Does vortec engine mean good?

"Steve" > wrote in message
...

> Its also got short connecting rods, crummy rod-ratio, and small diameter
> lifters, so I'd consider it the poorest of the 3- although that's
> splitting hairs since its clearly quite good. In truth, the Ford Modular
> (iron block, not the Al version) is closer to using up all that the
> basic architecture can support in stock form than the other two. PHR's
> point was that the Hemi has much more growth potential than the others,
> and with its longer rods its a much sounder basic architecture.

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

C. E. White wrote:



> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> C. E. White wrote:
>> You also have to wonder about the wisdom
>> of spending tons of money developing a large, thirsty, environmentally
>> marginal engine at this time in history.
>
> 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.

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).

>> 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.
>
> I'm still not sure where the "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.

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

C. E. White wrote:

> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>>You also have to wonder about the wisdom
>>>of spending tons of money developing a large, thirsty, environmentally
>>>marginal engine at this time in history.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Little car? The Impala has more interior room than a Chrysler 300 (although
> the trunk is smaller).

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.



>
> Go back and read the Allpar reference. Notice where the Chrysler engineer
> was quoted as saying they barely got it to meet emission standards.

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.


>
> "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
>

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.


>
> 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.

Understood, but I respecfully disagree.

> I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par
> with a Stratus in size.

You've got to be joking.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Steve Mackie wrote:

>> I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par
>> with a Stratus in size.
>
> You've got to be joking.

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

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Steve Mackie wrote:
>
>>> I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par
>>> with a Stratus in size.
>>
>> You've got to be joking.
>
> He's more or less correct, in the real world if maybe not in the EPA's
> fantasy world of car size classifications.

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

Steve Mackie wrote:
>>I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par
>>with a Stratus in size.
>
>
> You've got to be joking.
>
>

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.

C. E. White wrote:


>
>
> I am not sure now you rate car sizes -

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
> 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

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.)

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, C. E. White wrote:

>>>> I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par
>>>> with a Stratus in size.
>>>
>>> You've got to be joking.
>>
>> He's more or less correct, in the real world if maybe not in the EPA's
>> fantasy world of car size classifications.
>
> I am not sure now you rate car sizes

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?".

> fueleconomy.gov

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