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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. > > |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Which version?
I haven't seen the 6.1 out yet; limited supply? I've seen the R/T but no Daytona yet. I also noticed that some came equipped with racing stripes (several in cool vanilla, I believe) but when you build and price them on the Dodge web site, there are no photos with the car like this. Is this a dealer add on? I also noticed that one of the models even had a little emblem on the side that said 340HP. Another add-on or factory? I really like this car. -- "Now Phoebe Snow direct can go from thirty-third to Buffalo. From Broadway bright the tubes run right Into the Road of Anthracite" Erie - Lackawanna "Art" > wrote in message ink.net... >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. > |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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') |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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') |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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') |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Bill Putney wrote:
> 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 Er...*NO*, Bill. The Olds engines were completely different -- down to every nut, bolt and screw -- from the Chev engines, even though certain of them (e.g. the 350) had the same piston displacement. > My strong recollection is that they really were the same engine other > than those things. Your strong recollection is strongly incorrect. Perhaps you're misremembering that starting in 1977, GM began installing various divisions' engines in various divisions' cars without informing customers. Had I ordered a '77 Olds with a 350 engine and received not the Olds engine but the grossly inferior Chevrolet item, I'd've been ****ed enough to sue, too. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|