Jon,
I hate to do this but the reason the CC based Hemis are so prevalent in drag
racing is that multi valve engines are not permitted in the pro categories. Read
the rule book, it clearly states 2 valves per cylinder.
Sorry,
KW
Jon Steiger wrote:
> At 12:45 PM 5/13/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >At 12:03 AM 5/13/98 , you wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> The second thing was in the same paragraph; more pulling power and
> >>better gas mileage is cool, but "better initial acceleration"? Can
> >>I infer from that statement that the older engine accellerates better
> >>in the mid and top end? Doesn't sound like progress to me; just
> >>another way to keep the EPA happy.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >It doesn't have anything to do with keeping the EPA happy, it's a matter of
>
> I dunno; I think a lot of it has to do with the EPA. Auto
> manufacturers have to make concessions to the EPA, and generally there
> are sacrafices to be made. Sure, most drivers probably would prefer a
> more efficient engine; all modern gee-whiz and all that. I wouldn't
> mind a modern engine either, but not at the expense of expandability and
> power potential. Seems like the more modern the engine, the more
> money it takes to extract additional power from them.
>
> The EPA forces auto makers to create more efficient, cleaner burning
> engines. If you're looking for a point A to B car, this is probably a
> good thing. Performance enthusiasts however, especially those who require
> cheap mods, are generally looking for something different. Although
> the engine itself it is hardly cheap, the HEMI is a good example of
> this. The HEMI is old. Compared to the engines of today, and the
>
> technology employed in them, it is REALLY old. However, stroll through
> the big dollar pit areas at an NHRA event, and you'll find one of these old,
> outdated, gas guzzling, EPA-unfreindly engines in every (or nearly every)
> car. Why? Because the new engines can't touch its performance. For drag
> racing, the HEMI is simply better at what it does. On the other side of
> the coin, the modern engines are much less cumbersome in a street legal,
> daily-driven environment. Most people wouldn't want a HEMI in their
> commuter car. There are a handful of us though, that will sacrafice a
> little daily drivability for fast times at the drag strip.
>
> One thing that I hate about the "make engines smaller and more
> efficient" trend is that the engines are sized down to produce the same
> power as before. If you're replacing a 318 or a 360, don't make a new
> engine with a smaller displacement so that you can keep the hp and torque
> about the same; leave the displacement at 318ci or 360ci, and use the
> new technology! Why not take advantage of the additional efficiency
> to make a more powerful engine? One good example of this is the Mustang.
> Everyone knows that a stock mustang is slower than a stock Z28. Its
> been like this for some time. If Ford was truly interested in performance,
> (which they implicity claim to be by the mere act of producing a "muscle
> car" and offshoots such as the Mustang Cobra) then why change the
> displacement to 4.6 for nearly identical performance? Take some initiative
> and UP THE ANTE, people!!! They could have used this opportunity to make a
> stock mustang faster than a stock Z28 and put the ball in Chevrolet's court.
> Instead, they do the same old boring "efficiency shrink". Yawn.
>
> Now I see Dodge doing the same thing. Its depressing. :-( This is
> the company that impressed me by stuffing a big V8 into a small truck
> and creating a great performer. Dodge singlehandedly created a market
> where there was none. This is the company running ads dripping with power
> and speed. Now, they waste this new technology and pull an industry
> "same old, same old". Frankly, I expected better from Dodge. Maybe the
> "New Dodge" isn't so new after all.
>
> >keeping customers happy. After all, we're talking about an engine which is
> >meant to go in a TRUCK. Trucks are made to haul things in the bed and/or
> >tow things behind them. This is what most people use their trucks for. And
> >for that purpose, low end power/torque is more important than mid/top end
> >power. It gets the load going. That's also why a lot of people on the list
> >are concerned about mods that rob low end torque.
> >
>
> I agree with this; however, Dodge is full of conflicts here... While
> most trucks sold are probably actually used as trucks, for towing and hauling,
> etc., many are used as "sport trucks". Look at Dodge's offerings and
> the emphasis they place on trucks such as the Indy Ram, the SS/T, the R/T,
> etc. Moving outside the truck line, we've got the Viper, Viper GTS, Neon
> R/T, etc. Its obvious that Dodge considers their trucks more than mere
> haulers, and they are trying to project this "performance truck" image. I
> think it would be extremely short sighted of them to offer these trucks
> without the engines to compliment their abilities. One of Mopar's biggest
> (if not the biggest) endeavors is their drag racing program. Its huge,
> its where most of their research is done, and its the section of the
> motorsports market that Mopar caters to. To build an engine that is not
> suited for drag racing seems to be rather strange, given their high level
> of commitment to date.
> At the very least, I would expect them to offer an alternative engine
> which IS suited to the task of drag racing.
>
> (Please keep in mind that I am drawing conclusions (that the new engine
> is not suited to drag racing) with very little fact or actual info to
> support such a claim. As such, the above should be considered merely
> academic.) :-)
>
> >I am extremely offended at the blatant bias of this list against low end
> >power.....er, never mind:)
> >
>
> And *I* am extremely offended at... ummm.... ummm... I'll have to get
> back to you on that. :-)
>
> -Jon-
>
> .--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---.
> | DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL |
> | '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) |
> `-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
> I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:48 EDT