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 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. 300M Special & Horsepower
From: Russ Vaughan <russ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
2. Re: Batwing air cleaner
From: REckert300@xxxxxxx
3. 300M not so special
From: "Jess" <jdmiklas@xxxxxxx>
4. Re: 300M Special & Horsepower
From: "Jerry Browarski" <mopar-man@xxxxxxxxxxx>
5. Some additional thoughts
From: "Warren R Anderson" <wranderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
6. Re: 300C/D Patrol Cars
From: "Jess" <jdmiklas@xxxxxxx>
7. RE: Some additional thoughts
From: "D'Aloise, Lawrence Jr." <ldaloise@xxxxxxxxxx>
8. Abestos
From: "D. Moore" <dintym@xxxxxxxxx>
9. Fw: Abestos
From: "Gerry and Moana Steinberg" <mopar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
10. Re: Chrysler to soup up 300m - 255 hp!
From: "Rick Ehrmann" <tc440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
11. Re: Chrysler to soup up 300m - 255 hp!
From: dan300f@xxxxxxx
12. C300 engine for sale
From: John Hertog <crossram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 01:15:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Russ Vaughan <russ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 300M Special & Horsepower
Jeff,
What pulls the vehicle around is TORQUE - NOT
horsepower! The subject addressed was HORSEPOWER! A
net (post mid 70's)rating of 253 HORSEPOWER equals
over 300 (gross) by 1955 criteria. Sorry - FACT! The
lowly 318 lost 80HP when the rating standards changed.
Advertised 230hp became 150hp. My '77 New Yorker with
a 440 is rated at 220 HP. Do you really think it put
out 10hp less than say a '70 318 2 barrel or lost
130hp by a 1 1/2 point drop in static compression? Do
you think it puts out the same TORQUE as my LH/New
Yorker 3.5 220 hp? No Way!!!!
At the Irwin, PA meet last year we spent some time at
the drags. That 3.5 turned high 16's with over 135k on
it. Almost 1000 lbs. lighter, but 155 less
Horsepower(by the ratings), it ran about 1/2 second
slower than some G's and was faster than a D and an L
that I remember. The weight advantage does not make
up for the horsepower difference, IF the ratings were
calculated by the same standards. A 300M is about
three seconds faster in the quarter than a C300. With
47 LESS horsepower, hows it do that?
All this is to say that the horsepower rating method
changed in the early 70's. Sorry if you didn't know
that.
300ly
Russ Vaughan
--- jeff shenk <mr-320@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> oh yeah; riiiight russ; that little whizbang v-6
> will pull the c-300 or
> my 300-k ram around better than the 392 or the 413,,
> riiiight !!!
>
>
> JEFF
>
> tucson az.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:08:22 EST
From: REckert300@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Batwing air cleaner
A few months ago a member advertised a batwing air cleaner for sale on the
listserve. I am interested in contacting that person, but I no longer have
his name and e-mail address. If it is still for sale, I would appreciate it
if he will contact me via my personal e-mail address. Thanks.
Jim Eckert
REckert300@xxxxxxx
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:39:03 -0500
From: "Jess" <jdmiklas@xxxxxxx>
Subject: 300M not so special
You are right!
Chrysler should just buy a load of Nissan Maximas and put the 300M emblem on it. We'd all make out. A better car and less cost to Chrysler. They should have done the same years ago with the Impala SS!!!!!!!!!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:41:48 -0500
From: "Jerry Browarski" <mopar-man@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 300M Special & Horsepower
Why is the 300M 3 seconds faster than a C300? Let's see.....hmmmm.....
could the weight difference matter? Maybe it's the transmission... the
newer multi-speed tranny versus the old '55 Powerflite 2-speed. Perhaps the
fuel injection has an advantage over the old carbureted engine. I'd be
curious to see how the '55 300 would perform with the new V6 in it using the
2-speed automatic and carburetors instead of fuel injection. On the other
hand, we could always fuel inject a 330 hemi and run it through a modern
tranny in a 3500 pound car and see what happens. :o)
Jerry Browarski
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:16:46 -0700
From: "Warren R Anderson" <wranderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Some additional thoughts
Good post.
