a good thing. If you want to fault a particular feature of both 5.2 and 5.9 V8s, one very questionable area is: why are the Quench clearances of piston to head so much larger than 0.026 inches, (0.047 plus 0.055) and why are the factory dynamic compression ratios so relatively low? The probable answer is that cylinder to cylinder quality control at the factory was so variable that a large average Quench clearance was necessary to keep "statistical outlier" tight cylinder piston fits from hitting the cylinder head and generating a costly to Chrysler warranty claim.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 360view] #1622027 05/19/14 09:53 AM 05/19/14 09:53 AM
Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 22,695 Bitopia J jcc If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
jcc If you can't dazzle em with diamonds.. J Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 22,695 Bitopia	And push rod angles a bit on the extreme side for performance applications Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: jcc] #1622028 05/19/14 11:27 AM 05/19/14 11:27 AM
Joined: Nov 2003 Posts: 36,040 Lincoln Nebraska R RapidRobert Circle Track
RapidRobert Circle Track R Joined: Nov 2003 Posts: 36,040 Lincoln Nebraska	Take advantage of the addit'l 42 cubes. adequate SCR. matched bolt on components for the short block. 040" quench. live every 24 hour block of time like it's your last day on earth

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622029 05/19/14 12:50 PM 05/19/14 12:50 PM
Joined: Apr 2010 Posts: 10,570 Sunny South Florida Golden-Arm I Live Here
Golden-Arm I Live Here Joined: Apr 2010 Posts: 10,570 Sunny South Florida	generally, all gasoline engines are "inefficient". an engine that uses 70-75% of it's energy creating heat, and not power, would be considered inefficient. this covers most gasoline engines. "When Tyranny Becomes Law, Rebellion Becomes Duty"

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Golden-Arm] #1622030 05/19/14 01:22 PM 05/19/14 01:22 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada R RUNCHARGER I Live Here
RUNCHARGER I Live Here R Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada	Honestly I'm not a 318 fan unless it is a Magnum. They run for a long time but they really don't set the world on fire. My son swapped out the 125HP 318 out of his 88 Shortbox 4X4 for a Magnum 360 and it was like night and day. The 360 Magnum is a pretty stout package for 93 technology, they get decent power and pretty good fuel economy. The stock intake/injection setup is the one thing that holds them back. Back in 1974 I would venture to say the 4 bbl 360 was the best all around smallblock available from any manufacturer. Lots of big blocks got their tailpipes handed to them by a 4 bbl 360. Remember the SS454 Chevy pickup truck that was slower than the Lil Red 360's? I bought a new 318 magnum in my 92 pickup and that thing hauled butt, So I made the mistake of getting another 318 Magnum in my new 96 pickup, that truck was a dogg, I always wished I had sprung for the 360 Maggy in the 96 and I would recommend only a 360 magnum for a swap. Sure the topend HP will be limited by the intake setup but you'll get more lowend grunt and you could run a bit higher rearend ratio to take advantage of the torque for better fuel mileage with the 360. Sheldon

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: RUNCHARGER] #1622031 05/19/14 01:28 PM 05/19/14 01:28 PM
Joined: Nov 2003 Posts: 36,040 Lincoln Nebraska R RapidRobert Circle Track
RapidRobert Circle Track R Joined: Nov 2003 Posts: 36,040 Lincoln Nebraska	Quote: Honestly I'm not a 318 fan unless it is a Magnum. Sheldon I have a JY 5.2 mag setting on a stand (my first mag). Any idea what the actual CR is? and the deck height live every 24 hour block of time like it's your last day on earth

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: RapidRobert] #1622032 05/19/14 01:35 PM 05/19/14 01:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada R RUNCHARGER I Live Here
RUNCHARGER I Live Here R Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada	RR: No I've never measured one, I suspect a true 9-1 but that's strictly guessing. The 92 318 is a way better package stock. Better camshaft, better exhaust manifolds and I suspect better computer settings than the later versions. My 92 D150 always ran 16.0 to 16.1 at 2300 feet totally, factory stock with 3.55's, pretty good for a dead stock 318 pickup. For comparison my 86 318 D150 ran 19.20's at the same track (when my racecar was broke). My kid just took the hurt 318 out of his 87 RC, I told him to keep the valvecovers and throw the rest of it away. Sheldon

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: RapidRobert] #1622033 05/19/14 02:15 PM 05/19/14 02:15 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376 D dogdays I Live Here
dogdays I Live Here D Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376	RR, the 5.2 has a nominal deck height of 9.577 - 9.578. The largest piston compression height was in the early 5.2Mags and that was 1.755. The 1986 318 used 1.745, I measured my piston as 0.055 down in the hole on my 86 block. R.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: RUNCHARGER] #1622034 05/19/14 03:00 PM 05/19/14 03:00 PM
Joined: Nov 2003 Posts: 36,040 Lincoln Nebraska R RapidRobert Circle Track
RapidRobert Circle Track R Joined: Nov 2003 Posts: 36,040 Lincoln Nebraska	Alright, thank you live every 24 hour block of time like it's your last day on earth

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: RapidRobert] #1622035 05/19/14 05:30 PM 05/19/14 05:30 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,883 Northern OH R rapom top fuel
rapom top fuel R Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,883 Northern OH	I used to plow with an 89 Dodge 3/4 360, A 90 Dodge 3/4 360 and a 90 Dodge 1/2 Sno Commander with a 318. I really didn't expect to see to much difference between them since the gearing was about the same and the 90 3/4 truck had overdrive. But the difference in fuel comsumption between the 318 and 360's was staggering. Power was about the same. The 318 seemed like it got double the fuel economy of the others. I'm sure the other trucks were heavier but that's why they had the 360's. The 1/2 ton truck probably felt heavy to the 318 engine. Hard to check fuel economy with a plow truck as they don't hardly put any miles on them plowing. But you could go two full days on a tank with the 318 as compared to the one tank a day with the 360's.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: rapom] #1622036 05/19/14 06:44 PM 05/19/14 06:44 PM
Joined: Dec 2013 Posts: 4,663 Wichita G GY3 master
GY3 master G Joined: Dec 2013 Posts: 4,663 Wichita	Low compression on the 360 when compared to the 340's is the culprit. I have a 360 with 9.5:1 and a 750 3310 Holley. It's as efficent as you're gonna get in a 5,600 lbs. Powerwagon with full time 4wd. It does get better mileage than the 318 2 bbl. it replaced. 11 mpg average for the 360 and 9 mpg average for the 318 with LOTS more grunt and towing capability. Last edited by GY3; 05/19/14 06:46 PM.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: GY3] #1622037 05/19/14 07:32 PM 05/19/14 07:32 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,200 Upper Midwest M MoparforLife Too Many Posts
MoparforLife Too Many Posts M Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,200 Upper Midwest	If the 360 would have been the engine built with the same type of pre emission specs in '68 rather than the 340 the 340 would be the engine in question in this post. It is not very hard or spendy to build some power into the 360.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: MoparforLife] #1622038 05/19/14 09:36 PM 05/19/14 09:36 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376 D dogdays I Live Here
dogdays I Live Here D Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376	I had some friends who were driving government fleet vehicles, Dodge Durangos, it was widely known and they confirmed that the 5.9 Mag got better mileage than the 5.2. Going back to the 1974 Duster, the 360 most always was a gas hog. Now I don't know why, but stock it had a bigger cam and bigger ports than a 318, for most of the production run. Many also had a four barrel carb while the 318 never had a 4-barrel until the very late cop cars. We had a mid'70s Dodge W250 on the site with full-time 4wd. That would knock down 6mpg, no improvement no matter how you drove it. Now there is no earthly reason why a 360 would have different economy characteristics than a 350 chevy, but they seemed to. During the '70s, neither one had much compression and neither had a cylinder head with squish. If you have a 5.2 Mag on a stand I say build it. The reports on them from Board members is that with proper tuning and a few hotrod parts they will make power equal to an LA 360 but with quite better mileage. That's for street engines. If you really want more power stick a 4" crank in the 5.2 and go to town. Before I'd put a 5.2 on the shelf for a 5.9, I'd find a G3 Hemi. That's significantly lighter and stronger, also more efficient. R.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: dogdays] #1622039 05/19/14 10:38 PM 05/19/14 10:38 PM
Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 14,889 up yours Supercuda About to go away
Supercuda About to go away Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 14,889 up yours	In my 87 Diplomat I ran both a 318 and a 360. Both with 4bbl setups and similar cams. The 318 got maybe 3-5 more mpg highway vs the 360, but the 360 was quicker and faster, probably 20 mph more top speed. Best combo for my setup was the 360 with the 87 318 heads, Comp XE262 cam. Lots of torque, good mileage and good passing abilities. 20-22 mpg highway was common with that setup. They say there are no such thing as a stupid question. They say there is always the exception that proves the rule. Don't be the exception.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: dogdays] #1622040 05/19/14 10:41 PM 05/19/14 10:41 PM
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 18,678 Fresno, CA Jim_Lusk I Live Here
Jim_Lusk I Live Here Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 18,678 Fresno, CA	I've been around a few well-built 360s. They have no problem making power...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Jim_Lusk] #1622041 05/20/14 01:47 AM 05/20/14 01:47 AM
Joined: Oct 2011 Posts: 516 ND D dodgedon mopar
dodgedon mopar D Joined: Oct 2011 Posts: 516 ND	The 360's in trucks that i have seen always had lower gears in them. 3/4 and 1 tons had 4:10 and lower gears. If it was a half ton it had 3:91... The 318's I have seen in 1/2 tons in the 70/80's had 3:23 gears and in the 90's and up had 3:55's Those low gears realy hurt MPG. 67 Charger 383 auto 75 Dodge CNT 800 CAT Diesel 2012 Ram Crew cab 5.7 4x4

