The Hemi in the new Chrysler 300C gets 5w20!

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AV8R: Chrysler 'borrowed' the head design for their hemi engines of the 50s. As far as their 'legendary reputation' goes, the engines were mediocre in performance because the hemi head didn't allow for much compression ratio. The real strength of the engine, in my opinion, was that the low compression made it easy to supercharge, with great results. Those were hot engines, but the production versions never showed much promise. The engine was redesigned in the mid 60s, still not much of an engine. Reliability in standard configuration was subpar, and trying to make a performer from this engine was impossible mainly because the thing had pushrods as long as your arm, and revving it one rpm above seven thousand would leave parts all up and down the street. The 'new hemi', as it is advertsed, is a wedge design kind of twisted sideways. It is still mediocre in performance, but seems to be even less reliable than the 'legendary' engines of the past.

---

Where to begin? First off, it's common knowledge among those who know the story behind Chrysler's original hemi engine that the engineers chose the hemispherical combustion chamber because it was the most efficient of that day. With a centrally located spark plug, flame travel was equal across the area of the chamber and piston top. A true hemispherical combustion chamber is not a pentroof or any other hybrid shape: It is a true hemisphere. The angle of the intake and exhaust valves in the original design allowed for maximum flow. The original Chrysler hemi was far from "mediocre" in performance. Even before Chrysler itself decided to exploit the performance potential of this engine, others did. The bread-and-butter hemi was introduced in 1951 and that year a hemi-powered Chrysler Saratoga came in first in the Stock Car Class and second overall in the Carrera Pan-Americana road race. Also in 1951, one of the all-time great American racers, Briggs Cunningham, chose the Chrysler hemi to power his Le Mans race cars. Cunningham continued to use the hemi in his racers throughout the 50s. He won Sebring in 1953, and placed 3rd at LeMans in 53 and 54. In 1952, a hemi-powered Kurtis Kraft Indy roadster was banned from the race during qualifying because it was too fast. In 1953, Lee Petty finished 2nd in NASCAR championship points with his hemi-powered Dodge. It wasn’t until the introduction of the 300 in 1955 that Chrysler started playing on the performance angle of the hemi. The 331 CID engine in the 1955 Chrysler 300 produced 300 HP. The car was named the "300" because this was the first time a production car had been produced by any of the Big Three that came with this "magic" horsepower number. In 1956, the 331 was increased in displacement to 354, and in the 300B of that year was rated at 340 HP. Compression was raised from 8.5:1 to 9:1 in the standard engine, and optional 10:1 heads could be ordered which increased output to 355 HP. This was the first production engine to reach the magic "one HP per cubic inch." A lot of people erroneously think the 57 Vette with the fuel injected 283 rated at 283 HP was the first, but it wasn't. The 56 Chrysler 300B was. Carl Keikhaefer and his team of factory-backed 300s literally dominated NASCAR in 1955 and 56, winning both the road course and the flying mile at Daytona both years. Of the 45 NASCAR races in 1955, the Chrysler 300 won 23 of them. At the Daytona Flying Mile competition that year, the 300 won with an average speed of 127.58 MPH. In 1956, the 300 won again with an average speed of 139.373 MPH, with a maximum one-way run of 142.9 MPH. When Virgil Exner debuted his 57 designs that completely blew the rest of Detroit away, the original hemi reached its peak in size: 392 CID. Horsepower was 375 @ 5200 RPM. Chrysler no longer officially sponsored the 300 in racing, but that didn't keep individuals from racing the 57 300: a hemi-powered Chrysler 300 won the Dayton flying mile with a speed of over 147 MPH. The last year of production for the original Chrysler hemi was 1958. In the 300D of that year, fuel injection was offered for the first time and horsepower was at 390 with a 10.5:1 compression ratio. That year, a Chrysler 300D set a Class E speed record at Bonneville when it ran 156.387 MPH. The hemi engine that Chrysler produced and sold in various Dodge and Plymouth models in the 60s was NOT a redesign of the original hemi. Chrysler used the basic 426 big block wedge engine and designed a set of hemi heads for it. However, because the engine was not designed from the ground up as a hemi, going this route meant the angle of the intake and exhaust valves was not optimum and the combustion chamber was not a true hemisphere (though it was very close). This engine was a MONSTER horsepower producer, however, and more than one “insider” at Chrysler at the time reported that the published HP figure of 425 on the street version was “wildly conservative,” with the true number being “somewhere around 500.” When Richard Petty debuted the race version of the 426 Hemi at Daytona in 1964, he not only won the race, he lapped the entire field. There was literally nothing in NASCAR that year that could even approach the performance level of the hemi. A hemi-powered car placed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, at Daytona that year, and hemi-powered cars won 26 of the 62 NASCAR races in 64. In 1965, NASCAR officials banned the hemi from competition, but the hemi would return to racing in 1967 when Chrysler built the “street” version of the 426 hemi to get around the 1965 NASCAR ban. In 1967, Richard Petty won 27 Grand National races in his hemi-powered Plymouth, 10 of those in a row. I think a lot of people who want to dismiss the current hemi as a lot of marketing hype are too young to remember the reputation the original hemi had in the 1950s and the reputation the 426 hemi had in the 1960s. One advantage the new hemi has is that it was designed, just like the original, from the ground up as a hemi. The very thing that makes a DOHC design such an efficient power producer (the overall shape of the combustion chamber) is the highlight of the modern hemi. And yet a pushrod engine is cheaper to build than a DOHC engine, so you get the best of both worlds with a true hemi that is a pushrod design. In “standard” trim the new hemi is already producing as much horsepower as the LS1 in the C5 Corvette. Chrysler hasn’t even begun to tap into this engine yet, and I predict with very little tweaking it will be putting out well over 400 HP in later iterations from Chrysler. Stay tuned. [ April 14, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: G-Man II ]

