I think the 340 was watered down for 72-73. Smaller intake valves 1.88 vs 2.02 and cam I believe. It still was a screamer though.

 

it was still a performance engine... where the other engines (318, 360, 383, 400, 440) all saw either truck/van/motor home versions or emission-friendly versions, the 340 did not. also, those other engines received 2bbl setups and engine components to do something other than make power but the 340 was always intended to be a performance motor. when they found that they couldnt go any further with it without putting low performance intakes, exhaust manifolds, etc..they killed it, just like the hemi.

the 1.88 valves were not so much a downgrade for 72-73 as much as the 2.02s were an upgrade on some models (some heads had 202s, some had 188s). the 72-73 340s had a similar output as the earlier 4bbl engines but like most engines, many assume that they got weaker due to the new power statement regulations required starting in 1972. also, for what its worth, im making around 450hp with small valve heads on both of my 340s. i know a great many guys with 202 340s who wish that they could keep up with the mirada with 188s.

 

Believe me I'm in no way trying to degrade the 340s rep as a great engine. My buddies with 440 Cudas and 400 Formulas could not believe they just got beat by a small block 340.

 

i understand...and i dont remember where i read the thing about the 340 never offering a non-performance version, but think about it...other than the two different valve size options, there was never really a non-performance 340.

 

I had the stealth in there but didnt want to confuse the lazer with the daytona lookin ones and the conquests are chrysler, and since we arent gettin eagle or plymouth back anytime soon, I wasnt usin them...

Only Dodge Brands. I guess I could add a new polling option for the DSMs, Plymouth and Eagle but then I would have to include Jeep for arguements sake.

 

A hard choice between 95-99 and 00-05, but I went with 95-99 as things continued to get better. Even though my favorite models were made during the very early 00s, things started to go wrong in my mind with the 2004 Durango with the styling and interior, followed by the Dakota on styling, interior, and powertrains (there was room for a 360 powered Dakota R/T an likewise there would have been room for a Hemi powered Dakota R/T, and why did they bother making the 3.7L V6? They should have just used the 3.8L for a year or two to cover the gap from the 3.9L until they could have had a V6 Hemi just under a different name to prevent sales cannabalization), the aerodynamic cab forward cars had become neglected and ignored to be disgraced by their replacement containing none of the carefully thought through styling both inside and out made specially for each model.

I liked the original Avenger's styling better than the Stratus's and I liked having separate names for unrelated models. I also like the fact that a person who didn't want a Mitsubishi in the coupe had at least a Chrysler option. I liked the original Stratus's individual styling as well as the class leading fuel economy choice with the manual offering with the I4 and the original Neon was done correctly. The fuel mileage was amazing for the manuals and the looks were good. I love the styling of the Viper GTS the most. The 94-01 Ram in my view is the best looking Ram ever. The Dakota had never looked better in that time period. To me that was the peak.

BadStratRT, what about the models like the Spirit R/T, Daytona IROC R/T, or the Charger GLHS. Those were hardly slouches and weren't all that expensive. In my view, models that Chrysler had little to nothing to do with the engineering of the engine and source of the platform should not even be taken into comparison.

 

We think alike, 97.

 

Well, you know what the saying is. "Great minds think alike."

 

I guess another point that needs to be made is that I feel that after Mercedes took over, they only seemed to be really interested in trucks and they began to ignore the car line up. We had money for 2 V8s and add money to add MDS to the Hemi as well as money to make a higher output version of the 4.7L for use in only one model at a time, but we have no money for the Neon I4s or the V6 line after the 1999 fresh to the 3.5L (and the changes in 2002 were hardly worth noting). The fuel economy became ignored as unimportant despite the rising fuel cost and 2000 was when that began to become apparent.

 

those are impressive cars, especially for their time, but none of them in stock form would keep up with a TT stealth...and i think that any of them, stock for stock, would be hard pressed to keep up with an AWD DSM.