| From | Message |
FazDak
GenII
5/11/2002
14:20:17
|
 Subject: RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
if that a real GNX for sale and its in your range BUY IT!!
those cars were wicked fast and much faster than the regular GN, I drove a GNX guy told me like 1500 or less were even built.
Last one I saw for sale was Barret Jackson and it went for 50k!!
Scott
|
92dakotahd
GenII
5/11/2002
16:28:31
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
There was a guy here a year or so ago who had a GN and just bought it new, brought it home and let it sit. He kept it up and everything but he was selling it last year, $65,000 for a GN with 64 miles.
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/11/2002
19:53:16
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
They made less then 550 GNXs, and this one is still nice and original but has 34,000 miles on it. They want $50,000 there was a nicer one on e-bay that went for under $30,000 and a couple have moved through Barrets in the last few years for under $30,000. It is just an attention grabber for the lot, I don't think they have any intention of selling it. the last attention grabber on their lot was a 70 Superbird, I couldn't even get then to give me a price, it was just to get traffic on the lot. The GNX is supposedly a full second faster 0-60 then an already quick 87 GN, mostly do to the 4-link rear end the GNX gets and the better turbo. They also add fender flairs and roll the steel fender to fit tires as wide as the R/T's on the back. It is very nice but more like $28,000 nice, not $50,000 nice!
|
FazDak
GenII
5/11/2002
21:26:42
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
You can state all the printed facts you want but that GNX I drove felt nothing like all the GN's I had driven.
I say agin, it was WICKED.
Last thing I drove that was that wicked was my Cuda 440.
Scott
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/12/2002
01:28:14
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
I said they are a full second faster 0-60 then a regular GN, I don't know what you mean by wicked fast but taking a 6 sec 0-60 car and making it a 5 sec 0-60 car (or even 4.7 as quoted by road and track) is quite a bit faster. Still a current C5 vette will smoke one in every measurable test (stock to stock), they were the fastest car in 1987 but a lot has changed since then. For $50,000 there are hundreds of cars I'd rather have, for $25,000 I might be trading in my R/T.
|
92dakotahd
GenII
5/12/2002
12:41:11
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
I wasn't really old enough to care when they came out but weren't GNs chipped to keep the speed down and if removed it would have been a 200 mph car? Find a 200 mph vette.
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/12/2002
23:10:13
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
No way it could ever go 200 MPH w/o the limiter stock. It takes a lot of power to push something as un-aerodynamic as a 80's regal or Monte Carlo. I remember somebody did a test of a newer mustang that was really weel built with a big boost supercharger. The thing dynoed at over 450 HP and they really massaged the body, removed things like mirrors and taped up the grill and stuff. It barely could crack the 200 mph mark and a Mustang has better aerodynamics then a 80's regal by far. A lot less frontal aera as well. Look at the Winston Cup cars from that era when they didn't have restrictor plates. On the huge tracks where they could keep them wide open they could still just break 210 mph. They were fake bodies, mashaged areodynamics, and a high reving 750 HP motor.
|
92dakotahd
GenII
5/13/2002
00:05:28
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
Ok, I stand corrected. Just keep in mind I was 5 in 1987. Still as they stood and still stand GNs are way better than vettes. I will admit that it's my opinion. I like the C5s but the C4s where overpriced door stops. I'm a dodge fan but to each his own.
|
Shelby1062
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/13/2002
12:43:54
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
"Also they wouldnt have the same bore as the 340 is 4.04 stock and the 360 is 4.00 stock."
Which means, when you do the math, that it also has a shorter stroke, hence its actual advantage in high HP applications. If both engines are dressed exactly the same, (either 4bbl Carter, or MPI injection) then the 340 will rev higher and make more HP. The 360 will rev lower and make more torque. Its been proven over and over and over....
++++++
"The 360 never got 340's real good stuff though, X heads, they had a 2.02 intake valve. If the 360 ever got those back then it would have been real nasty."
No doubt, but remember the 360 would never rev as high so as to take complete advantage of those heads like a 340 would.
|
Shelby1062
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/13/2002
12:55:00
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
"Everybody thought that the 360 was just a pig compared to the 340 it replaced but it didn't have anywhere near the trick parts thrown at it as the 340 did."
Heads and cams are interchangeable, thus it must have been something else, correct? And that something is the bore/stroke ratio of each motor.
++++++++++
"The current R/T 360 makes more power then both of them, quite a bit more."
Looking at a 360 Magnum motor and comparing it to the numbers for a 30 year old 340 and saying that the Magnum motor makes more power is very misleading. You are talking about 30 years of technological improvements to everything from cylinder boring to engine control.
Build a Magnum 5.6L and then compare.
Ask yourself this question: Why, with pretty deep pockets did the Mopar Action crew build up a 340 stroker for the Green brick, instead of a 360 stroker? They know all the tricks, they know how to make HP....WHY did they chose a 340 over a 360?
|
litlpunisher
GenIII
5/13/2002
13:18:11
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
if i didn't have so many machining problems, My 340 magnum would be together by now. My block will be back on wednesday and it should be on the dyno by the begininng of next week. It should be between 400 and 500 horse. If i thought a 360 was better than i would have bought a r/t
98 Dakota
Bottle fed 340ci
|
FazDak
GenII
5/13/2002
18:37:42
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
Shelby, in response to your statements quoting mine you clearly have never built 340 or 360 (pre mag)engines.
I have and I can tell you that the tq difference that you so boldly spoke of (from a stock 340 vrs. a 360)isnt even noticable.
I have put X heads on a bone stock 360 LA and it woke it up big time.
I am glad all of you can use a calculator and can read nice engine build up articles but for god sakes get out and build a few yourself before you pass on less than correct info.
Thanks, Scott
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/14/2002
00:16:17
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
Shelby, if you would read all my post I said that when they did use the same heads, cam, intake carb etc on the 360 (in 1974), the 360 did make more hp and torque then the 340 did, the year before with the same parts. So it proved the 360, although loger stroke, still made more power across the board including high rpms. The advantage the 340 had for high power buildups is the stronger crank (maybe why mopar action used it, or maybe just because it has more of a performance image then the 360 so it sells magazines), but if you are using aftermarket suff or strokers then this is out the window. Its not like the 360 is having bottem end problems even in high HP buildups anyway. There is nothing wrong with the 340 but it's really hardly different then a 360! (especially when talking about a stoker motor, then they have the same stroke and maybe a 0.040 inch different bore) So although the 318 and 340 both have a superior rod ratio, its not enough to make up for their lack of displacement. Besides the 360 mopar rod ratio is about the same as a 327 chevy and nobody seems to have a problem with their "rev" ability.
|
litlpunisher
GenIII
5/14/2002
09:51:50
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
hardly no difference between a 340 and a 360 doubt it. The bore on a 340 is so much bigger and with theshort stroke it is a machine. No way the 360 will stay with it in the higher rpms. As for the article saying with the same carb, cam, intake the 360 had more torque and horsepower bullSh!t. Rod ratio? Do you mean rod length beacause if so 318,340,360 all have the same rod length 6.123 as for chevy small block their rods are under 6". Last of all don't compare mopars to chevy's their is no comparison
98 Dakota
Bottle fed 340ci
|
dodgeboy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/14/2002
10:30:32
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
The bottom line is that the 340 was the only
mopar motor designed for performance/racing
other than the 426 hemi...I think that speaks
for its self. I also have a mopar m1 manifold
to get rid of, it was run on a 340 for about 700
miles, thus it is not a mpi m1 not tapped for
injectors. If anyone needs one let me know
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/14/2002
10:55:34
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
The bore on a 340 is so much bigger??? yeh right, it's exactly 1% bigger, 0.040 of an inch. Rod ratio is the ratio between the length of the rod and the stroke of the motor, the 318 and 340 both have that same ratio as they have the same rod length and stroke, and although the 360 has the same rod length, it's longer stroke hurts the road ratio (the higher the better). Anybody can look at the ratings on a 73 340, and the 74 E58 360 and see that the 360 made more power, not a lot but certainly not less. I wouldn't say the 340 and 426 hemi was the only motor designed for performance/racing. they were the main ones from 68-71 but that's a pretty narrow view on 50 years of Mopar racing/performance history! All I'm saying is that some people are expecting miracles out of a slightly different stroked motor. You will pay more to use that block and if you do the same thing to the 360 as you do to the 340, the difference will be minimal.
|
92dakotahd
GenII
5/14/2002
11:26:19
| RE: 340 TB on 3.9L??
IP: Logged
Message:
I'm no expert but some of my friends are very knowledgeable and some have true experts working on their trucks. I have a friend with a 408 Stroker R/T and when the tuning is complete that truck will probably be in the mid to low 12s. I have another friend who posted on here earlier who has a 92 Dak with a 340 in it and if he had it stroked it was going to be a high to mid 11 second truck. That was just an estimate but the guy who was going to do the work knows his stuff and backs his words up. That a 1 second difference possibly. And after being stroked the difference would only be 8-10ci and in the 340s favor. And I believe the cost would be somewhat similar.
|
| | <<Previous Page P 2 Next Page>> |