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: dodgedon] #1622042 05/20/14 02:38 AM 05/20/14 02:38 AM
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 18,678 Fresno, CA Jim_Lusk I Live Here
Jim_Lusk I Live Here Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 18,678 Fresno, CA	Quote: The 360's in trucks that i have seen always had lower gears in them. 3/4 and 1 tons had 4:10 and lower gears. If it was a half ton it had 3:91... The 318's I have seen in 1/2 tons in the 70/80's had 3:23 gears and in the 90's and up had 3:55's Those low gears realy hurt MPG. Many years ago a friend of mine had a 73 1/2t Power Wagon short bed with a 360 and 3.55s. That truck would run, especially after the motor build and 4 barrel...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 360view] #1622043 05/20/14 04:41 AM 05/20/14 04:41 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: You ought to clarify what you mean by "inefficient". Yes, i should have. Here are my stipulations for this project: 1 - MUST be a V8. 2 - BEST gas mileage possible (and dont lecture me on driving or hypermiling) By this i mean hammering on a 4.6L mod will still get me past far more gas stations than hammering on a 440 Mopar in the same car with the same gearing. 3 - Must make decent power. Now 'decent' for me, at this stage anyways means 300HP net or close to. That'll go fast enough for my 3000lb daily driver. The PERFECT plant for this project would be a 99-up 4.6 DOHC mod. 320HP net (350 as installed), high-20's highway MPG, lighter than a /6, sounds amazing. I dont have the money for this. Right now, i'm very time-limited and poor as dirt. HAD THEY MADE ONE... (read: i'm NOT making one) a 273 Magnum would have been interesting. The 318 Magnum is the closest CHEAP, EASY bolt-in i can conjure up. The intake and exhaust issues will be addressed with the install (Doug's headers and RPM air-gap/Holley 4bbl). Quote: This beefed up lower end also makes it about 57 lbs heavier than a 318, Can anyone else confirm this? I have NEVER read about any smallblock Mopar being heavier than another... and certainly not 57lbs. I cant see it. Yeah... the crank is bigger at the bearing, but on the 318, the webs would make up the same space. The 400 is around 20lbs heavier than the 440, even the 426 Hemi cant be 57lbs heavier than the 426 wedge. Theres just no way. For 57lbs difference, i'd go with the 318 even if i lost 50HP. Hell, i'd go with the 318 if it was 20lbs lighter. Weight means everything in this project.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: RUNCHARGER] #1622044 05/20/14 05:09 AM 05/20/14 05:09 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: I bought a new 318 magnum in my 92 pickup and that thing hauled butt, So I made the mistake of getting another 318 Magnum in my new 96 pickup, that truck was a dogg, Sheldon So why was this? Heavier truck (everything always gets heavier, year to year)? Different gears? More accessories in the 96? Heavier drivetrain behind the 96?

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: GY3] #1622045 05/20/14 05:15 AM 05/20/14 05:15 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Low compression on the 360 when compared to the 340's is the culprit. Yeah... whole different animal, thats why i didn't even mention the 340. Plus... junk heads, no roller cam, and i'm not paying a 340 premium. Quote: I have a 360 with 9.5:1 and a 750 3310 Holley. It's as efficent as you're gonna get in a 5,600 lbs. Powerwagon with full time 4wd. It does get better mileage than the 318 2 bbl. it replaced. 11 mpg average for the 360 and 9 mpg average for the 318 with LOTS more grunt and towing capability. Well, at 5600lbs i guess so. Thats WAY too much haul for a 318. With a CR comparable to a 68-70 340 though, i'd love to see them both in a car and see what happens....

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: dogdays] #1622046 05/20/14 05:26 AM 05/20/14 05:26 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: I had some friends who were driving government fleet vehicles, Dodge Durangos, it was widely known and they confirmed that the 5.9 Mag got better mileage than the 5.2. That is very surprising, and even here far the exception. Interesting. Then again, thats a heavy heavy rig. Past a point i think with a 318 you're just flooring it to get it out ov the driveway... Quote: Now there is no earthly reason why a 360 would have different economy characteristics than a 350 chevy, but they seemed to. During the '70s, neither one had much compression and neither had a cylinder head with squish. I agree... you would think that with all the talk about Mopar design and efficiency, the 360 would pass more gas stations, but i've always known 350's to be decent on gas. My Chevy friends rave about them. Quote: If you have a 5.2 Mag on a stand I say build it. The reports on them from Board members is that with proper tuning and a few hotrod parts they will make power equal to an LA 360 but with quite better mileage. That's for street engines. If you really want more power stick a 4" crank in the 5.2 and go to town. Dont have it yet, but i found a nice one and its close to home and cheap. No need and no want for a stroker. I dont need 400cid to win races. Quote: Before I'd put a 5.2 on the shelf for a 5.9, I'd find a G3 Hemi. That's significantly lighter and stronger, also more efficient. R. Well... if i had the time and money to do a full custom install with a completely foreign engine i'd go one better and do the damn 4.6L mod swap. At this point i'm open to anything (that isn't a Chevy... come on now...), and well... Ford does what i want better than Mopar does. I dont need 350cid. That G3 hemi howl does grow on ya though... Now... if they made a 4.7L or 5L hemi, with an aluminum block...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: dodgedon] #1622047 05/20/14 05:38 AM 05/20/14 05:38 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: The 360's in trucks that i have seen always had lower gears in them. 3/4 and 1 tons had 4:10 and lower gears. If it was a half ton it had 3:91... The 318's I have seen in 1/2 tons in the 70/80's had 3:23 gears and in the 90's and up had 3:55's Those low gears realy hurt MPG. Yup... 1/2 to 3/4 point in extra gearing is going to do far more damage to MPG than 40cid. Reading ALL the replies though... it seems pretty clear now. Unless a cherry 5.9L falls onto my lap for free before i nab the 5.2 at the yard, i'll go with the 318. Reading all this i am reminded ov a friend's 72 Dart i used to work on. It had come to him with a badly modded (original) 318. Unported 318 heads, stock CR, an ancient single plane, big Holley, awful and bashed headers, way choked-up exhaust, the WRONG cam... etc. That car flat-out flew. It was 300-400lbs heavier than my car will be, automatic (727 no doubt...), its only saving grace was 3.91 gears. That was almost fast enough. If what i've planned isn't considerably quicker (even with the crappy gearing i'm gonna use) i'd be shocked. Totally forgot about that car...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622048 05/20/14 07:37 AM 05/20/14 07:37 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,936 Holly/MI D Dean_Kuzluzski master
Dean_Kuzluzski master D Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,936 Holly/MI	Do a web search on KB167 and the KB399's. Some pretty impressive et's by A-bodies that are around 3000#. Even with the "junk" J/X/O heads that got superstock prep'd Dusters well into the 11's. It's all in the combo. The factory compression and cam for the 360 was a total turd combo. 360's run great built right. crap combo = crap performance. R.I.P.- Gary "Coop" Davis 02/09/68-05/13/04

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Dean_Kuzluzski] #1622049 05/20/14 10:14 AM 05/20/14 10:14 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,912 APACHE JUNCTION AZ J Joesixpack I Live Here
Joesixpack I Live Here J Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,912 APACHE JUNCTION AZ	73 340S were not very efficient either... 8.5 to 1 1.88 intake low lift cam restrictive exhaust etc build a 360 with early 340 components or specs. square shortblock. 9 or 10 to 1 unshroud valves...2.02s higher lift cam nice quench in combustion chamber free flowing intake&exhaust. true ratio rocker arms....positioned correctly over valve head.. snappy advance curve... torque on bottom.... good airflow on top stall conv. rear gear with correct tire height....its all in the combo

