Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
12-18-2004, 01:03 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
Troll,
How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
era?
You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions!
Both Ford and Chevy factory experimentals, during the early sixties used
three 550 CFM Holleys like my friend's stock 406" pictured at:
http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frank_32.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted wrote:
>
> You are a bigger troll.
>
> The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
> heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
> just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
> kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
> would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
> the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
> DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
> tangent.
>
> The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
> bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
> didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
> were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
> mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
> price" cars.
>
> While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
> Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
> don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
> a turbocharger.
>
> But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
> ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
> was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
> uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
> and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
> well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
> was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
> absolutely first rate as an engineering firm.
How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
era?
You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions!
Both Ford and Chevy factory experimentals, during the early sixties used
three 550 CFM Holleys like my friend's stock 406" pictured at:
http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frank_32.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted wrote:
>
> You are a bigger troll.
>
> The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
> heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
> just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
> kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
> would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
> the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
> DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
> tangent.
>
> The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
> bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
> didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
> were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
> mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
> price" cars.
>
> While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
> Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
> don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
> a turbocharger.
>
> But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
> ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
> was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
> uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
> and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
> well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
> was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
> absolutely first rate as an engineering firm.
12-18-2004, 01:03 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
Troll,
How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
era?
You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions!
Both Ford and Chevy factory experimentals, during the early sixties used
three 550 CFM Holleys like my friend's stock 406" pictured at:
http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frank_32.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted wrote:
>
> You are a bigger troll.
>
> The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
> heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
> just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
> kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
> would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
> the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
> DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
> tangent.
>
> The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
> bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
> didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
> were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
> mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
> price" cars.
>
> While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
> Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
> don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
> a turbocharger.
>
> But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
> ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
> was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
> uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
> and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
> well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
> was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
> absolutely first rate as an engineering firm.
How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
era?
You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions!
Both Ford and Chevy factory experimentals, during the early sixties used
three 550 CFM Holleys like my friend's stock 406" pictured at:
http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frank_32.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted wrote:
>
> You are a bigger troll.
>
> The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
> heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
> just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
> kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
> would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
> the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
> DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
> tangent.
>
> The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
> bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
> didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
> were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
> mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
> price" cars.
>
> While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
> Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
> don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
> a turbocharger.
>
> But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
> ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
> was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
> uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
> and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
> well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
> was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
> absolutely first rate as an engineering firm.
12-18-2004, 01:03 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
Troll,
How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
era?
You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions!
Both Ford and Chevy factory experimentals, during the early sixties used
three 550 CFM Holleys like my friend's stock 406" pictured at:
http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frank_32.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted wrote:
>
> You are a bigger troll.
>
> The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
> heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
> just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
> kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
> would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
> the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
> DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
> tangent.
>
> The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
> bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
> didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
> were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
> mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
> price" cars.
>
> While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
> Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
> don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
> a turbocharger.
>
> But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
> ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
> was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
> uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
> and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
> well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
> was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
> absolutely first rate as an engineering firm.
How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
era?
You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions!
Both Ford and Chevy factory experimentals, during the early sixties used
three 550 CFM Holleys like my friend's stock 406" pictured at:
http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frank_32.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted wrote:
>
> You are a bigger troll.
>
> The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
> heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
> just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
> kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
> would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
> the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
> DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
> tangent.
>
> The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
> bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
> didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
> were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
> mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
> price" cars.
>
> While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
> Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
> don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
> a turbocharger.
>
> But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
> ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
> was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
> uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
> and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
> well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
> was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
> absolutely first rate as an engineering firm.
12-18-2004, 01:46 AM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
From: L.W >>
<< Troll,
How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
era?
You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions! <<
Subject: Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
Doesn't sound stupid to me. He said they were stupid, not that they weren't
used. Three Deuces was available both in production and aftermarket setups and
it never gave very uniform fuel/air mixtures.
Chrysler built straight eights, not V8s, in the thirties. Chevys were sixes,
but Pontiac, Buick, Olds, the "better" GM marques had straight eights and
Cadillac had V-8, V-12 and V-16 engines. Chevrolet had splash oiling until
1953. Only pressure from independents and imports made Detroit get rid of
sidevalve and splash oiled engines. Your antagonist is apparently more
knowledgeable than you are, perhaps you should be quiet and learn something, Mr
------.
12-18-2004, 01:46 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
From: L.W >>
<< Troll,
How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
era?
