On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:05:36 -0400, Grover C. McCoury III wrote:
Where I live there is a Ford dealer right next to a GM dealer and despite
my having been a Chevy guy for a long time, I'm going to buy a Ford this
Mustang to be exact.
Because GM cars are dull.
They look dull.
The colors are boring and the styling looks like they took 1970's/80's
notchback cars like the Buick Regal, Monte Carlo etc and rounded off the
corners. The insides still scream OLD FART CLUB (of which I am a proud
member of at 46yo) even though the motors are starting to come back.
What rocket scientist put the fire breathing V8 in a FWD car, the
Even Dodge had the good sense to go RWD with it's Hemi's and although the
styling doesn't appeal to everyone at least they took a chance.
the interiors are very modern with a touch of retro and well done too.
The Malibu, Cobalt and Impala are other snoozers except maybe for the
Cobalt in SS trim which is nice but rough around the edges especially in
the handling department.
In contrast, the new Ford Mustang was a stroke of genious.
I just hope Ford doesn't screw it up with the rumored changes they are
making next year.
Ford IMHO has one problem and it is the same problem as GM.
They bought way too heavily into the super sized SUV market and
now that gas prices are skyrocketing it is coming back to get them.
Unlike GM though, Ford was smart enough to offer some hybrids and even
though they kinda suck(very high repair costs) it is good for public
relations and people are buying them.
I think the big three really have to do some serious market research, hire
some talented designers with fresh ideas and look toward the future (like
Japanese companies) instead of a quarterly bottom line.
Why not, lets see, Olds Tornado, Caddilac Eldarado, Coupe DeVille, STS,
Buick Rivera to
name a few. The Toronado set up was so bullet proof GMC used it in its RV
they offered in the 70's and early 80's that still has a cult following with
almost 75% of those sold still on the road.
Probably because of Mercedes owning them, Mercedes is stil rear wheel drive.
And the hemi is a marketing ploy to the inth degree, to compare what they
today to the 426 hemis of the late 60's and 70's is a joke.
I rather like the Monte Carlo, but the Impala misses the mark
I will agree, with the exception of the rear quarter windows the car is
me thinks it needs some chrome in the bumper areas though..
But the rest of the line up looks like they just stretched the designs.
The Ranger has a better profile than the Colorado
They built what was selling, and the japs jumped on board as well, Honda and
Toyota both offering full size v-8 powered rigs now.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:55:23 +0000, Whitelightning wrote:
An RV is hardly considered a performance car and while the STS is
certainly fast enough, the first corner it takes will be the last.
Those cars are not really considered "performance cars", like the SS is
being marketed as.
Marketing of course.
It's all about marketing.
Compared to the engines of the 60's and 70's it depends upon what you are
Todays engines are lighter, have better fuel economy and are certainly far
more reliable albeit more expensive to fix. I'm not sure I go for the 8/4
Then you have the suspensions.
I used to own a 1972 340 Plymouth Duster and while it was certainly a
screamer in the straight line it was actually dangerous on anything even
Most of the muscle cars from that era were like that as well.
It's not *bad* but the interior is way out of date, but not really retro
like say the Mustang.
It's certainly a pleasant enough ride and has a lot of power but it looks
basically like the same car GM hasn't been able to sell in years, only
with a much better motor.
I actually saw one like that.
I'm not sure how the owner did it but the bumpers were different and they
sure looked like chrome to me.
It was on the freeway so I didn't get a close up look.
The Freestyle is pretty nice but they gave it a wheezer of a motor.
The SUV market was extremely hot for a while.
Personally I could never figure it out but.....
I just pointed that out to my wife today when we saw a Tundra go by.
It's interesting to see the Japs make a mistake for a change :)
Even if it was just bad luck!
"Bulletproof" or not, high horsepower FWD cars have torque steer
problems. And you must admit, given the choice most every performance
nut would opt for RWD over FWD.
1) The modern 6.1L Hemi is NET rated at what the old 7L Hemi was rated
in GROSS HP.