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622050 05/20/14 12:57 PM 05/20/14 12:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,162 USA 3 360view Moparts resident spammer
360view Moparts resident spammer 3 Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,162 USA	Quote: Here are my stipulations for this project: 1 - MUST be a V8. 2 - BEST gas mileage possible (and dont lecture me on driving or hypermiling) By this i mean hammering on a 4.6L mod will still get me past far more gas stations than hammering on a 440 Mopar in the same car with the same gearing. 3 - Must make decent power. Now 'decent' for me, at this stage anyways means 300HP net or close to. That'll go fast enough for my 3000lb daily driver. For what it is worth, here are some computer engine modelling runs using the Performance Trends EA3.2 program: Baseline is factory 1995 Magnum 5.2 with static compression ratio of 9.1 making 296 FT-Lbs of Torque at 3400 RPM and 228 net SAE HP at 4400 RPM Bore 20 thousands over add MPI single plane manifold add 4 into 1 tube headers 42 inch long primaries and 1.5 inch internal diameter, plus low restriction exhaust stock camshaft Stock SMPI Result 300 SAE net HP at 5200 RPM 332 FT-Lbs Torque at 4000 RPM A new aggressive camshaft or inexpensive regrind would give more but would probably hurt daily driving MPG

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Dean_Kuzluzski] #1622051 05/20/14 12:57 PM 05/20/14 12:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,200 Upper Midwest M MoparforLife Too Many Posts
MoparforLife Too Many Posts M Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,200 Upper Midwest	I ran KB107's .040 over with a 271/284 duration 484/485 cam with 587 heads shaved to 60 CC's otherwise completely stock heads.(no porting or even 3 angle valve job), not even balanced. Hooker headers and 4.3 gears. Ran consistent 11.7's. Put on a set of Hughes stage 1 heads and Hughes cam and ran consistent low 11.40's, dipping into the the 11.30's. Still no aftermarket balance. Ran that motor for several years and then sold the car.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: MoparforLife] #1622052 05/20/14 01:37 PM 05/20/14 01:37 PM
Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada D DPelletier I Live Here
DPelletier I Live Here D Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada	1) the answer to your question is no. ....the myth about inefficiency as it relates to the 360 engine design is because a) people were comparing the larger displacement and lower output of the 360 to the 340 and b) the 360 in most trucks were is a D/W200 with lower gears than a D100 318 and mileage was far different for the obvious reasons. 2) Sheldon's right, the 360 doesn't get the respect it deserves....it was a good performer in the mid to late '70's considering what else was out there. 3) minor differences aside, the basic LA architecture remains the same across the board...given the same cam, heads and compression, I'd expect them to make roughly the same hp/cu in. Dave 1970 Super Bee 440 Six Pack 1974 'Cuda 2008 Ram 3500 Diesel 2006 Ram 3500 Diesel 2004.5 Ram 2500 Diesel 2003 Ram 3500 Diesel 2006 Durango Limited [url] http://1970superbee.piczo.com [/url]

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: GY3] #1622053 05/20/14 01:58 PM 05/20/14 01:58 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 12,419 Kalispell Mt. H HotRodDave I Live Here
HotRodDave I Live Here H Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 12,419 Kalispell Mt.	No way no how is a 360 57# heavier than a 318. 5# maybe. The crank is a tad heavier, the pistons a tad lighter I have two blocks here that are both 165# on my scale bare. Nothing else is really different, both are 97 magnums. The 318 mag pistons were .037 ish down the hole and .049 thick graphite like factory head gaskets. The 360 about the same but a big dish in the piston to make things wose. The 318 mag has a higher compression ratio AND a better cam (more lift less duration). I have driven a ton of the 5.2 and 5.9 magnum trucks new when I worked at the dealer and some 5.2s were fast and some 5.9s were weak, one motor to the next could have very different performance, you could never be sure witch one you had till you popped the hood. None of the 5.9 trucks I have owned seem to be significantly worse MPG (just a tiny bit)than the 5.2 trucks, they were all crappy MPG except the one 318 I zero decked the block and ran .039 head gaskets, it made a huge differance, way more than I predicted or even dreamed of. I bet a 5.9 would respond the same way especially with a 5.2 cam. Another problem is the 518 tranny, it is big heavy and sucks power out of them, one time I swapped a 904 into a dakota and the power difference was huge. An a-500 would be the real ticket behind the 5.9, Lower gears, lower weight, lower drag... It is all about the complete package. The early 318 TBI motors had a great package, a-500 higher compression, small (tiny) cam, and the TBI does a better job with the fuel than the MPI because it has more time to va-poo-rize. Can't compare it to a 360 without looking at the whole package. I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: HotRodDave] #1622054 05/20/14 08:33 PM 05/20/14 08:33 PM
Joined: Jan 2011 Posts: 15,806 Central Florida larrymopar360 Stud Muffin
larrymopar360 Stud Muffin Joined: Jan 2011 Posts: 15,806 Central Florida	I've had several 318's and 360's. Always impressed with the power of the 360's I've had. Actually very impressed. Mileage worse than a 318? Yes, but over 40 more cubic inches. I've had two Mopar Performance Magnum 360's that were very fast torquey engines, and with 2.94 gears in a 3800 pound car the mileage was VERY reasonable. My Aspen has the factory E58. I am very happy with the performance and love driving it. Mileage is low with the thermoquad and it's hard to keep my foot out of it, but again, it's over 40 cubes bigger than a 318. The ONLY con I would put on the 360 versus the 318 is the external balance vs. internal. The perfect smallblock in my mind is a built, internally balanced 360. Facts are stubborn things.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 360view] #1622055 05/20/14 09:36 PM 05/20/14 09:36 PM
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,162 USA 3 360view Moparts resident spammer
360view Moparts resident spammer 3 Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,162 USA	http://www.magnumswap.com/performance-modifications/ http://www.mopartsracing.com/parts/ram.html

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: larrymopar360] #1622056 05/20/14 09:51 PM 05/20/14 09:51 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Well i'm sold. For MY needs right at this moment, the 318 Magnum will do fine. Again, WHEN i install it i'll be using an RPM Air-Gap, small Holley, Doug's headers, true mandrel 2.5" exhaust w X and real mufflers, and it will have no accessories to rob power, plus a 4-speed. The only crappy point will be 2.76 gears, but thats a necessary evil until i can afford a 5 or 6-speed. Its not a drag car anyways... only needs to be fast from a 20-30MPH roll on. Down the road i'll be getting some Edelbrock Magnum heads and a better (modern) cam. When that happens, maybe i'll get lucky and find the pistons only .020-.030 down the hole and can actually scavenge some quench with steel head gaskets. The basic bolt on Edelbrock head swap should make an easy 400HP on a 318 (it made 450 on the 360). That'd be cookin'... Fort what its worth, i've always thought the 360 in all its forms was a great engine. I drove a car with a first-year 71 360 (from a Fury) that someone had swapped a 70 intake/carb and exhaust manifolds on. That engine felt every bit as fast, if not faster than any 68-70 340 i've driven, even my really nice A66. For what it was, my 100% bone-stock 78 Volare with its 360 was not a slow car, and it had even worse than 2.76 gears. Right now i just like the idea ov small engines that make big HP higher up the tach. Provided it doesn't have a stooopid cam in it, you can drive a high-RPM engine normally in the lower ranges to get around and still make decent MPG... well, with a stick anyways. Hard or impossible to do that with a big engine. Again, it helps to have a light car.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 360view] #1622057 05/20/14 10:19 PM 05/20/14 10:19 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: http://www.magnumswap.com/performance-modifications/ http://www.mopartsracing.com/parts/ram.html Hmmm... neat site. I'll have to read that in detail later.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622058 05/20/14 10:46 PM 05/20/14 10:46 PM
Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 21,345 Marysville, O-H-I-O 70Cuda383 Too Many Posts
70Cuda383 Too Many Posts Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 21,345 Marysville, O-H-I-O	Same heads, same cam, same intake, same exhaust, the 318 will make the same HP as the 360, just at a higher RPM. In other words, more head, more cam, and the 360 will blow away the 318. My 5.9 had eddy heads, is making around 400 crank HP. and still gets 16 mpg overall... With a heavy foot. The mustang 4.6 has much better heads than the 318 or 360, thus why it makes more power and gets better mileage than any 5.2 or 5.9 with stock heads. Photobucket sucks

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622059 05/20/14 10:55 PM 05/20/14 10:55 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 4,323 NY NY 3 340duster340 master
340duster340 master 3 Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 4,323 NY NY	what car is this going in?

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 340duster340] #1622060 05/21/14 12:45 AM 05/21/14 12:45 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada R RUNCHARGER I Live Here
RUNCHARGER I Live Here R Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada	The ripoff gas prices in Canada has everyone rethinking their builds lately. I kept the 383 in my sweptline rather than dump in a 440 like I normally would have and on my Challenger I went with a 528 rather than a 572. Both decisions were strictly based on potential fuel economy. I would have done a 472 for the Challenger but I wanted to lose the 20 lbs from the cylinder walls going out to 4.5 would do. Sheldon

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622061 05/21/14 03:57 AM 05/21/14 03:57 AM
Joined: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,501 Gainesville,FL G goldmember master
goldmember master G Joined: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,501 Gainesville,FL	good luck OP!

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 70Cuda383] #1622062 05/21/14 04:07 AM 05/21/14 04:07 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Same heads, same cam, same intake, same exhaust, the 318 will make the same HP as the 360, just at a higher RPM. In other words, more head, more cam, and the 360 will blow away the 318. My 5.9 had eddy heads, is making around 400 crank HP. and still gets 16 mpg overall... With a heavy foot. Sounds good. Its still hard to get excited about putting a 318 in a mean looking muscle car, but as long as it outpowers my old A66 70 340 i'll be happy, and i cant see it not doing that. Quote: The mustang 4.6 has much better heads than the 318 or 360, thus why it makes more power and gets better mileage than any 5.2 or 5.9 with stock heads. Yup... better everything, plus the fuel injection and computer that lets me lug a 7000RPM screamer around at 2000 RPM (if need be) and still get wicked MPG. The best part is the 425lb weight and direct 5/6-speed bolt-up... but i digress...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 340duster340] #1622063 05/21/14 04:08 AM 05/21/14 04:08 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: what car is this going in? 70 Challenger T/A clone. Street-legal road racer i can daily drive... thats the goal.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: RUNCHARGER] #1622064 05/21/14 04:28 AM 05/21/14 04:28 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: The ripoff gas prices in Canada has everyone rethinking their builds lately. I kept the 383 in my sweptline rather than dump in a 440 like I normally would have and on my Challenger I went with a 528 rather than a 572. Both decisions were strictly based on potential fuel economy. I would have done a 472 for the Challenger but I wanted to lose the 20 lbs from the cylinder walls going out to 4.5 would do. Sheldon Tell me about it. You're doing pretty well, so if YOU'RE thinking economy, then imagine where i'm at. First plan was a 800HP 6-71 B1 lowdeck (stock stroke) 400 or offset-crank 426 (had collected every single piece but the cam). That was when gas was a LOT cheaper. Next plan was a N/A 400 or 426 lowdeck B1 with about 600HP (that was about 10 years ago). Next plan was a 450ish HP 383 (still have all the stuff for this). Now i'm thinking 318 Magnum wishing i could afford a Coyote swap. I hate this province. I just want to DRIVE my car... every day. Commute in it. I dont know a single car guy with an old car that actually DRIVES their stuff more than once a month now. I'm not gonna be that guy. I'll sell the car first and buy a Cobra. The goal is to have a fast enough, fun enough, efficient enough and reliable enough car that i can finally sell my 96 GT and not hurt for it

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622065 05/21/14 09:44 AM 05/21/14 09:44 AM
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States P PHJ426 master
PHJ426 master P Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States	My old 72 RR 508 RB pump gas 6 pack stage VI max wedge port heads extrude honed HP manifolds into 3" TTI X PIPED exhaust 9 1/2" ultimate converter concept driving a 2.94 sure grip and 255/50R16 in a 4000# package would muster 19 mpg highway at 65 mph. Don't put yourself through all the trauma. Go with the new tech Coyote......it's the logical choice......Don't let your love of all things old Mopar cloud logical decisions from being made. If you truly love the Challenger give it the gift of life with the new tech Coyote engine. You will not regret it.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622066 05/21/14 10:16 AM 05/21/14 10:16 AM
Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT gdonovan I Live Here
gdonovan I Live Here Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT	Quote: I just want to DRIVE my car... every day. Commute in it. I dont know a single car guy with an old car that actually DRIVES their stuff more than once a month now. Good luck with your plan, I wish I could do the same. Unfortunately I live in a very congested area where.. 1) People don't have an ounce of consideration for other peoples property. My neon is covered with purse, coat and body scratches, door dings and food cart dents. 2) Other drivers with poor driving skills, some with no license and insurance at all 'nuff said. CT has a sanctuary city for those fleeing oppression, paperwork is for suckers. 3) The ice melt this idiot state blows all over the roads if there is a single snowflake sighted. Don't laugh but I watch the plows go by my house with the blades down without a speck of ice or snow on the road. As it is I'm buying a new Challenger for a daily driver and trying to get into the mindset of its a "disposable" car because if I try to keep it free of dents and scratches I'll lose my mind since that isn't going to happen. "I think its got a hemi"

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622067 05/21/14 12:58 PM 05/21/14 12:58 PM
Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 792 Earth R Rob C super stock
Rob C super stock R Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 792 Earth	These engines were only so good out from the factory. Basic bolt on's do wonders and even better with a MSD or equal ignition system. For a realitively quick ride, your missing a bit of compression and a decent cam. A converter and gears finish it up. It is possible to do well with dead stock heads as well.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Rob C] #1622068 05/21/14 08:59 PM 05/21/14 08:59 PM
Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 21,345 Marysville, O-H-I-O 70Cuda383 Too Many Posts
70Cuda383 Too Many Posts Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 21,345 Marysville, O-H-I-O	Here's my 4,000+ lb pick up truck with a 318 The only aftermarket pieces are the cam, intake, headers, and computer re-program. http://youtu.be/PSFEIY5_iws Image what the same motor and trans would do in an Ebody that's 500 lbs lighter and has better aero. Photobucket sucks

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 70Cuda383] #1622069 05/21/14 09:58 PM 05/21/14 09:58 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,200 Upper Midwest M MoparforLife Too Many Posts
MoparforLife Too Many Posts M Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,200 Upper Midwest	Would also be some quicker if you banged the gears without lifting.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: MoparforLife] #1622070 05/21/14 10:28 PM 05/21/14 10:28 PM
Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT gdonovan I Live Here
gdonovan I Live Here Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT	Quote: Would also be some quicker if you banged the gears without lifting. Not a wise course of action with the manuals Dakotas come with, won't last. "I think its got a hemi"

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: gdonovan] #1622071 05/21/14 10:58 PM 05/21/14 10:58 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 4,323 NY NY 3 340duster340 master
340duster340 master 3 Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 4,323 NY NY	would you consider an SRT4 swap? never seen one completed but have seen various threads about attempting to run a srt4 backed by an ma5 transmission. its lighter, makes more power and is way more tunable in relatively stock form.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: gdonovan] #1622072 05/21/14 11:09 PM 05/21/14 11:09 PM
Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 21,345 Marysville, O-H-I-O 70Cuda383 Too Many Posts
70Cuda383 Too Many Posts Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 21,345 Marysville, O-H-I-O	Quote: Quote: Would also be some quicker if you banged the gears without lifting. Not a wise course of action with the manuals Dakotas come with, won't last. Yup. NV3500s are not known for strength. That 14.61 was with a 2.3 second 60' time on street tires. Photobucket sucks

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: BigBlockMopar] #1622073 05/21/14 11:16 PM 05/21/14 11:16 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 3,623 Millinocket, Maine J JonC master
JonC master J Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 3,623 Millinocket, Maine	I agree, it is stupid and very distracting. Don't read most of his (hers) posts because of it.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: JonC] #1622074 05/22/14 01:45 AM 05/22/14 01:45 AM
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States P PHJ426 master
PHJ426 master P Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States	http://www.allpar.com/mopar/la4.html PR put one of these 1/2 an LA engines in that my Challenger. Weight savings of minus one head and some of the block and less intake.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: PHJ426] #1622075 05/22/14 03:07 AM 05/22/14 03:07 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: My old 72 RR 508 RB pump gas 6 pack stage VI max wedge port heads extrude honed HP manifolds into 3" TTI X PIPED exhaust 9 1/2" ultimate converter concept driving a 2.94 sure grip and 255/50R16 in a 4000# package would muster 19 mpg highway at 65 mph. Don't put yourself through all the trauma. Go with the new tech Coyote......it's the logical choice......Don't let your love of all things old Mopar cloud logical decisions from being made. If you truly love the Challenger give it the gift of life with the new tech Coyote engine. You will not regret it. Hahahahahahaha.... TAKING DONATIONS... . . .