You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions! <<
Subject: Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
Doesn't sound stupid to me. He said they were stupid, not that they weren't
used. Three Deuces was available both in production and aftermarket setups and
it never gave very uniform fuel/air mixtures.
Chrysler built straight eights, not V8s, in the thirties. Chevys were sixes,
but Pontiac, Buick, Olds, the "better" GM marques had straight eights and
Cadillac had V-8, V-12 and V-16 engines. Chevrolet had splash oiling until
1953. Only pressure from independents and imports made Detroit get rid of
sidevalve and splash oiled engines. Your antagonist is apparently more
knowledgeable than you are, perhaps you should be quiet and learn something, Mr
------.
12-18-2004, 01:46 AM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
From: L.W >>
<< Troll,
How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
era?
You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions! <<
Subject: Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
Doesn't sound stupid to me. He said they were stupid, not that they weren't
used. Three Deuces was available both in production and aftermarket setups and
it never gave very uniform fuel/air mixtures.
Chrysler built straight eights, not V8s, in the thirties. Chevys were sixes,
but Pontiac, Buick, Olds, the "better" GM marques had straight eights and
Cadillac had V-8, V-12 and V-16 engines. Chevrolet had splash oiling until
1953. Only pressure from independents and imports made Detroit get rid of
sidevalve and splash oiled engines. Your antagonist is apparently more
knowledgeable than you are, perhaps you should be quiet and learn something, Mr
------.
12-18-2004, 02:38 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
Maybe if you had a little experience in the progressive linkage of a
tri-power, and had read the post I was replying to, you wouldn't sounds
so..... STUPID! I'll quote it again just for you:
"You are a bigger troll.
The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
tangent.
The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
price" cars.
While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
a turbocharger.
But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
absolutely first rate as an engineering firm."
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
GaryMason9385 wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound stupid to me. He said they were stupid, not that they weren't
> used. Three Deuces was available both in production and aftermarket setups and
> it never gave very uniform fuel/air mixtures.
>
> Chrysler built straight eights, not V8s, in the thirties. Chevys were sixes,
> but Pontiac, Buick, Olds, the "better" GM marques had straight eights and
> Cadillac had V-8, V-12 and V-16 engines. Chevrolet had splash oiling until
> 1953. Only pressure from independents and imports made Detroit get rid of
> sidevalve and splash oiled engines. Your antagonist is apparently more
> knowledgeable than you are, perhaps you should be quiet and learn something, Mr
> ------.
tri-power, and had read the post I was replying to, you wouldn't sounds
so..... STUPID! I'll quote it again just for you:
"You are a bigger troll.
The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
tangent.
The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
price" cars.
While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
a turbocharger.
But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
absolutely first rate as an engineering firm."
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
GaryMason9385 wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound stupid to me. He said they were stupid, not that they weren't
> used. Three Deuces was available both in production and aftermarket setups and
> it never gave very uniform fuel/air mixtures.
>
> Chrysler built straight eights, not V8s, in the thirties. Chevys were sixes,
> but Pontiac, Buick, Olds, the "better" GM marques had straight eights and
> Cadillac had V-8, V-12 and V-16 engines. Chevrolet had splash oiling until
> 1953. Only pressure from independents and imports made Detroit get rid of
> sidevalve and splash oiled engines. Your antagonist is apparently more
> knowledgeable than you are, perhaps you should be quiet and learn something, Mr
> ------.
12-18-2004, 02:38 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
Maybe if you had a little experience in the progressive linkage of a
tri-power, and had read the post I was replying to, you wouldn't sounds
so..... STUPID! I'll quote it again just for you:
"You are a bigger troll.
The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
tangent.
The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
price" cars.
While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
a turbocharger.
But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
absolutely first rate as an engineering firm."
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
GaryMason9385 wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound stupid to me. He said they were stupid, not that they weren't
> used. Three Deuces was available both in production and aftermarket setups and
> it never gave very uniform fuel/air mixtures.
>
> Chrysler built straight eights, not V8s, in the thirties. Chevys were sixes,
> but Pontiac, Buick, Olds, the "better" GM marques had straight eights and
> Cadillac had V-8, V-12 and V-16 engines. Chevrolet had splash oiling until
> 1953. Only pressure from independents and imports made Detroit get rid of
> sidevalve and splash oiled engines. Your antagonist is apparently more
> knowledgeable than you are, perhaps you should be quiet and learn something, Mr
> ------.
tri-power, and had read the post I was replying to, you wouldn't sounds
so..... STUPID! I'll quote it again just for you:
"You are a bigger troll.