You did not mention it but GM, for one, has put out vehicles in recent years
with different friction materials on inside and outside brake pads. Some
cars were initially retrofitted to cure a problem and some are still that
way from the factory. Retrofitting on my own I have not tried but most OE
cures are muchly researched and tested prior to release (I hope).
A Torqueflite with a bang shift is just as bad as a slide bump shifter, IMO.
I use Trans-Go shift kits which have worked flawlessly for me in many
applications. BTW these people firmly profess that Type F fluid should not
be used in anything; many different opinions out there.
I still have my Ammco 8000 brake shoe grinder. I quit using it except for
very special projects over ten years ago. It also has the Ammco 8925 dust
collecting system. I keep it around because some day I will need it. The
shoes we are getting today are working quite well out of the box. The dust
collection gadget does work quite well. The grinder does require very
careful attention to shoe mounting in the clamps and is very dependant on
the straightness of the shoes which is not always good. The mounting system
is one very good reason why I quit using the thing. I think shoe
remanufacturers are doing a better job than they were say 20 years ago as to
quality of arcing as OSHA does not want (or has banned?) the use of grinders
in back shops except with approved dust collection systems that are, of
course, very expensive. There is also no excess material on present day
relined shoes.
It would seem that there is some question in some learned circles as to the
health problems that can be rightfully attributed to the exposure of ones
self to brake asbestos. The thinking is that asbestos in the mine is a
serious health hazard where the asbestos in brake (and clutch) materials
with binders etc. is not near as much a hazard. Smoking and asbestos is a
real bad combination with non smokers at far less risk. IMO we need to stay
away from over exposure.
Warren Anderson
Sedona,AZ
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:10:04 -0500
From: "Jess" <jdmiklas@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 300C/D Patrol Cars
MANY years ago I dismantled a 1960 OHIO State Patrol Car.
It was a full size DODGE - a DART or a PHOENIX 4-door sedan - with a 383
crossram engine. It had a lot of heavy duty "police goodies" but I swear it
had only a TWO-SPEED automatic trans (Only 4 buttons) Been told many times
that I'm wrong but didn't keep the transmission. Of course wish NOW I had
kept the car intact.
Jeff Miklas
----- Original Message -----
From: <moparpjf@xxxxxxx>
To: <DAN300F@xxxxxxx>; <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] 300C/D Patrol Cars
> HI Guys:
>
> I know that the NJ troopers used the cross ram set up in 1964, and I
know
> a trooper who drove them then, but I think thr cars were all 4 door
models,
> as are virtually all police cars. I think they had our engines in the
four
> door models, along with the heavy duty suspension, etc. Probably cost as
> much as a letter car, but they were utilitarian vehicles, nonetheless.
>
> Pete Fitch
>
>
> 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: 7
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:13:22 -0500
From: "D'Aloise, Lawrence Jr." <ldaloise@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Some additional thoughts
Asbestos is dangerous wherever it is found. Asbestos in brake linings is
particularly dangerous because it becomes airborn when the brake drums are
removed in great concentrations. This is why one should never use air to
blow the dust away. If you must change asbestos linings, wear a respirator.
Even small exposures to asbestos can cause incurable cancer in some. Warren
is right that asbestos and smoking is a lethal combination. However, many
non-smokers have contracted many forms of asbestos disease.
Larry D'Aloise -----Original Message-----
From: Warren R Anderson [mailto:wranderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:17 PM
To: macthehammer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chrysler300
Subject: [Chrysler300] Some additional thoughts
Good post.
You did not mention it but GM, for one, has put out vehicles in recent years
with different friction materials on inside and outside brake pads. Some
cars were initially retrofitted to cure a problem and some are still that
way from the factory. Retrofitting on my own I have not tried but most OE
cures are muchly researched and tested prior to release (I hope).
A Torqueflite with a bang shift is just as bad as a slide bump shifter, IMO.
I use Trans-Go shift kits which have worked flawlessly for me in many
applications. BTW these people firmly profess that Type F fluid should not
be used in anything; many different opinions out there.
