Chrysler-Plymouth Division had spent five and a half years trying without much luck to sell a sporty fastback version of its compact Valiant, the Plymouth Barracuda. Although the aggressively styled 1970 Barracuda laid an egg in the marketplace, Plymouth belatedly struck gold with a new Valiant-based coupe, the Plymouth Duster. In March 1970, Car Life tried the new Duster 340 and found it lighter, faster, and cheaper than the new Barracuda.
This road test appeared one month after Car Life tested the ‘Cuda 340 version of the new E-body Plymouth Barracuda. The CL editors had been disappointed with just about everything about that car but its exterior styling and the new “Slap Stick” console shifter for the TorqueFlite transmission, and felt the new model had sacrificed much of what had been good about the earlier A-body Barracuda.
That earlier model had floundered, in part because it was too clearly related to the A-body Plymouth Valiant. Yet, here was Chrysler trying that same formula again:
Car Life began:
THE FRENCH have a word for it: that little kick of the mind, when the object seen is so familiar it seems it’s happened before, is déjà vu. Plymouth’s Duster is déjà vu of the spirit. The shape and the name are new, but we’ve seen the concept before.
Twice. The first Barracuda was a Valiant with another roof. The Road Runner was the baseline sedan, with a performance engine and a bargain price. Take both ideas and you have the Duster 340, a re-roofed Valiant with a performance engine, priced to sell. Add pocket Road Runner to bargain Barracuda and you get about two and one-half.
Car Life was not altogether sold on the Duster’s styling, which differed from the Valiant mostly in a new semi-fastback roofline (designed by Neil Walling) and a new grille:
The roof lift was not without some loss of line, meaning nobody here is willing to go to the barricades in defense of the Duster’s looks. A clean grille, Firebird taillights and Nova notched rear windows don’t blend as well as they might. And the test car had the vinyl roof covering. The body wasn’t designed for it. and the plain metal top looks better.
I’m with them on the vinyl roof, but I think the Duster otherwise looked fine, especially given how much of a last-minute kludge it had been in design and development terms. Chrysler-Plymouth A-body product planner Gene Weiss had contrived the Duster in about six weeks, with essentially no management support, on a development and tooling budget of less than $15 million. The detailing wasn’t going to put Pininfarina out of business, and some of the optional graphics packages were rather gaudy (as were some of the color choices), but the worst one could say about the Duster was that it was inoffensive. I like it much better than its arch-rival, the contemporary Chevy Nova (which for my money was perhaps the ugliest mainstream domestic car of 1970), or the AMC Hornet (the second ugliest domestic car of 1970, lacking even the quirky character of its cut-down Gremlin brother).
Plymouth made no attempt to hide the Duster’s relationship to the regular Valiant sedan, and so it was no surprise that the chassis and powertrain were all standard A-body stuff. The 340 hadn’t previously been available on the Valiant, but it had been offered on the Dart and Barracuda since 1968, so there was no question it would work in the Duster as well, rated at the same suspiciously modest 275 gross horsepower.
Said Car Life:
The engine and transmission should be so familiar by now to make explanations redundant. The TorqueFlite is excellent. The 340 is better than that. In terms of power for money, reliability for weight, it’s the best Mopar has. It isn’t promoted the way it might be, a deplorable thing to do to such a keen engine. We keep telling you about it, rather than heaping more abuse on the 383, so you will rush out and buy one, protecting performance fans who may want one later. Plymouth keeps thinking about letting the 340 go, and we are campaigning to keep it. The idle is smooth, and power comes on so soon that we know a man who complains about too much torque. Too much in first becomes a blinding flash in second, and a boot in the back in third, so that’s no flaw. And the 340 winds easily to 6000 rpm, past rated peak. Deliberate, probably. The 340 produces closer to 325 bhp than the 275 claimed for it. The factory wouldn’t file a false figure with NHRA, but they could stop taking readings before the engine was doing its all, now couldn’t they?
Other than the axle ratio, this was the same powertrain fitted to the ‘Cuda 340 CL had tested in the previous issue. However, the editors soon found that the Duster was significantly faster.
