Re: [FWDLK] New Acquisition

[Owen & Jo Grigg <ram300@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Neal
Sorry I have to disagree, you're comparing two entirely different motors, a
426 & 392 are quite different.

I own both a 440+6 B body as well as the 300C, they both pull very well off
the mark. Take away the 4.10 gears and lighter weight in the B body and I
really don't think there's a lot in it.

As far as the weight thing goes between say a BB wedge & a 392, I doubt
there's 100 lbs in it!

Remember a friend coming into my workshop when I had a 392 on an engine
stand with the heads off, he referred to it as a small block Ch*vy! And
that's about the size of 'em with the heads removed.

Generalizations about Hemi's being "slugs" are just that, set a motor up to
the application.

After lugging around an old Poly engine in my w/shop, equipped with 2
barrell carb I'm really wondering about the power-to-weight ratio of this
engine. Anybody wanna swap a Hemi for it??

Owen

----- Original Message -----
From: eastern sierra Adj Services <esierraadj@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Owen & Jo Grigg <ram300@xxxxxxxxxx>; <L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [FWDLK] New Acquisition


> Hi, Owen & Jo, et al ; notwithstanding your 300-C's amazing performance
> off the line, it is 'universally' accepted that the 'factory' Hemi, even
> in 426 configuration was a 'slug'  . The 440 wedge outran the 426 Hemi
> until almost @ the end of the 1/4 mile. Why do you suppose that Chrysler
> offered rear end ratios up to 6.18 (or whatever?). The Hemi "came-on"
> its cam at about 30 mph. At the 'time',  wasn't the VW beetle the
> world's fastest car, up to 30 mph?  Power-to-weight.
> As far as the 392-cars are concerned Chrysler designed the chassis, to
> accomadate the engine weight. I kind of shudder to think what a 354/392
> would do to the handling of a stock suspension pre-56 MoPar. The pick-up
> truck w/a Hemi spins its wheels because there's no weight on the rear
> wheels. 4x4 pickups are lousy in the snow, for that reason.
>
> Oh yeah, please see MoPar Muscle, 10/01, to see what can be done to a
> little-ol' LIGHT-WEIGHT 318 Poly - like  405 HP @ 5,600rpm ,  & 442
> lbs-ft./torque @ ONLY 4,400 rpm! -Normally aspirated/no-NOS .
>
> And, I'm kicking myself, trying to recall, now, where I just read about
> how-nearly-perfect is the flow-rate on the Poly heads.-Anybody else
> recall that reference?
>
> Neil Vedder
> (that ol' Poly-lover)
>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2003 Calendar voting results and ordering information is online!  Please visit:
http://www.forwardlook.net/calendar2003 for more information.