I still have my Ammco 8000 brake shoe grinder. I quit using it except for
very special projects over ten years ago. It also has the Ammco 8925 dust
collecting system. I keep it around because some day I will need it. The
shoes we are getting today are working quite well out of the box. The dust
collection gadget does work quite well. The grinder does require very
careful attention to shoe mounting in the clamps and is very dependant on
the straightness of the shoes which is not always good. The mounting system
is one very good reason why I quit using the thing. I think shoe
remanufacturers are doing a better job than they were say 20 years ago as to
quality of arcing as OSHA does not want (or has banned?) the use of grinders
in back shops except with approved dust collection systems that are, of
course, very expensive. There is also no excess material on present day
relined shoes.
It would seem that there is some question in some learned circles as to the
health problems that can be rightfully attributed to the exposure of ones
self to brake asbestos. The thinking is that asbestos in the mine is a
serious health hazard where the asbestos in brake (and clutch) materials
with binders etc. is not near as much a hazard. Smoking and asbestos is a
real bad combination with non smokers at far less risk. IMO we need to stay
away from over exposure.
Warren Anderson
Sedona,AZ
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: 8
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:28:24 -0800 (PST)
From: "D. Moore" <dintym@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Abestos
The "dust mask" respirators that are sold in many
auto, hardware, or home improvement stores will not
work for asbestos. These dust masks are designed for
nusance dust such as sweeping a floor. A respirator
with a HEPA (high efficiency particulate arresting)
filter is needed. Same for a vacuum as asbestos
fibers will pass through a standard vacuum cleaner
bag.
Note that an asbestos fiber is much smaller than a
human hair and will pass right through a "dust mask"
style respirator.
I have done many brake jobs since a teenager and used
air guns to clean the dust off shoes, drums, backing
plates, etc without the knowledge that asbestos could
be harmful. Of course the same goes for lead, carbon
tetrachloride, solvents, leaded gas and other nasties
we all have used in our time.
I'll make it a couple of more years!! We all just
need to use common sense.
Thanks
Dave Moore
--- "D'Aloise, Lawrence Jr." <ldaloise@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Asbestos is dangerous wherever it is found. Asbestos
> in brake linings is
> particularly dangerous because it becomes airborn
> when the brake drums are
> removed in great concentrations. This is why one
> should never use air to
> blow the dust away. If you must change asbestos
> linings, wear a respirator.
> Even small exposures to asbestos can cause incurable
> cancer in some. Warren
> is right that asbestos and smoking is a lethal
> combination. However, many
> non-smokers have contracted many forms of asbestos
> disease.
> Larry D'Aloise -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren R Anderson
> [mailto:wranderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:17 PM
> To: macthehammer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chrysler300
> Subject: [Chrysler300] Some additional thoughts
>
>
> Good post.
>
> You did not mention it but GM, for one, has put out
> vehicles in recent years
> with different friction materials on inside and
> outside brake pads. Some
> cars were initially retrofitted to cure a problem
> and some are still that
> way from the factory. Retrofitting on my own I have
> not tried but most OE
> cures are muchly researched and tested prior to
> release (I hope).
>
> A Torqueflite with a bang shift is just as bad as a
> slide bump shifter, IMO.
> I use Trans-Go shift kits which have worked
> flawlessly for me in many
> applications. BTW these people firmly profess that
> Type F fluid should not
> be used in anything; many different opinions out
> there.
>
> I still have my Ammco 8000 brake shoe grinder. I
> quit using it except for
> very special projects over ten years ago. It also
> has the Ammco 8925 dust
> collecting system. I keep it around because some day
> I will need it. The
> shoes we are getting today are working quite well
> out of the box. The dust
> collection gadget does work quite well. The grinder
> does require very
> careful attention to shoe mounting in the clamps and
> is very dependant on
> the straightness of the shoes which is not always
> good. The mounting system
> is one very good reason why I quit using the thing.
> I think shoe
> remanufacturers are doing a better job than they
> were say 20 years ago as to
> quality of arcing as OSHA does not want (or has
> banned?) the use of grinders
> in back shops except with approved dust collection
> systems that are, of
> course, very expensive. There is also no excess
> material on present day
> relined shoes.
>
> It would seem that there is some question in some
> learned circles as to the
> health problems that can be rightfully attributed to
> the exposure of ones
> self to brake asbestos. The thinking is that
> asbestos in the mine is a
> serious health hazard where the asbestos in brake
> (and clutch) materials
> with binders etc. is not near as much a hazard.
