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
  #21  
Old December 12th 04, 11:18 AM
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


Ads
  #22  
Old December 14th 04, 04:56 PM
Jeff Wieland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et> "KokomoKid" > writes:
>
>"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.


Acually they were made alongside the O24's for at least 1982, and I'm
pretty sure that was true in 1983 as well. You gotta remember what
cars were like in those days -- getting 84 horsepower out of a 135 CID
engine was pretty good.
--
Jeff Wieland
  #23  
Old December 14th 04, 04:56 PM
Jeff Wieland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et> "KokomoKid" > writes:
>
>"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.


Acually they were made alongside the O24's for at least 1982, and I'm
pretty sure that was true in 1983 as well. You gotta remember what
cars were like in those days -- getting 84 horsepower out of a 135 CID
engine was pretty good.
--
Jeff Wieland
 




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 03:50 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.