------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MDsVHB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/mkiolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. RE: Oct Hot Rodding
From: "NOWOSACKI,JOHN (A-USA,ex1)" <john_nowosacki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
2. Re: Pinging & Timing
From: mr-320@xxxxxxxxx
3. RE: Pinging & Timing
From: mr-320@xxxxxxxxx
4. Re: Oct Hot Rodding
From: RONVE@xxxxxxx
5. RE: Oct Hot Rodding
From: "JONES,DOUG (A-USA,ex3)" <doug_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
6. Re: Oct Hot Rodding
From: "Jess" <jdmiklas@xxxxxxx>
7. 600 Horsepower from the factory?
From: RAKFAR@xxxxxxx
8. Re: Pinging & carbon buildup
From: "Warren R Anderson" <wranderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
9. 57 300 C part needed
From: nibbox@xxxxxxx
10. Re: Pinging & Timing
From: Gary W Nelson <gwn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 06:22:20 -0600
From: "NOWOSACKI,JOHN (A-USA,ex1)" <john_nowosacki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Oct Hot Rodding
Of course, the 'grandfather' of American muscle was born in 1955- with the
introduction of 300HP 331 ci Hemi performance in the original Letter Series
300's that dominated NASCAR and AAA racing in both 1955 and 1956.
My belief is that if Chrysler didn't build those famous Letter Cars, they
never would have gotten around to the rest.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: RONVE@xxxxxxx [mailto:RONVE@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 10:08 PM
To: doug_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding
In a message dated 9/18/2001 5:15:16 PM Central Daylight Time,
doug_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> MoPar muscle cars are the (big engines only, please) A, B, and E body
>
No one will convince me that the 62-63 Plymouth/Dodges were not 'Muscle
Cars'
... specially when they had their Hemis in them!
Not only were they around before the Goats, but they consistently ate goats
for lunch at the digs!!
My mildly prejudiced opinion!
Ron...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list server instructions, go to
http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:24:31 -0700 (MST)
From: mr-320@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Pinging & Timing
''trickle some drops of water'' indeed!, at 2500 you can upend a coke
bottle and it wont hurt. ive seen rice used too, that id trickle in,
both work excellently..
JEFF
tucson az.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:34:54 -0700 (MST)
From: mr-320@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Pinging & Timing
ray is 100% correct and has the dangers very well categorized..
JEFF
tucson az.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:39:27 EDT
From: RONVE@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Oct Hot Rodding
In a message dated 9/19/2001 7:22:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
john_nowosacki@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Of course, the 'grandfather' of American muscle was born in 1955- with the
> introduction of 300HP 331 ci Hemi performance in the original Letter Series
> 300's that dominated NASCAR and AAA racing in both 1955 and 1956.
> My belief is that if Chrysler didn't build those famous Letter Cars, they
> never would have gotten around to the rest.
> John
>
John,
If you've followed this string then you heard me refer to 'The
Granpappies'..... the 55 & 56 are magnificent examples of them!!
I couldn't agree more with your last statement!
Ron...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 08:51:36 -0600
From: "JONES,DOUG (A-USA,ex3)" <doug_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Oct Hot Rodding
Just so no one misunderstands ... in spite of its handling and brakes, I
loved my '54 Studebaker wagon dearly, and still am a major fan of the
marque. I regard the '53 Starliner to be the most beautiful of all American
car designs, and have spent my life lusting for an Avanti. I also used to
own Hudsons, the NASCAR champ before the C300 made the scene. Still like
those, too!
To me, the 300 was the American version of a European GT car, more like an
Aston Martin or a Ferrari than like a hopped up Chevy. Yeah, it is way
fast, but also luxurious and stylish and expensive. I guess in today's
world the closest to the 300's of yore would be the XJR ... leather lined
luxury, beautiful style, and fast enough to embarrass many a modern day
'muscle car.' Other nominees?
And I agree that a more functional definition of 'muscle car' would be cars
that a steadily employed 25 year old could afford that could kick butt at
the local drag strip. By that definition, the monster '62 - '64 Dodges and
Plymouths certainly qualify!
Fun discussion, folks!