2) And a modern SRT Hemi car will walk any old Hemi car.
So the modern Hemi's performance isn't a joke.
Now let's see if re-using the Hemi name is a "marketing ploy".
Conclusions So Far
Unless there is something that has been under-/over-estimated or
overlooked, it seems that this new Hemi has evolved into something as
high-tech as the LS6 engine. If so, this means (from the street
performance enthusiast point of view) it is hot right out of the crate
(see output curves in Fig 1) and chock full of major power potential.
Its crowning feature is going to be the cylinder head, so let's take a
serious look at this all-important piece of hardware now.
The advantage of a hemi design of combustion chamber is that the valves
(and most importantly the intake valve) are always moving away from the
shrouding effect of the cylinder walls (Fig 2) as they lift off the
seats. However, the new hemi is not actually a true hemi as per its
426-inch predecessor. The hemi style of combustion chamber was put to
good use during WWII when the output of supercharged aero engines could
basically decide the fate of nations. For a two-valve combustion
chamber, the hemi layout not only allows the largest valves to be
accommodated but also to have the highest flow efficiency. The downside
of a true Hemi configuration is that it does not respond well to a high
compression ratio that inevitably requires a combustion-inhibiting,
high-domed piston. For an engine with a typical bore/stroke ratio, this
means it works great with a supercharger and CRs less than 8.5:1, but
not as a normally-aspirated unit with 10:1 or more. To get around this
problem the new Hemi has the sides of the true hemi form filled in.
With the two spark plugs it is equipped with, this allows all the
advantages of a true hemi, including blower capability, along with the
ability, if required, to successful utilize high compression ratios.
Seems there was a valid reason to slightly modify the old Hemi design.
The new Hemi needed more compression and the old Hemi design wouldn't
cut the mustand.
We can see that Chrysler's engineers were targeting the best two-valve
head possible. There are two important questions that need to be asked
here: How well did they succeed for the head in stock form and, since
no aftermarket heads are available, what is its porting potential? The
graph, Fig 3, gives the answers here and you are going to like them.
First, the intake port. The stock port with its 2-inch valve flowed a
whopping 270 cfm at only .600-inch lift. It hit the peak flow figures,
which are produced at .700-inch lift on a stock LS6, at only about 375
thousandths lift. This is good news but there is a lot more. Peak
figures are not the whole story. Good mid-range figures are also
important. The new Hemi did extremely well here. At 250 thousandths
lift, the stock head was nearer a $10,000 Winston (Nextel) Cup head
than it was to even a good modified parallel-valve head.
A check on the intake port velocity (Fig 4) showed the intake to be a
super high-speed port with valve-to-port areas very similar to what is
seen in Formula One. Velocity probing showed 90 percent of the port
flows at a velocity greater than 90 percent of maximum. This is far
better than a typical 23-degree performance head for a small-block
Chevy or, for that matter, the LS6.
The exhaust port showed the same high-function trend by hitting 161 cfm
at 600 thousandths lift through its 1.55-inch valve. It also had a far
better than average port velocity and velocity distribution (Fig 5).
We spent a day and a half on the flow bench in an effort to find out
what this head does or does not like in the way of port mods. We are
sure there is much still to come, especially with some bigger valves,
but we did find what it took to produce, at 600 thousandths lift, some
302 cfm on the intake and 195 cfm on the exhaust. As the nearby photos
show the work to achieve this proved simple. In essence, the porting
involves little more than just tidying up what Chrysler's engineers
provided in the first place (great job guys).
The bottom line here we think is that even in today's world, the Hemi,
a year after its introduction, has got more going for it as a hot rod
motor than perhaps the small-block Chevy did in 1956. Even with the
limitations on valve lift brought about by the stock rocker, the
cylinder head has more than enough flow potential to clear the 600-hp
barrier and probably do it (relatively speaking) with ease.
"...clear 600-hp barrier and do it with relative ease" certainly sounds
like a no-joke engine.
So will it be a success? This depends on the factory as much as
anything. First, they must put it in vehicles that inspire hot rodders
to do something with them. The Hemi truck is a great start here as the
sport truck market is big. Introducing a viable pony car to compete
with the Mustang would probably clinch the deal in that department. But
it will still need a little more than just the right vehicles. The
factory will have to support this engine in aftermarket parts. This
appears to be happening but as far as we are concerned, it can't happen
fast enough. We're avid Chevy fans and have owned many Chevy vehicles
over the years, but this 5.7 Hemi has totally convinced us our next
truck just has to be a Hemi-powered Dodge.
Hmmm... avid Chevy fans admitting the new Hemi outguns their brand's
best. Not too shabby for a "marketing ploy" and a joke compared to
Don't laugh. Find me an original road test where a normal production
Hemi car posts a trap speed of 109 mph. You don't have to bother
looking because you won't find any. 105 is it, with most posting trap
speeds closer to 100. And if you've been a subscriber to Hemmings
Muscle Machines magazine you'll have noted a few times where they've
stated the old Hemi cars aren't as fast as the new SRT Hemi cars, or
more like not even close to as fast.
Me... I'd bet the farm on the a new SRT Hemi...
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:18:02 -0700, NoOption5L wrote:
And don't even talk about fuel economy, efficiency and cornering ability.
The new Dodges clean house in that neck of the woods.
I drove the 5.7 Hemi and while I don't really like the styling, it was a
seriously powered ride!
You literally have to hang on to the steering wheel to keep from flying
back in the seat.
The larger Hemi can only be better....
However, the Mustang, even the V6 is simply more fun to drive.
It really is.
I dunno why, I really don't but IMHO it is a more fun ride.
I think it might be because the Dodge feels *heavy*...
Same difference. The Dodge has about 75 more torque and
it still isn't enough because of the extreme weight. I was really
surprised to see that it weighed so much. That is a little more
than the weight of the huge Chevy Impalas from the early 70's.
I don't know why you think it's apples to oranges.
Anyways, the old hemi 'Cudas were heavy cars -- 3800+ pounds. (The
'68-'70 Chargers were lighter, if only by a bit.) So they had about
the same amount of body mass to move as the new Hemi does.
Obviously he never drove one. There is a hell of a difference between 350
cid, and 426 cid.
Ahh those were the days,Chrysler's 426 hemi's, Ford's 429 cobra jet ala 1970
Torino, and Chevy's '63 409 cid, and the later 427 cid engines, and last but
not least, the '70 Buick StageI with the 455 cid, 510 ft pounds of torque,
at 2,600 rpm.
Displacement differences are made up by fuel injection,
superchargers and turbochargers, and the electronics
systems that allow maximum spark advance to be used
because of the knock sensors. Quite simply, the stock
autos from the late 60's and early 70's were not producing
as much power as these new cars.
Magazine test data that compares the old and new cars
has repeatedly shown that the old cars were not actually
as fast as many people think.
Can you take one of the new dodges, slap a set of 10 inch drag slicks,
and a set of slapper bars on it and pull the front wheels off the ground?
The 70 cuda's and challengers would do just that. with the 426 hemi ,
dual four barrels and four speed tranny. Stock off the show room floor
turn 1/4 miles in the low 13's at 104-113 mph . Car and Driver tested
the 2005 300 with the 5.7 and turned consistent 14.4 1/4 miles times,
which is not a shabby time by any means, but it aint a low 13 ether, and
the 2004 Pontiac GTO beats it at 13.3, with a 4.8 , again as tested by C&D.
The hemi is a good engine, but dodge is pushing it like its a 426, and it
and many buying it don't know no better any ways.
The tests that I saw showed the Dodge SRT-8 Hemis
turning the 1/4 mile in 13.4 sec @ 105 mph.
That is done with the tires that were on the vehicle
when it left the dealer.
The SRT-8 is more powerful than just a regular Hemi equipped
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.