Styling aside, the Duster begins with an advantage. It is light, several hundred pounds less weight than the 340 Barracuda tested last month. With the same engine, transmission and axle gears, the Duster puts the hurt on the Barracuda from the first green. A 14.72-sec. E.T. is better than any stock ‘Cuda we’ve tried, not to mention a swarm of big-inch cars.
The Duster 340 was indeed lighter than a Barracuda with the same engine, but I think Car Life‘s listed curb weight was wrong: According to the 1970 Valiant AMA specs, the base curb weight of a Duster 340 with automatic transmission was 3,275 lb, not 3,105 lb. Adding a radio, the evaporative emissions control system (not yet required outside California in 1970), and other miscellaneous options, and the actual curb weight was probably a bit over 3,300 lb, so the test car’s weight advantage over the ‘Cuda 340 was more like 300 lb, not the 525 lb indicated by the data panel below.
Still, the Duster was enough lighter to give it a clear performance edge, even with a 3.23 axle rather than the 3.55 fitted to the CL ‘Cuda 340:
| Performance | Duster 340 | ‘Cuda 340 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 mph | 2.6 sec. | 2.9 sec. |
| 0–60 mph | 6.2 secs. | 7.5 sec. |
| 0–100 mph | 17.5 sec. | 19.4 sec. |
| Standing ¼ mile | 14.72 sec. at 94.24 mph | 15.0 sec. at 94.0 mph |
These figures weren’t in Hemi territory, but Car Life opined that “with enough bite, perhaps with legal tricks like shocks and spring clamps, a Duster owner could clean up in pure stock without doing anything more than getting a blueprint tune.”
Front disc brakes were standard with the Duster 340, which was commendable — they were optional on other Valiants in 1970, but the overall installation rate was only 4.7 percent. CL rated the brakes good, although they cautioned that the stopping distances, measured on a different test track than the magazine’s usual, may suffered a bit because of differences in track surface. “Sorry about that,” they remarked. “Better a test with apologies than no test at all.”
Surprisingly, the test car did not have power steering. Drag racers probably wouldn’t have ordered it anyway, and skipping it saved 41 lb off the nose, but Car Life would have rather had power assistance:
It’s virtually standard equipment by now, and worth having. There is no consensus here on the best way to buy Mopars. Chrysler’s power steering is the lightest offered by a domestic company. It does not have the road feel of the GM variable-ratio system. There are those who say it takes time to sense any feel at all. There are those who say the quick non-boost steering is too confounded heavy. But nobody liked the standard steering. Takes lots of effort in tight spots, and it’s woefully slow all the time.
While the Duster 340’s lighter weight made it faster than the ‘Cuda 340, handling was no better:
The lack of enthusiasm for the steering only added to the distress recorded by the Dusters’ [sic] behavior on the handling course. Somebody has been tampering with Plymouth’s suspension. The Duster had the stiffer springs that come with the 340 engine. The rear felt firm enough, maybe more than that. Dips in the road came through ker-bump every time, even with driver only in the car. At speed, the car understeered, to the same degree displayed by the Barracuda last month. Most of the time, this is due to inadequate spring rates in back. Not so this time. The cornering pictures show severe camber loss, that is, the front wheels are leaning away from the car. Ideally, they would lean in, to brace the tire against lateral force and keep the tread flat. Some tip is unavoidable in any passenger car, but this was more than it should be. The outside wheel has knuckled under, the inside has lifted half its tread off the pavement.
This was graphically illustrated by a photo at the bottom of the second page of this article, which I’ll put here for ease of reference:
The picture shows an extreme condition. The driver was baffled, then angered by the Duster’s persistent plow on turns. Sudden bursts of power only pushed harder, until the rear tires gave way and the tail came out, so quickly that the steering wheel couldn’t be whirled fast enough to save things, or keep the car in a power oversteer. So the car was pitched into the turns by short, hard jabs on the brake. In this artificial way, the Duster could be forced into a neutral attitude, even though the front wheels were cranked all the way over into the turn.
This is no fun. It is a desperate way to motor along, and should under no circumstances be done on public roads. There is nothing left for emergencies at this point. The Duster will drive well at half its maximum cornering speed, and can be driven at its white-knuckled limit, but not in between. Here, the original Barracuda was a better car.