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: gdonovan] #1622076 05/22/14 03:12 AM 05/22/14 03:12 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Quote: I just want to DRIVE my car... every day. Commute in it. I dont know a single car guy with an old car that actually DRIVES their stuff more than once a month now. Good luck with your plan, I wish I could do the same. Unfortunately I live in a very congested area where.. 1) People don't have an ounce of consideration for other peoples property. My neon is covered with purse, coat and body scratches, door dings and food cart dents. 2) Other drivers with poor driving skills, some with no license and insurance at all 'nuff said. CT has a sanctuary city for those fleeing oppression, paperwork is for suckers. 3) The ice melt this idiot state blows all over the roads if there is a single snowflake sighted. Don't laugh but I watch the plows go by my house with the blades down without a speck of ice or snow on the road. As it is I'm buying a new Challenger for a daily driver and trying to get into the mindset of its a "disposable" car because if I try to keep it free of dents and scratches I'll lose my mind since that isn't going to happen. Minus the snow bit... sounds like here. Yes, people suck. My Mustang cost 2K and i have a whole 1K more in it. It came with dings and tiny dents, a few scratches and really... if i need a panel i can find one in a junkyard and probably not even have to paint it. BUT... My Challenger is faded to the primer (original paint) patina'd, dinged, dented a bit... It was daily driven by someone who wasn't a car guy (read: it was disposable too in a way), and so really... accidents aside i wont worry about it. I love ugly cars. Quite honestly... if it was painted and pretty when i bought it i would have sold it years ago. I'll NEVER paint it.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Rob C] #1622077 05/22/14 03:15 AM 05/22/14 03:15 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: These engines were only so good out from the factory. Basic bolt on's do wonders and even better with a MSD or equal ignition system. For a realitively quick ride, your missing a bit of compression and a decent cam. A converter and gears finish it up. It is possible to do well with dead stock heads as well. I have an MSD Pro Billet for a lowdeck. I'll probably try and swap it for a small block one. Phase one is as described above. Phase two will be a cam, maybe minor porting (i do myself) and shaving, maybe new heads if i find more money. No need for a converter... its a 4-speed.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 70Cuda383] #1622078 05/22/14 03:25 AM 05/22/14 03:25 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Here's my 4,000+ lb pick up truck with a 318 The only aftermarket pieces are the cam, intake, headers, and computer re-program. http://youtu.be/PSFEIY5_iws Image what the same motor and trans would do in an Ebody that's 500 lbs lighter and has better aero. Try 1000lbs lighter. This things GOING to weigh 3000lbs, tops. Just a bit more if i stick with the steel wheels. And yeah, impressive. Like i said, i'm sold. I also have this lingering personality flaw stuck in my head. Had a friend that used to street race a 289 Maverick years ago. He had 302's, he had 5.0L's, he had 351's... all sitting in his shop, but no one could convince him to pull that 289. He built a second 289 that was even faster. All iron, all old parts. That was a scary car. He couldn't convince anyone it wasn't a 347 or sprayed... Guys started coming out from the city to race the 'nitroused Maverick'... It definitely liked the stratosphere, but he'd drive it from one city to the next one he worked in at 5000-5500 RPM the whole way (STEEP gears). Thing lasted forever. 289's got a lot in common with a 318...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 340duster340] #1622079 05/22/14 03:29 AM 05/22/14 03:29 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: would you consider an SRT4 swap? never seen one completed but have seen various threads about attempting to run a srt4 backed by an ma5 transmission. its lighter, makes more power and is way more tunable in relatively stock form. No chance. I'm a V8 guy. I dont care if you show me a 4 or 6 that will make 500HP at 40MPG... Zero interest. Wouldn't even put a Viper V10 in if it was free. Its all about the SOUND... Funny though... while i was still in Pinto mode a few years back, i did the math on an AP1 (Honda s2000 2L) swap. Would have ended up lighter than an actual s2000 with that powertrain in my Challenger. Those are high 13-second cars. Chew on that...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: JonC] #1622080 05/22/14 03:32 AM 05/22/14 03:32 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: I agree, it is stupid and very distracting. Don't read most ov his (hers) posts because of it. No... stupid and distracting is you not knowing how the internet works.. and having pretty much everyone else here wondering what or who the hell you're talking about...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: PHJ426] #1622081 05/22/14 03:35 AM 05/22/14 03:35 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: http://www.allpar.com/mopar/la4.html PR put one of these 1/2 an LA engines in that my Challenger. Weight savings of minus one head and some of the block and less intake. Its missing the other half. Small detail i know... For that kind ov coin i could pull a Coyote from an actual Boss and get the good stuff, plus a handful ov big cams for it. Maybe buy some nice wheels...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622082 05/22/14 09:18 AM 05/22/14 09:18 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 4,323 NY NY 3 340duster340 master
340duster340 master 3 Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 4,323 NY NY	Why not get a coyote mustang and then drive it fit 20 years; then your goals will be met. 1966 Dart GT ...down to only 1 mopar for the first time in 15 years!

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622083 05/22/14 09:51 AM 05/22/14 09:51 AM
Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT gdonovan I Live Here
gdonovan I Live Here Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT	Quote: would you consider an SRT4 swap? The SRT-4 is NOT a fuel efficient package, they routinely get in the teens around town. Turbo is too small and its in boost all the time which is not optimal for MPG. Now a 2.2 with a S-60 style turbo and nice intercooler, I'd get high 30's all the time on the highway even with a 3-bar map and 52 pph injectors. Too much throttle angle or boost coming on too quick is bad for MPG. You get into the WOT fueling tables and things start going down in a hurry. "I think its got a hemi"

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 360view] #1622084 05/22/14 12:29 PM 05/22/14 12:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,162 USA 3 360view Moparts resident spammer
360view Moparts resident spammer 3 Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,162 USA	http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_0804_small_block_mopar_engine/viewall.html sample quote Part of the reason for the good low end torque and poor top end horsepower is the unbelievably small stock cam. Duration measures 250/264 SAE gross, while lift is a paltry 0.385/0.401 inch even with the Magnum's 1.6:1 rocker ratio - Author Steve Dulcich end quote

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: 360view] #1622085 05/22/14 06:02 PM 05/22/14 06:02 PM
Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 792 Earth R Rob C super stock
Rob C super stock R Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 792 Earth	I like this write up because nearly any "Joe" in town can pull this off in there driveway in a few days time. Money outlay is minimal. (Save the heads) Other required parts would what I said earlier, a converter if so equipped and gears. Add decent springs and hang some meats at the rear on your ride and your good to go.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622086 05/22/14 06:15 PM 05/22/14 06:15 PM
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States P PHJ426 master
PHJ426 master P Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States	Quote: Quote: http://www.allpar.com/mopar/la4.html PR put one of these 1/2 an LA engines in that my Challenger. Weight savings of minus one head and some of the block and less intake. Its missing the other half. Small detail i know... For that kind ov coin i could pull a Coyote from an actual Boss and get the good stuff, plus a handful ov big cams for it. Maybe buy some nice wheels... I agree that is kinda sorta the same quandary I was facing....kinda like trying to place a square peg in a round hole. Trying to make these old Mopars into something they are not, updating the technology for better handling, drivetrain, interior and or amenities and it's easier to beat you head into a brick wall. Nothing compares to the new stuff period, other than the looks of the old cars but for that amount of cash I can live without it. When I'm driving a car from the driver's seat I don't get to see what the outside packaging looks like, unless a mirror truck drives along side.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: PHJ426] #1622087 05/22/14 10:30 PM 05/22/14 10:30 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: I agree that is kinda sorta the same quandary I was facing....kinda like trying to place a square peg in a round hole. Trying to make these old Mopars into something they are not, updating the technology for better handling, drivetrain, interior and or amenities and it's easier to beat you head into a brick wall. Nothing compares to the new stuff period, other than the looks of the old cars but for that amount of cash I can live without it. When I'm driving a car from the driver's seat I don't get to see what the outside packaging looks like, unless a mirror truck drives along side. I can see my Challenger just fine... down the hood, in the mirror... plus every time i see it outside. Its just MY car. Its worth it to me. A new Boss would never be MY car... someone else built it, and they did 70% ov it wrong. Problem with new cars... is (heresy on this site i know) i'm an ascetic. I dont want my engine to have to lug around 500lbs ov complete BS crap i dont want or need. I sure as hell dont want to pay extra for it. Power this and that? AC? a billion safety mandates? three miles ov sound-deadener...??? Please. I drove a Pinto for a while... the only thing wrong with it was it had no power. So to me anyways... its well worth dumping the new powertrain into an old, SIMPLE and light car. Not to mention i could drive my ratty old 70 up to an optioned-out, Plum-crazy Hellcat SRT-whatever and 60% or more ov the plebs and car guys alike will still be checking ME out. New cars are all about compromise... and to me at least... compromise is an ugly word. BUT... for now... unless all the Moparts money-spenders start sending me charity... a coyote swap is not in the cards. I can afford the few hun for the 318, but the headers are still beating my budget... Not a lot ov money around here...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622088 05/23/14 06:37 AM 05/23/14 06:37 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,200 Upper Midwest M MoparforLife Too Many Posts
MoparforLife Too Many Posts M Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,200 Upper Midwest	Things being as they are old verses new as stated in some of the above - at least the common person could still work on the older engines out on the driveway with common tools.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622089 05/23/14 12:28 PM 05/23/14 12:28 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada R RUNCHARGER I Live Here
RUNCHARGER I Live Here R Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,976 Chilliwack B.C. Canada	Pale: You see it the way I do. I don't need a backup camera and cup holders and I don't want a car that has govt. required extra crap hung on it either. Also there is no prettier car than a 70 Challenger in my eyes, screw the new stuff. Sheldon

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622090 05/23/14 02:45 PM 05/23/14 02:45 PM
Joined: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,238 Nevada D dezduster pro stock
dezduster pro stock D Joined: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,238 Nevada	In high school 96 my youngest brother Travis had a slant 6/3 spd Duster that we swapped a 318/4spd into it was 3.23 rear. We had put a small purple shaft and springs in it along with a steel shim head gasket and the heads rebuilt and shaved .020. The intake was a weiand 8007 Eddie 600 afb. Brian who was a coworker had a new mustang V8. Travis and I had been doing timming adjustments and general launch tests. Brian had heard the tire squall and was asking for a race we accepted. We launched on him and held a length on him through the 1/4. Time and time again same result we could get him by a length or less. He would go by on the top end over 110 mph at probly 4 tenths of a mile . 318 can run and run well. Small cam small induction compression and you will be happy..

