351 vs 360 vs 350

[buickman]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Yep, im still trying to work out how the 360 got a vote, let alone 54!!! Got to love one eyed badge loyalty!

From my experience of owning a XB 351 GS with 4 speed and a E57 360cu Charger in standed form the Charger would fry a set of back tyres but the 351 had more go in 3rd & top end.
But when I changed the diff from 2.77 to 3.55 had a Direct connection performance cam, inlet valves of 2.02, LD340 4 barrel edelbrock & Carter carb and a high stall conv and shift kit the car flew. They can be made into a high performance mtr but the Chev would have to be the pick for cheap horsepower mods. I found the 351 made its power up top more than the 360 as of a standing start in stock form the 360 in the Charger would feel quicker.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by buickman

From my experience of owning a XB 351 GS with 4 speed and a E57 360cu Charger in standed form the Charger would fry a set of back tyres but the 351 had more go in 3rd & top end.
But when I changed the diff from 2.77 to 3.55 had a Direct connection performance cam, inlet valves of 2.02, LD340 4 barrel edelbrock & Carter carb and a high stall conv and shift kit the car flew. They can be made into a high performance mtr but the Chev would have to be the pick for cheap horsepower mods. I found the 351 made its power up top more than the 360 as of a standing start in stock form the 360 in the Charger would feel quicker.

Once you start to talk modifications the sky's the limit really.

Given the long stroke of the 360 id expect it to pull better down low but have limited rev range.
That said the XBGS had a stock 351 2V low compression motor, the high compression 4V bigport from the 73 model XBGT would be a whole lot more motor that's for sure.

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by buickman

From my experience of owning a XB 351 GS with 4 speed and a E57 360cu Charger in standed form the Charger would fry a set of back tyres but the 351 had more go in 3rd & top end.
But when I changed the diff from 2.77 to 3.55 had a Direct connection performance cam, inlet valves of 2.02, LD340 4 barrel edelbrock & Carter carb and a high stall conv and shift kit the car flew. They can be made into a high performance mtr but the Chev would have to be the pick for cheap horsepower mods. I found the 351 made its power up top more than the 360 as of a standing start in stock form the 360 in the Charger would feel quicker.

Had a 245 charger years ago,it would instantly fry the tyres from a standstill with just a stab of the throttle,design of the car chassis can have as much to do with that as anything.
It felt like a rocket,but wouldnt get close to a clevo in acceleration.
Point being,its hard to go off "feel" or whether it bags the tyres,as a way to judge power,or should I say acceleration.

[gs1973]

Originally Posted by nugget378

Had a 245 charger years ago,it would instantly fry the tyres from a standstill with just a stab of the throttle,design of the car chassis can have as much to do with that as anything.
It felt like a rocket,but wouldnt get close to a clevo in acceleration.
Point being,its hard to go off "feel" or whether it bags the tyres,as a way to judge power,or should I say acceleration.

Exactly.. If you went off 'feel' Any old dunger with a loud exhaust would get the nod..As I've always found the better the handling and brakes get, the more horses you need to 'feel' like your going fast! Fwiw the Xa-Xc series cars don't feel as fast as the earlier models due to better refinement. As for the old Vals with their shite geometry and torsion bars,They would've felt fast!

[rapom1]

Originally Posted by George1861

And the 360 crank in a 340 is about 400 CID.

Its actually 367 CI.

The 340 has a 4.04 bore and the 350, 351, 360 all have a 4.00 bore. All much of a muchness really.

There also seems to be a bit of talk about different stroke lenghts effecting rpm potentials. Load on nonsense, the strokes are 3.58(360) and ~ 3.5 inches (350 and 351). Bugger all difference.

[buickman]

[

QUOTE=gs1973] As for the old Vals with their shite geometry and torsion bars,They would've felt fast!

[/QUOTE]

The reason I sold the Charger was because the top body brackets that hold the caster align bolts kept cracking. The car could never seem to hold a front end alignment and it was the 1st & last Chrysler car I ever owned.

I thought the 360cu was a line balanced mtr and the 273,318 & 340 were internal balanced mtrs why would anyone bother with the costs of getting a 360cu crank fitted to the 318-340 mtrs!

[mcnews]

No bother at all. 360 crank ground goes straight into a 318, gives you a 350 and high compression ratio to boot so you can even go high-comp without even buying a set of pistons if you like.

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by rapom1

To try and be a bit scientific about the issue, the 340/360 Mopar has inherent advantages that tend to result in, all else being equal, the most power.

It's true the 360 was not generally realeased as a factroy performance engine, and all but a few thousand were strangled from the facotry with tiny 2bbl carbs and tiny cams. But a 360 is basically a stroked, underbored and detuned 340 , even the head castings were the same until the 340 was dropped in 1974. A 360 built with the same goodies as a 340 will be just as durable and reliable and make 20-25 extra more horsepower as a bonus.

Its built in advantages include,

10 more cubes for a free 10-15 free HP before you even start.
that little of a difference in ci is negligable,and even if it made the 10hp on the same engine,still wont outpower a big port cleveland,and its debateable whether more ci will actually accelerate better,regardless of power figure.
18 degree valve angle with valves that open to the centre of the bore for less valve shrouding and better flow.
Better flow than what?
Didnt think shrouding was a major issue with a 1.94 valve.
This is the big benefit of a canted valve,the 9.5*3.5 cleveland angle allows a much larger valve with out the shrouding issues,I dont know of another small block myself that used a 2.19/1.71 valve size,shall we talk flow??

The longest conrods at 6.123 inches, makes the trick aftermarket 6 inch rods for the others look crook.
And how does a longer rod benefit anything?the rod's job is to connect the piston to the crank,all this rod ratio talk is so much stuff and nonsense.

Shaft mounted rockers for less rocker arm flex.
Thats a given,although not knowing the set up myself I cant comment.
The biggest tappet diameter, meaning you can chose a cam that "ramps up" faster for more area under the curve and more power.
Throw as much cam in it as you like,if you dont have the cylinder head to support it you'll actually lose power going too big,the engine will choke earlier in the rev range.
The highest small block deck height allowing th longer rods.
A high deck height is good to allow more ci,but how many 360's do we see bigger than the common 408 stroker in the cleveland?
again I dont see what having a longer rod has to do with power.
The largest cam to crank centre distace and biggest crank case making stroking a cinch, without the usual clearancing problems.
All 318/340/360 blocks are from high nickel cast iron, not the cheap plain grey stuff in most of the others. Higher nickel content = greater block strength = a more stable bore for better ring seal.
Have you taken samples of the block and had them analized?
Then had a metalurgist go over the results?
If not then it is only speculation,I saw a metal sample test from two cleveland blocks recently,and what struck me was a high content of copper,while I am no mettalurgist I do know that swedish steel is one of the best in the world,and they are renowned for using high copper contents.


It has its disadvantages as well such as

Crappy 59 deg tappet angle resulting in the pushrods being at a non ideal angle to the tappets. can result in failures in sustained high (6500 plus) rpm operation.
Only 4 head bolts per cylinder (rather than 5 on the Chev) making comp ratios greater 11:1 marginal.
3/8 oil pickup allows only adequate oil flow std.
Long and cumbersome route for oil to the valve train, through the cam journals, block and head passages which often results in just adequate valve train oiling.

All in all though, the pros seem to outweigh the cons, and most of the cons can be easily managed with a few simple "tricks".

The 360 gets my considered vote, hands down.

The cleveland made over 1hp per ci in factory trim (which in the day was quite an achievement) the only chrysler small block I personally know to do this was a 273,rated at 270 or 275hp? if memory serves correct.
The cleveland also has a big strong bottom end with half inch mains studs,and can and was/is revved to 7500rpm with standard crank and rods,up to 10,000rpm with aftermarket gear,allowing those great cylinder heads to produce great power,it wont benefit anything in strength fitting it with 4 bolt mains,how many others can have this said about them?
It is so good many chev guys in the US claim it is not a small block,they even invented the term "intermediate block" for it,after being ridiculed for calling it a big block.
Seems after some more carefull consideration,that none of the others can touch it..

[mcnews]

Seems after some consideration you are totally blind to any facts whatsoever, LOL.

360s can be stroked to 412 or bigger.

The Chrysler small block bottom end is visibly much stronger and beefier than a 351 bottom end. One look is all it takes to determine that.

Even strangled automatic Aussie 340 Chargers repeatedly ran 15.5s in tests of the era. I never found an automatic Ford that did better than 16. Actually in most tests the Charger made it to 100mph quicker 5 seconds quicker than a comparable auto 351 Falcon. God job Chrylser only ever did anything to the Aussie made Hemi six instead of hotting up the imported American V8s. Actually the Sixpack Chargers were the most Aussie made of the quick Aussie cars, only the Webers were from overseas everything else made here, engine, gearbox, diff etc. Stark contrast to Ford and Holden where basically nothing was made here... If they did a 340 six-pack Charger or a decent 360 then nobody would be even writing about 351 Falcons :->

[4Vman]

LOL, take the rose colored chrysler blinkers off and list their motorsport accomplishments with the 318, 340 or 360?

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Seems after some consideration you are totally blind to any facts whatsoever, LOL.

360s can be stroked to 412 or bigger.

Where did I say they cant,all I said was how many do we see bigger than the 408?

Originally Posted by mcnews

The Chrysler small block bottom end is visibly much stronger and beefier than a 351 bottom end. One look is all it takes to determine that.

That as well may be,for all the good it will do you without a cylinder head actually capable of making power,with J heads whats the best they can do? 470? 500hp?

Originally Posted by mcnews

. Even strangled automatic Aussie 340 Chargers repeatedly ran 15.5s in tests of the era. I never found an automatic Ford that did better than 16. Actually in most tests the Charger made it to 100mph quicker 5 seconds quicker than a comparable auto 351 Falcon.

Nothing biased there lol,my old auto XAGT falcon ran a 1/4time of 15 flat with 100,000 miles on the clock,and Im talkin totally stock,no extractors,autolite carb,factory manifold and ignition,all this at a weight of over 1600kg.

Whats a charger weigh??

[knighty01]

well, this is a dissapointment, of all three forums i threw this poll at, this one is the only one to both accuse other forums of registering here and voting twice etc, and picking the hell out of posts that don't exactly agree with blue oval logic as i've seen quite a few things stated that i have found to be 100% correct have been hosed as nonsense because it doesn't make the allmighty clevo look good, i've been playing with all three in the past and had great experiences with each, but this one eyed thing shits me up the wall.

i was probably naieve to think people could throw up the pro's and cons of their own experiences without comming up with "HOLDEN CRAP!!""CHRYSLER! FRIGGIN BOAT ANCHORS" "FORDS HAND GRENADES!!"

i'm suprised there hasn't been more thrown at chev on here but as for stuff like this:

Now Its quite difficult to find if some have posted twice,but going off the numbers its more likely that those from other forums also posted here than AFF users posted on those other sites (I for one didnt or wouldnt)
So if we allowed for that the cleveland would be even more dominant,seems that not only on the racetrack but on the interweb poll the cleveland is far superior..

and this

LOL, take the rose colored chrysler blinkers off and list their motorsport accomplishments with the 318, 340 or 360?

so heres my little bit of bias

things may have been a completely different story if Chrysler australia had of shown any interest in racing with a smallblock, in fact, after allmost taking bathurst 71 (1350kg car with a puny little 4.3) (which would have happened if not for some numnut attempting to fit cold wheelnuts to hot studs) after that, they showed absolutely no interest in the australian racing scene all together.

now feel free to pick holes in my post as it looks outside the square

in future i'll just have to learn from my own experiences


thanks for your help.

[F6 R-Spec]

Hi there guys , my first post on here ,couldnt keep my mouth shut on this.

The top 50 FASTEST muscle cars to grace the 1/4 mile strip are all big blocks but 2 .

The 1971 BOSS 351 Mustang sits at number 35 , but what is interesting is that all the cars that are faster than it are all BIG BLOCKS ! no less then 400 cubes !

Have a look its on musclecarclub.com - 50 fastest muscle cars .

[F6 R-Spec]

I forgot to mention ,

These cars are of the show room floor .

cheers mick.

[LTDterri]

ENOUGH of this...its the FORD FORUM. 351 all the way no ifs no buts

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by knighty01

well, this is a dissapointment, of all three forums i threw this poll at, this one is the only one to both accuse other forums of registering here and voting twice etc, and picking the hell out of posts that don't exactly agree with blue oval logic as i've seen quite a few things stated that i have found to be 100% correct have been hosed as nonsense because it doesn't make the allmighty clevo look good, i've been playing with all three in the past and had great experiences with each, but this one eyed thing shits me up the wall.

i was probably naieve to think people could throw up the pro's and cons of their own experiences without comming up with "HOLDEN CRAP!!""CHRYSLER! FRIGGIN BOAT ANCHORS" "FORDS HAND GRENADES!!"

i'm suprised there hasn't been more thrown at chev on here but as for stuff like this:

Now Its quite difficult to find if some have posted twice,but going off the numbers its more likely that those from other forums also posted here than AFF users posted on those other sites (I for one didnt or wouldnt)
So if we allowed for that the cleveland would be even more dominant,seems that not only on the racetrack but on the interweb poll the cleveland is far superior..

and this

LOL, take the rose colored chrysler blinkers off and list their motorsport accomplishments with the 318, 340 or 360?

so heres my little bit of bias

things may have been a completely different story if Chrysler australia had of shown any interest in racing with a smallblock, in fact, after allmost taking bathurst 71 (1350kg car with a puny little 4.3) (which would have happened if not for some numnut attempting to fit cold wheelnuts to hot studs) after that, they showed absolutely no interest in the australian racing scene all together.

now feel free to pick holes in my post as it looks outside the square

in future i'll just have to learn from my own experiences


thanks for your help.

And just for the record I am not a member of any other car forum whatsoever. I waste enough time looking through the crap on here to have time to go anywhere else, LOL.

