qxrtypes Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Hey just wondering i've been told by a few people who don't know much about these cars that you can bolt up a jeep dodge or chrysler 318 right into a quest with a few mods to the mounts. is this true? cause i don't belive it but i have the motor and car to do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strang3majik Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 its very possible...but, quite a bit more involved. Youd have to change trannys, most likely shorten the driveshaft, make custom mounts, and Im sure some other things. Quite a few guys have done it. Once my G54B pops its cookies, either a new hemi or 360 will find its way in there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 anyting is possible. 502 mebbe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strang3majik Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 502 mebbe? you'd have a conquest pretzel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86TSiGuy Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 A 318 would be mint. LA series blocks are just lying around cheap everywhere. You can use 360 stock head with just a little swirl to get great flow, and again laying around cheap. Despite popular belief the 2.02 and 1.6 valves will fit over a stock cylinder. I've wanted to build a 400hp 318 for forever now. No adders, all motor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strang3majik Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 A 318 would be mint. LA series blocks are just lying around cheap everywhere. You can use 360 stock head with just a little swirl to get great flow, and again laying around cheap. Despite popular belief the 2.02 and 1.6 valves will fit over a stock cylinder. I've wanted to build a 400hp 318 for forever now. No adders, all motor. putting a 360 head on a 318 will make it run like poo. The heads are higher (needing shaved) and, the chambers are quite a bit bigger, dropping compression quite greatly. Now, put some 11:1 pistons in that 318 and the 360 heads, then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logikfive Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 I purchased a LA 360 from a buddy of mine awhile back, and the motor mounts are WAY too far forward. I would imagine the LA 318 is the same way. It's almost not worth it. It would require a ton of fabrication for the frame. So I bought a Magnum 360, and the mounts are located further towards the back, creating less work to make it fit. Not to mention the Magnum series engine is much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helrazr70 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Complete swap article on a Conquest with a 340 Chrysler engine: http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg1.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg2.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg3.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg4.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg5.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg6.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg7.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg8.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg9.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg10.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg11.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg12.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg13.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg14.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg15.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg16.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg17.jpg http://www.kabamus.com/garage/motorswap/pg18.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fome Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 putting a 360 head on a 318 will make it run like poo. The heads are higher (needing shaved) and, the chambers are quite a bit bigger, dropping compression quite greatly. Now, put some 11:1 pistons in that 318 and the 360 heads, then my thought would be 318 with 360 heads and a pair of 12a's fairly inexpencive or a 318 LA block with any magnium head you just have to use jeep lifters that oil the upper end through the pushrods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strang3majik Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 my thought would be 318 with 360 heads and a pair of 12a's fairly inexpencive or a 318 LA block with any magnium head you just have to use jeep lifters that oil the upper end through the pushrods you would have to turbo it if you put 360 heads on a 318....compression would be in the 7:1 range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwiceConq'ed Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) you would have to turbo it if you put 360 heads on a 318....compression would be in the 7:1 range That's sorta true, but for the most part it's not. The 1967-'70 318 used the same closed-chamber heads as the 1966-'69 273, but the compression ratio was 9:1 on that series of 318LA (which debuted in Canada a year later, in 1968), so going to the open chamber head would reduce compression into the high 7s. For the record, the 1964-'65 273 head was identical to the 1966-'69 273/1967-'70 318 head, except the intake bolts were at a different angle, meaning both the heads and intake for the first two years of LA engine are specific. Unless you're concourse-restoring a '64-'65 4V car, these parts are absolutely worthless. In 1971, the 318LA went to the better-breathing open-chamber-design cylinder head, with a chamber volume virtually identical to that of the 340/360 engine. It stayed that way until the 1985 model year, with the advent of the swirl-chamber "302" casting (often mistakenly referred to as a swirl-port, which it is not). This head was only used on passenger cars, in the interest of fuel efficiency. No power was gained, and the compression ratio did not change as different pistons were used. Trucks continued to use the open-chamber head design and the corresponding pistons; despite the factory's similar ratings the truck engine made better power. Regardless... yes, swapping 360 heads onto one of these engines would result in a low-7 CR, but realistically the vast gain in flow would probably offset the compression loss. Before anyone runs out looking for these higher-compression heads, let it be known that both the 1966-'70 and the 1985-'89 302s are junk, and essentially useless for performance... a max-ported 302 flows almost as well as a stock 340 "X" head, and if you have someone else do it you're looking at well over a grand in labor to get those numbers (and the X head, though legendary, is only #3 on the list of top factory Mopar heads). The early heads just can't be made to perform worth a damn at any price range... so don't waste time or money on either one. Perfect case in point: In 1981, the 360 disappeared from all passenger-car duty, with the exception of R-body cop cars. In its stead went the sturdy 318-4V, introduced in 1979 (1978 in Canada). All US-built 318-4Vs were equipped with... wait for it... wait for it... 360-4V top ends, from the head gaskets up. However, other than minor details such as a windage tray, double-roller timing chain, etc., they were identical to the normal 2V 318, including the pistons. The compression ratio is the same, but the engine's got a ton more power. When the swirl-port head debuted for the '85 model year, guess what happened to the cop cars? They continued to use the 360 heads and intake with the old-design piston all the way until the end of the line in 1989. So, when people tell me how awesome the 302 swirl-chamber head is, I always ask the same thing: Why didn't Chrysler Engineering put it on the hottest cop-car motor they had for 9 model years? No, they chose the truck-only 360 parts to make power, and I've been told this by an engineer friend that worked in the Chrysler engine lab for more than a decade and a half. So, on to the comment about the 2.02"/1.60" valves fitting over the stock 3.91" cylinder bore. It's absolutely true, but so what? Just because it will fit doesn't mean it works, and that's the whole point. No, the 2.02" valve won't create interference, but because of the small bore the valve is so shrouded by the cylinder wall that the swap does not justify the expense over the factory 1.88" valve used in every 4V 318 from 1979-1989 (and every truck 318 from 1989-91). Air only flows if it has somewhere to go, and if you mock up a 2.02"-intake head over a 318 block and look from the crank end of the block, you can see that while it won't hit, it's quite close to the cylinder wall. To get max effect from a 2.02" intake valve, you have to notch the bore, period. If you'd care to argue this point, please spend some time with a flow bench before you do. I already have. According to my Chrysler Engineering buddies, the optimum valve sizes for a 4-inch-or-less-bore 18°-valve engine (as is the LA/Magnum smallblock) are 1.925"/1.625". Stock bore on all 318s is 3.91". Someone mentioned a 400HP 318, and guess what? That's exactly what I'm building for a non-SQ project, and on the slim nickel, no less. According to Desktop Dyno, my combo makes 439HP with an almost-stone-stock 1985 cop-car short-block and a very-mild solid cam. The only deviances are a '73 340 crank because it was already bushed for the 4-speed, and file-fit moly Hastings rings. I'm even using the original pistons, which have never been removed from the as-they-left-Trenton rods. Even with a 10% margin of error, that's 397HP! The 140K-mile block needed only a slight hone and I installed new cam bearings. I have less than $2500 tied up in the engine, including 915 "J" heads with titanium valves, locks, and retainers, Lunati/Comp hybrid double valve springs, adjustable valvetrain, tunnel ram, 3 carbs (two 1850s and an almost-unused 4780 800DP), a great single-plane intake, headers, ignition gaskets, sealants, bolts, chemicals, etc. Smart shopping goes a long way, and eBay and racingjunk.com are your friends... as are the 3 Ds: Death, Divorce, and Desperation. Damn it, I'm ranting and rambling again. Anyhow, the best factory cylinder heads are these: #3) 1968-'70 "X" castings, used only on 340s and only with 2.02" intake valves. The casting number ends in 894. #2) 1970-'72 "J" castings, used on both 340s and 360s. Also cast with a large "U" or "O" in '70, these were the basis for the W1 cylinder head, most-commonly known as the TA/AAR 340 6-pack head. In that application, it had offet intake rockers and were machined differently in the intake pushrod holes so that the lump could be taken out of the intake ports, even though the intake ports themselves were left as-cast (that was left to the racer/owner). Slightly better intake flow than an X head, and a noticeable improvement on the exhaust side. On 360s and 1972-only 340s, the intake valve was only 1.88", but grinding the seat to a 2.02" valve puts you at the same performance as the large-valve 340 and an unmodified W1. The casting number ends in 915, often followed by a letter which means nothing. #1) 1989-'92 truck heads, both 318 and 360 as they used identical castings though the 318 went Magnum for model-year 1992. Open the 1.88" intake-valve seat to 2.02 and have your machinist do a matching throat cut to open up the bowl. This will outperform the famous X and J castings since the intake side is right in the ballpark, but the exhaust side blows the other two away. The casting number ends in 308. Contrary to popular belief, the Magnum heads are not some vast improvent over the good LA heads; they're just a vast improvement over the commonly-found LA heads such as the 302 swirl-chamber and '73-up "smog" 340/360 heads. They never moved the pushrods, so the intake can't flow any more than an X, J, or 308 and the exhaust side's