Chrysler hemi and air pollution

I was looking at EPA figures for mileage for the 300C (trying to convince my
spouse to consider the Dodge Charger despite rising oil prices) and noticed
that the hemi is a much cleaner engine than the engine in the Avalon and
Ford 500.

gee go figure a hipo engine and it's cleaner burning!!! isn't efficient
combustion
a cool thing

Art wrote:

> I was looking at EPA figures for mileage for the 300C (trying to convince my
> spouse to consider the Dodge Charger despite rising oil prices) and noticed
> that the hemi is a much cleaner engine than the engine in the Avalon and
> Ford 500.

Dual spark plugs and a LOT of computer simulation into combustion
chamber and induction/exhaust design- a very cool thing indeed! One of
the big issues with bringing back the Hemi head was keeping emissions
under control. The original Hemi had a lot of trouble both with NOx
(from high compression) and HC (from the fact that parts of the chamber
tended to be shrouded until the piston had moved down a significant
distance). The new Hemi head addressed both of those issues very well.



>
>>I was looking at EPA figures for mileage for the 300C (trying to convince my
>>spouse to consider the Dodge Charger despite rising oil prices) and noticed
>>that the hemi is a much cleaner engine than the engine in the Avalon and
>>Ford 500.
>
>

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:30:04 -0500, Steve wrote:

> Dual spark plugs and a LOT of computer simulation into combustion
> chamber and induction/exhaust design- a very cool thing indeed! One of
> the big issues with bringing back the Hemi head was keeping emissions
> under control. The original Hemi had a lot of trouble both with NOx
> (from high compression) and HC (from the fact that parts of the chamber
> tended to be shrouded until the piston had moved down a significant
> distance). The new Hemi head addressed both of those issues very well.
>
>
>
>>
>>>I was looking at EPA figures for mileage for the 300C (trying to convince my
>>>spouse to consider the Dodge Charger despite rising oil prices) and noticed
>>>that the hemi is a much cleaner engine than the engine in the Avalon and
>>>Ford 500.
>>
>>

However be prepared for really terrible fuel economy. The 300C combines
the performance of a rocket with the fuel economy of a rocket. I bought a
300C AWD a few weeks ago, I'm getting 15MPG. I agonized over the lousy gas
mileage before I bought it but decided that with the number of miles that
I drive, I've consistently averaged 12,000/year for the last 30 years,
that I could afford to feed it. The fuel cost difference between a 300C
and an Acura TL (which is the other car that I was considering) is only
$600/year at todays prices. Even if gas goes to $5 a gallon it's still
only $1250 a year more. If you can afford the extra $1000/year (and anyone
who can afford $40K for a car, which is what a 300C AWD goes for, can
afford the extra $10,000 in gas that the car will burn over it's life)
then go for it. You would have to spend $75K for a big Mercedes before you
found a comparable driving experience. I tested most everything below
$50K, Acura TL and RL, Infinity M35, Cadillac CRX, Lexus ES330, Lincoln
LS, Toyota Avalon and the Hybrid Honda Accord (a truely awful car). All of
the others were boring, most were competent especially the Acura TL, but
none stood out. The 300C feels like an incredibly powerful extension of
your body. It has incredible handling and of course it accelerates like it
has afterburners. One other thing that I noticed after I got it, it has a
very small turning radius for a car it's size, you point it somewhere and
it's there immediately.

