360 4bbl Performance

[Zell]

I've seen two HP/Torque ratings listed for a '74 360 w/ 4bbl on a couple of websites/sources now:

V8-360 4-bbl; 4.00 x 3.58; 8.4:1; HP: 200 @ 4000 Tq: 290 @ 3200 45-65
V8-360 4-bbl; 4.00 x 3.58; 8.4:1; HP: 245 @ 4800 Tq: 320 @ 3600 45-65

What is the difference in these two setups that gives one more HP/Torque? (Or is this the same engine setup measured at different RPM? Seems like a big difference though). If there is a difference, how would I be able to tell the difference if I were looking under the hood in a vehicle?

Thanks

 

[66 Sat]

One is probably measured SAE net and the other gross. You'd never tell looking under the hood, unless it was an obvious change, like a 4 barrel carb v 2 barrel (not relevant in this instance), and that would assume the engines being compared were totally original which would be a rarity anyway.

 

[Zell]

Thanks 66 Sat, makes sense. Check out the list:

http://www.mymopar.com/enginespecs.htm

 

[66 Sat]

Actually it seems there were 3 versions in 1974, all with 8.4:1 compression - refer https://itstillruns.com/dodge-360-specs-7549930.html
The 245hp probably had a different cam and other internal changes - maybe keep Googling to find out?

 

[ChipinAZ]

I've seen two HP/Torque ratings listed for a '74 360 w/ 4bbl on a couple of websites/sources now:

V8-360 4-bbl; 4.00 x 3.58; 8.4:1; HP: 200 @ 4000 Tq: 290 @ 3200 45-65
V8-360 4-bbl; 4.00 x 3.58; 8.4:1; HP: 245 @ 4800 Tq: 320 @ 3600 45-65

What is the difference in these two setups that gives one more HP/Torque? (Or is this the same engine setup measured at different RPM? Seems like a big difference though). If there is a difference, how would I be able to tell the difference if I were looking under the hood in a vehicle?

Thanks

 

[ChipinAZ]

I've seen two HP/Torque ratings listed for a '74 360 w/ 4bbl on a couple of websites/sources now:

V8-360 4-bbl; 4.00 x 3.58; 8.4:1; HP: 200 @ 4000 Tq: 290 @ 3200 45-65
V8-360 4-bbl; 4.00 x 3.58; 8.4:1; HP: 245 @ 4800 Tq: 320 @ 3600 45-65

What is the difference in these two setups that gives one more HP/Torque? (Or is this the same engine setup measured at different RPM? Seems like a big difference though). If there is a difference, how would I be able to tell the difference if I were looking under the hood in a vehicle?

Thanks

 

[Zell]

Good read, thanks. I'll keep digging, let me know if you find anything!

 

[66 Sat]

From https://www.allpar.com/mopar/318.html

For the 1974 Dodge line, a new variation of the 360 was made with a four-barrel carburetor, resulting in 200 hp and 290 lb.

With the loss of the 340, though, something had to be done; so Chrysler swapped many of the 340’s performance parts to the 360, including the four-barrel carburetor and the 268-276-44 cam. This brought power levels back up to 245 hp, net, and 320 lb-ft of torque.

 

[rumblefish360]

Good find 66 Sat.
The difference is a 2 or 4 barrel carb.
Being the year it is, the measurement of power was done differently. All equipment installed and operating.

I remember guys would kill the heck out of the heads & do 2.02’s to get some of the power they thought they lost back.

 

[Zell]

Looks like some of 360s came with a different cam. In that same reference https://www.allpar.com/mopar/318.html they have sales codes for the 1978 year model cars. Looking to see if there was a sales code for one with the alt. cam.

 

[rumblefish360]

2 cams were used. The basic broom stick 2bbl cam and the 4bbl. cam which is the 340 cam.

 

[Zell]

What do you mean by broom stick cam? I haven't heard this term before.

 

[rumblefish360]

A broom stick, a smooth round stick.
The cam looks like a broom stick.
A cam, has lobes that lift the tappets pushrods & valves up and down. A cam converts a rotating motion into a linear motion.
You need lobes to do this.

A broom stick has no lobes.

A broom stick cam is another way of saying it is a lame cam.

 

[wyrmrider]

That 8.4 compression was not even close
and
eventhough the torque is up with the HP cam at 3600 at HP converter stall and taking off from a stoplight it was a dog until you got past 3000 rpm
So the usual higher stall converter and gear change drill was done and headers
No way would I use that cam today even in a high compression 360
I'd even go to a HR block if I was going to build one
which I may have to as my 318 has a low cylinder
I have a .020 over LA all done up- decision time
and which heads for my truck

 

[WileERobby]

Well, from personal experience back in the day, it ran quite well. I'd done a few nighttime "road tests" on a customer's 360 Duster, and did pretty decent.

 

[rumblefish360]

I thought mine always ran really good. Being OE factory parts that need to be Warranted and have a smooth idle for the general public they performed really freakin well. Sure! An aftermarket cam for surely steps up the program. What else is new?!?! LMAO!!!

Belittling and bettering the factory cam is like shooting fish in a tea cup. Its not even really worth the print.

I wouldn’t run one unless I was to restore or recreate a factory performance engine. I wouldn’t mind experimenting with one. Something along the lines of what Steve Dulcich did in Mopar Muscle years s back.

 

[wyrmrider]

Guys - if you don't give your the years and compression of your 360's it's hard to tell if your good observations are relevant to a low compression 360
A a duster works different than a Cordoba or New Yorker even E-Bodies are considered heavy compared to Javelins

 

[rumblefish360]

Ummmmmm, what?

Guys - if you don't give your the years and compression of your 360's it's hard to tell if your good observations are relevant to a low compression 360
A a duster works different than a Cordoba or New Yorker even E-Bodies are considered heavy compared to Javelins

 

[IQ52]

I was thinking that the high performance 360 engines in the 70's were built for the trucks like The Little Red Express.

 

[rumblefish360]

It is a shame the 360 got a bad rap as a dog motor or an omissions piece of junk. During the beginning of those dark days, everybody suffered. It almost seems like no one had the forethought of what could be and only dealt with what it was. That would could be, Seemed like too much thinking.