Moparts
1970 340 vs. 1995 360
Hey guys,
My little brother has a complete 1970 340 with J heads that I believe has one rebuild and should be .30 over with all stock parts except for the cam. He was originally going to build it for his 1971 Demon. A guy at his work just let him know that he has a 360 out of a 1995 Dodge truck that comes with the trans and all of the accessories and the harness for $500. It supposedly has 92,000 miles and they are mostly highway miles. My question to you guys is , is it worth it? I believe that my little brother wants to keep a somewhat stock look running a carb and everything but we were wondering about all of the internals of the newer motor. Would it bolt up to the original 727 he is going to use? Is it all roller lifters and cam? Is it a stronger block? Are the heads any good? Im guessing an intake and 4 Bbl carb could be put on it?
I am assuming if he goes this route he would just sell off all of the stuff he doesnt use, paint the engine the correct orange and make it look as close to stock as possible.
What do you guys think?
Thanks,
Brian
Posted By: Pentastar440
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 04:12 PM
The '95 5.9 (360) is a roller motor and will bolt up to a 727.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 05:09 PM
340 over a 360 no matter what the condition anytime...
Posted By: deansrr
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 05:13 PM
use the 360, then sell me the 340 really cheap
Posted By: Paul_Fancsali
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 05:15 PM
Having both my vote is the 340 period. The roller cam 360 is a truck motor Can they run sure but the 340 is a easier build with more power
Posted By: cudasam
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 05:32 PM
I vote for the 360. Cheaper to build, roller cam , so no oil additive issues, and if you blow it up, another one is just a wrecking yard away
Posted By: deansrr
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 05:34 PM
Quote:
I vote for the 360. Cheaper to build, roller cam , so no oil additive issues, and if you blow it up, another one is just a wrecking yard away
yes i agree, then sell me the 340 really really cheap
Posted By: Ron_M
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 05:53 PM
I say keep the 340, buy the 360 and build a stroker out ov it
Posted By: patrick
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 05:59 PM
Quote:
340 over a 360 no matter what the condition anytime...
360 over a 340 no matter what....
20 more cubes
cheaper replacement pistons/rings
'95 in particular
magnum engine will have magnum heads (closed chamber
mag engine will be roller cam
how much do you want to "build" it? clean it up/rering, maybe a cam swap & tchain and go? or bore & new pistons?
how wild do you want it to be?
Posted By: mikepar
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 06:01 PM
360 more low end torque, big ger crank,but may have less compression thana 340
Posted By: RapidRobert
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 06:30 PM
Quote:
I say keep the 340, buy the 360 and build a stroker out ov it
that'd be what I'd do
Posted By: dgc333
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 08:37 PM
Stock the 360 makes more power than a stock 340. Equally built the 360 makes more power than a 340.
The magnum heads on the 360 are a better head stock than the 340 heads stock and will be more tolerant of todays gas.
The the 360 has a roller cam but stamped rockers.
You will need a car oil pan for the 360. You will need either an external balanced torque converter or flex plate.
Since niether motor is stock to the car use the 360 and sell the 340 to finance the parts you need for the 360. The 340 is worth more to the restoration crowd or those that see the 340 through rose colored glasses and think its better.
Posted By: RAUPLEMINZE454
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 08:51 PM
Sorry guys,
I should have stated that my brother just wants a strong street cruiser in the 400 HP range. The car might see the track once a year. How does the price sound for the 360?
Thanks,
Brian
Posted By: phantomx
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 09:08 PM
I would buy the 360 and use it. If he is going to a carb, he can pick the appropriate intake. Are there roller replacement cams available where you can re-use the lifters like a Chevy? That would be great. Over-all, I think the 360 is a better engine due to the stroke advantage.
Travis..
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 10:11 PM
Quote:
Stock the 360 makes more power than a stock 340.
Really i don't recall the 360 ever being rated at 275 h.p. and anyone that knows and i have owned more then a few that rating is low its more like 300 or more..i'll put a stock 340 up against a stock 360 any day of the week,you might have more torque down low but by mid track i'll be blowing right by ya'!!!
