For Sale: 1968 Dodge Polara show winner, must see photos / rare classic

HEMI-Powered wrote:

> Steve added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>have to disagree with you. This is a cruiser, not a drag
>>>racer. 90 MPH on freeway uphill, no problem! The fine
>>>details of putting together a rare piece of machinery like
>>>this takes a lot of time and effort. That is worth
>>>something. This baby is alltogether hotrod!
>>
>>I agree with you 100% on all of the above statements (I own a
>>'66 Polara, 440 2.93 highway gears, would run triple digits
>>for 8 hours without breaking a sweat and the AC blowing
>>frost). And I'm sure its a great car.
>
>
> Isn't it just a tad dangerous to run 8 hours over 100 mph, not to
> mention highly illegal? If you ever get busted by the State
> Police, you won't get a ticket, you'll be cuffed and arrested.

Depends on what the limit is. "20 over" is usually the threshold for
getting "busted" instead of ticketed around here, and there are freeways
with an 80 mph limit (I 10, for example). But I'm too old to risk it, I
never run more than about 8 mph over any given limit. But the
bedwetters are, I think, pushing for busting you for anthing over 90
regardless of the limit now, since the new 80 limit puts "20 over" at
100 and they just can't stand the idea of someone running triple digits
and not being a criminal.

Besides I said the car "would" do it. And it would, but I've never
sustained anything above 85. I took my family on vacation in that car
last year, and 80 mph is the posted speed limit on I-10 in west Texas
(and people run 85-88 all the time). It purred at that speed for hours,
that is 100% in its element and what those cars were made to do. Had to
slow down to the mid-70s heading north across New Mexico after that, and
it felt like walking :-)


>
>
>>But a 318 C-body still doesn't command that kind of $$ in the
>>market. Sorry.
>
> This part I agree with. The only people who would want such a car
> is someone who just wants a "classic" car at a reasonable price
> that won't keep them repairing it all the time. I was cruising
> again last night on Woodward Avenue (pre-cruise on Saturday
> crusing) and saw a number of cars like the OP described. Nothing
> wrong with it at all, just not an especially exciting car to

The reason I keep my '66 is precisely because its not worth a mint. It
allows me to enjoy driving a 440-powered Mopar every day without
worrying about it any more than I'd worry about a modern car. Can't do
that with its sister- my '69 Coronet R/T. But I do keep it
well-maintained. I'd rather keep an old car looking and running good
than a new one, and I can't for the life of me figure out why Toyota
owners even bother washing the little sh*tboxes :-)

I apologise for using the "muscle car" term loosely.

You are right of course.

Erik


On Aug 14, 7:47 pm, "rob" <me @mine.orgg> wrote:
> probably right. I was referring to his web site saying the 68 was a classic
> muscle car.....
>
> I'd take a 64 any day. hell ya.
>
> "John Mielke" <mielkman at excite dot com> wrote in ...
>
>

On Aug 15, 5:25 pm, Steve > wrote:
> wrote:
> > have to disagree with you. This is a cruiser, not a drag racer. 90
> > MPH on freeway uphill, no problem! The fine details of putting
> > together a rare piece of machinery like this takes a lot of time and
> > effort. That is worth something. This baby is alltogether hotrod!
>
> I agree with you 100% on all of the above statements (I own a '66
> Polara, 440 2.93 highway gears, would run triple digits for 8 hours
> without breaking a sweat and the AC blowing frost). And I'm sure its a
> great car.
>
> But a 318 C-body still doesn't command that kind of $$ in the market.
> Sorry. Neither does my Polara, and its a 383 car originally. Now if it
> were a pre-66 300 Letter car, or a Monaco 500 convertible.... different
> story.

Yes, I know. The 318 C-body Polara is still unique in car shows and
such.
Somebody wants this one. Lots of interest. I'd like a Monaco 500
myself

"HEMI-Powered" wrote:
> I can categorically say - my opinion, YMMV - that a 318 in
> ANY C-Body car is so anemic as to be almost dangerous, almost as
> bad as the 1st 2.2L K-Cars. You're trying to push around a 4200+
> pound car with only 230 bhp, which might be around 150-160 net
> hp. The power-to-weight for even the bhp was only around 18:1.

