|
|
|
Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine?
[Re: feets]
#1622103
05/26/14 04:35 AM
05/26/14 04:35 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
OP
Swears too much
|
OP
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Quote:
8 MPH?? You needed a tune up bad. Not bad but REAL bad. Hell I could get 15 with any of my cars of that era with out having to baby them. Had several and had them new.
The Imperial has been very well tuned and it returns 9.5 mpg in the city and can scratch 15 mpg highway if I try hard enough.
That's what you get with 5100 lbs of iron with the aerodynamics of a vending machine being pushed by a low compression 1972 440.
Heh... YUP. My all-out stalker-in-the-bushes-obsession with naturally aspirated super-efficient V8's was certainly kick-started by the DOHC mods, among other plants, but at the same time, the utter and complete AWFULness ov the STOCK Mopar big-block (which i was driving at the time, and have centered pretty much ALL my engine research around) just really hammered it home for me. Gotta be one ov the worst 60-70's era big blocks made for efficiency in STOCK form.
Then i made that thread comparing a 383 with the 360 Mag, which sold me on the smallblock... which previously i never liked... and knew nothing about. And now i've come to realize i dont even need the 'big' Magnum, and here i am at the 318. This is where i'll stay though... as going smaller takes me out ov modern design (273) and crossing brands and going modern will take me WELL out ov my budget.
I think a mild little 318 Magnum with a hot tune will work just fine in this lil car. My other dream car (the only one i dont have yet) is a 69 Imperial... and honestly i dont know what i'd do if i had one. Cant very well put a smaller engine in that and expect it to move...
|
|
|
Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine?
[Re: feets]
#1622105
05/26/14 09:38 PM
05/26/14 09:38 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
OP
Swears too much
|
OP
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Quote:
My other dream car (the only one i dont have yet) is a 69 Imperial... and honestly i dont know what i'd do if i had one. Cant very well put a smaller engine in that and expect it to move...
Hah! You first.
Funny though... now that you bring it up, now i cant get that video ov the 70 Monte Carlo with the CTD in it outta my head... idling away. Thats a double-taker...
|
|
|
Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine?
[Re: roe]
#1622107
05/27/14 05:52 AM
05/27/14 05:52 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
OP
Swears too much
|
OP
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Quote:
[
Funny though... now that you bring it up, now i cant get that video ov the 70 Monte Carlo with the CTD in it outta my head... idling away. Thats a double-taker...
Now that would be too cool. I'd love to see something like that. Anyone know if something like it has been done already? Big C body rumbling around with a Cummins...
roe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO_kjaxIDzc
For anyone interested, Feets should have a nice 72 440 for sale about two minutes after watching this video...
|
|
|
Re: Is the 360 an inherently inefficient engine?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1622108
05/27/14 08:30 PM
05/27/14 08:30 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
Senior Management
|
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
That car has been around a while.
There was a guy building a ragtop Newport with a 5.9 Cummins but I don't know if he was able to finish it.
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind.
- Stu Harmon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
