 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / June 2005Chrysler 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 > 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. > Dual spark plugs and a LOT of computer simulation into combustion > chamber and induction/exhaust design- a very cool thing indeed! One of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>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 > > Dual spark plugs and a LOT of computer simulation into combustion > > chamber and induction/exhaust design- a very cool thing indeed! One of [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > very small turning radius for a car it's size, you point it somewhere and > it's there immediately. > ...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. >> ...One of >> the big issues with bringing back the Hemi head was keeping emissions [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > (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') > 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 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>(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 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 pissed enough to sue, too. > 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 - Not even close. Not a single part will interchange between a Chevy 350 and an Olds 350 and a Buick 350. Except maybe the distributor cap. If you look at the internal engine architecture, there are huge diffeerences there as well. Just as the briefest example, both the Buick and Olds engines used shaft-mounted rocker arms ala Chrysler, while Chevy used stud-mounted rockers. The bore/stroke ratios were different- EVERYTHING was different. Even the block alloy was slightly different (Chevy used a low-nickel iron alloy that was softer than the alloy Olds and Buick used.) They wont even bolt up to the same transmissions- the bellhousing pattern on a Chevy is different from Buick, Olds, and Pantycrack. In the twenty yearys I spent as a GM tech, In Canada Olds and Chevrolet where sold at the same dealership, if you sold Chev you sold Olds also, some customer PREFERED the chevy 350 as performance add ons are everywhere, some of the OLDer cust wanted Olds engine, no big deal either way from my stand point, tell the customer and let them decide Scott >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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> oil filter changed at the Oldsmobile dealer. Oldsmobile didn't even make >> the size engine that was in their cars. Really ticked customers off. 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. 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. nate > In the twenty yearys I spent as a GM tech, In Canada Olds and > Chevrolet where sold at the same dealership, if you sold Chev you sold [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>>oil filter changed at the Oldsmobile dealer. Oldsmobile didn't even make >>>the size engine that was in their cars. Really ticked customers off.  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 > 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. > (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). >>(Kind of reminds me of the Oldsmobile "Rocket V-8" debacle wherein >>Oldsmobile got in legal trouble for substituting non-"Rocket" engines [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > 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') >>> (Kind of reminds me of the Oldsmobile "Rocket V-8" debacle wherein >>> Oldsmobile got in legal trouble for substituting non-"Rocket" engines [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > (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 pissed, 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 Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > A knowledgeable buyer would have been pissed, 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! >> ...One of >> the big issues with bringing back the Hemi head was keeping emissions [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') Any comments on whether such engines as the 3.2 and 3.5 are technically hemis without the Hemi™ designation? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') 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? >>> ...One of >>> the big issues with bringing back the Hemi head was keeping emissions [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') > For what its worth, Consumer Reports says that lots of engines these days by > various manufacturers are hemi type designs. Condemner Retards says a LOT of things.... > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 shitty when it's running, I don't want to drive. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > 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". >> ...One of >> the big issues with bringing back the Hemi head was keeping emissions [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. The new Hemi head isn't really a hemisphere either- its more of a modified hemi-ellipse: http://popularhotrodding.com/tech/0403phr_hemi_04_s.jpg Note the quench areas to the left and right in the picture, and the added indentations for the spark plugs. If Marketing hadn't been such a major contributor, they could more correctly have called the new engines a "Polyshperic" head like the old 318 was until 1967- the chamber is the intersection of multiple spherical (or ellipsoidal) shapes, rather than a single hemisphere. >> Hmmm. There has been periodic discussion on the 300M Club forums over >> the years in which it was convincingly claimed that many engines, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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? 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? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >>> Hmmm. There has been periodic discussion on the 300M Club forums >>> over the years in which it was convincingly claimed that many [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. > 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... >>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? > >>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? Surely has. 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. Signature"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 >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. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.