<jon@dakota-truck.net> wrote in message
news:auspg7$dvj$1@bent.twistedbits.net...
>
> "Josh Battles" <jbattles@bankfinancial.com> wrote:
>
> : <<snip>>
> :> True, but for the price, you could buy an entire 360ci crate engine!
> :> :-) You'd have to be an extremely diehard V6er to go that route. :-)
> : <<snip>>
>
> : Yes, but you're forgetting the weight factor. A V6 will always weigh
less
> : than a V8. In my gen III that might just make a difference if it's a
SC'd
> : 4.9 stroker V6..... Why gain all that weight from the 360 if I can put
up
> : similar numbers with a 6cyl? I think the only thing that may deter from
the
> : V6 is that the V8 will always sound better. Nothin sounds like healthy
> : Mopar muscle. This line of thinking requires some serious
studying.....I
> : haven't even gotten my bonus check and already it's burning a hole in my
> : wallet. damn.
>
>
>
> I dunno, while there is some truth in that, you really have to
> consider the bang for the buck. Also, while you might get the V6 to match
> the HP, it will probably be at the expense of torque, specifically low end
> torque, which is what our heavy trucks need. You also need to consider
> reliability - if I had to choose between a NA V8 and a blown, stroked V6
> making the same power, I'd take the V8, even if it was heavier. Chances
> are its going to last longer - its under a lot less stress.
I hadn't really thought about the longevity of the engine like that. I've
never had to only have one car until now. I used to have a seperate car for
autocross, but had to sell it for various reasons. However, if you think
along those lines a nice 360 with a lopey can would be a much better choice
for me! I hadn't really wanted to add that much weight to the front end of
the truck, but that will just give me an excuse for that drop kit.
> Consider it from this angle... the 4cyl is even lighter than the 6,
> why not start there? Or perhaps a 2cyl motorcycle engine? a 1cyl
> R/C aircraft engine? :-) Ok, that's getting a bit silly but I'm just
> trying to illustrate that there is a point of "diminishing marginal
> returns". The key is figuring out exactly where that is, and determining
> what makes the most sense for your particular budget and goals.
This is why I love the DML, there's always someone there to be the voice of
reason. I hadn't really even thought about the low end TQ numbers like
that, the whole idea kind of just popped into my head. Thanks for knocking
me back down out of the clouds.
-Josh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:48:17 EST