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622091 05/23/14 05:56 PM 05/23/14 05:56 PM
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States P PHJ426 master
PHJ426 master P Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States	Quote: Quote: I agree that is kinda sorta the same quandary I was facing....kinda like trying to place a square peg in a round hole. Trying to make these old Mopars into something they are not, updating the technology for better handling, drivetrain, interior and or amenities and it's easier to beat you head into a brick wall. Nothing compares to the new stuff period, other than the looks of the old cars but for that amount of cash I can live without it. When I'm driving a car from the driver's seat I don't get to see what the outside packaging looks like, unless a mirror truck drives along side. I can see my Challenger just fine... down the hood, in the mirror... plus every time i see it outside. Its just MY car. Its worth it to me. A new Boss would never be MY car... someone else built it, and they did 70% ov it wrong. Problem with new cars... is (heresy on this site i know) i'm an ascetic. I dont want my engine to have to lug around 500lbs ov complete BS crap i dont want or need. I sure as hell dont want to pay extra for it. Power this and that? AC? a billion safety mandates? three miles ov sound-deadener...??? Please. I drove a Pinto for a while... the only thing wrong with it was it had no power. So to me anyways... its well worth dumping the new powertrain into an old, SIMPLE and light car. Not to mention i could drive my ratty old 70 up to an optioned-out, Plum-crazy Hellcat SRT-whatever and 60% or more ov the plebs and car guys alike will still be checking ME out. New cars are all about compromise... and to me at least... compromise is an ugly word. BUT... for now... unless all the Moparts money-spenders start sending me charity... a coyote swap is not in the cards. I can afford the few hun for the 318, but the headers are still beating my budget... Not a lot ov money around here... Okay lets examine this statement about the new Boss Mustang vs what you want to do to your Challenger.......... Apparently in 1970 Dodge did a whole lot of wrong things to it since your looking to change the entire drivetrain on the beater. Heck they screwed my 71 Challenger up from the factory I would have ordered it with a 700 HP 512 RB stroker but there are two things wrong with that. I couldn't afford a new Dodge in 1971, my father would not have bought a car like that...., lastly I was a little too young for holding a drivers license or a job. The other part of your statement there cracks me up and your by far not the only one to utter such a comment...."Someonelse built the car.." like a factory, engineers, designers, union factory workers etc etc.............. And where did that Dodge Challenger you have come from in 1970? Did a seagull excrete it from its bowels on a rock for your pleasure only? Challenger.........it's the only way to fly. Forget the MPG's give me HP and Torque. 8153663-SCAN0036.JPG (126 downloads)

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: PHJ426] #1622092 05/24/14 04:10 AM 05/24/14 04:10 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Okay lets examine this statement about the new Boss Mustang vs what you want to do to your Challenger.......... Apparently in 1970 Dodge did a whole lot of wrong things to it since your looking to change the entire drivetrain on the beater. They didn't do it wrong, they simply hadn't the tech to do SOME ov the important stuff right. I'd be MORE than fine with a gnarly stock-stroke 400 if we were still paying 1970, hell... even 1988 prices for gas. Quote: Heck they screwed my 71 Challenger up from the factory I would have ordered it with a 700 HP 512 RB stroker but there are two things wrong with that. I couldn't afford a new Dodge in 1971, my father would not have bought a car like that...., lastly I was a little too young for holding a drivers license or a job. The other part of your statement there cracks me up and your by far not the only one to utter such a comment...."Someonelse built the car.." like a factory, engineers, designers, union factory workers etc etc.............. And where did that Dodge Challenger you have come from in 1970? Did a seagull excrete it from its bowels on a rock for your pleasure only? Thing is... you guys are talking about a Boss (as am i) like its a done car... which it IS. That seems to be the draw with most people these days... even those ov us that CAN build a car ground-up... they want to get in and drive... maybe change the wheels down the road. THAT Boss would not be built by me. Plus, as far as i'm concerned, the ONLY thing they got right was the powertrain. Car is way too big and heavy, only looks good from the roof-pillar forward, has 500lbs and $15000K worth ov [Edited by Moparts - Family Friendly Site - Keep it clean] i dont want or need in a car. Plus... new cars are just bloody annoying in soooo many ways. Even my 96 annoys the hell out ov me... doors lock when i drive it, stupid alarm goes off sometimes, daytime driving lights, seat belt and door ajar buzzers all up in my face, not to mention the fact i cant fix it myself. Drove a brand new 2011GT for a week (rental)... fun, but three times as much BS and annoying stuff. I'll pass. On the other hand... my Challenger WILL be built by me... just like my last Mopar was. Aside from rotisserie-ing the damn thing, every single component is coming out and going back in modified or upgraded. A general redesign ov many systems, and certainly the concept/look/theme will be all mine. Dont argue semantics when we're both on the same page thinking the same thing. Quote: Challenger.........it's the only way to fly. Forget the MPG's give me HP and Torque. Must be nice to have a good job and a bank account, and not live in an overhyped, overpriced liberal hell. Not everyone gets to have 600HP... Quite frankly... i cant even afford to drive a 318...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: RUNCHARGER] #1622093 05/24/14 04:16 AM 05/24/14 04:16 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Pale: You see it the way I do. I don't need a backup camera and cup holders and I don't want a car that has govt. required extra crap hung on it either. Also there is no prettier car than a 70 Challenger in my eyes, screw the new stuff. Sheldon DEFINITELY. Should my fortunes change there will be an all aluminum, stock-stroke 426 KB/Stage 5 Hemi in there with a 6060. But it will always be a 70 Challenger. This car has been sitting... waiting patiently for 15 years now... Even passed up building a 71 Cuda to keep this car. Having to suffer through financial hell through the years and still not selling it is my penance for selling my A66 years before... If i EVER get it finished... or started... i'll drive it up there and show it off.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622094 05/24/14 08:54 AM 05/24/14 08:54 AM
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States P PHJ426 master
PHJ426 master P Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States	Quote: Quote: Okay lets examine this statement about the new Boss Mustang vs what you want to do to your Challenger.......... Apparently in 1970 Dodge did a whole lot of wrong things to it since your looking to change the entire drivetrain on the beater. They didn't do it wrong, they simply hadn't the tech to do SOME ov the important stuff right. I'd be MORE than fine with a gnarly stock-stroke 400 if we were still paying 1970, hell... even 1988 prices for gas. Quote: Heck they screwed my 71 Challenger up from the factory I would have ordered it with a 700 HP 512 RB stroker but there are two things wrong with that. I couldn't afford a new Dodge in 1971, my father would not have bought a car like that...., lastly I was a little too young for holding a drivers license or a job. The other part of your statement there cracks me up and your by far not the only one to utter such a comment...."Someonelse built the car.." like a factory, engineers, designers, union factory workers etc etc.............. And where did that Dodge Challenger you have come from in 1970? Did a seagull excrete it from its bowels on a rock for your pleasure only? Thing is... you guys are talking about a Boss (as am i) like its a done car... which it IS. That seems to be the draw with most people these days... even those ov us that CAN build a car ground-up... they want to get in and drive... maybe change the wheels down the road. THAT Boss would not be built by me. Plus, as far as i'm concerned, the ONLY thing they got right was the powertrain. Car is way too big and heavy, only looks good from the roof-pillar forward, has 500lbs and $15000K worth ov [Edited by Moparts - Family Friendly Site - Keep it clean] i dont want or need in a car. Plus... new cars are just bloody annoying in soooo many ways. Even my 96 annoys the hell out ov me... doors lock when i drive it, stupid alarm goes off sometimes, daytime driving lights, seat belt and door ajar buzzers all up in my face, not to mention the fact i cant fix it myself. Drove a brand new 2011GT for a week (rental)... fun, but three times as much BS and annoying stuff. I'll pass. On the other hand... my Challenger WILL be built by me... just like my last Mopar was. Aside from rotisserie-ing the damn thing, every single component is coming out and going back in modified or upgraded. A general redesign ov many systems, and certainly the concept/look/theme will be all mine. Dont argue semantics when we're both on the same page thinking the same thing. Quote: Challenger.........it's the only way to fly. Forget the MPG's give me HP and Torque. Must be nice to have a good job and a bank account, and not live in an overhyped, overpriced liberal hell. Not everyone gets to have 600HP... Quite frankly... i cant even afford to drive a 318... I have owned the Challenger since a long time ago.....probably since around the time you were born so back then it was a stack of cash but compared to the outrageous prices of today????? Would I buy my Challenger in these economic times at these prices.......not a chance. I live in one of the most blue crazy liberal states here that has some of the highest taxes south of the Canadian border. Could I drive a car like this everyday to work? I have a shorter commute than most but the answer is no I would not drive my Challenger every day to work. My new summer beater is a 1988 Merkur XR4Ti with a 2.3 turbo 5 speed rwd with IRS from Washington State (rust free 130K mile car) for under $2k. This thing is 2900# fully loaded with power windows heated seats a/c stereo the works. If your into light weight SCCA rules allow this car to weigh just under 2500# for competition. Yeah I know you have to have a V8 and all that for your daily commute. Installing an LS V8 with T56 has been done in an XR as the countless 302 swaps from old Fox bodies and even a few 4.6 liter swaps. LS swap here (not mine) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8fqFHNfEBM On days I need a V8 I have a Suburban with a V8 another high priced car I paid 12K for back in 2005. Maybe a little closer to your date of birth? Anyway if you want a lighter Mustang, like I do let's see what the Blue Oval has for us with the 2015 offering? It looks like it will be 200# lighter than last year and be less "chunky" in all those places. Lastly I'm a working class guy that watches what cash I spend on cars / parts etc. Life has it's priorities like family and all that goes with it. If you want a cool car that handles, looks cool, light weight, has a V8 that your not going to drive in the winter in the frozen tundra there are plenty of other old cars that can get it done. Your at a disadvantage with an old Challenger in both weight and cost of parts.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: PHJ426] #1622095 05/24/14 11:10 AM 05/24/14 11:10 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,936 Holly/MI D Dean_Kuzluzski master
Dean_Kuzluzski master D Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,936 Holly/MI	Ego & pride aside........... Pail Roader is on a budget. Save the typing about what you'd like to do and move forward with a plan.....not a dream. I drove a mildly geared overcam'd smallblock manual trans rwd mid-sized car for many years, DAILY, back when I was poverty level. It was great memories. Still got 18 mpg and it was fun on freway on-ramps. I'm currently at the next level. Could afford more but honestly too cheap to spend the $$. Got a 4 yr old fwd domestic ricer with aftermarket lowering springs, swaybars, air inlet and header/ midpipe/fartpipe exhaust. Totally "on rails" around corners, 30 mpg and the low-midrange accelleration is a blast. All for less than a grand after initial purchase. And totally diggin' the a/c & CD sound system. Do whatchya can while ya can. R.I.P.- Gary "Coop" Davis 02/09/68-05/13/04