 

[Schmoe]

Been reading this for a while also and in the interim, I came across an article that says that the new Titan dealers have a back log of these at the lots. They aren't selling. Article said that they are ready to start advertising big time, they need to. I agree with B250, they are really really ugly. I can't believe the Nissan engineers didn't put the "look" factor into the designing skills. Missed the boat on that one. Nothing is perfect: Dodge has transmission and axle problems, Chevy has electronic and piston slap, Fords have leaking head gaskets and blowing spark plugs.

 

[Darryl]

Thanks G-Man II, alot of great factual info. Darryl

 

[BlackF250]

Hey Darryl, I am glad that we are are friendly terms again! To let you know where I am coming from, My father had a dodge that the tranny went in and the rear end locked up on so I guess I have a bit of a sore spot when it comes to chrysler products. That is not to say that your Dakota is not a nice truck. When I called the Titan frame puny, I was actually refering to the fact that it looked less robust than my last truck, a 1998 RANGER! Mayby the Titan is selling on the west coast where people seem to really like import vehicles, but in my neck of the woods they can't move them at all. I drive by a nissan dealership every day and they have the same Titans that just sit there and collect dust. However the F-150 is flying off the lot like it is some sort of limited production collector vehicle. Also to clarify on a previous post, the headgasket problem was on the 1999 Ford 5.4 only. It was an external leak oil leak from the p/s rear of the head. It causes no engine damage, just makes an oily mess on the back of the motor. Ford extended the warranty on them to 100,000 miles. The spark plug blow-out is a very limited problem. I worked at a Ford Dealership up until a little over a year ago. I never saw one plug issue, however I have heard about it. The problem is that the threads in the head are not very deep in the early 5.4's. If the plugs are left in too long they can start to walk out if not re-torqued. Ford corrected this problem by adding more threads in the head.

 

[Darryl]

mracer: I wasn't going to throw numbers around, but remember I too have a real truck. '99 Dakota R/T with a lot of mods (only hint is it's force inducted also, and it hasn't gone KABOOM) Now, I know that a stock lightning would kill a stock Dakota R/T at the strip.(hp/weight ratio) But my stock R/T would kill the lightning at the road course. (3,900lbs vs 4,700lbs) Again, I have first hand knowledge of this statement at Willow Springs. But my point was, be carefull if you go up against a "stock" looking Dakota, you just might get your tail handed to you. Ask the guy in the Lightning I beat at LACR 3 Fridays ago. I ran a 13.58.........He didn't Darryl P.S. mracer: I have had my tail handed to me more than a couple of times by Lightnings! [ April 14, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Darryl ]

 

[mracer]

Sorry, I don't remember discussing the slowkota R/T with you. (joking, no offense) With enough $money$ spent even a Hyundai might run 12's. You brought up the RAM SRT-10, I showed you it getting it's a** handed to it by a Lightning. End of story. [ April 14, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: mracer ]

 

[Darryl]

I think we'll agree to disagree about the "SRT 10 getting its a** handed to it by a Lightning" But that "Slokota R/T" remark would be better off being settled at the strip, or the road course.......Take your poison, either way I'll be waiting for you at the stripe. Darryl [ April 14, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Darryl ]

 

[rugerman1]

Now that we have that out of our collective systems,Let's get back on topic. Mark

 

[Greaser]

I thought pick-ups were supposed to haul manure around ..I'll take a cummins diesel and leave the road racing to sports cars...

 

[sbc350gearhead]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugerman1: Now that we have that out of our collective systems,Let's get back on topic. Mark

---

I agree. CHEVY RULES!!!! Sorry mark.......couldn't resist.

