Does vortec engine mean good?

Good points, but none of these "advantages" has anything to do with it being a "hemi." The Chevy engine with the wedge head is getting practically the same power with a smaller, lighter, and simplier design (1 plug, simplier rocker arm system, etc).For a person buying a vehicle today, growth means almost nothing. And if I they want a bigger engine, then Chevy already has the 7 Litre LS7 (505 Hp). As far as I can see the main attraction to the "hemi" is the ability to claim you have a "hemi." I think it is the triumph of great marketing over good engineering. Chrysler has already been down the hemi road twice before. In the end the disadvantages of the design resulted in the engine being dropped. Even the legendary 426 Hemi in NASCAR race trim was no better than a Ford FE 427. And nobody would claim that a Ford FE was a particuarly sophiticated engine. You also have to wonder about the wisdom of spending tons of money developing a large, thirsty, enviromentally marginal engine at this time in history. On the other hand it has been a marketing bonanza. People I know who haven't considered buying a Chrysler in

40 years, are suddenly interested in Chrysler products again. And I suppose that is what really matters. Still, it just seems to me they made a lot of bad compromises so they could claim the engine was a "hemi" even if it is only marginally one.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White
Loading thread data ...

Which the 5.7 is NOT. 25 mpg in a car the size of the Magnum is quite a feat, and GM has now copied the Hemi's MDS system for their smallest Gen-III engine for that very reason. And yet it only gets 30 mpg in a little car like the Impala.

I'm still not sure where teh "compromises" are. The resulting engine breathes better than its sibling 4.7L OHC cousin, has fewer parts, more growth potential, and runs cleaner not dirtier. I guess I'm not seeing the downside.

Reply to
Steve

Little car? The Impala has more interior room than a Chrysler 300 (although the trunk is smaller). Plus the 5.3L Impala gets significantly better mileage than the 5.7L 300 (22 combined for the Impala vs. 20 combined for the 300).

Go back and read the Allpar reference. Notice where the Chrysler engineer was quoted as saying they barely got it to meet emission standards. And to do so they had to add a second plug and fill in the corners of the hemi shape. The engine is significantly heavier than the Chevy engine as well. Just because Chrysler screwed up the 4.7 is not a reason to celebrate the "hemi." The "hemi" does not have fewer parts than the Chevy V-8, and claiming it has "more growth potential" is just a polite way of saying it is bigger than it needed to be. How much more growth potential do you need than a SMC? And why do you give Chrysler credit for the MDS system? Who is copying who? GM tired this before and Honda has a similar system on the Pilot V-6 (only more sophisticated). And while the EPA numbers look good, how well does the MDS system do in the real world? Consumer Reports had the following to say on the subject:

"The 300C's 340-hp, 5.7-liter Hemi V8 delivers effortless performance, reminiscent of American sedans in the '50s and '60s. However, it delivered poor gas mileage, despite the engine's variable-displacement system...."

CU's overall mileage, mpg16 CU's city/highway, mpg10/27 CU's 150-mile trip, mpg20

A Crown Victoria, a significantly larger car with admittedly less performance, achieved better fuel economy in the CU 150 mile trip than the Chrysler 300. The overall mileage was the same. The 300 did have better highway mileage, which I suppose is the goal of the MDS. Still, one has to wonder whether this system is just another marketing gimmick (or maybe something that is tuned to give good numbers in the EPA test). And besides, the MDS system is not directly related to the "hemi" design. As you noted, it could have been just as easily applied to a traditional wedge head (which is what Chevy did).

My argument is that the "hemi" part of the new engine is bogus. It is not really a true hemi, and the compromises they made to create a faux hemi were driven more by marketing needs than good engineering. On the other hand, the publicity and sales have validated the marketing decision to create a new hemi. I suppose it will only be a matter of time before Ford has to create a new "Boss" something.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Well, I can't quote you cubic feet But I've had a lot of rental Impalas, a lot of rental Magnums, and own a first-gen LH. The Impala is a WHOLE lot smaller than a Chrysler LH or a Magnum. I've never sat in a 300C, so I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par with a Stratus in size.