turn off the traction control and it radius gets smaller going sideways

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:30:04 -0500, Steve wrote:
>
> > Dual spark plugs and a LOT of computer simulation into combustion
> > chamber and induction/exhaust design- a very cool thing indeed! One of
> > the big issues with bringing back the Hemi head was keeping emissions
> > under control. The original Hemi had a lot of trouble both with NOx
> > (from high compression) and HC (from the fact that parts of the chamber
> > tended to be shrouded until the piston had moved down a significant
> > distance). The new Hemi head addressed both of those issues very well.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>I was looking at EPA figures for mileage for the 300C (trying to convince my
> >>>spouse to consider the Dodge Charger despite rising oil prices) and noticed
> >>>that the hemi is a much cleaner engine than the engine in the Avalon and
> >>>Ford 500.
> >>
> >>
>
> However be prepared for really terrible fuel economy. The 300C combines
> the performance of a rocket with the fuel economy of a rocket. I bought a
> 300C AWD a few weeks ago, I'm getting 15MPG. I agonized over the lousy gas
> mileage before I bought it but decided that with the number of miles that
> I drive, I've consistently averaged 12,000/year for the last 30 years,
> that I could afford to feed it. The fuel cost difference between a 300C
> and an Acura TL (which is the other car that I was considering) is only
> $600/year at todays prices. Even if gas goes to $5 a gallon it's still
> only $1250 a year more. If you can afford the extra $1000/year (and anyone
> who can afford $40K for a car, which is what a 300C AWD goes for, can
> afford the extra $10,000 in gas that the car will burn over it's life)
> then go for it. You would have to spend $75K for a big Mercedes before you
> found a comparable driving experience. I tested most everything below
> $50K, Acura TL and RL, Infinity M35, Cadillac CRX, Lexus ES330, Lincoln
> LS, Toyota Avalon and the Hybrid Honda Accord (a truely awful car). All of
> the others were boring, most were competent especially the Acura TL, but
> none stood out. The 300C feels like an incredibly powerful extension of
> your body. It has incredible handling and of course it accelerates like it
> has afterburners. One other thing that I noticed after I got it, it has a
> very small turning radius for a car it's size, you point it somewhere and
> it's there immediately.

Steve wrote:
> ...One of
> the big issues with bringing back the Hemi head was keeping emissions
> under control. The original Hemi had a lot of trouble both with NOx
> (from high compression) and HC (from the fact that parts of the chamber
> tended to be shrouded until the piston had moved down a significant
> distance). The new Hemi head addressed both of those issues very well.

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. (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...)

What say you (and others in the know) on that claim?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Actually in the case of GM, they were accused of putting Chevrolet engines
in Oldsmobiles and if you got one of those cars, you couldn't even get your
oil filter changed at the Oldsmobile dealer. Oldsmobile didn't even make
the size engine that was in their cars. Really ticked customers off.



"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Steve wrote:
>> ...One of
>> the big issues with bringing back the Hemi head was keeping emissions
>> under control. The original Hemi had a lot of trouble both with NOx
>> (from high compression) and HC (from the fact that parts of the chamber
>> tended to be shrouded until the piston had moved down a significant
>> distance). The new Hemi head addressed both of those issues very well.
>
> 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. (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...)
>
> What say you (and others in the know) on that claim?
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

Hmmm - It's been a few years since I read the details, but my
recollection is that the "Rocket" engines were identical to the Cheby
engines except for the oil filter and the "Rocket" decal on the air
filter - and - oh yeah - I think the engine was painted a different
color. My strong recollection is that they really were the same engine
other than those things. I could be wrong - probably a Google search
would resolve our differing recollections.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


Art wrote:
> Actually in the case of GM, they were accused of putting Chevrolet engines
> in Oldsmobiles and if you got one of those cars, you couldn't even get your
> oil filter changed at the Oldsmobile dealer. Oldsmobile didn't even make
> the size engine that was in their cars. Really ticked customers off.
>
>
>
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>>...One of
>>>the big issues with bringing back the Hemi head was keeping emissions
>>>under control. The original Hemi had a lot of trouble both with NOx
>>>(from high compression) and HC (from the fact that parts of the chamber
>>>tended to be shrouded until the piston had moved down a significant
>>>distance). The new Hemi head addressed both of those issues very well.
>>
>>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. (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...)
>>
>>What say you (and others in the know) on that claim?
>>
>>Bill Putney
>>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>adddress with the letter 'x')

Art wrote:

> Actually in the case of GM, they were accused of putting Chevrolet engines
> in Oldsmobiles and if you got one of those cars, you couldn't even get your
> oil filter changed at the Oldsmobile dealer. Oldsmobile didn't even make
> the size engine that was in their cars. Really ticked customers off.
>

As it should have, because back then there was as much true ENGINEERING
difference between an Olds and a Chevy v8 as there was between a Ford
and a Chrysler. Maybe more.

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).