improvement over the 308 isn't significant enough, in my book, to overcome the sturdier, more-accurate rocker-shaft setup used on the LA-series head... let's face it, the rocker shaft is a built-in stud girdle stronger than anything the aftermarket makes for stud-mount rockers. The only thing that changed in the intake-flange design was the bolt angle; the ports remain the same with the big intake hump. And to my mind, oiling through the rocker shafts is simply a more reliable way to lubricate. Back to the point: if your 318 is a 1967-'70 or 1985-'89 passenger-car unit, yes, using 340 or 360 heads will wipe your compression. If not, it won't make one whit of difference. Mass production is a beyotch so the numbers vary wildly, but every open-chamber head I've ever CCed has been between 67-75cc; if you had a 67cc junk head and found good 74cc heads, they'll take a decent shave to get you back to where you were but you're fine. Personally, I won't cut any small-block Mopar head more than .020" due to the weak 10-bolt design, but I've seen guys go as much as .040" without problems on high-cc heads. Damn... what happened to my simple reply? Edited June 19, 2009 by TwiceConq'ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strang3majik Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) I have a set of the 308 heads for my 360 and, I knew the police car motors had 360 heads on them, but, to be honest, I always thought they had higher CR pistons in them...so...thanks for correcting me. A lot of valuable info there. but still...my point is, why go through all this when you can find a 360 just as cheap and easy...when, its bigger on the inside....basically same footprint on the outside. No replacement for displacment. Period. Edited June 19, 2009 by strang3majik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwiceConq'ed Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I have a set of the 308 heads for my 360 and, I knew the police car motors had 360 heads on them, but, to be honest, I always thought they had higher CR pistons in them...so...thanks for correcting me. A lot of valuable info there. but still...my point is, why go through all this when you can find a 360 just as cheap and easy...when, its bigger on the inside....basically same footprint on the outside. No replacement for displacment. Period. Oh, I completely agree with you on the 360 thing, and realistically with the lack of decent pistons available for the 318 it's arguably cheaper to build a 360 in the first place... and it's a far-more streetable engine than a 318 due to the longer stroke (3.58" vs. 3.305"). According to Desktop Dyno my 318's HP peak is an incredible 7,800RPM! Now you know why I have the adjustable valvetrain, a solid cam, and all that titanium. Where the 360's concerned I actually get a chuckle out of guys that pour a bunch of money into stock-stroke 383s. The 383 is hugely oversquare and can make a bunch of power, and realistically cubes is cubes (no replacement for displacement) but the 383 has only a 3.375" stroke and is hugely oversquare. It has to sing for its supper. Plus, it weighs about 100lbs more than the 360. Short of installing a stroker crank and building a 426/432, I fail to see the point of messing with a 383... and if you're building a low-deck stroker you may as well start with a 400 block and get a 452 from the same money spent (the cubes thing again). Ah, the creamy goodness that is the 308 head. I'd have 'em for my 318 but was already sitting on two sets of J heads... and I'm hoping I can inexpensively round up a full W2 setup for my 416" 340 that will ultimately replace the 318. However, my favorite yard has a complete '92 308-head 360 in a van that I may pick up for future use, since he only wants $150 and I have four cars lacking powerplants: 2 SQs, a '67 Barracuda notchback, and an '82 Imperial. So many cars, so little time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strang3majik Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Haha...exactly. Everyone likes the 340 and 383 over the 360 and 400, all because of the legacy thing...makes no sense to me. They just think they're crap since they were out in the smog years...but, thats why chrysler stroked them out...to make more power from a low CR motor. And...thats funny, I have a 68 Barracuda at home waiting to be restored with a built 360 and 440 at my fingertips...(hard choice - 350hp drop right in, or 600hp cut and fit).......as well as an 81 Mirada waiting on a 68 383 We seem to have the same cars...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 http://www.codeplus.com.br/portaldodge/vid...gnumbiturbo.wmv hmmmmmm.....twin turbo 318............yup that will earn you bada$$ car gaurantee anywhere... I know that in brazil they do a lot of these turbo builds on 318's.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwiceConq'ed Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 And...thats funny, I have a 68 Barracuda at home waiting to be restored with a built 360 and 440 at my fingertips...(hard choice - 350hp drop right in, or 600hp cut and fit).......as well as an 81 Mirada waiting on a 68 383 We seem to have the same cars...lol Bah... a big-block isn't that hard to put in an A-body if you're willing to pay for the insanely-expensive headers. The big-block F/M/J/Y-body swap is actually pretty easy. Mopar Action did an article in the June 1992 issue called "Hot to Swap" that covered the process end-to-end, and that was before the conversion mounts were available. The car into which I'm installing that goofy 318 is an '81 LeBaron coupe converted from Slant Six/auto to V8/4-speed using all factory parts. The rear axle is an 8.75". The same thing can be done to your Mirada, even though they never built a factory manual-trans J-car. A friend and I did it to his '82 Mirada, and I plan on doing it to my Imperial as well. Speaking of my Imperial... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts