Re: 360 vs 4.0

[farna@xxxxxxx]

I'm comparing more with driving around, you guys are focusing more on performance. I have noticed that the 360 revs a lot quicker than the 4.0L -- that's the only drawback to using it for a tire burner. The stock EFI isn't real responsive to flooring it right from the start -- there's 1/4 second lag in response. Take it a little easier -- don't slap the pedal down but be a bit more controlled about it -- and it's not as noticeable. I'm not sure if it's the EFI, the long stroke of the engine, or the auto trans, actually. Can't tell. But there's a definite slight lag in mine. Bear in mind I'm running a 4.6L stroker with a Renix system, so all that has some impact. But running either stock 4.0L (88 Renix) or 4.6L (same engine, bigger injectors and 258 crank/rods, dished 4.0L pistons) with a stick and 3.31 gears, burning the tires off was easy -- with a one-legger anyway. It would actually spin both tires for about a foot then the left one would stop spinning. With the auto and !
 3.55 limited slip, it will only burn the tires if there is something on the road to let it slip a little first (water, sand, etc.). Kind of disappointing, but then I've out run stock V-8s from a standing start. What I think was a 305 Camaro (could have been a tired 350), and a Dodge Ram w/360 (lifted with 30-32" tires though). That Ram guy was a little miffed when he saw the 4.0L six (hadn't stroked it yet).  

For all out performance you can do so much more with a 360, that's true. The 4.0L won't put out much more because it's already near its peak efficiency, the 360 has LOTS of room for improvement. But if you just want a bit more power, and thinking a stock 360 swap, the 4.0L EFI will be a much better choice -- unless you plan on adding a lot more to the 360 later. If the car is to be a daily driver, I wouldn't even consider a 360. Parts aren't to hard to find, but gas might be!

On December 28, 2005 Andre K Jacobs wrote:

> I have installed many 2-v and 4-v 360s in Javelins, out of mid 70s AMCs,
> and have found that the 360 is a very good engine. I have burned the tire
> off of Javelins with these 2-v360s, and I will have to say, I have not
> found that to be true of a 4.0. I have Driven the 90s Jeeps and they do
> not pull like the 360. I would say the 4.0s are rated at what they are
> advertised at, I would say the 360s were under rated. The 4.0 is a great
> 6, and has more power then the other ( read earlier none FI 6s) AMC 6s.
> Like I said before, the CC American build would have been perfect for
> this. Show what the car does with its 199, put a 4.0 in, maybe build a
> 4.0, then go to the 360. You could of had a very good comparison on these
> engines.
> 
> Andre " A.J." Jacobs,
> web page http://southtexasamc.tripod.com
>  (830)-980-3165 , akjamc@xxxxxxxx
> Owner & Proprietor, South Texas AMC
> 
> Message-ID: <20051227200519.54649.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:05:19 -0800 (PST)
> From: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: 360 vs 4.0
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Frank; I'm still not buying it. You stated that the
> figures speak for them selves then go on to justify
> the numbers with about a page of "explanations". No,
> not gonna buy it.

=============================================================
Posted by wixList Archiver -- http://www.amxfiles.com/wixlist