They thought a rear anti-roll bar might be the answer. Plymouth had promised a rear anti-roll bar for the ‘Cuda 340 and 383 — that item is mentioned in the 1970 Barracuda brochures, though not in the AMA specs — but CL‘s ‘Cuda 340 test car hadn’t had one.
The rear anti-roll bar finally showed up on the AAR ‘Cuda, which Car Life tested in July 1970. With the new anti-roll bar, even stiffer rear springs, and G60-15 rear tires, it had less initial understeer and greater cornering power, and while the plow wasn’t wholly gone, it could be overcome under power. The same would probably have been true of a Duster with that suspension and tires, although the ride wouldn’t have been any better.
The caption of the photo at the top of the above page reads, “INSIDE FRONT wheel is tipped off its tread as Duster plows through turn at speed. The severe understeer did not lend itself to sporting driving. Let’s hope the factory has a cure, like a rear antiroll bar, in the works.”
Their test car’s direction stability left something to be desired as well:
With that much understeer on corners, you’d expect the car would go straight as an arrow on the highway. Instead, it hunted, nibbling back and forth in answer to cracks in the pavement and sidewinds. Steering lag may have been a factor here, too, as a slight motion by the car needed major corrections by the driver.
If the Duster wasn’t any more agile than the E-body Barracuda, it was infinitely more practical:
Now, back to the good part. The Duster has more interior room. There was no need to lower the roofline, or to move the front seats back so the occupants would have head room. The Duster driver sits higher and straighter. Adults can sit in the rear seat. Two people will ride without complaint, three can do it if they must. Only fair; the Duster is a Compact coupe, the Barracuda is a Ponycar. The designers know that fun people buy Ponycars, and they only travel in pairs. Still it’s nice to know you can carry four passengers if asked to.
The In Violet car in the color photos above has a fancier interior with white vinyl upholstery, bucket seats, and center console, so here are some interior photos from two other Dusters that are closer to basic black of the CL test car:
CL said:
The seats were as spartan as they come. A bench front, and it and the rear seat and door panels were covered in what looked to be test-tube Rhinosaurus [sic] hide. Thick, shiny black stuff, that looked ready to be the site of a grade-school football game, with cleats, and come through unscratched.
In addition to its more habitable back seat, the Duster had a much bigger trunk than the Barracuda. I would be nervous about the exposed fuel filler pipe on the left side (and the adjacent evaporative emissions control canister on California cars), but there was enough room for more than a briefcase and a few bags of groceries, and there was a well for the spare under the trunk mat.
If the Duster wasn’t the perfect car, it was at least priced to sell. A basic six-cylinder Duster started at $2,172, a 318 at $2,283, and the Duster 340 at just $2,547 — a whopping $617 less than a ‘Cuda, which didn’t come with front discs. Car Life concluded:
The factory can add the 340 engine and suspension, the disc brakes, the automatic transmission, even the power steering, and still have a sticker price low enough—and lower than the same sort of car from the competition—to attract the budget racer. With blueprint tuning and G70 or F60 tire, it’ll be a winning budget racer.
The Duster 340 greatly outsold the slower, more expensive ‘Cuda 340, but despite its strong performance and bargain price, it accounted for only a modest chunk of Duster sales: 24,817 units for 1970, 12,886 for 1971, and 15,681 for 1972. The limiting factor on Duster 340 sales was probably insurance costs. Insurance companies had figured out that the 340 was a high-performance engine, and the resulting surcharges were a deterrent for the under-25 buyers who most wanted cars like this.
Despite that, Chrysler-Plymouth didn’t have any trouble selling Dusters. Production for 1970 (including 340 cars) totaled 217,192 units. By comparison, the first-generation Barracuda had sold only 126,068 cars in two and a half model years, while the second-generation car had managed just 139,933 in three years. The Duster also resuscitated Valiant sales, which had been languishing. Some of that may have been at the expense of the B-body intermediates, but Plymouth gained almost 2 percentage points of market share, so it didn’t work out too badly.
The Duster might have sold just as well without the Duster 340 — for once, Chrysler had managed to come up with the right car at the right time — but the hot budget racer added some luster to the rest of the line. The 1970 Duster 340 wasn’t the fastest car of the muscle car era, but when it came to bang for the buck, it was at the top of the heap.
Related Reading
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1970 Plymouth Barracuda ‘Cuda 340 – “At Least The Stylists Did A Good Job Of It” (by me)
Curbside Classic: 1971 Dodge Dart Demon – Duster’s Doppelgänger (by Ed Stembridge)
COAL: 1971 Plymouth Duster Slant 6 – Bad News From Consumer Reports; Worse News From Home (by RLPlaut)
Curbside Classic: 1972 Plymouth Duster 340 – The Tweaker (by Paul N)
Vintage Car And Driver: Plymouth Duster 318 vs 340 – Getting Your Duster Just How You Wanted It, In 1972 (by Rich Baron)
Curbside Classic: 1974 Plymouth Gold Duster – There’s Gold In Them Thar’ Hips (by Paul N)
The 340 has always been a bit of an enigma to me. In all the Valiants, Darts and Dusters I saw over the years, I don’t think I ever saw a 340. I have read about its legendary performance, but why was it in so few cars?
Also a mystery – why Chrysler offered both a 340 and a 360, and why neither one seemed to be seen on the streets in great numbers, compared to the 318 that was absolutely everywhere. I would have expected a single displacement in that mid-range size, with both hi-po and normal versions. But we are talking about Chrysler, a company that specialized odd decisions.
As for the Duster, I have come to like its styling, but it took awhile.
I am pretty sure the 340 was troublesome and expensive to produce, so Chrysler didn’t promote it very strongly. The 340 was very oversquare with enormous ports relative to the dimensions of the LA block, which required special attention at the foundry: The castings had to be as accurate as possible to make sure the bore size and porting didn’t leave the walls dangerously thin. Compared to the 318, it was a hassle. The 360 was much less ambitious in that respect, but it also didn’t have the performance.
The 340 was a 1960s family car/truck performance engine. It came in 2 bbl., 4 bbl., and eventually tripower versions.
The 360 came out in 1972 as a cleaner burning emissions slug engine to replace the 340 and was made in the millions until 2003.
It was slightly bigger than the 340 for marketing reasons. Hey, we’re supplying a slightly bigger engine. Don’t notice it sucks gas like mad. The 360 was the last engine ever modernized. As is usual practice for emissions engines, it went slightly smaller bore and mainly longer stroke for cleaner burning. The 360 in vehicles was rated a paltry 9 MPG city/ 11 MPG hiway clear into the 1990s! While other engines like the new Pontiac 301 were rated 16 MPG city/23 MPG hiway as early as 1976! In 1993 a modern good MPG/power version of the 360 finally came out as the Magnum 5.9L (still 360″).
I really don’t know where you get some of this stuff. The 340 was NOT a truck engine, although the 360 eventually was (from 1973), and there wasn’t a 340-2V. The 360 and 340 were quite different, albeit both still part of the same LA series.
I don’t have an explanation for why they didn’t built many 360s. I have some late ’70s statistics for passenger car engine production, and as your recollection suggests, it was the second-lowest-production engine Chrysler made, ahead of the 440, but way behind the 400.
The 360 was widely used in trucks and vans. My ’77 Dodge B300 van-based Chinook camper had a 360, as did a lot of others. Dodge had a booming business in vans and van-based RV chassis in the ’70s, and the 360 was typically the base engine with the 440 optional. The 400 was sometimes seen too, but oddly not nearly as often.
I assume it was all about production allocation, and the trucks in the ’70s rather needed the heftier 360 whereas the passenger cars got a long mostly fine with the 318.
This all came to a crashing halt in 1978, with the second energy crisis, and the end of the B block V8 in August 1978. That meant that the biggest truck engine Chrysler offered after that time was the 360, which continued to be the case for a very long time to come. The 360, with its smaller bore and larger stroke, made an ideal truck engine.
Looks like the 360-2v debuted in 1971 for full-size Mopars (it was offered the next year in the new for 1972 pickups). Maybe it was in anticipation of the 383 being replaced by the 400 for 1972.