The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
tangent.
The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
price" cars.
While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
a turbocharger.
But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
absolutely first rate as an engineering firm."
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
GaryMason9385 wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound stupid to me. He said they were stupid, not that they weren't
> used. Three Deuces was available both in production and aftermarket setups and
> it never gave very uniform fuel/air mixtures.
>
> Chrysler built straight eights, not V8s, in the thirties. Chevys were sixes,
> but Pontiac, Buick, Olds, the "better" GM marques had straight eights and
> Cadillac had V-8, V-12 and V-16 engines. Chevrolet had splash oiling until
> 1953. Only pressure from independents and imports made Detroit get rid of
> sidevalve and splash oiled engines. Your antagonist is apparently more
> knowledgeable than you are, perhaps you should be quiet and learn something, Mr
> ------.
12-18-2004, 02:38 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
Maybe if you had a little experience in the progressive linkage of a
tri-power, and had read the post I was replying to, you wouldn't sounds
so..... STUPID! I'll quote it again just for you:
"You are a bigger troll.
The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
tangent.
The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
price" cars.
While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
a turbocharger.
But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
absolutely first rate as an engineering firm."
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
GaryMason9385 wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound stupid to me. He said they were stupid, not that they weren't
> used. Three Deuces was available both in production and aftermarket setups and
> it never gave very uniform fuel/air mixtures.
>
> Chrysler built straight eights, not V8s, in the thirties. Chevys were sixes,
> but Pontiac, Buick, Olds, the "better" GM marques had straight eights and
> Cadillac had V-8, V-12 and V-16 engines. Chevrolet had splash oiling until
> 1953. Only pressure from independents and imports made Detroit get rid of
> sidevalve and splash oiled engines. Your antagonist is apparently more
> knowledgeable than you are, perhaps you should be quiet and learn something, Mr
> ------.
tri-power, and had read the post I was replying to, you wouldn't sounds
so..... STUPID! I'll quote it again just for you:
"You are a bigger troll.
The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
tangent.
The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
price" cars.
While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
a turbocharger.
But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
absolutely first rate as an engineering firm."
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
GaryMason9385 wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound stupid to me. He said they were stupid, not that they weren't
> used. Three Deuces was available both in production and aftermarket setups and
> it never gave very uniform fuel/air mixtures.
>
> Chrysler built straight eights, not V8s, in the thirties. Chevys were sixes,
> but Pontiac, Buick, Olds, the "better" GM marques had straight eights and
> Cadillac had V-8, V-12 and V-16 engines. Chevrolet had splash oiling until
> 1953. Only pressure from independents and imports made Detroit get rid of
> sidevalve and splash oiled engines. Your antagonist is apparently more
> knowledgeable than you are, perhaps you should be quiet and learn something, Mr
> ------.
12-18-2004, 02:49 AM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
Ever notice trolls keep changing their names, therefore: don't have
much of a track record?
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...=2004&safe=off
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
GaryMason9385 wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound stupid to me. He said they were stupid, not that they weren't
> used. Three Deuces was available both in production and aftermarket setups and
> it never gave very uniform fuel/air mixtures.
>
> Chrysler built straight eights, not V8s, in the thirties. Chevys were sixes,
> but Pontiac, Buick, Olds, the "better" GM marques had straight eights and
> Cadillac had V-8, V-12 and V-16 engines. Chevrolet had splash oiling until
> 1953. Only pressure from independents and imports made Detroit get rid of
> sidevalve and splash oiled engines. Your antagonist is apparently more
> knowledgeable than you are, perhaps you should be quiet and learn something, Mr
> ------.
much of a track record?
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...=2004&safe=off
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
GaryMason9385 wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound stupid to me. He said they were stupid, not that they weren't
> used. Three Deuces was available both in production and aftermarket setups and
> it never gave very uniform fuel/air mixtures.
>
> Chrysler built straight eights, not V8s, in the thirties. Chevys were sixes,
> but Pontiac, Buick, Olds, the "better" GM marques had straight eights and
> Cadillac had V-8, V-12 and V-16 engines. Chevrolet had splash oiling until
> 1953. Only pressure from independents and imports made Detroit get rid of
> sidevalve and splash oiled engines. Your antagonist is apparently more
> knowledgeable than you are, perhaps you should be quiet and learn something, Mr
> ------.