 

[rugerman1]

Jason,

 

[Cerbera LM]

These guys seems to think the Hemi is greatest thing since sliced bread. I wouldn't buy one because it's a Chrysler but the good news is that 300C is built on E-class platform. But to keep from stepping on the E-class toes the 300C uses the previous-generation design which is now a nine-year-old design. www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0403phr_hemi/

 

[mracer]

I actually own an SVT Lightning and I speak from real experience with a real truck over the past 3.5 years in what I have said here. It's ok to get on the internet and bench race a vehicle you dream of owning, but it does not have the credibility of an actual ownership experience. Here are 2 things I am still waiting to see from the Dodge boys: 1. a real 12 second timeslip from a RAM SRT-10 2. a video of a RAM SRT-10 beating a Lightning. http://lightningrocks.com/Tom/226tomspanks_srt10_sm.wmv Dodge had 6 years to come up with an answer to the Lightning. What they came up with is a $15,000 more expensive truck that basically only equals the Lightning in performance despite it's 120HP advantage. I paid $27,500 for my Lightning brand new back in 2000 and I have about $500 in modifications done to it. I can still tow a 5000lb. trailer. If I bought a RAM SRT-10 right now it would cost $18,200 more for a truck that isn't any quicker and cannot tow at all. I think you have to be Dodge crazy or a fool to buy a RAM SRT-10 when the Lightning is still available. P.S. The latest word from the SVT boys is the new Lightning will be ready in late 2005. Word to the wise, the more Dodge brags on the RAM SRT now, the more it's gonna hurt when it gets absolutely humiliated like a WWF smackdown by the next L.

 

[AV8R]

69 riv gs posted April 14, 2004 04:09 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comparing "peak" horsepower numbers (380hp vs. 345hp) doesn't tell the whole story. You have to look at the entire "power curve". The lightnings' torque curve is much "fatter"; because of the supercharger. Horsepower is just torque multiplied by time. IMHO it's really not a fair comparison, the regular 5.4 would be though. riv 69, actually, torque is hp multiplied by time, but you get the gold star anyway, because even with your incorrect result your science is better than any of the other Chrysler nuts here.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cerbera LM: I wouldn't buy one because it's a Chrysler but the good news is that 300C is built on E-class platform. But to keep from stepping on the E-class toes the 300C uses the previous-generation design which is now a nine-year-old design.

---

There is a BIG difference between being "built" on a platform and being "based" on a platform. The Chrysler LX cars (Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum) are based on the last generation E-Class Benz, but they are not built on it. Unlike the outgoing SLK and the Crossfire, there are NO direct carry over parts or sub-structures between the Benz and LX body Chryslers. The primary thing they have in common are suspension mounting points, and this was the one thing that kept the LX platform from being totally new. Utilizing the existing E-Class suspension saved them a lot of time and money in development versus coming up with a completely new suspension system for the LX. Also, in every dimension, the LX is a much larger car than the outgoing E-Class Benz.

 

[69 Riv GS]

AV8R: I believe my science is correct. The concept of horsepower is dependent on torque . Torque and RPM are the measured quantities of engine output; horsepower is the entity calculated from torque and RPM, by the following equation: HP = Torque x RPM divided by 5252 A dynamometer measures torque and RPM, and from those values calculates observed horsepower.

 

[crashz]

Sorry - maybe I didn't clarify enough. You're right about torque and work not being interchangeable, thats not what I meant. -Torque is the force equivalent in a rotational frame of reference. -RPMs is angular velocity. As in revolutions (distance) per minute (time). -5282 is a constant. HP is actualy power not work - sorry my bad. Work would be just torque * revolutions or in linear terms force * distance. Work /time = power. The confussion comes in when you relate linear terms of force, distance and time into angular terms. [ April 15, 2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: crashz ]

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashz: Sorry - maybe I didn't clarify enough. You're right about torque and work not being interchangeable, thats not what I meant. -Torque is the force equivalent in a rotational frame of reference. -RPMs is angular velocity. As in revolutions (distance) per minute (time). -5282 is a constant.

---

I believe the number you are reaching for is 5252. It's actually a constant number with a some units attached. = 5252 (ft-lb)/radian.

 

[crashz]

I had been shopping for a 3/4 ton 4x4 as a start to my business venture. I've tried all three and I own an old Chevy and a 01 F150. Of all the trucks I tried, the Dodge had the best veiw and most comfortable cab. Lots of space, nice seats, etc. All the trucks handled well and in comparison to my V6 F150, performed like a sports car. In the end my choise was the Dodge, but my business plans temporarily fell through. Had I needed the truck - I would have bought the Dodge with the Hemi. Price was right, plenty of options, rode well, awesome interior, good towing and payload and no nonsense dealer. Plus the warranty is great at 7yrs/70,000 miles. All three manufactures have reports of major problems in their truck lines. Of course there are the trucks that have had no problems (like my F150)but there are also some real horror stories out there on each brand. So the warranty is a major consideration in my eyes.

 

[crashz]

Torque is a rotating force. HP is a unit measure of work. Work is force x distance / time. So 69 is correct.