The 360-4v replaced the 340-4v for 1974.
These are the first Dusters I can remember with a vinyl roof, and unlike on 95% of other cars, I think it’s an improvement, helping to break up the too-big hips.
It seemed at the time that many Dusters were jacked up by their owners.
I don’t remember the 340 engine at all, but I did ride in a Duster once in ’73. Pretty sure it was the first modern car I’d been in with a stick shift–and a bench seat, which is why I remember it. The very first stick was probably on a WW2 Jeep.
FWIW…
Perplexity
1970 Plymouth ‘Cuda Sales
In 1970, Plymouth sold a total of 18,880 ‘Cuda Hardtops and 635 ‘Cuda Convertibles, for a combined total of 19,515 ‘Cudas. Additionally, there were 2,724 AAR ‘Cudas, a special high-performance model, which are often counted separately but are also part of the ‘Cuda lineup. Including the AAR, the total comes to 22,239 ‘Cudas sold in 1970.
1970 Plymouth Duster Sales
The 1970 Plymouth Duster was a major sales success, with 217,192 units sold during its debut model year.
And Plymouth sold more 1970 Duster 340s (24,817) than 1970 ‘Cudas with any engine.
AI again….
The 1970 Plymouth Duster 340 had a base price of $2,547, making it significantly more affordable than either the Road Runner ($2,900) or the Mustang Mach 1 ($3,300).
The 1970 Plymouth Barracuda 340 V8’s price is not listed directly in the search results, but the Barracuda lineup started around $2,900 for the base model, and the 340 V8 option typically brought the price up to the $3,000–$3,200 range depending on options and trim.
Summary
The Duster 340 V8 was the budget-friendly performance option at $2,547.
The Barracuda 340 V8 cost several hundred dollars more, with a base price closer to $3,000.
This price difference reflects the Duster’s position as a value-oriented muscle car compared to the more upscale and stylish Barracuda.
In the Barracuda line, the 340 was only available on the ‘Cuda, where it was a no-cost substitution for the standard 383-4V. A 1970 ‘Cuda hardtop started at $3,164.
While I’m not positive, seems like not long ago an original 1970 Barracuda Gran Coupe (the Plymouth E-body equivalent of the Challenger SE) showed up in my news feed that had a 340 in it. It might even have had the scooped hood, but without the 340 callouts.
Things were pretty wild back then so it wouldn’t be surprising if, technically, the 340 was limited to the ‘Cuda, yet someone might have been able to finagle a special order 340 into a Gran Coupe.
FWIW, the biggest engine that could be had in the bargain-basement, fixed quarter window Barracuda (and Challenger ‘Deputy’) was a 383-4v. But, again, no 340.
Obviously one of the drawbacks, to budget performance cars like the Duster, is lack of exclusivity. Your Plymouth looks largely like the one grandma is driving, with her Slant Six.
Lasting original role of the Duster for me, is as a working class commuter car. Not factory performance versions.
I cannot emphasize enough how much that was the opposite of a problem for Chrysler. This was really the first time in a while they’d had a hit, and it revitalized Valiant sales at a point where corporate management had decided the A-body cars were a write-off.
I’m looking at it from a consumer’s perspective obviously, with my statement.
Yet the consumers bought more Roadrunners and 340 Dusters than any of Chryslers other offerings in the muscle car field.
This hypothesis is valid for something like the GTX which cost a healthy sum and looked mostly like grandmas Belvedere/Satellite, but the stripped down Roadrunner with a stripped down price tag was a hit, likewise the 340 Duster in the waning years of the muscle car era. Some consumers appreciate value, some appreciate exclusivity. Chryslers success in the muscle car era came from the former.
I can’t understand why Ford didn’t do something for the Maverick to compete with the Duster’s sporty reputation. But maybe that would have cannibalized Mustang sales in the few years before the Mustang II. Of course I was not quite a driver, let alone a car buyer when the Duster came out, but it had an appeal to teens that the Maverick totally lacked. Even a slant six Duster would eclipse a Maverick, despite the latter’s fastback style.
when the Duster came out, but it had an appeal to teens that the Maverick totally lacked. Even a slant six Duster would eclipse a Maverick
So true. Sometimes it’s hard to pin down just what makes a car “in” with younger people, as it’s clearly infectious. The Duster had that “thing” that the tri-five Chevys had; they were popular when new as basic transport and then even more so as used cars for first time buyers. And the percentage that ended up with mag or other aftermarket wheels, extended rear spring shackles and a few other hi-po affectations was also very much like the tri-five Chevys in an earlier era.
I think you are right in saying a hot Maverick would have cut into Mustang sales, the Duster certainly didn’t do Barracuda sales any favours. A warmed up 351W in a Maverick Grabber might have been a contender though…..
Ever since the days of the Falcon Futura hardtop, Ford was very senstive about any possibility of a sporty, cheaper Falcon cannibalizing Mustang sales. That’s why the 1966-69 Falcon was such a stodgy lump.
So, too, it would go with the Maverick. For starters, the Maverick was intially conceived as Ford’s Beetle-fighter, so it ended up being smaller than the traditionally-sized compacts from GM and Chrysler.
Of course, that backfired somewhat when the 1971 Pinto showed up as Ford’s true Beetle competitor. Not to mention that Bunkie Knudson’s 1971-73 Mustang had gotten bigger.
Although Ford could have added a little “pizzaz” for the 1966-70 Falcon by “brougham-ize” it and turn it into a “mini-LTD” or “poor man’s LTD” who could be a sort of “proto-Granada” who could have soldiered until the arrival of the Granada.
Or “proto-Maverick LDO”.
I briefly had (as a car to quickly flip, my hobby/business) a ’72 Duster 340 4 spd with Hurst shifter, in charcoal gray, road wheels, 2 snorkel hood, “Tuff” wheel, buckets, console and black vinyl interior. It was a fun & fast great budget muscle machine that I should have hung on to. Just try to buy one now…$$$$.
I briefly had (as a car to quickly flip, my hobby/business) a ’72 Duster 340 4 spd with Hurst shifter, in charcoal gray, road wheels, 2 snorkel hood, “Tuff” wheel, buckets, console and black vinyl interior. It was a fun & fast great budget muscle machine that I should have hung on to. Just try to buy one now…$$$$.
sorry for the double.. sometimes it doesn’t seem to post so I do it again.. d’oh!
And sometimes it won’t post at all??
340 Dusters (and Demons) were quite common in these parts. Lots of young guys making decent money for the first time in those days. They were very good performers, needing only a larger 4 barrel carb to realize their full potential, and Mopar took care of that in ’71.
In addition to the performance potential, the ’68-’71 engines utilized a number of forged components for additional strength. For the money Mopar charged, you got a lot. In ’72 all the forged stuff went away, compression was dropped, smaller valves… It was just another mid size V-8 then, and soon enough it was replaced by the 360.
One of the nice things about these cars was the fact that the rear wheel wells had some room for larger tires without the need to jack up the car, though it was the style and most guys did anyway.
These cars really didn’t handle well and had a high casualty rate, and when one turned up at the wrecking yard the engine was the first thing to go, followed by the front disc brakes. A friend snagged a 340 and put it in his ’66 signet, along with some byzantine looking headers his Dad made up at his metal fabrication business. It caught lots of guys unaware!
I was generally a Chevy guy back then but the 340 was always a favourite.
Something that really helped Duster 340 sales (at least for a while) was the ability to circumvent insurance musclecar surcharges. It was, after all, listed as a Valiant for 1970, most of which historically came with a slant-six engine.
Eventually, insurance agents got wise and started asking, “which engine?”, to which the reply was “V8” (as in a 318).
Finally, they’d ask “which V8?”. Even then, the 340-4v was underrated, so it ‘still’ wasn’t so bad.
All manner of folks of limited means loved the Valiant of the late 1960s, but gosh was it ugly, especially the 2-door post sedan. The Duster (and Dodge Demon/Dart Sport) fixed all that in 1 fell swoop.
The 170 \6 was gone, but you could still get a 198 c.i. six with a 3-on-the-tree. They sold like hotcakes.
Now I had a 74 Duster with 225 slant six as a company car and I liked it quite a bit. The 340 was now gone by then but earlier..
The 340