Posted By: RAUPLEMINZE454
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 10:34 PM
What do you guys think would be a good price for the 360 without transmission or harness? He was asking $500 for everything.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/20/09 10:43 PM
Quote:
Stock the 360 makes more power than a stock 340. Equally built the 360 makes more power than a 340.
The magnum heads on the 360 are a better head stock than the 340 heads stock and will be more tolerant of todays gas.
The the 360 has a roller cam but stamped rockers.
You will need a car oil pan for the 360. You will need either an external balanced torque converter or flex plate.
Since niether motor is stock to the car use the 360 and sell the 340 to finance the parts you need for the 360. The 340 is worth more to the restoration crowd or those that see the 340 through rose colored glasses and think its better.
I have never seen a 360 magnum make more power than a 340 built up the same way. The 340 has a bigger bore diameter than a 360 and you can run any stroker crank in either engine. For example: 4 inch crank in 30 over 360= 408. Same crank in 30 over 340= 416. Hmmmmmmm? Now as far as roller lifters go, yes the mgnum motors have them stock, but you can put roller lifters in a 340, so if lifters are that important to your build, then maybe the 360 should be your choice. There are probaby pros and cons for either build, but 340s do make more power, straight up. Also magnum heads use 10 bolt valve covers that would look very wrong in that car. My 2 cents.....
Posted By: cudasam
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 12:32 AM
I have a 360 magnum in my car,and I used the 340 five-bolt valve covers and the water pump and housing and v-belts. Looks stock
Posted By: cudasam
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 12:37 AM
The 340 is an awesome motor. They don't call it the "giant-killer" for nothing. It's just rarer and more expensive than a 360. A bare 340 block is worth a way more than a good low-mile 360 complete. For a street car, I use the 360.
Posted By: phantomx
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 12:53 AM
Less filling
Travis..
Posted By: cdp
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 02:05 AM
Use the 360. Cheaper, easier to build. Roller motor, etc, etc,. A 360 can make just as much horse power as a 340. The new 10:1 coated pistons/rings are super cheap. Stroker kits available everywhere for more cubes.
Sell the 340 or keep it for a true 340-Car.
If his Demon is basically a clone, then thats another reason to build the 360.
In my opinion, the 340 has too much value to be in a clone car.
Posted By: 70AARcuda
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 02:05 AM
do the 360...cheaper and more performance.
you can not compare stock engines from 40 yrs ago, with two engines being totally rebuilt today..
Posted By: cdp
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 02:09 AM
Mopar Action got 425 HP out of a 360/380 crate motor. When you rebuild it, you might think about sticking very close to what a crate motor spec. is....maybe add a bit more cam.
Posted By: patrick
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 06:48 PM
Quote:
Mopar Action got 425 HP out of a 360/380 crate motor. When you rebuild it, you might think about sticking very close to what a crate motor spec. is....maybe add a bit more cam.
all the 380HP crate is is a stock truck motor with the MP .525" lift springs, a MP 230@.050 or so, 51" lift roller cam, and an M1 single plane manifold.
if it were me, I'd use the mag 360. if you plan on rebuilding, use some KB pistons at 0 deck, .039" gaskets. I'd probably use the crate motor cam and an eddie RPM intake. get the heads redone with a good 5 angle valvejob, clean up the bowls a bit, and open the pushrod pinch as much as you feel comfortable, and either use the MP springs with 2.2L/2.5L retainers, or if you can get enough installed height, GM 3100 springs and retainers, or hughes 1110 springs & hughes retainers. that right there is probably a 420+ HP motor.
Posted By: Mr.Yuck
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 07:19 PM
You tell me. My 95 Dak sport w/ a 5.2 5 speed does 14.08 w/ zippy internal mods using the stock intake. All it had was short headers, MP computer amd a 3" single exhaust. My 72 Swinger was a 10.5:1 340, w/ ported J-heads 340 cam, 1.6 rollers, RPM air-gap TTi headsers w/ 3 inch X-pipe and a holley 750HP went 13.82. With the 625 Carter 14.teens.
