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 |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Art wrote:
> For what its worth, Consumer Reports says that lots of engines these days by > various manufacturers are hemi type designs. On the other hand, this is > apparently a powerful engine, with reasonable mileage, and excellent > emissions. And it is cheap to build, especially since it is made in Mexico. > If you want a V8 and willing to pay for the gas, its a good choice no matter > what you call it. Interesting article about why it is called a "Hemi": > > http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05168/523358.stm > > I wonder how it would run if they chopped two cylinders off of it. Isn't > that how GM used to design its V6's? > Ayup, at least the 4.3... IIRC the 3800 was designed from the ground up to be a V-6 however and it's not only way older than the 4.3 but at least in its current iteration, it has a good reputation for durability... and then there's the 2.8 family. I really don't care whether they're good engines or not, anything that *sounds* that ****ty when it's running, I don't want to drive. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Putney wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote: > >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Bill Putney wrote: >> >> >>> (Kind of reminds me of the Oldsmobile "Rocket V-8" debacle wherein >>> Oldsmobile got in legal trouble for substituting non-"Rocket" engines >>> in their cars when they temporarily ran out of them on the assy. line, >>> and the only difference between them and the non-"Rocket" GM engines was >>> a larger oil filter and a "Rocket V-8" decal. But I digress...) >> >> >> >> OK, yeah, this clears up your misrecollection. That's not how it happened >> at all. The Chevrolet 350 engines that were installed in Oldsmobiles >> starting in 1977 were not equipped with "Rocket" decals, and had a VIN >> engine code corresponding to the Chevrolet engine. Their installation was >> not as a result of having "run out" of Oldsmobile engines at all, it >> was a >> result of GM restructuring such that all vehicles, regardless of brand, >> were officially built by GMAD. That stands for "General Motors Assembly >> Division", and GMAD became the operator of all GM assembly plants (no >> more >> "Buick plant", "Oldsmobile plant", "Chevrolet plant", etc.). The >> installation of Chev engines in Oldsmobiles (and other engine/car brand >> mismatches) was one of many implementations of a plan to commonize parts >> across similar-size different-brand vehicles. The engine mismatches were >> the most widely publicized due to the resultant lawsuits, but the policy >> caused all manner of other mechanical mayhem, too. The cheapest >> (=lightest >> duty) engine mounts were commonized. Ditto engine mounts. Ditto universal >> joints, suspension components, and so forth, right through the car. This >> certainly made the cars less expensive to build, but the customer never >> saw the savings (an Olds Delta 88 still cost more than a comparable Chev >> Caprice), and the cheapest-common-denominator parts policy caused or >> accelerated many failures that otherwise wouldn't have happened -- a >> simple matter of part duty margin. >> >> DS (You may find John DeLorean's "On A Clear Day, You Can See General >> Motors" an interesting hour's read). > > > I must have fallen victim to the news media publicity notices of the day > released by GM. The sense that I had of it at the time was that people > were making a big deal over nothin' - lawyers seeing a big pockets > opportunity. Obviously from what you and Art have posted, there was a > true deception by GM. > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') A knowledgeable buyer would have been ****ed, yes, to buy a new Olds thinking there was an Olds 350 under the hood and finding a Chubby 350. Now a case could be made (and I'm sure GM tried to make it) that the Chubby motor was more than adequate for any normal driving conditions. And, of course, they're actually right - it's not a *bad* engine. It's just that every other engine that they made at the time was pretty uniformly *better...* nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
> In any case, the Olds 330/350/400/455/whatever IMHO was a hell of a lot > better than the SBC... come to think of it, just about any GM engine > *other* than Chevy was better than Chevy. But you're right, SBC > performance parts are everywhere while you actually have to think about > what you're doing and maybe even (gasp) do some custom work to get a few > more ponies out of an Olds or Caddy engine. Sure, but the threshhold of *needing* to get more ponies out of the Olds engine was much higher. A desmogged Olds 350 ran decently well for its day, and would allow the car to get out of its own way. A same-year desmogged Chev 350 had considerably poorer driveability and MUCH less punch. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > I wonder how it would run if they chopped two cylinders off of it. > > Isn't that how GM used to design its V6's? > Ayup, at least the 4.3... That is also how Chrysler made the 3.9 (318 * 0.75). > and then there's the 2.8 family. I really don't care whether they're > good engines or not, "not". |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
> A knowledgeable buyer would have been ****ed, yes, to buy a new Olds > thinking there was an Olds 350 under the hood and finding a Chubby 350. Funny, isn't it, how there weren't any Chevrolets quietly built with Oldsmobile 350s instead of the Chev engine! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Putney wrote:
> Steve wrote: > >> Bill Putney wrote: >> >>> >>> Hmmm. There has been periodic discussion on the 300M Club forums >>> over the years in which it was convincingly claimed that many >>> engines, including the LH engines (3.2, 3.5, possibly the 2.7), are >>> no less hemi-head engines than ones that are "officially" designated >>> by DC as Hemi's. >> >> >> >> Except for the fact that by long tradition, only 2-valve heads have >> been called "hemi" heads. 4-valve heads have been called "pent-roof" >> heads. They're functionally very similar. > > > So is it possible that a Hemi™ (two valves per cyclinder) is actually > inferior to a four-valve engine of similar design that can't be called a > Hemi™ because it is four-valved? From all I've read, ANY 4-valve head would be hard-pressed to work as well or better than the new Hemi™ head. Or is the new Hemi™ actually a > four-valve per cylinder (i.e., is the "2-valve" rule a "Street" rule, r > is it a strict DC marketing rule? Look at that combustion chamber image I linked- its definitely a 2-valve head. Its not even really a "rule," just general usage. Chrysler just capitalized on the terminolgy- they're not the only ones to have built 2-valve hemi-headed engines (to remove all ambiguity) for street cars in the past, and may not be the only ones today, but I'm not aware of any others right off the bat. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Nate Nagel wrote:
> There were Olds motors and there were Chevy motors, and then sometime in > the 70s they started putting Chevy motors in Oldsmobiles, and at the > same time you could get an Olds engine in a Firebird (of all things...) > > In any case, the Olds 330/350/400/455/whatever IMHO was a hell of a lot > better than the SBC... come to think of it, just about any GM engine > *other* than Chevy was better than Chevy. Meh. Some Pontiac v8s were pretty lame. Its a little ironic that the Olds 403-powered Trans Ams are much less collectible now than Pontiac-powered ones... I'd almost prefer the Olds engine. Except the 403 was never really a performance engine like the Pontiac was. Now if it had been a Buick 455 under the hood... :-D :-D :-D |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Steve wrote:
> From all I've read, ANY 4-valve head would be hard-pressed to work as > well or better than the new Hemi head. Better not let Yyoyd "4-valve is ALWAYS better than 2-valve, and disc brakes are ALWAYS better than drum" Parker hear you say that... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Steve wrote: > > >>From all I've read, ANY 4-valve head would be hard-pressed to work as >>well or better than the new Hemi head. > > > Better not let Yyoyd "4-valve is ALWAYS better than 2-valve, and disc > brakes are ALWAYS better than drum" Parker hear you say that... Hasn't it been PLEASANT around here without his bleating? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|