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: PHJ426] #1622096 05/25/14 06:00 AM 05/25/14 06:00 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Maybe a little closer to your date of birth? Hah! Well, i certainly missed the golden era, but i was driving in the mid-late 80's. I remember cheap muscle cars and relatively cheap gas. Quote: Anyway if you want a lighter Mustang, like I do let's see what the Blue Oval has for us with the 2015 offering? It looks like it will be 200# lighter than last year and be less "chunky" in all those places. Still a NEW car though. Even a light new car will still have 4-500lbs ov worthless crap i dont want/need/wont pay for. Maybe i'm weird... but i'd be driving that 'light' new Mustang GT thinking... 'this thing COULD have weighed 3000lbs...' hahahaha Quote: If you want a cool car that handles, looks cool, light weight, has a V8 that your not going to drive in the winter in the frozen tundra there are plenty of other old cars that can get it done. Your at a disadvantage with an old Challenger in both weight and cost of parts. Hah! First off... there is no tundra here. We're more temperate than probably 70% ov the US. No snow here either. Just rain. Dammit... cant quite bring myself to delete the windshield wipers. Might can the heater though... Second, my car is light. Light enough that pretty much anything else that will comfortably fit a V8 wont be much lighter, if at all. I'm looking at 3000lbs DONE. And thats before i start spending actual money on lightweight parts. How many old V8 cars you know actually driving around at that weight or less? Not many. Even the 'light' ones... the Nova's, Darts, Mavericks... etc, still all seem to end up over the 3K mark. Everyone loves their options and heavy parts. Cost ov parts? well, you got me there. BUT... i'm not restoring this car. Anything Challenger-specific breaks and its getting fixed. I dont believe in replacing old parts with new. Its a punk car... that gives me a LOT ov freedom. I'm pretty stoked here... i think the plan is sound. Only downside is that it wont be an all-out 200mph beast... but i've lived with slow cars for 7 years now... i'll make due. It'll be faster than my 96GT, and 194X as cool. Works for me.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Dean_Kuzluzski] #1622097 05/25/14 06:27 AM 05/25/14 06:27 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Ego & pride aside........... Pail Roader is on a budget. Save the typing about what you'd like to do and move forward with a plan.....not a dream. I drove a mildly geared overcam'd smallblock manual trans rwd mid-sized car for many years, DAILY, back when I was poverty level. It was great memories. Still got 18 mpg and it was fun on freway on-ramps. Hell... i was driving the 8mpg Charger daily... and i mean 50K in 3 years daily, and yes, at 8MPG. I somehow made that work then. Quite frankly, i could still somehow make it work... you just find a way (when you find driving cool cars that much fun). Only problem was... i HATED that car. It was a basketcase and just no fun to drive. If it was my Challenger back then with the same 440 and powertrain, i'd still be driving it. I just had a problem throwing wads ov money at a car i never intended to keep. My Challenger? I'll never sell, so its not money wasted. I ended up getting every dime back out ov that Charger... somehow... so it worked out. Even a mild 383 in my E-body would be everyday viable... but a smaller engine would let me drive it even MORE. Pretty much... i'll spend every dime i have on gas... i'd just rather cruise around the canyons and Rockies in my spare time than the damn main road in my town. Quote: I'm currently at the next level. Could afford more but honestly too cheap to spend the $$. Got a 4 yr old fwd domestic ricer with aftermarket lowering springs, swaybars, air inlet and header/ midpipe/fartpipe exhaust. Totally "on rails" around corners, 30 mpg and the low-midrange accelleration is a blast. All for less than a grand after initial purchase. And totally diggin' the a/c & CD sound system. Do whatchya can while ya can. When i was shopping for my current car (96GT), i actually looked at several imports. If i could have found a RWD, stick sports car for a reasonable amount, i might have done it. I LOVE the s2000 powertrain... its just too bad the car was made for chicks, and that they're STILL commanding low 5-figures. Looked at the 197HP Civic Si... everything i wanted save the RWD, WAY too spendy. Everything else was too slow, or boosted, which then again kills your MPG. Hell, i even looked at 97-00 Avengers... still not RWD, but i think they're cool lookin'. They're cheap, easy to fix if need be, and with the 4cyl/5-speed (the ONLY way i'd buy one), they'd be decent on gas. Couldn't find one. Perfect car right now? 71 Pinto with the s2000 2L and 6-speed. 35mpg and insanely fast, and hell... i just love the look ov the early Pintos. But yeah... then 'm still spending 4K... and i'm no wiring genius... The stupid thing about all this trying to save money [Edited by Moparts - Family Friendly Site - Keep it clean]... is that no matter what you do, something changes and instantly you're back to square one. Its uncanny. Sell my Charger and buy a Mustang? price ov gas and oil jumps and insurance goes up. Fix/modify it to get another 4-5mpg? Gas jumps again. Quit driving that and get in the Pinto? gas jumps again and my work goes to hell. I can almost guarantee that if i found a 40mpg car the price ov gas would jump another .10� and Aircare (emissions here) would double. You cant win. So you know? I'm done trying. Time to get back in a goddamn muscle car and enjoy life. Like i said before... when you're having a good time... you find a way.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622098 05/25/14 06:41 AM 05/25/14 06:41 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,200 Upper Midwest M MoparforLife Too Many Posts
MoparforLife Too Many Posts M Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,200 Upper Midwest	8 MPH?? You needed a tune up bad. Not bad but REAL bad. Hell I could get 15 with any of my cars of that era with out having to baby them. Had several and had them new.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: MoparforLife] #1622099 05/25/14 10:45 AM 05/25/14 10:45 AM
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States P PHJ426 master
PHJ426 master P Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,456 Fly Over States	That is what life is all about.........have fun do what you want to do with your Challenger and have fun. Do the best you can within your means and don't get too caught up and find yourself in a rabbit hole. Seriously though if your wanting to run a small block why not put a small turbo on it. There is a small block turbo setup on the for sale section in Michigan that a member had on his Valiant if I recall correctly. Get 318 mpg until you add some pressure to it and then get the added power. It's cheaper than trying to build a stroker engine and might be an option for your project.