So I'd say stock 340 and a Stock 95 360 in the same car 360 wins.
Posted By: Mr.Yuck
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 07:22 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Stock the 360 makes more power than a stock 340.
Really i don't recall the 360 ever being rated at 275 h.p. and anyone that knows and i have owned more then a few that rating is low its more like 300 or more..i'll put a stock 340 up against a stock 360 any day of the week,you might have more torque down low but by mid track i'll be blowing right by ya'!!!
that's beacuse it's not at the back of the block donkey, a 95 360 is rated at the rear wheel. My 95 5.2 was rated 230 form the factory rear wheel. Bring your stock 340 to me and I'll run my stock 5.2 Dakota and give you a run for your money.
Posted By: dustergirl340
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 07:41 PM
If he already has a 340 I wouldn't bother with the 360.
We bought a running 360 with trans for $99 and treated it as a core.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 07:48 PM
that's beacuse it's not at the back of the block donkey, a 95 360 is rated at the rear wheel. My 95 5.2 was rated 230 form the factory rear wheel. Bring your stock 340 to me and I'll run my stock 5.2 Dakota and give you a run for your money.
Well if my 340 were still stock i'd take you up on that..and giving a 340 a run for its money and beating one are 2 different things.. 
Posted By: Mr.Yuck
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 07:53 PM
Quote:
that's beacuse it's not at the back of the block donkey, a 95 360 is rated at the rear wheel. My 95 5.2 was rated 230 form the factory rear wheel. Bring your stock 340 to me and I'll run my stock 5.2 Dakota and give you a run for your money.
Well if my 340 were still stock i'd take you up on that..and giving a 340 a run for its money and beating one are 2 different things..
Just saying my 5.2 runs pretty good. I wish it had an extra 42 cubes....
Posted By: 69L78Nova
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 07:55 PM
As Ive said before, there is NOTHING magical about a 340. If the 340 and 360 are built equally....I'll take a 360 any day of the week
Posted By: HotRodDave
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 09:11 PM
The 73 340 with higher compression than the 74 360 made LESS HP than the 74 360 even though both motors had the same heads, same intake, same cam and same carb. They were rated the same way those 2 years and were both offered in the same cars. The 360 made 5 more hp and 30LBS more tq. I beleive 74 was also the same year the 360 got cats so there is another hit on the 360 and it still made more power. That is about as close a comparison as you can get and any one who has driven a stock 73 340 car and a stock 74 360 car knows the 360 would eat it's luinch any day of the week. All things being equal the 360 will whoop the 340.
The 340 simply got a good reputation back in the day and it always will because they were bad little motors but you also got to remember the 360 was never offered in a car as light as a 68 cuda or dart.
If you took an e-58 360 and gave it 10.5 compression pistons and the same good flowing 68 340 ex manifolds it would make quite a bit more HP than a 68 340. It is just plane a matter of physics and good common sense, and we all know .040 bore will not make near the differance as .27 stroke increase, that "biger bore" only gives you .020 more clearance from the valve to the cylinder. People who think equally built 340s are faster than an equally built 360 are totally smokeing crack or something unless you are talking bone stock motors and even then there are short-comeings of the 340. Even in stroker motors you are only talking 8 whoppin inches for a block that will cost you about $600 more.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 09:51 PM
340s rule 360's drool....
Posted By: JonC
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/21/09 11:20 PM
Quote:
Use the 360. Cheaper, easier to build. Roller motor, etc, etc,. A 360 can make just as much horse power as a 340. The new 10:1 coated pistons/rings are super cheap. Stroker kits available everywhere for more cubes.
Sell the 340 or keep it for a true 340-Car.
If his Demon is basically a clone, then thats another reason to build the 360.
In my opinion, the 340 has too much value to be in a clone car.
Why would a 360 be cheaper and easier to build????? I guess I don't understand that.
Posted By: DPelletier
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 12:28 AM
Quote:
340s rule 360's drool....
We're all glad you're back!
Dave
Posted By: Mr.Yuck
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 01:03 AM
Quote:
340s rule 360's drool....
kinda like those guys that say a 383 will hang w/ a 440....
Posted By: DPelletier
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 01:38 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
340s rule 360's drool....
We're all glad you're back!
Dave
Why thank you...Dave
your welcome.
Dave
Posted By: denfireguy
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 01:58 AM
Quote:
I beleive 74 was also the same year the 360 got cats so there is another hit on the 360 and it still made more power.
It was 1976 when catalytic converters reared their ugly heads.
I agree with everything else you said though.
Save the 340 for a restorer who has to have it right. 360 parts are much cheaper, better power output and one thing no one has mentioned, much younger like I wish I was.
Craig
Posted By: MowP4rsn
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 02:16 AM
Quote:
What do you guys think would be a good price for the 360 without transmission or harness? He was asking $500 for everything.
Buy it now! Do NOT pass "GO"
Posted By: Moparmal
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 02:55 AM
340 vs 360 -
The 360 has a better rod to stroke ratio than the 340 for building HP, and it will deliver a higher piston speed at lower revs than a 340 which also helps(and the 360 has this over not only the 340, but also the 273 and 318) .
Why is it better? - Given the formula for power = revs x torque divided by 5252, and that torque is the result of an explosion on top of the piston pushing down on the rod which pushes against the stroke(longer stroke = longer lever) it would appear that a factory stroke of 3.58in versus 3.31 will result in a greater amount of torque at all revs.
Thus - this equals more average torque, which equals more average horse power..across the rev range.So again it would seem that given the same heads cam and intake that the 340 is "owned" by the better designed 360.
In its favour the 340 has bore, but we're not talking much, its like 40 thou ...........which given the area increase it offers its still not enough to offset the gains of the extra stroke of the 360.
So it appears the 340 isnt as good as a 360, But wait theres more!!
- The ability of the 360 to generate greater torque everywhere is the reason its a better motor for street cars and drag cars if the required rpm is less than 7500 -
(and no, torque is not reserved for low down and hp for high up, one is a measure of a direct quantity, one is a derived number from a formula - although with money more is possible but 7500 stays in the realm of factory cranks and rods)..
...... thats not to say that a 340 can't go hard, its just that a 360 can go(and does) go harder when fitted with the same heads cam and intake.
As for the weight , the 360 pistons on average depending on brand are typically lighter than 340 pistons(due to bore size, but the extra comression height is typicaly the main reason) .
If you weigh both blocks you get about the same number(give or take for corrosion and casting, and we are talking factory, not race blocks), yes the 360 crank is heavier, but the extra mass we're mainly concerned with is along the crank center line so it is a minimal.
So lets look at the old argument - "but 340s love to rev"
In reality
, what we are seeing is the function of the rod/stroke ratio for a 340 - the engine MUST rev harder to achieve the same HP as the 360, thus both engines are the logical end product of functional design - the 340 was built to make its HP at high revs becuase thats what the engineers knew it would have to do with its rod/stroke and bore. Thus the forged crank and large valve heads.The 360 is a torque monster by virtue of its capacity and stroke - but its rod/stroke makes this torque right through the range - and ends up making more power for the same revolutions as a 340.
So the more oversqre 340 shows all the characteristics one would expect - it spins up quickly and appears to make power at higher revs -
Trouble is, its making less power than the 360 below this "magical point" - and you're losing the race in the process! LOL!!
Lastly , the more oversquare design of the 340 enhances its durability at high revs, but as we've discussed, we're talking street engines so this advantage is negligible at 6500 rpm.--------Anyhoo, back to your question - No substitute for cubes, so the 360 over the 340 will always be a more practical option for street duty.....Torque rules in the street.
If you don't own either - buy a 360.
Posted By: cdp
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 02:57 AM
I believe the 360 is cheaper to build because of:
1) magnum heads probably won't need much work compared to a 40 year old motor.
2) KB pistons/rings (10:1) are around 300 bucks for a set.
3)more plentyfull for used parts.
4)roller cam from the start.
4) Will make just as much power.
The newest Mopar Action just did an article on current available after market heads. The "enginequest" heads have great flow and are reasonable in price if you want to upgrade. Better than Eldebrock and MP.
Posted By: 73E360
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 05:25 AM
The stock roller lifters on the 5.9 won't go much beyond 6000 RPM. If you put more valve spring on them to control the valve train, the lifters will collapse. To get to 400 HP, on the 5.9, you shouldn't need more than 6000. But, if you are limited there for any further upgrades.
Check out the tests that Dulcich has done over the years in Engine Mastes or Mopar Muscle. You'll see the torque and HP crash right after 6K, regardless of whether he's testing stock, R/T, or Edelbrock heads.
Jeff
Posted By: dgc333
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 12:59 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Stock the 360 makes more power than a stock 340.
Really i don't recall the 360 ever being rated at 275 h.p. and anyone that knows and i have owned more then a few that rating is low its more like 300 or more..i'll put a stock 340 up against a stock 360 any day of the week,you might have more torque down low but by mid track i'll be blowing right by ya'!!!
The 340 was rated 275 Gross and the 360 magnum is rated 250 net. To see what a 360 measured gross would be just look at the crate motors. The 360/300 HP crate motor was nothing but a stock 360 with an LA timing cover, carb intake and car pan. A 300 HP 360 is more than a 275 HP 340 in my book. An both were under rated so I don't see the difference going away.
Posted By: dustergirl340
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 01:14 PM
My 340 cost me less than 2 grand and runs high 12's. I know of guys with more money in their engines that run slower than me. 340's don't have to be expensive, and there is nothing wrong with beating on one either.
That being said, I love the 360 in my Dart just as much as the 340 in my Duster. Both are excellent engines.
Posted By: DEMONSIZZLER
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 01:25 PM
I know that in the long run, a 340 powered car is worth more to most than a 360 powered car in over-all value. If I am looking to buy a car and find two very similar cars, one with 340 power and the other with 360 power, it is more likely that I will buy the 340 powered car because I know that it will 'appeal' to more people if I sell it and I think the monetary value will be higher if both engines are similarly built. That is the main reason why you pay more for a re-buildable 340, David.
Posted By: Wedgeman
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 01:29 PM
No replacement for displacement !
Yep ! Torque rules in the strets !
Daniel
Fitting a 360 Magnum in a 67 Barracuda
Posted By: HotRodDave
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 03:35 PM
There are plenty of people running the stock magnum roller lifters to 6500+.
Also consider a 340 block will cost you $5-600 more than a 360 block but if you want to run a roller cam in the 340 you will have to spend another $500+ to get roller lifters so even in a roller cam stroker aplication the 340 will cost you at least $1000 more.
Posted By: HotRodDave
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 03:41 PM
BTW the 300 hp crate motor has a SMALLER cam than a factory 95 360
Posted By: RapidRobert
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 03:51 PM
Brian for the street which was my take on his intent my vote would be 360. More cubes & more torque(longer stroke).Then you might persuade your little brother to sell me the 340(for cheap)
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 04:33 PM
Quote:
Quote:
340s rule 360's drool....
kinda like those guys that say a 383 will hang w/ a 440....
I would'nt know about that i'm a small block guy,but have seen stock for stock a 340 in an a-body take out many a 383 or 440 car 
Posted By: Mr.Yuck
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 05:21 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
340s rule 360's drool....
kinda like those guys that say a 383 will hang w/ a 440....
I would'nt know about that i'm a small block guy,but have seen stock for stock a 340 in an a-body take out many a 383 or 440 car
383 2bbl in a c-body... lol a 440 b-body w/ a decent driver should walk a 340 a-body
Posted By: Mr.Yuck
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/22/09 08:13 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
340s rule 360's drool....
kinda like those guys that say a 383 will hang w/ a 440....
I would'nt know about that i'm a small block guy,but have seen stock for stock a 340 in an a-body take out many a 383 or 440 car
383 2bbl in a c-body... lol a 440 b-body w/ a decent driver should walk a 340 a-body
...dream on!!!
come on man..I've had both a mild 340 swinger an a junk yard 440 in a 67 coronet. The coronet ran 12.90's w/a 9:1 summit cammed 440. The best the swinger could do was 13.80's. The 340 had much more work than the 440.
Posted By: Mr.Yuck
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/23/09 12:05 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
340s rule 360's drool....
kinda like those guys that say a 383 will hang w/ a 440....
I would'nt know about that i'm a small block guy,but have seen stock for stock a 340 in an a-body take out many a 383 or 440 car
383 2bbl in a c-body... lol a 440 b-body w/ a decent driver should walk a 340 a-body
...dream on!!!
come on man..I've had both a mild 340 swinger an a junk yard 440 in a 67 coronet. The coronet ran 12.90's w/a 9:1 summit cammed 440. The best the swinger could do was 13.80's. The 340 had much more work than the 440.
You better find a better engine builder...
no need. you take a stock 70 340, I'll take a stock 70 440. You can have $2500 for engine goodies I'll take $2500. (or whatever amount you want) I'll spot you a light and take the race 9/10 times. But thats off topic. 340's are nice Heck I like my 5.2 magnum. But $ for $ I'll take the 360 over the 340. If he has a nice 340 already, keep it. If he's starting form scratch I'D go w/ the 95 mag 360.
Posted By: kenworth_goose
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/23/09 03:52 AM
People are generally sick for the 340. Why I don't know. I've had many of both. The 360 wins every time. Take a 360, give it some true 10 to 1's, a good cam and set of heads and It will run circles around a 340 that has the same parts.
Posted By: DPelletier
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/23/09 04:38 AM
Quote:
People are generally sick for the 340. Why I don't know. I've had many of both. The 360 wins every time. Take a 360, give it some true 10 to 1's, a good cam and set of heads and It will run circles around a 340 that has the same parts.
I agree with you but the "why" is because they are a decent motor that never came in low performance or real smogger trim. That coupled with the fact that they are strong performers in a light A body gained them the reputation that they hold to this day. There is very little doubt amongst knowledgable people that a 360 built with the same parts will be quicker (excepting stroker cranks for obvious reasons).
The 340 is a strong small block that produced about 320hp (net flywheel) according to one source.....but it isn't magic. An LT1, W31 Olds and Boss 351 are examples of higher hp small blocks. I can't figure out why anyone would think the 340 would have an advantage over an equally built 360 given the fact that they are basically the same motor, but the 360 has a 20 cube advantage!
Let the 
begin!
Dave
Posted By: dgc333
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/23/09 12:40 PM
Quote:
I can't figure out why anyone would think the 340 would have an advantage over an equally built 360 given the fact that they are basically the same motor, but the 360 has a 20 cube advantage!
Simple, the rose colored glasses they use everytime they look at the 340.
Posted By: patrick
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 03/23/09 12:48 PM
Quote:
I believe the 360 is cheaper to build because of:
1) magnum heads probably won't need much work compared to a 40 year old motor.
2) KB pistons/rings (10:1) are around 300 bucks for a set.
3)more plentyfull for used parts.
4)roller cam from the start.
4) Will make just as much power.
The newest Mopar Action just did an article on current available after market heads. The "enginequest" heads have great flow and are reasonable in price if you want to upgrade. Better than Eldebrock and MP.
yup, biggest reason they're cheaper, is
1) core engine starts out cheaper
2) pistons are cheaper and selection is better (especially for stock stroke)
3) the biggie: 4.030" file fit rings are way more common than 4.070" and much cheaper (360, chev 350, ford 302 are all 4" bore)
4) starting off with a roller cam, a mag 360, if the lifters are in good shape can be reused, or new ones can be had for about $120/set. retrofit rollers for the 340 block will be ~$500.
Posted By: Fury Fan
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/16/09 07:24 PM
Quote:
People are generally sick for the 340. Why I don't know. I've had many of both. The 360 wins every time. Take a 360, give it some true 10 to 1's, a good cam and set of heads and It will run circles around a 340 that has the same parts.
IMO it's fond memories of days gone by. the older we are, the faster we went back in the day. A guy at work tells me stories of taking his 340 Demon to 150 mph with his 3.91 gears and short (and non-speed-rated!) tires.
To the OP:
$500 isn't a bad price for the core package. Miles are decent, and lots of extra parts to sell off if you don't want the EFI. I'd buy that in a minute if it were nearby.
In case this matters:
I have heard that the van serpentine drives are a better choice than truck serp drives as far as the PS pump goes.
Posted By: GO_Fish
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/17/09 12:34 AM
straight talk
my 69 GTS
bone stock X head 340, 10.5:1 compression
full stock 340 exhaust system
stock 727 w/ MP 175k converter
3.91 SG with 235/60-15 street radials
best ET 14.18 @ 95.6, 2.00 60' timeMy 68 B'cuda
9:1 compression 360 with home ported Magnum heads (smaller intake valve than X heads).
Full stock 340 exhaust system
904 with 9.5" dynamics converter
3.55 SG with 245/60-15 street radials
best ET [Email]13.75 @ 96.40[/Email], 1.90 60' time So the cars are similar in many ways.
The GTS time is in line with the quickest times reported from 340 cars in magazines back in the day.
My 360 with less compression, smaller intake valve and less rear gear is running quicker than the 340. The 340 has a slightly narrower tire (and slower 60' time)but I think the package is pretty much maxed out. My 360 will only get faster with tuning, I think the carb is pretty lean right now.
My vote, 340 vs 360 built with the same components, the 360 will be stronger and quicker.
Maybe we need a mopar magazine "myth buster's style" do the 340 vs 360 test?
EDIT: Also telling is the butt dyno. My 340 seems to stop pulling hard about 2/3's down the track, where the 360 keeps pulling hard the full 1320.
Posted By: GTX MATT
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/17/09 01:29 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Stock the 360 makes more power than a stock 340.
i'll put a stock 340 up against a stock 360 any day of the week
You would also take the Patriots over the Colts on Sunday night...
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/17/09 01:32 AM
yeah stock for stock,340 has an edge in HP,its not much,but its enough
Posted By: can.al
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/18/09 12:45 AM
...let's be real.
the sky's the limit for most any engine today.
there are stroked 289's(echh!) runnin in hi '10 s
now....if you were at you're local strip back in '68 most 340's with just 410's would wax just about anything,... including big blocks.
that was a very special time for those that were there and the 340 is a special engine even if you don't like it.
only a 340 is a 340!
......al
Posted By: Mr.Yuck
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/18/09 02:34 AM
Quote:
340 over a 360 no matter what the condition anytime...
and why is that? a 360 magnum will run every bit as good as a 340 and will be much cheaper to build. as a matter of fact a 5.2 magnum will run with a 340. if it's a 340 car then by all means do the 340. but $ for $ the 360 is a better way to go.
Posted By: Reggie
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/18/09 05:51 AM
Quote:
Hey guys,
My little brother has a complete 1970 340 with J heads that I believe has one rebuild and should be .30 over with all stock parts except for the cam. He was originally going to build it for his 1971 Demon. A guy at his work just let him know that he has a 360 out of a 1995 Dodge truck that comes with the trans and all of the accessories and the harness for $500. It supposedly has 92,000 miles and they are mostly highway miles. My question to you guys is , is it worth it? I believe that my little brother wants to keep a somewhat stock look running a carb and everything but we were wondering about all of the internals of the newer motor. Would it bolt up to the original 727 he is going to use? Is it all roller lifters and cam? Is it a stronger block? Are the heads any good? Im guessing an intake and 4 Bbl carb could be put on it?
I am assuming if he goes this route he would just sell off all of the stuff he doesnt use, paint the engine the correct orange and make it look as close to stock as possible.
What do you guys think?
