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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Charger fans upset over new model
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business....b5326336.html
Charger fans upset over new model? And speaking of reviving popular old car names, Chrysler group is doing that with a new Dodge sedan based on the also-new Chrysler 300 sedan chassis. But calling it a Charger apparently is upsetting some of the diehard Charger fans who revere the muscle cars from the late '60s and '70s. The industry weekly Automotive News reported recently that Chrysler is even getting "hate mail" over the plans to call the new sedan a Charger, primarily because the car will be a sedan, and not a coupe as the original Chargers were. Still, Dodge plans to roll out the new Charger in January as an early 2006 model, and it will sit in the lineup beside the Dodge Magnum, which essentially is a wagon version of the new Charger (even though the Magnum came first). One thing that will remain true to the early Chargers is the availability of a Hemi V-8 engine in the new model, as is offered in the Chrysler 300 and the Magnum. The car will get the same 5.7-liter, 340-horsepower Hemi V-8 that is used in those cars as well as in the all-new 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee. As with those other cars, the Hemi in the Charger will have the cylinder-deactivation feature that cuts out four cylinders during highway cruising to increase fuel economy. That was definitely not offered on the early Chargers, which could be notorious gas-guzzlers. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
<< Charger fans upset over new model? >>
____Reply Separator_____ Interesting article, especially the pictures. An article about the Dodge Charger was accompanied by a picture of a Saturn coupe and a Pontiac Solstice. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
<< Charger fans upset over new model? >>
____Reply Separator_____ Interesting article, especially the pictures. An article about the Dodge Charger was accompanied by a picture of a Saturn coupe and a Pontiac Solstice. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is that so? Would the weight really be that much of a hindrance here?
I would think the shutting down of 4 cyl while on hwy would work due to the high gear. It seems it wouldn't work as well on the city, but on hwy it seems as though it would be fine. I am looking at the magnum right now, I like it. I also think the new charger looks alright. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is that so? Would the weight really be that much of a hindrance here?
I would think the shutting down of 4 cyl while on hwy would work due to the high gear. It seems it wouldn't work as well on the city, but on hwy it seems as though it would be fine. I am looking at the magnum right now, I like it. I also think the new charger looks alright. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. > >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? In a word..... No The engine is intended to attract "car guys" and car guys like power torque burning rubber and all that other fun stuff. If it didn't do all that stuff I'd just as soon have a Kia > >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. My LT1 hasn't met a mountain its scared of yet :-) Steve B. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. > >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? In a word..... No The engine is intended to attract "car guys" and car guys like power torque burning rubber and all that other fun stuff. If it didn't do all that stuff I'd just as soon have a Kia > >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. My LT1 hasn't met a mountain its scared of yet :-) Steve B. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Are the 2.2 liter 1983 Charger owners going to revolt as well?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Are the 2.2 liter 1983 Charger owners going to revolt as well?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |