Hemi Challenger

Page 5 of 7  
wrote:


Comparing to FORD OHV engines I'll give you that. The valve train on the 551M/351C was definitely inferior. As was the Bos 351 (and the Chevy 396)
They all had rocker and/or valve spring issues (but they ran insane speeds for pushrod engines)
The Chevy SBC was also legendary - and with proper oil changes could EASILY go 200,000 miles in the good years (when they didn't have "butter" camshafts)
So could 318s and even 225s.
If those engines had the advantage of today's oil technology and leadfree gasoline (with the proper valve materials) and EFI they would have run extremely stronly against today's engines as far as reliability is concerned.
The logenvity of todays engines has as much to do with those 3 items as anything else.
Leadfree fuel is the major advantage, followed by fuel injection and electronic engine controls, followed by lubrication technology (up untill about 2000). Today's oils are headed back due to emission demands reducing the EP additives etc.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Johnson wrote:

And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
--
"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett

"Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Meet George Jetson, Jane his wife, daughter Judy, his boy Elroy... LMAO

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WindsorFox wrote:

Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then the fans would be open to them in production cars and actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines run things would probably have turned out differently.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Johnson wrote:

The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies couldn't have it because they last too long.
--
"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett

"Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WindsorFox wrote:

And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That could be said about most suitable power plants, early in their development stages... It may be true now, but that doesn't mean it will be later...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony D wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. You know there was a guy on one of those cable shows a few years back who drove a turbine powered Vette. He drove it normally in traffic. And then there's the GM/Jay Leno thing. Here is an interesting article on the Chrysler turbine http://www.turbinecar.com/sia/sia127.htm
Heh, 130HP and 425 lb/ft
--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:36:02 -0500, WindsorFox

And HORRENDOUS fuel consumption. Even a turbine chopper uses more fuel than a piston engined one - just cheaper fuel. Not sure it ballances out.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

I didn't look at any of that info and didn't even think about it. I'll have to see if there are any consumption listings for the GM thing.
--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony D wrote:

...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of development might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine engine would be in a production car considering how long they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline. Just because the piston engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't necessarily make it the best design.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Johnson wrote:

Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WindsorFox wrote:

A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Johnson wrote:

That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used oil you change out? :oP
--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WindsorFox wrote:

I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the oil/filter in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Johnson wrote:

About $68 in a year, but that's for 7.5 quarts and two filters. BUTT that's not my reference. How many quarts of used oil and filters do you toss out in a year compared to my one filter and 6 quarts? Not that I'm overly green, I just thought I'd point it out. Keep in mind that in the Mustang with it's limited mileage I do an oil analysis and change the full flow filter every year, not all the oil or the by-pass filter.
--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WindsorFox wrote:

I do four oil changes at less than $10 each for a total of less than $40 per year. The truck has close to 200k miles, burns no oil, leaks no oil and runs great. I take my used oil to the landfill and that is as green as I am going to get on the matter. How much did you pay for the initial installation of that systems in parts and/or labor?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Both of my cars get 4 changes a year. The oil goes to be recycled by SafetyKlean so it is not "discarded". 4 liters per change on the Poncho, and 6.5 on the Merc
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure it isn't discarded either. Personally, I think changing the oil every 3,000 miles is more important than using high dollar synthetics. Changing it regularly flushes out contaminants and for most users provides more than adequate protection. Maybe some vehicles that see extremely cold weather benefit from the better viscosity properties of Mobil One or other synthetics.
My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil between changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever is on sale by the case at Costco) for as long as I have owned it. I don't even use Ford filters all the time. If anyone really wants to do their engine a favor then just change the oil regularly. Same goes for the automatic transmission which, IMO, is the most neglected component in most vehicles today. I change the fluid and filter in the Explorer every 30k-40k miles and am still running on the original transmission which, for an Explorer, is quite an accomplishment at nearly 200k miles on the odometer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I always go to Discount (now Advance Auto Parts) because they've got the oil recycle bins there. I dump the old, buy new plus filter, and that's it. Easy.

Agreed. However, I've had very good luck with Mobil-1 on the MPV, as it's got a high-revving V6 with poor top lubrication.

I have to believe it also helps in the summer here when it's consistently over 90 degrees during the day.

This has got to be the single most beneficial thing to do for any vehicle.

Good deal. Is it a 302? I do pretty much the same here. The summer heat certainly doesn't help, so it's always good to adhere to that kind of schedule.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.