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by knighty01

well, this is a dissapointment, of all three forums i threw this poll at, this one is the only one to both accuse other forums of registering here and voting twice etc, and picking the hell out of posts that don't exactly agree with blue oval logic as i've seen quite a few things stated that i have found to be 100% correct have been hosed as nonsense because it doesn't make the allmighty clevo look good, i've been playing with all three in the past and had great experiences with each, but this one eyed thing shits me up the wall.

i was probably naieve to think people could throw up the pro's and cons of their own experiences without comming up with "HOLDEN CRAP!!""CHRYSLER! FRIGGIN BOAT ANCHORS" "FORDS HAND GRENADES!!"

i'm suprised there hasn't been more thrown at chev on here but as for stuff like this:

Now Its quite difficult to find if some have posted twice,but going off the numbers its more likely that those from other forums also posted here than AFF users posted on those other sites (I for one didnt or wouldnt)
So if we allowed for that the cleveland would be even more dominant,seems that not only on the racetrack but on the interweb poll the cleveland is far superior..

and this

LOL, take the rose colored chrysler blinkers off and list their motorsport accomplishments with the 318, 340 or 360?

so heres my little bit of bias

things may have been a completely different story if Chrysler australia had of shown any interest in racing with a smallblock, in fact, after allmost taking bathurst 71 (1350kg car with a puny little 4.3) (which would have happened if not for some numnut attempting to fit cold wheelnuts to hot studs) after that, they showed absolutely no interest in the australian racing scene all together.

now feel free to pick holes in my post as it looks outside the square

in future i'll just have to learn from my own experiences


thanks for your help.

Oh please,spare us the righteous indignation,you start a thread and some posts dont go your way so now its waa waa time?

Not only that but you try to tally pecentages from 3 different polls and then then have a sook when someone points out how flawed your method and maths are?


You try to argue that a truck motor is better than the pound for pound greatest small block in the universe ing_sm and whats more you do it here,this is Ford forums after all....
Did you expect us not to go into bat for our beloved cleveland,which mind you has the runs on the board,unlike your "choice".

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by knighty01

well, this is a dissapointment, of all three forums i threw this poll at, this one is the only one to both accuse other forums of registering here and voting twice etc, and picking the hell out of posts that don't exactly agree with blue oval logic as i've seen quite a few things stated that i have found to be 100% correct have been hosed as nonsense because it doesn't make the allmighty clevo look good, i've been playing with all three in the past and had great experiences with each, but this one eyed thing shits me up the wall.

i was probably naieve to think people could throw up the pro's and cons of their own experiences without comming up with "HOLDEN CRAP!!""CHRYSLER! FRIGGIN BOAT ANCHORS" "FORDS HAND GRENADES!!"

i'm suprised there hasn't been more thrown at chev on here but as for stuff like this:

Now Its quite difficult to find if some have posted twice,but going off the numbers its more likely that those from other forums also posted here than AFF users posted on those other sites (I for one didnt or wouldnt)
So if we allowed for that the cleveland would be even more dominant,seems that not only on the racetrack but on the interweb poll the cleveland is far superior..

and this

LOL, take the rose colored chrysler blinkers off and list their motorsport accomplishments with the 318, 340 or 360?

so heres my little bit of bias

things may have been a completely different story if Chrysler australia had of shown any interest in racing with a smallblock, in fact, after allmost taking bathurst 71 (1350kg car with a puny little 4.3) (which would have happened if not for some numnut attempting to fit cold wheelnuts to hot studs) after that, they showed absolutely no interest in the australian racing scene all together.

now feel free to pick holes in my post as it looks outside the square

in future i'll just have to learn from my own experiences


thanks for your help.

Boo hoo hoo, want a kleenex? another poor old chrysler fan with all the what ifs and maybe's but no trophy's! :

[Falcon Coupe]

Looking at the poll, the Clevo clearly came out on top. : :

[knighty01]

Oh please,spare us the righteous indignation,you start a thread and some posts dont go your way so now its waa waa time?

Not only that but you try to tally pecentages from 3 different polls and then then have a sook when someone points out how flawed your method and maths are?


You try to argue that a truck motor is better than the pound for pound greatest small block in the universe and whats more you do it here,this is Ford forums after all....


no boo hoo at all. . . all of a sudden my small statement is completely different to yours

my poll (yes from three) was accumulated using percentages to try and cancell out the fact that this forum was much much larger then the other two and hopefully take bias out of the equasion (equal bias % from each forum) maybe i should have gone to three yank forums of equal size instead of asking info at home?? and when did i have a sook at someone queorying my maths??

and tell me where i said a truck motor is better then a 351 not only in your forum, but any of the three?? ppht 'what's more you do it here'

nugget, you have completely read this your own way, i'm yet to find one truth in your last statement.. if you have something of use to contend, feel free

and on that note, why are you so defensive over a poll where the 351 took the bigest percentage??

bugger it, i've got better things to do then reason with fcukwits