Allpar is often FOS on facts. I think whoever wrote that article was harkening back to how much trouble Chrysler was anticipating with the OLD hemi in the 70s, when they were considering replacing all the wedge engines with low-cost easy-to-produce ball-stud rocker headed Hemis. That was before computer modelling of combustion dynamics. Whatever the method, the current hemi is clean. And not a lot of effort was required- the dual plugs are even a waste-spark setup that doesn't add any hardware other than the plug wires and an extra set of plugs. The benefit is WELL worth the cost, given that it not only cleans emissions but allows the engine to run with less spark advance, futher improving fuel efficiency over a comparable single-plug wedge head. It also costs LESS to produce than the insanely simple LA 360 it replaced, and somewhat less than the 4.7 (which itself costs less than the insanely simple LA 318 it replaced). You're talking about a new engine being cheaper to build than one with 50 years of production refinement behind it- I fail to see how anyone can argue that the Hemi is "expensive" to build.

Those numbers look pretty good for a real full-sized car with the kind of power that a 300C has. As I said, a v6 LH car barely beats 27 highway, and you have to remember that Condemner Retards tests NEW (un-broken-in) vehicles. People I know with Hemis are doing considerably better than the above once they get 15000 or so miles on them. If I have any argument with the 300C/Hemi package, it isn't the Hemi part. Its the too-square and too-heavy chassis hung around it.

Understood, but I respecfully disagree.

Reply to
Steve

You've got to be joking.

Reply to
Steve Mackie

He's more or less correct, in the real world if maybe not in the EPA's fantasy world of car size classifications.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

I am not sure now you rate car sizes - exterior, interior, etc. The fueleconomy.gov site quotes passenger volume and luggage volume. Here are some 2006 vehicles for comparison

Chrysler 300 - 103 cu ft passenger + 24 cu ft = 127 cu ft combined Chevrolet Impala - 105 cu ft passenger + 19 cu ft luggage = 124 cu ft total Ford Five Hundred - 108 cu ft passenger + 21 cu ft luggage = 129 cu ft Dodge Stratus 4 Door - 64 cu ft passenger + 16 cu ft luggage = 80 cu ft total Ford Crown Victoria -111 cu ft passenger + 21 cu ft luggage = 132 cu ft total

Here is the description of passenger and luggage volume from the web site:

"The passenger volume reported on this site is an estimate of the size of the passenger compartment. The luggage volume is the size of the trunk or, in station wagons and hatchbacks, the cargo space behind the second seat. In a few cases, the addition of passenger and cargo volume numbers indicate that a vehicle should be in the next higher classification. This is not the case as the data have been rounded to the nearest whole number. "The interior volume is measured using SAE Recommended Practice J1100 as per EPA Fuel economy regulations, reg. 40 CFR 600.315-82 "Classes of Comparable Automobiles." Automobile manufacturers calculate the interior volume of their vehicles and submit this information to EPA.

"The SAE procedure calculates interior volume from many height, width and length dimensions inside the vehicle, including head room, foot room, seat width, etc. The trunk volume is typically determined by putting many suitcase sized boxes in the trunk and adding up the volume of each box."

I can't see how you can think the Stratus is the same size as an Impala, at least on the inside. It is not even close.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Not at all. Yes, its a little bit bigger than a Stratus, but its closer to a Stratus than it is to an Intrepid, Magnum, or Charger. Don't get me wrong, its cool that they offer a powerful v8 in such a little package- it should be as much of a rocket as you can get within front-drive traction limits.

Reply to
Steve

By how comfortably my cow-orkers and I fit in it when we drive it around on business trips... and if we have to rent a second car on-the-spot in order to fit us all. Been there, done THAT. :-/

exterior, interior, etc. The

Doesn't mean squat in the real world (although I'd love to know WHERE those cubic feet are being wasted). An Impala is still more cramped than a Magnum, and "feels" much like a Stratus or Malibu. In some ways, the Malibu feels more spacious. IMO, the older Intrepid/Concorde feels more roomy than any of them except the Crown Vic (and as I said I can't speak for a 300 since I've never been in one- or a Ford 500, for that matter.)

Reply to
Steve

I use real-world heuristics like "How free or cramped am I at the feet, legs, hips, shoulders, arms, in the driver's seat, passenger's seat, rear seat?".

Their numeric figures would be relevant if we wished to fill the passenger compartment with a fluid. Since we don't, they don't mean anything in the real world. You want to argue? Fine, but I get to pick our respective venues: I will be in a 288 cubic foot room 6 feet wide by 6 feet deep by 8 feet high. You will be in a 512 cubic foot room 64 feet wide by 2 feet deep by 4 feet high. That gives you an advantage of 224 cubic feet. I'll even let you have the opening arguments.

DS

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

Me too, but I have not had a chance to sit in a new Impala and I've never tried the 4 door Stratus. I have tried a 300 and agree with Consumer Report's assessment that "the claustrophobic cabin and limited outward visibility are detractions."

Did you read the explanation of what the passenger volume means? You cut it out of the reply, so maybe you did not bother to read it. Here is the relevant part again -

"The interior volume is measured using SAE Recommended Practice J1100 as per EPA Fuel economy regulations, reg. 40 CFR 600.315-82 "Classes of Comparable Automobiles." Automobile manufacturers calculate the interior volume of their vehicles and submit this information to EPA.

"The SAE procedure calculates interior volume from many height, width and length dimensions inside the vehicle, including head room, foot room, seat width, etc....."

It does not sound like a straight "fluid volume" like you are implying. I certainly recognize that different people find a car with a particular interior arrangement more comfortable than another, supposedly larger car. However, the numerical differences between the Stratus and Impala are simply too large to give any credibility to the claim that the Stratus is almost as big as the Impala. Here are the basic measurements of the three from Edmunds.com:

Measurement Impala 300 Stratus Front Head Room: 39.4 in. 38.7 in. 37.6 in. Front Hip Room: 56.4 in. 55.9 in. 52.5 in. Front Shoulder Room: 58.7 in. 57.7 in. 55.2 in. Rear Head Room: 37.8 in. 38.0 in. 35.8 in. Rear Shoulder Room: 58.6 in. 57.7 in. 54.7 in. Rear Hip Room: 57.2 in. 55.9 in. 53.1 in. Front Leg Room: 42.3 in. 41.8 in. 42.3 in. Rear Leg Room: 37.6 in. 40.2 in. 38.1 in.

Of these three cars, the 300 is the only one I have actually sat in. And it was not particularly spacious and the sight lines for a tall person like me were undesirable. The numbers say the Impala has the largest interior of the three. Until I actually sit in one, there is some doubt, but it seems to me if you are claiming the Impala is in the same size class as a Stratus, then you need to say the same thing about the 300. The Ford 500 feels much larger than the Chrysler 300, except I dislike the way the wheel well cuts into the passengers foot space. Interestingly on the drivers side, they provide a dead pedal which compensates somewhat. They should add one on the passengers side as well.

What has this got to do with the discussion of which car is larger? Surely you don't mean to imply that there are these sort of radical dimensional differences exist between cars? Is this one of those famous strawman arguments?

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Yes, it's another of SAE's laughable standards that takes a bunch of real measurements, applies assorted handwaving to them and comes up with a composite number that doesn't mean anything.

It was a lengthy way of saying that 64 cubic feet of which 58 are usable yields an *effectively* larger car than 104 cubic feet of which

49 are usable.
Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

implying. I

Notice these numbers. They say that the cabin of the Impala is about 1/2 inch shorter in length than the Stratus. The Stratus does have a narrower body though. Measurement wise the 300 and the impala are VERY close.

dimensional

Reply to
Steve W.

I am not sure about the cabin being 1/2 inch shorter, since the leg room measurement is not a straight front to rear measurement and seat configuration palys into the number (and interestingly, Consumer Reports quotes a lower front leg room number for the Stratus). However, that is the only dimension where you can make an arguement that the Stratus is close to the same size as the Impala. Clearly the Impala's cabin is much wider and TALLER (2 inces or so).

Anyhow, I think you now can see that the Implala is evey bit as large a car as the 300 (and Charger and Magnum). So Steve Mackie's comment that you had to be joking when you climed the Impala was close to the same size as a Stratus is true - right? Either that are you need to make the same claim for all the current Chrysler "large" cars.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.