|
Re: To TQ or not to TQ?
[Re: JDMopar]
#2824541
09/24/20 12:39 PM
09/24/20 12:39 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
How about a set of long rams, with a 2bbl Sniper on each one? Now that would be different! They should fit the Imp, unlike an A-B or E body. If you decide to do something like that.....I know where there's a long ram intake with linkage.  You evil man! You know I want one of those intakes. I'm just not sure if I'd be happy with a long or short version.
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
|
|
|
Re: To TQ or not to TQ?
[Re: SRT6776]
#2824543
09/24/20 12:41 PM
09/24/20 12:41 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
I was tempted by strokers but this is a road trip car and the difference between 9 mpg and 15 mpg can be felt in the wallet.
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
|
|
|
Re: To TQ or not to TQ?
[Re: RodStRace]
#2824561
09/24/20 01:24 PM
09/24/20 01:24 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
1st, great to hear the IMP is back on the front of the stove. Always admired that car.
2nd, I an curious why you aren't going with a stroker. The numbers you listed are healthy, but if I were to build a fresh engine with a decent budget, it would have a few more cubes and a taller gear to keep the RPMs down. 40-50 year old rotating assembly parts?
3rd, I love the TQ sound too and the 'coasting on primaries' deal. I'd really look into a dry intake with low height and long tubes to tune for the same RPM as the rest of the build (under 4500) you have talked about machine shop and fabrication equipment before. I'd imagine that you could come up with a small/huge throttle body and the intake to head plates. The tubing would be the part that would require a bunch more effort, but would result in something special. Also, having 2 TPS inputs to map properly would take a bit of time. If you use the TQ, my main concern is all the stuff that is in gas these days. Will the body hold up to warm temps (I assume you aren't going to run a 160 tstat) and the various oxygenates and other junk in current gas?
4th, Is this going to be NA? I appreciate the E heads being new and lighter. Will they be a bit much for a stock size, low RPM engine? The cam seems fairly mild, which means fairly high static compression plus mild duration, so the quench better be dialed in for optimum timing without pre-ignition.
Some good thoughts. I dropped the stroker because the torque won't be needed full time. When not under load the stroker is needlessly inefficient. I do like the idea of a dual runner intake but that's more time than I have available. The stoke heads had some issues and the Eddies were under my bench. They should be fine and have the quench pad I like. The ports are not that big so it should still maintain good velocity. If I can't get the quench, cam, and compression to play nice I'll swap to a touch more cam to bleed off some pressure.
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
|
|
|
Re: To TQ or not to TQ?
[Re: feets]
#2824932
09/25/20 12:24 PM
09/25/20 12:24 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,366
north of coder
moparx
"Butt Crack Bob"
|
"Butt Crack Bob"
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,366
north of coder
|
How about a set of long rams, with a 2bbl Sniper on each one? Now that would be different! They should fit the Imp, unlike an A-B or E body. If you decide to do something like that.....I know where there's a long ram intake with linkage. You evil man! You know I want one of those intakes. I'm just not sure if I'd be happy with a long or short version. you could just get the more common long version, and if that didn't work out to your satisfaction, convert it to the short version. there are plans for this out there somewhere on the interweb, but i don't have a link for them. the conversion looks easy enough to do, so you wouldn't have any trouble accomplishing it. 
|
|
|
Re: To TQ or not to TQ?
[Re: moparx]
#2825851
09/27/20 10:24 PM
09/27/20 10:24 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 340
Red Deer, Alberta
Greenwood
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 340
Red Deer, Alberta
|
Y'know Feets, I think you'll do just fine going the TQ route. I've had a 24 ft RV with a 440, and I have a 28 ft one with an injected 460. I thought the 460 would at least be equal to the 440, but it's 3-4 mpg less. Yes, the newer rig is a bit heavier, but not 3-4 mpg heavier. I would think that if a genuine smogger 460 can get 9 mpg pulling a 9-10,000 lb motorhome around, a well thought out 440 could knock down 15+ mpg pulling a sleek 5300 lb Imperial around. Even one breathing through a good ol' Thermobog. Please tell us you're going to use a proper Mopar dual snorkle air cleaner assembly, with the vacuum actuated flapper door. 
|
|
|
Re: To TQ or not to TQ?
[Re: Greenwood]
#2826619
09/29/20 07:47 PM
09/29/20 07:47 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
Nope!
No flapper doors around here! I want that think to breathe. It'll get an open filter for now and likely a properly ducted air cleaner in the future.
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
|
|
|
|
|
