A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Charger fans upset over new model



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 10th 04, 04:34 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve B. wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:30:33 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio >
>
>>Didn't GM try that on a Cadillac and it came up short? Idling four
>>cylinders will not overcome friction losses, dead weight, and high octane
>>fuel requirement of these behemoth V-8s. Chrysler had a more elegant
>>solution with the turbo-supercharger.

>
>
> GM was using electronic actuators to stop the valves from working when
> the cylinders were deactivated. It was actually a pretty good idea
> but the technology just wasn't where it needed to be yet. There are
> many enthusiast that still have these systems and keep them operating.
>
> Chrylser has taken a different approach and the hemi deactivates the
> cylinders hydraulically. Simialrr to the approach Honda is using with
> V-tec I have heard but don't really know for a fact to be true.
>


Similar, but not quite the same as the Honda. Yes it is hydraulic- the
lifters on the deactivated cylinders are switched to "no lift" mode
hydraulically. The Honda system is hydraulic and works by locking the
cam follower for the "high RPM" cam lobe to the rocker arm or unlocking
it and letting the rocker follow the milder profile at low RPM. The
Cadillac V-8-6-4 was all electric and operated at the rocker arm
fulcrum. letting the deactivated rocker ride up without activating the
valve.

Of the 3, the Chrysler system is probably the least complicated, and we
already know that the Honda system was plenty simple enough to be
reliable. 99.9% of Chrysler owners will never even know its there.
Ads
  #12  
Old December 10th 04, 05:04 PM
KokomoKid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Steve B. wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:30:33 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio >
> >
> >>Didn't GM try that on a Cadillac and it came up short? Idling four
> >>cylinders will not overcome friction losses, dead weight, and high

octane
> >>fuel requirement of these behemoth V-8s. Chrysler had a more elegant
> >>solution with the turbo-supercharger.

> >
> >
> > GM was using electronic actuators to stop the valves from working when
> > the cylinders were deactivated. It was actually a pretty good idea
> > but the technology just wasn't where it needed to be yet. There are
> > many enthusiast that still have these systems and keep them operating.
> >
> > Chrylser has taken a different approach and the hemi deactivates the
> > cylinders hydraulically. Simialrr to the approach Honda is using with
> > V-tec I have heard but don't really know for a fact to be true.
> >

>
> Similar, but not quite the same as the Honda. Yes it is hydraulic- the
> lifters on the deactivated cylinders are switched to "no lift" mode
> hydraulically. The Honda system is hydraulic and works by locking the
> cam follower for the "high RPM" cam lobe to the rocker arm or unlocking
> it and letting the rocker follow the milder profile at low RPM. The
> Cadillac V-8-6-4 was all electric and operated at the rocker arm
> fulcrum. letting the deactivated rocker ride up without activating the
> valve.
>
> Of the 3, the Chrysler system is probably the least complicated, and we
> already know that the Honda system was plenty simple enough to be
> reliable. 99.9% of Chrysler owners will never even know its there.


If 300C owners end up removing the mufflers as Ram owners often do, they
will get some interesting one-octave changes in exhaust note as the
cylinders turn on and off.


  #13  
Old December 10th 04, 05:04 PM
KokomoKid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Steve B. wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:30:33 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio >
> >
> >>Didn't GM try that on a Cadillac and it came up short? Idling four
> >>cylinders will not overcome friction losses, dead weight, and high

octane
> >>fuel requirement of these behemoth V-8s. Chrysler had a more elegant
> >>solution with the turbo-supercharger.

> >
> >
> > GM was using electronic actuators to stop the valves from working when
> > the cylinders were deactivated. It was actually a pretty good idea
> > but the technology just wasn't where it needed to be yet. There are
> > many enthusiast that still have these systems and keep them operating.
> >
> > Chrylser has taken a different approach and the hemi deactivates the
> > cylinders hydraulically. Simialrr to the approach Honda is using with
> > V-tec I have heard but don't really know for a fact to be true.
> >

>
> Similar, but not quite the same as the Honda. Yes it is hydraulic- the
> lifters on the deactivated cylinders are switched to "no lift" mode
> hydraulically. The Honda system is hydraulic and works by locking the
> cam follower for the "high RPM" cam lobe to the rocker arm or unlocking
> it and letting the rocker follow the milder profile at low RPM. The
> Cadillac V-8-6-4 was all electric and operated at the rocker arm
> fulcrum. letting the deactivated rocker ride up without activating the
> valve.
>
> Of the 3, the Chrysler system is probably the least complicated, and we
> already know that the Honda system was plenty simple enough to be
> reliable. 99.9% of Chrysler owners will never even know its there.


