Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Just curious, would you build ANY Mopar engine, since you seem to feel they are all inferior and silly ?? I apologize if I have interpreted your statements incorrectly, but from all you've said, it seems to be your belief.

---

I still build Chrysler based engines. And others too. I just won't build one for you (or anyone else) who thinks it's acceptable to use junkyard parts and build geometrically retarded engines. I'm too old for that stupidity.
I will say it again, for clarity: You will never EVER compete in real (read heads up) competition when you have an engine based on less than 1.0 bore/stroke ratio. And 1.0 is the bare MINIMUM. It's just stupid. Using 40-50 year old blocks and heads (in these situations) is just IGNORANT.
When you can get 20 (or more) BBC "conventional" heads and even more for SBC when Chrysler and the aftermarket can barely scrape up 4-5. Stupid really, why anyone would ever consider a MoPar.
That being said, I'm going to build a stock block, stock stroke, stock rod, stock headed, solid lifter 425-450 HP SB Chrysler that will be a daily driver. I actually thought about posting a thread about the build with pics and flow numbers. But who would care?

---

Wow, I hope Monte reads this, or somebody send him a memo on this.....he was thinking he could be competitive with a 632 chevy, which is usually 4.6 bore x 4.75 stroke......You say it's "stupid" to build such a "geometrically retarded" engine.....

---

You must be stupid or something. I've never ever put anyone on ignore. Not on ST. Not even on TB. But you will be the first.

I have nothing personal against Monte, or anyone else so do try and twist what I say. Now, because I'm the nicest guy you've never met, I'll spell it out for you.


I don't care what name is on the valve cover. A bore to stroke ratio of less than 1.0 is not good. Look at every class of MoPar verses Chevy. Lets say a 340 vs. a 350. The Dodge has a better r/s ratio, taller decks, wider pan rail, cam is further from the crank and a better b/s ratio! Why do you think they run as well as they do with clearly deficient ports????? Because geometry matters. Look at the 400 vs. the 396. Or the 454 the most bassackwards stupid deal yet...goes to show if you throw enough money at it, you can fix a relatively high speed turtle...thanks Smokey....and yes, I know he said that about the SBC...all that junk is the same junk to me) vs. a 440. Everyone listed here shows the geometrically SUPERIOR design wins, hands down. On top of Chrysler using the best production cast iron of the "big 3".

So let me spell it out. If Monte disagrees with me, I'm ok with that. He has been there and done it. You haven't. You are just a mouth. But if it came down to competing and I had a choice, I would take some stroke out of it.. Now the sad facts, and what this post is really about.

The best you are going to do with a MoPar is a 4.560 bore. At 4.600 the chevy still has .040 on you and that .040 is big. AND, you can go to 4.7 and a little more with the chevy. Can't touch this with a MoPar. Sorry if you are butt hurt but truth is truth and facts hurt. They make meds for guy like you anyway.

Last but not least is Pro Stock. I could fix PS in one page, but all the cry babies would snivel and whine and we would have a shortage of whambulances, country wide. Have a look at PS geometry. Big bores, relatively long rods (rod ratios of 1.7 to 1.8 are common) and they are making dang near 3hp/CI. They must be stoopid er sumthin. They can build the geometrically any way they want.

So you have been proven wrong on multiple levels. Put the keyboard down. Leave your momma's basement and forget you ever heard of the interweb.


CLASS............DISMISSED.