The combination of the 318 and the excellent torqueflight trans is pretty
amazing. A buddy of mine had a '68 Fury III with the 318 2bbl. It would
beat my '71 Galaxie 351W or a '74 Monte Carlo 350 from 0 - 60 with no
problem.

When the car is heavy, look at the torque, not the horsepower.

Ken D.

Ken Doyle added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

>> I can categorically say - my opinion, YMMV - that a 318 in
>> ANY C-Body car is so anemic as to be almost dangerous, almost
>> as bad as the 1st 2.2L K-Cars. You're trying to push around a
>> 4200+ pound car with only 230 bhp, which might be around
>> 150-160 net hp. The power-to-weight for even the bhp was only
>> around 18:1.
>
> The combination of the 318 and the excellent torqueflight
> trans is pretty amazing. A buddy of mine had a '68 Fury III
> with the 318 2bbl. It would beat my '71 Galaxie 351W or a '74
> Monte Carlo 350 from 0 - 60 with no problem.
>
> When the car is heavy, look at the torque, not the horsepower.
>
No matter what the weight of the car, torque is what accelerates
it, while hp is what gives it speed, especially top speed. It is
the combination of torque and hp and their relative curve shape
and peak rpms, as well as their rise and fall characteristics
that are tuned to produce desired performance from docile street
to muscle car to street drag racer to a full-blown drag-only car.
In my freshman year in Engineering School, we had an interesting
lecture and exercise that shows how the hp and torque curves,
combined with what is called "road hp" can be used to predict
mathematically the top speed of any vehicle with any engine.

Basically, when aerodynamic forces, drag, tire and other kinds of
friction, etc. combine to create an amount of hp to go faster,
and the engine cannot exceed that, that is the top speed. In the
1960s, Richard Petty was asked why he didn't go faster in some
race and pass what turned out to be the winning car. He said that
his engine and car builder had told him that at the speeds they
were running, close to 200 but before the Winged Warrier days, it
wouldn't taken 50 hp to go just 1-2 mph faster. He didn't have
it. In fact, the Hemi no matter its great reputation, did not
have all that great a hp advantage over the 427 Chevy and Fords,
thus Dodge went to aerodynamics to try to get more speed by
lowering drag, thus lowering road hp as described above.

Still, I stand by my previous statement. Having personally driven
318-equipped cars from A- to B- to C-Body and weights from 3200-
4400 pounds, I can safely say that the heavy cars were just too
much for it. Could it accelerate without being unsafe? Certainly?
But, go back to the reprints of Hot Rod Magazine and other car
rags of the 60s and see the times. It wasn't at all unusual for
318-360-383 2-barrel C-Bodies to take more than 10 seconds to
sprint to 60, sometimes 12. And, I've got reprints of B-Body cars
with 440 4-barrel, Six Packs, and 426 Street Hemi cars with gears
from 3.23 to 4.11 that gave WILDLY differing 0-60 and standing
1320 ETs. The main reason, of course, was temperature, humidity,
and track conditions. In car mag testing, you could rule out
driver error and you could depend on a good tune. e.g., I have a
test of a 426 Road Runner 4-speed with 4.11 gears that had the
attrocious 0-60 time of 7.1 seconds and the 1/4 in OVER 15! Can't
be so, you say? Well, I've got it in print.

Now, if the moon, planets and stars aligned right, small engines
could and did best far more powerful engines. e.g., in 1966, I
had a Dodge Dart GT with a 273 4-barrel, just 235 hp, 4-speed and
3.23 gears. A friend had a similar car, a 1966 Chevy II Nova SS
327/350. I could stay with him to about 50 from a standing start
before he started to pull away - using his vastly superior
torque. Used to majorly **** him off. The reason was, I believe,
NOT that one of us was a better driver but the two engines were
at opposite ends of a BIG set of tolerances that affect
performance.

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered wrote:

He didn't have
> it. In fact, the Hemi no matter its great reputation, did not
> have all that great a hp advantage over the 427 Chevy and Fords,
> thus Dodge went to aerodynamics to try to get more speed by
> lowering drag, thus lowering road hp as described above.

Not "much" of a HP advantage, but then you just proved that it didn't
TAKE much. :-)

However, the Hemi had at least one HUGE advantage over the big-block
Chevy: The Hemi's moving parts usually stayed *inside* the engine for
the duration of a race :-)

The Ford was good competition, though.