300ly,
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Langendorfer [mailto:langendorfer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:04 PM
To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; JONES,DOUG (A-USA,ex3)
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding
Like I said in my e-mail, evil handling (I have only had 1957 G-H's).
But you have to admit they have always been something of an enigma and are
intriguing and qualify as the first "little car-big engine vehicle". With
300 pounds of sandbags in the trunk (Uncle Tom McCahill's suggestion) and
ordered w/o PS or PB to add the front end load, they no doubt could rip the
1/4 w/ with a low rear ratio in their day. "Loaded Ultramatics" would be
more guilty of the characteristics you are describing.
Again, I don't equate them w/ a 300B, but they were no worse than many
"sofas on wheels" of that era, in terms of handling...and certainly more
arresting and attractive in terms of appearance (thanks to Bob Bourke and
Raymond Loewy).
300ly,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: JONES,DOUG (A-USA,ex3) <doug_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:21 PM
Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding
>The '56 Golden Hawk! Boy, do I remember those! I really wanted one until
a
>guy told me that, driven very carefully, the front tires might go 10,000
>miles ... I guess it couldn't drag race cuz there was no weight over the
>rear axle. I had a '54 Stude wagon with the standard V8, and it cornered
>like an overloaded ferry boat. I can only imagine how the GH must have
>been.
>
>I think we 300-o-philes can take pride that OUR hot rod was a total
package,
>and proved it at NASCAR. On the other hand, it was a very expensive car
>looking for a select audience who wanted full size comfort and style
>combined with serious motivation...and had the bucks to pay for it!
>
>Maybe we can define the Bankers Express as cars rich guys buy so they can
>see off the kids, and Muscle Cars as cars kids buy to see off the rich
guys!
>
>300ly,
>Doug
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Langendorfer [mailto:langendorfer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 5:06 PM
>To: Owen & Jo Grigg; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; heinitz; Jack Farris
>Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding
>
>
>Folks:
>
>A bit of overkill at this point, it would seem, however...
>
>There are several definitions of the first musclecars, including the first
>Buick Century (Special Body w/ Roadmaster engine). In the modern context of
>smaller car/larger engine, I have always contended (I was even quoted as a
>16 year old in a 1967 edition of Motor Trend Magazine, believe it or not),
>that the first incarnation of the GTO-type defintion was the 1956
Studebaker
>Golden Hawk. Think about it...the largest engine in 1956 was a 374" Packard
>engine (the G-Hawk engine's larger brother, some of which were dealer
>installed in these cars w/ dual quads..310HP). Also, the car could be had
w/
>stick/OD
>(HD T-85 B-W), ratios up to 4:56, ordered without PS or PB and, at no extra
>cost, evil handling. A brute to be sure, but one that mesmerized the
>automotive press
>at the time. Certainly, this was not the balanced vehicle a 300B was, but,
>in its way, was a precursor for some of the outrageousness we saw in the
>sixties.
>
>Just my opinion...
>
>Keith
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jack Farris <jackfarris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Owen & Jo Grigg <ram300@xxxxxxxxxx>; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
><Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; heinitz <heinitz@xxxxxxx>
>Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding
>
>
>>Although I don't necessarily agree, the term "Muscle Car" refers to a
>>certain genre of mid-sized cars of the mid sixties to early seventies that
>>had big block engines and were produced specifically for the purpose of
>>going fast. The first car that was "officially" designated as a "muscle
>car"
>>(if I recall) was the Pontiac GTO. Other muscle cars included Olds 442's,
>>Barracudas & Chargers (big blocks only), big block Camaro's and Mustangs,
>>and other big block mid-sized Mopars and other makes. There may have been
>>other cars that could go faster, or were more powerful, but they did not
>fit
>>the definition of the genre. "Muscle Cars" were produced primarily to
>appeal
>>to a younger demographic than our 300's.
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>-
>>>From: "Owen & Jo Grigg" <ram300@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>To: <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "heinitz" <heinitz@xxxxxxx>
>>>Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding
>>>Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2001, 3:06 PM
>>>
>>
>>> Good question how do you define what a "musclecar" is?
>>> Sometime back I was invited to show my 300C at the National Musclecar
>Show
>>> in NZ. Now I was told they had to bend the rules to allow my car in.
>There
>>> rule book states only early 60's to early 70's as a musclecar. The C
>stood
>>> out like a sore thumb at the show, and more than a few scoffed at it,
>saying
>>> what's a full size '50s car doing here.
>>> I on the otherhand looked around at the small cubic displacement
>Mustangs,
>>> Camaros, and Cudas, which I commonly refer to as "school girls cars",
ie-
>>> low hp compact cars!
>>> My C puts out 375hp from factory other cars present were lucky if they
>broke
>>> the 300 mark. So if the word muscle means hp..........
>>> Or does it mean any old compact from the 60's and 70's era?
>>> Owen
>>>
>>> Question. At a meet last year my 68 300 was judged as a reg Chrysler,
>when
>>> along side of me a Baracuda with a 318 was judged as a muscle car. I
>thought
>>> that was wrong, what do you guys think?.
>>
>>
>>To send a message to this group, send an email to:
>>Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>For list server instructions, go to
>http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>
>
>
>To send a message to this group, send an email to:
>Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>For list server instructions, go to
>http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>To send a message to this group, send an email to:
>Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>For list server instructions, go to
http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:42:35 -0400
From: "Jess" <jdmiklas@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Oct Hot Rodding
A while back, a few of the musclecar magazines and I think the NMCA tried to
define a musclecar. Their efforts made it worse I think. The basic premise
was Horsepower but in cunjunction with weight. The 300's were "out" because
their great horsepower was saddled with great weight. The definition also
somehow grew to take in a "muscle" stance or appearance, which in the end
actually tended to disqualify the early max-wedge cars and the 273 HP
Barracudas and the 421 Catalinas for example.
You are therefore in great company!
I really liked your "school girl car" comment!
Jeff Miklas
----- Original Message -----
> Good question how do you define what a "musclecar" is?
> Sometime back I was invited to show my 300C at the National Musclecar Show
> in NZ. Now I was told they had to bend the rules to allow my car in. There
> rule book states only early 60's to early 70's as a musclecar. The C stood
> out like a sore thumb at the show, and more than a few scoffed at it,
saying
> what's a full size '50s car doing here.
> I on the otherhand looked around at the small cubic displacement Mustangs,
> Camaros, and Cudas, which I commonly refer to as "school girls cars", ie-
> low hp compact cars!
> My C puts out 375hp from factory other cars present were lucky if they
broke
> the 300 mark. So if the word muscle means hp..........
> Or does it mean any old compact from the 60's and 70's era?
> Owen
>
> Question. At a meet last year my 68 300 was judged as a reg Chrysler,
when
> along side of me a Baracuda with a 318 was judged as a muscle car. I
thought
> that was wrong, what do you guys think?.
> >
> >
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:47:29 EDT
From: RAKFAR@xxxxxxx
Subject: 600 Horsepower from the factory?
In a message dated 9/19/2001 2:39:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
<< ps ... My 'School Girl Car' has 600+ hp, "from the factory", it's a 'cuda.
>>
600+ horsepower from the factory? And what factory would that be, Ron?
300F'ly
Roger Karlson
P.S. The hemis in Hemi-Cuda's were rated at 425HP
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:21:08 -0700
From: "Warren R Anderson" <wranderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Pinging & carbon buildup
Carbon buildup on intake valve stems is a serious problem which seems to be
modern fuel technology related. I reference fuel injected engines of
computer controlled variety. Excessive carbon deposits absorb fuel. This
will cause poor cold start performance, general rough running and failed
emission tests. There are products on the market to fix computer cars with
carbon buildup (on valve stems and in the combustion chamber) and these
methods and materials also work on pre computer engines.
One such device is the first I remember and is now marketed by Snap-On
Tools. It was a good buy at $1500 with a bunch of adaptors but that was
before Snap-On took over and the same tool is now $4000 +. Oops, not for the
auto hobbyist. Carbon cleaning is a (necessary) service sold by many
professional shops as a fix it and as general routine maintenance for some
autos and especially in emissions non attainment areas where there is
emission inspection. You should be able to find a qualified shop and have
this done for you if you are apprehensive at all about pouring water in your
engine which does sound scary until you've been there and done it.
Point is, the equipment is expensive. We have noted in our shop that the
fluid used smells very strongly of acetic acid (vinegar) which a DeCarbon
rep acknowledged he thought was a very strong possibility. So, what we use
in place of $4K tools and magic elixer is water and vinegar. This mix does
work as does just straight water. We also use ACDelco X66-P carb tune-up
conditioner which I feel works best. Chrysler markets a combustion chamber
cleaner that is must do item for Jeep Eagle 6 cyl that had carbon/piston
interference problems if you didn't use the stuff. I've fixed Cadillac
knocking with Chrysler product. BTW water doesn't smoke like top engine
cleaners do, so if you have good neighbors, this might be a consideration.
An oil change would be recommended after water de carbon treatment.
Water injection kits were marketed (may still be but don't) for detonation
supression and these really cleaned out a combustion chamber. Remember how
clean a coolant leak into a cylinder leaves the piston and head? Pour away.
My experiences have been that it takes more than a little and this is why
the oil change recommendation BTW.
Warren Anderson
Sedona, AZ
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:35:43 EDT
From: nibbox@xxxxxxx
Subject: 57 300 C part needed
Hi All,
My painter lost the small piece of chrome which connects the two stainless
pieces
at the top of the rear body.
Its the part that the rear convertible window meets the body.
It is about one and one half inch wide and one inch high. It is concave with
a hole for a screw to hold it to the body. I guess some other cars might be
similar.
Appreciate any help,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:24:06 -0700
From: Gary W Nelson <gwn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Pinging & Timing
Hi Herman and Gang
Herman is correct. His statement re: water to remove carbon is as old as
the hills as they say. Over 40 years ago we used to trickle water into the
carb. Likely around 2500 to 3500 rpm. We never had rpm gauges so it was a
guess work.
One thing Herman did not mention, I was taught to only do this with the
engine at operating temperature. The engine will bog down if you pour water
in to fast. It will spit and sputter, but should not die. The way I used to
do it is to fill a small soda bottle or the like with a small opening that
you can put your thumb over to control flow. Don't let the water gush in.
Another point Herman makes is blocking the heat cross over on the intake
manifold. I highly prescribe to this practice. The motor may take a little
longer to warm up, but the benefits are worth it. I am not an expert in
this area, but the excess heat in the manifold plus the higher ambient air
under the hood will dramatically reduce performance as it reduces air
density. Motors thrive on oxygen. Look at any late model car and I think
they all draw intake air through the grill and not under the hood.
I also remove the heat riser butterfly as it is no longer needed to force
exhaust gas through the manifold.
Some may ask how do you block off the cross over on the intake manifold.
Herman said it when he said he forgot when he had his engine down last
time. You must have the manifold off. You need to physically block the
cross over passage on both sides of the intake manifold. I use .020"
stainless steel and cut approximately 1/4" larger than the opening on each
head. Use a thin coat of RTV sealant and put onto head or the gasket. Let
it set up so it won't go slipin and slidden when you go to install the
manifold.
Hope my two cents helped.
Gary The Parts Doc
At 10:50 PM 9/18/2001 +0200, Herman wrote:
>I have heard a 'possible' way to get rid of that excessive carbon
>buildup in your engine.
>
>This, of course, is a very lowbuck solution...!
>I've never tried this myself yet, but you can 'trickle' some drops of
>water in your carb with the engine at 2500 rpm or higher.
>This 'boils' the carbon out of the cylinders somewhat.
>Care must be taken not to put too much water in at a time because of the
>danger of a waterlock, but you must be very generous
>with water if you're able to fill up a 90 cc head-chamber with water at
>2500 rpm...
>Has anyone done this before, so you can clarify if this works as they
>say it does?
>
>Of course the only proper way to remove the carbon is to pull the heads.
>
>My '62 NewYorker Wagon 413 also pings when the engine is hot...
>And we even have 98 octane pumpfuel here...!
>Blocking the heat-crossover passage in the intake manifold does help a
>lot against pinging.
>I neglected this when I had the engine apart the last time. And it
>started pinging after that.. :o(
>
>
>Herman.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap