Could you order a 340 6 pack in a 70 Charger

[ACUDANUT]

Anyone ?

[A383Wing]

no...only the AAR & Trans Am cars got the six pack engines

[Ghoste]

Why do you ask?  Is someone trying to pass one off or just curious?

[tan top]

 

no...only the AAR & Trans Am cars got the six pack engines

suppose a dealer could install a six pack set up on a 3rd generation 340 charger , would have to have documentation from dealer though  

think  Mr Norm fitted a six pack 340 set up on a few 70 &71  A bodies  , but don't quote me on this  , I could be getting mixed up ,  

Why do you ask?  Is someone trying to pass one off or just curious?

[Ghoste]

Norm did, I think in 71, and then for 72 he went to a Paxton supercharger in the Demon.

[polywideblock]

   71 gss demon  340 6pack

[A383Wing]

those are "A" bodys..and not factory made...the only 6 pack was the "E" body cars from the factory

[ACUDANUT]

I ran into a guy the other day, and he told me his 70 Charger had a 340 6-pack.  I asked him what Challenger/Cuda it came from.  He claims it was a factory engine.  I claim BS, but you never know ?

[MaximRecoil]

The 340 should have been an option on the Charger; similar power to the 383, but lighter, which equates to better handling and gas mileage.

[sdweatherman]

Oh its a factory engine alright, but it didn't come from the factory in a B-Body until the 1971 model year - and not with a factory 6bbl setup. Until that point, the 340 was an A-Body and E-Body engine. The 340-6bbl engine was just for the AAR/Trans AM E-Bodies. You could get a 340 in your 1970 'Cuda. A mid year change allowed for the 340-4bbl engine in the 1970 Challenger - as part of the A66 package. I think that is the rundown - please correct me if I have any mis-information here. Scott.

[Ghoste]

those are "A" bodys..and not factory made...the only 6 pack was the "E" body cars from the factory

Yes, we were addressing a question about Mr. Norm modified cars.

[Ghoste]

I ran into a guy the other day, and he told me his 70 Charger had a 340 6-pack.  I asked him what Challenger/Cuda it came from.  He claims it was a factory engine.  I claim BS, but you never know ?

No, without question you are correct and its 

[triple_green]

There was never a 340 available (from the factory)in a 2nd generation (68-70) Charger. /6, 318, 383-2, 383-4, 440-4, 440-6 (thanks Troy), 426

[Troy]

There was never a 340 available (from the factory)in a 2nd generation (68-70) Charger. /6, 318, 383-2, 383-4, 440, 426

How come you differentiated between 2 and 4 bbl 383s but not 4 and 6 bbl 440s?

Troy

[ACUDANUT]

I still wonder why a 340 was not offered. 

[Ghoste]

It was the era of high torque big blocks.  Engine offerings were getting bigger not smaller.  Olds tried tried a 350 as a msucle offering in the Cutlass and it wasn't a big seller.  It just wasn't what you marketed in a mid size car, the whole idea behind the supercar was offering a big engine in a small car.

[Cooter]

340 in 4000 lb. Car as a performance model, woulda been an embarrassment to the A Body's 340 rep.

[ACUDANUT]

Well a slant 6 and a 318 in a Charger is a embarrassment (imo).

[Cooter]

They NEVER were 'performance' engines like the little 340.
Huge difference when you take a performance engine and saddle it down with too much weight.

275 HP was a performer in an A body.
a buddy back around 1986, hadda 'chicken Charger'(1972) with a 340. Was a huge pig.

[A383Wing]

Well a slant 6 and a 318 in a Charger is a embarrassment (imo).

I'll take a slant 6 Charger any day...done right, they will attract more people at car shows than big block cars

[MaximRecoil]

They NEVER were 'performance' engines like the little 340.
Huge difference when you take a performance engine and saddle it down with too much weight.

275 HP was a performer in an A body.
a buddy back around 1986, hadda 'chicken Charger'(1972) with a 340. Was a huge pig.

"In 1972, the 340 was seriously detuned, ostensibly for emissions reasons (but possibly also for insurance reasons). It went from a 10.4:1 to a 8.5:1 compression ratio, got smaller intake valves, and seriously fell in performance."

In 1969, the performance of the 340-4v was close to the performance of the 383-2v, and given its lighter weight, it would have handled better and gotten better gas mileage. The Dukes of Hazzard's stunt crew's favorite General Lee was one in which they installed a 340; good power and handling; though they did hop it up some.

Also, a second-generation Charger is not 4,000 pounds, it is about 3,650 pounds for the R/T. With a 340, it would be about 3,500 pounds, which is only about 100 pounds heavier than an E-body with a 340.

[69 OUR/TEA]

no...only the AAR & Trans Am cars got the six pack engines

Mmmmmm !!!!

[Ghoste]

3650 for an RT?  That seems kind of light, last time I had one on the scale it was over 3800 with a half tank of fuel.

[Cooter]

They NEVER were 'performance' engines like the little 340.
Huge difference when you take a performance engine and saddle it down with too much weight.

275 HP was a performer in an A body.
a buddy back around 1986, hadda 'chicken Charger'(1972) with a 340. Was a huge pig.

"In 1972, the 340 was seriously detuned, ostensibly for emissions reasons (but possibly also for insurance reasons). It went from a 10.4:1 to a 8.5:1 compression ratio, got smaller intake valves, and seriously fell in performance."

In 1969, the performance of the 340-4v was close to the performance of the 383-2v, and given its lighter weight, it would have handled better and gotten better gas mileage. The Dukes of Hazzard's stunt crew's favorite General Lee was one in which they installed a 340; good power and handling; though they did hop it up some.

Also, a second-generation Charger is not 4,000 pounds, it is about 3,650 pounds for the R/T. With a 340, it would be about 3,500 pounds, which is only about 100 pounds heavier than an E-body with a 340.

First, it was a 1972 Charger....NOT a 72 340. Actually, it was a 68 340.
2nd..I don't deal with curb weights, or shipping/title weights...I deal in real world. You put a 250 lb. Dude and his 140 lb. Ole lady in it, tank o gas, chairs, coolers, tools, etc. THAT'S where many reps are made/broken. The damn thing is 4000 lbs in the REAL world. You wanna attempt to argue weights on titles and such, or about a 275 hp small block vs a 375 hp big block, your arguement is invalid.100 hp is ROUGHLY worth a second, or 1000 lbs.
that 340 ain't gonna help in weight savings that much.

[Cooter]

3650 for an RT?  That seems kind of light, last time I had one on the scale it was over 3800 with a half tank of fuel.

Thank you. In his attempt at another run at the "fact" department, he's misinterpreted again.