> Smoking and asbestos is a
> real bad combination with non smokers at far less
> risk. IMO we need to stay
> away from over exposure.
>
> Warren Anderson
> Sedona,AZ
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:19:49 -0700
From: "Gerry and Moana Steinberg" <mopar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fw: Abestos
Dave: Common sense is the key. Like you, I have used
all of the 'nasties' you mentioned plus a few others.
I'll be 74 next Feb. God willing. Hope you make it many
many more years.
Good Luck,
Gerry Steinberg
Sierra Vista, AZ
'60 300F convert plus 8 other Chrysler products...
>-----Original Message-----
>From: D. Moore <dintym@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: Chrysler300 <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:28 PM
>Subject: [Chrysler300] Abestos
>
>
>>The "dust mask" respirators that are sold in many
>>auto, hardware, or home improvement stores will not
>>work for asbestos. These dust masks are designed for
>>nusance dust such as sweeping a floor. A respirator
>>with a HEPA (high efficiency particulate arresting)
>>filter is needed. Same for a vacuum as asbestos
>>fibers will pass through a standard vacuum cleaner
>>bag.
>>Note that an asbestos fiber is much smaller than a
>>human hair and will pass right through a "dust mask"
>>style respirator.
>>
>>I have done many brake jobs since a teenager and used
>>air guns to clean the dust off shoes, drums, backing
>>plates, etc without the knowledge that asbestos could
>>be harmful. Of course the same goes for lead, carbon
>>tetrachloride, solvents, leaded gas and other nasties
>>we all have used in our time.
>>
>>I'll make it a couple of more years!! We all just
>>need to use common sense.
>>
>>Thanks
>>Dave Moore
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:34:50 -0500
From: "Rick Ehrmann" <tc440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Chrysler to soup up 300m - 255 hp!
The 300M Special was really supposed to be special - with 300 horsepower.
But in preproduction durability testing too many transmissions broke. The
marginal Chrysler electronic auto trans couldn't handle the additional
power. Ugh. The Special had to be downgraded to not so special. More info is
available on this at my favorite independent Mopar site: www.car-truck.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Hagen <brian.hagen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 300 Club <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:15 AM
Subject: [Chrysler300] Chrysler to soup up 300m - 255 hp!
> DC to build souped-up 300M
>
> DaimlerChrysler AG will start building 8,500 special-edition Chrysler 300M
> sedans next month, boosting engine power to lift flagging sales until the
> automaker can build a new version using Mercedes-Benz parts. The 2002 300M
> Special will have a 255-horsepower, 3.5-liter engine, bigger wheels, added
> molding and other features that will make it perform more like future
> versions of the car, said Eric Ridenour, Chrysler's premium-vehicle
product
> team vice president. The No. 3 U.S. automaker will start building the
models
> Nov. 5 in Brampton, Ontario. Chrysler plans to use special versions of its
> products and new accessories to increase sales next year because it
doesn't
> have any new high-volume models to introduce, executives have said.
>
> Brian
>
> http://www.scatpack.com
>
>
>
> 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: 11
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:39:50 EST
From: dan300f@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Chrysler to soup up 300m - 255 hp!
If Chrysler had done the prudent thing and made the Kronos a 300M with rear
wheel drive, they could have put all the horsepower they wanted under the
hood and also had a great brute looking 300 letter car.
But the cars nowadays are designed by "youngsters", probably in their 20's
and 30's. They have totally different concepts than the original 300 letter
cars represented. Every time I see an article here in California and it
pictures a design team, there are no old foggies in the picture.
Dan Reitz
Northridge, CA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 22:26:00 -0500
From: John Hertog <crossram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: C300 engine for sale
Please do NOT reply to me - I know nothing about this.
John
From : David Pendill at jubilee201@xxxxxxx
Hello,
I have a 1955 chrysler 300 331 hemi motor for sale. It is complete from the
dual carburators to the oil pan. It has the rear bellhousing, to the front
fan. The tag numbers on the carburators read 2317S. I do not have the bat
wing air cleaner. It is original, and I think that it never has been
rebuilt, but I am not positive. The number on the block is 3NE552037. I wish
I had the car to go with it. Please email me for additional information.
Thank you
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
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