If 300C owners end up removing the mufflers as Ram owners often do, they
will get some interesting one-octave changes in exhaust note as the
cylinders turn on and off.


  #14  
Old December 10th 04, 07:57 PM
KokomoKid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"SRG" > wrote in message
om...
> We're those "Chargers" the ones that looked like Dodge Omnis????
> SRG
>

Yep, they were like the two door Omni which was called "O24" the first few
years.


  #15  
Old December 10th 04, 07:57 PM
KokomoKid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"SRG" > wrote in message
om...
> We're those "Chargers" the ones that looked like Dodge Omnis????
> SRG
>

Yep, they were like the two door Omni which was called "O24" the first few
years.


  #16  
Old December 10th 04, 09:02 PM
SRG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Now THAT should have really ****ed off Charger buffs......

SRG

"KokomoKid" > wrote in message
news
>
> "SRG" > wrote in message
> om...
>> We're those "Chargers" the ones that looked like Dodge Omnis????
>> SRG
>>

> Yep, they were like the two door Omni which was called "O24" the first few
> years.
>
>



  #17  
Old December 10th 04, 09:02 PM
SRG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Now THAT should have really ****ed off Charger buffs......

SRG

"KokomoKid" > wrote in message
news
>
> "SRG" > wrote in message
> om...
>> We're those "Chargers" the ones that looked like Dodge Omnis????
>> SRG
>>

> Yep, they were like the two door Omni which was called "O24" the first few
> years.
>
>



  #18  
Old December 10th 04, 09:55 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It DID **** off this Charger buff... but then they came out with the
turbo version and the GLHS, and some of the sin of calling a front-drive
econo car a "Charger" was forgiven :-p

I personally like the new Charger. I'm disappointed that it is more like
the Magnum than like the Charger show car from a few years back (which I
REALLY liked) but at least the correct wheels (rear) put the correct
type of power (v8) to the ground!


> Now THAT should have really ****ed off Charger buffs......
>
> SRG
>
> "KokomoKid" > wrote in message
> news >
>>"SRG" > wrote in message
.com...
>>
>>>We're those "Chargers" the ones that looked like Dodge Omnis????
>>>SRG
>>>

>>
>>Yep, they were like the two door Omni which was called "O24" the first few
>>years.
>>
>>

>
>
>

  #19  
Old December 10th 04, 09:55 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It DID **** off this Charger buff... but then they came out with the
turbo version and the GLHS, and some of the sin of calling a front-drive
econo car a "Charger" was forgiven :-p

I personally like the new Charger. I'm disappointed that it is more like
the Magnum than like the Charger show car from a few years back (which I
REALLY liked) but at least the correct wheels (rear) put the correct
type of power (v8) to the ground!


> Now THAT should have really ****ed off Charger buffs......
>
> SRG
>
> "KokomoKid" > wrote in message
> news >
>>"SRG" > wrote in message
.com...
>>
>>>We're those "Chargers" the ones that looked like Dodge Omnis????
>>>SRG
>>>

>>
>>Yep, they were like the two door Omni which was called "O24" the first few
>>years.
>>
>>

>
>
>

  #20  
Old December 12th 04, 12:18 PM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...

>
> A turbocharged 4 banger engine has lots of advantages over larger
> displacements for same max. power. They're lighter and more efficient at
> lower outputs, where most driving is done. Regular grade gasoline can be
> used when the spark is retarded a few degrees from spec., with little
> penalty as a result. About the only drawback is torque at breakaway, but
> aren't our teenage days long past when we got our jollies out of patching
> 50 feet of rubber to the delight of Good'n'Rich Tire and Rubber?
>
> And one more very important point to make: Those big V-8s may be great at
> sea level, but going over those mountain passes, they have no chance
> against a turbo'd I-4. The only thing that can keep up with a turbo is
> another turbo. It has to do with power-to-weight ratio. That's a fact.
>


There are good designed 4 banger turbo engines and systems that will
outperform poorly designed V8s. And there are good V8 designs
that will outperform poorly designed turbo systems.

It isn't as important to get a turbo or a v8 as it is to get a good design
of whatever you select. Sweeping generalizations like 'turbo is better than
v8' like your making are purely academic and have no relation to the
real world, and no value to people actually trying to select a vehicle.

Ted


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which cost more to maintain?? early model C4 Corvette or early model Dodge Stealth? Orc General Corvette 10 September 2nd 04 01:06 AM
FS: '74 RoadRunner and '77 Charger Daytona (SE Virginia) Ruppster Dodge 0 April 26th 04 04:07 AM
Model T, Model A, 39 Chevy Truck, 1933 to 1935 Hudson Terraplane parts and vehicles for sale Treetop Antique cars 0 April 8th 04 06:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.