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: MoparforLife] #1622100 05/25/14 09:45 PM 05/25/14 09:45 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: 8 MPH?? You needed a tune up bad. Not bad but REAL bad. Hell I could get 15 with any of my cars of that era with out having to baby them. Had several and had them new. Believe it or not... that car WAS tuned. It was pretty slick, for what it was. 76 440 (low comp), stock heads, 6-pack-ish cam (no idea, very small, worked very well), nicely ported SD intake, Holley 750 vac secondary, stub stack (no air cleaner), elect ign, Hooker comps, VERY nice 3" exhaust, no accessories, Transgo Stage 2 727, 8 3/4" (3.23). It went pretty damn fast for what it was. That was the whole point ov the car though... it was a total basketcase. Something in the front suspension was off, badly, though there was no easy fix, it tracked dead-straight, you could take your hands off the wheel, but the caster/camber was so bad you literally could not align it. The engine mounts were 'off' somehow, and NO human on the planet could diagnose the issue, so there was always tension in the drivetrain. Driveshaft had a slight bend, so vibrated. Heh... when i bought the car off that genius... it had like 6 different vibrations going on... by the time i'd sold it i was down to that one. There was drag in the brakes that defied fixing. That was an incredible intake... it basically wanted a much bigger carb when i threw it on (jetted from 72's to 80s and it wanted more), and another 2" ov spacer. Wouldn't even idle without the 1" one i did have on there, at all. I utterly refused to give it the big DP. Everyone here loved it and it was just badass, and fast, but it was just a bad car... Maybe something off in the chassis? though the frame shops all (3) said it was dead-straight. It was a HARD car to push... like it weighed 4300lbs, yet it was 3600. Glad its gone. It had been 'touched' by dozens ov mechanics in its life... some didn't have the sense to know how to push a lawnmower. Now... on the other hand... my Challenger is a viiiiiiirgin. Never been touched...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: PHJ426] #1622101 05/25/14 09:53 PM 05/25/14 09:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: That is what life is all about.........have fun do what you want to do with your Challenger and have fun. Do the best you can within your means and don't get too caught up and find yourself in a rabbit hole. Seriously though if your wanting to run a small block why not put a small turbo on it. There is a small block turbo setup on the for sale section in Michigan that a member had on his Valiant if I recall correctly. Get 318 mpg until you add some pressure to it and then get the added power. It's cheaper than trying to build a stroker engine and might be an option for your project. No boost... and definitely no turbo. They're ugly, heavy, dont sound good (unless REALLY expensive and well set-up), and well then i might as well just build a huge engine (bad MPG). I like N/A, and i like small and efficient. The DOHC's ruined me for life on that. Not interested in strokers either. Far as i'm concerned, if you cant win 98% ov races on a 4.6-5.9L engine you're not thinking hard enough. I've seen more slow as [Edited by Moparts - Family Friendly Site - Keep it clean] 400cid SB strokers and 500cid BB strokers than i ever care to think about. I actually like the 318 FOR that tiny little stock stroke... makes for a nice little indestructible engine... something i can beat in a bad mood...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: MoparforLife] #1622102 05/25/14 09:54 PM 05/25/14 09:54 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,067 Irving, TX feets Senior Management
feets Senior Management Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,067 Irving, TX	Quote: 8 MPH?? You needed a tune up bad. Not bad but REAL bad. Hell I could get 15 with any of my cars of that era with out having to baby them. Had several and had them new. The Imperial has been very well tuned and it returns 9.5 mpg in the city and can scratch 15 mpg highway if I try hard enough. That's what you get with 5100 lbs of iron with the aerodynamics of a vending machine being pushed by a low compression 1972 440. We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind. - Stu Harmon

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: feets] #1622103 05/26/14 04:35 AM 05/26/14 04:35 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Quote: 8 MPH?? You needed a tune up bad. Not bad but REAL bad. Hell I could get 15 with any of my cars of that era with out having to baby them. Had several and had them new. The Imperial has been very well tuned and it returns 9.5 mpg in the city and can scratch 15 mpg highway if I try hard enough. That's what you get with 5100 lbs of iron with the aerodynamics of a vending machine being pushed by a low compression 1972 440. Heh... YUP. My all-out stalker-in-the-bushes-obsession with naturally aspirated super-efficient V8's was certainly kick-started by the DOHC mods, among other plants, but at the same time, the utter and complete AWFULness ov the STOCK Mopar big-block (which i was driving at the time, and have centered pretty much ALL my engine research around) just really hammered it home for me. Gotta be one ov the worst 60-70's era big blocks made for efficiency in STOCK form. Then i made that thread comparing a 383 with the 360 Mag, which sold me on the smallblock... which previously i never liked... and knew nothing about. And now i've come to realize i dont even need the 'big' Magnum, and here i am at the 318. This is where i'll stay though... as going smaller takes me out ov modern design (273) and crossing brands and going modern will take me WELL out ov my budget. I think a mild little 318 Magnum with a hot tune will work just fine in this lil car. My other dream car (the only one i dont have yet) is a 69 Imperial... and honestly i dont know what i'd do if i had one. Cant very well put a smaller engine in that and expect it to move...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622104 05/26/14 03:16 PM 05/26/14 03:16 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,067 Irving, TX feets Senior Management
feets Senior Management Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,067 Irving, TX	Quote: My other dream car (the only one i dont have yet) is a 69 Imperial... and honestly i dont know what i'd do if i had one. Cant very well put a smaller engine in that and expect it to move... We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind. - Stu Harmon

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: feets] #1622105 05/26/14 09:38 PM 05/26/14 09:38 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Quote: My other dream car (the only one i dont have yet) is a 69 Imperial... and honestly i dont know what i'd do if i had one. Cant very well put a smaller engine in that and expect it to move... Hah! You first. Funny though... now that you bring it up, now i cant get that video ov the 70 Monte Carlo with the CTD in it outta my head... idling away. Thats a double-taker...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622106 05/26/14 11:20 PM 05/26/14 11:20 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,344 Central TX roe master
roe master Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,344 Central TX	Quote: Quote: Quote: My other dream car (the only one i dont have yet) is a 69 Imperial... and honestly i dont know what i'd do if i had one. Cant very well put a smaller engine in that and expect it to move... Hah! You first. Funny though... now that you bring it up, now i cant get that video ov the 70 Monte Carlo with the CTD in it outta my head... idling away. Thats a double-taker... Now that would be too cool. I'd love to see something like that. Anyone know if something like it has been done already? Big C body rumbling around with a Cummins... roe 1971 Plymouth Satellite 408/904 8 3/4 3.23 SG

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: roe] #1622107 05/27/14 05:52 AM 05/27/14 05:52 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Quote: [ Funny though... now that you bring it up, now i cant get that video ov the 70 Monte Carlo with the CTD in it outta my head... idling away. Thats a double-taker... Now that would be too cool. I'd love to see something like that. Anyone know if something like it has been done already? Big C body rumbling around with a Cummins... roe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO_kjaxIDzc For anyone interested, Feets should have a nice 72 440 for sale about two minutes after watching this video...

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622108 05/27/14 08:30 PM 05/27/14 08:30 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,067 Irving, TX feets Senior Management
feets Senior Management Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,067 Irving, TX	That car has been around a while. There was a guy building a ragtop Newport with a 5.9 Cummins but I don't know if he was able to finish it. We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind. - Stu Harmon

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622109 05/27/14 09:49 PM 05/27/14 09:49 PM
Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT gdonovan I Live Here
gdonovan I Live Here Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT	Quote: For anyone interested, Feets should have a nice 72 440 for sale about two minutes after watching this video... Not the sort of noise I want to hear while tooling down the road. "I think its got a hemi"

Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1622110 05/27/14 11:45 PM 05/27/14 11:45 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,344 Central TX roe master
roe master Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,344 Central TX	Quote: Quote: Quote: [ Funny though... now that you bring it up, now i cant get that video ov the 70 Monte Carlo with the CTD in it outta my head... idling away. Thats a double-taker... Now that would be too cool. I'd love to see something like that. Anyone know if something like it has been done already? Big C body rumbling around with a Cummins... roe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO_kjaxIDzc For anyone interested, Feets should have a nice 72 440 for sale about two minutes after watching this video... Sweet 1971 Plymouth Satellite 408/904 8 3/4 3.23 SG

Page 1 of 5

1

2

3

4

5

Moderated by Al_Alguire, Hotwheelsjr, moparts, not_a_charger, RangerDan440, tboomer

Hop To

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1