Thanks,
Brian
Sell the 340 and get the 360 as mentioned. The magnum heads are better than any production LA heads ever produced. It has the roller cam advantage as mentioned, plus the longer stroke. Mopar Muscle used a stock Dodge Magnum 5.9 (360) engine in a baseline dyno test for an article(Magnum Muscle: Serious Bolt-On Power For Magnum Mills). The cam was the stock factory 5.9 cam used in Dodge trucks. The only mods were bolt-ons; a Mopar M1 single plane intake, a BG Mighty Demon 750 and TTI headers. The 5.9 cranked out 345 HP at 4,600 RPM and 426 lb/ft of torque at 3,800 RPM. Not bad for a stock truck motor with a few bolt ons.
Posted By: DaytonaTurbo
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/18/09 06:31 AM
Both are good engines and I would gladly build either of them. But in this case I would go with the 340 for two reasons. Firstly, the OP's brother already has the 340. I would rather use what I have than buy more. IMO $500 is a bit high for a mid 90's 360. The local u-pull sells them for 200 bones, and lets face it the trans, accessories and harness are worth little and not an easy sell. Secondly, resale value of the car will be much better with a 340, especially because it's an a-body in which a 340 was available in that year. I do agree, people really do see the 340 through rose colored glasses, but it's a fact they do so you might as well cash in on that. Most people see the 360 only as a soggy, thirsty truck motor and nothing more, unfortunately they don't know how wrong they are.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Stock the 360 makes more power than a stock 340.
Really i don't recall the 360 ever being rated at 275 h.p. and anyone that knows and i have owned more then a few that rating is low its more like 300 or more..i'll put a stock 340 up against a stock 360 any day of the week,you might have more torque down low but by mid track i'll be blowing right by ya'!!!
that's beacuse it's not at the back of the block donkey, a 95 360 is rated at the rear wheel. My 95 5.2 was rated 230 form the factory rear wheel. Bring your stock 340 to me and I'll run my stock 5.2 Dakota and give you a run for your money.
I'm not sure where you're getting your info, but neither the old SAE Gross or the SAE Net factory ratings measure from the rear wheel. Both are measured from the crank, just the Net ratings have the test motor run the alternator, ps pump, water pump, full production exhaust system where with Gross the tester could run just the bare engine with a set of dyno headers to get the highest(and unrealistic for the real-world) outputs.
I vote 340. Right engine, right car, right era. I wouldn't even consider the late model 360.
In Any color, they just look "Right"
Course I'm a little biased
.....340 Demons are kewl
.jpg "5611836-GreenDemon3(2).jpg")
Posted By: mod5v
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/18/09 02:22 PM
Quote:
...let's be real.
the sky's the limit for most any engine today.
there are stroked 289's(echh!) runnin in hi '10 s
now....if you were at you're local strip back in '68 most 340's with just 410's would wax just about anything,... including big blocks.
that was a very special time for those that were there and the 340 is a special engine even if you don't like it.
only a 340 is a 340!
......al
Didn't Buick have a 340? 
Posted By: 69L78Nova
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/18/09 04:33 PM
Quote:
In Any color, they just look "Right"
A 360 looks just like a 340
Yea, a similar vintage 360 does if you ignore the blancer, but a magnum 360 doesn't.
Posted By: patrick
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/18/09 05:18 PM
it does if you put LA valve covers on it....
Posted By: 69L78Nova
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/18/09 08:19 PM
Quote:
Yea, a similar vintage 360 does if you ignore the blancer, but a magnum 360 doesn't.
What about a 73 340?
Posted By: RAUPLEMINZE454
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/18/09 08:52 PM
If he were to sell the 340 what do you think he could get for it. It is out of a 1970 Duster and is complete accept for valve covers and the intake/carb.
Quote:
What about a 73 340?
Moot point, he doesn't have a 73 340, he has a 70 340.
As far as appearances go, sure you can modify a 360 to look more like a 340, my point was that STOCK 360 Magnum, and a STOCK 340, do not look the same, and it's more than just valve covers.
Doesn't matter though, everyone here has a different opinion and that's fine, each to his own. I've already stated my opnion, no need to go back and forth anymore.
Posted By: HotRodDave
Re: 1970 340 vs. 1995 360 - 11/19/09 01:56 AM
Use the 340 valve covers and intake and it will look to most people like a 340.