Speaking of cars...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..



My memories of my Valiant are more pleasant than my memories of my Lotus
Cortina.

The weirdest cars I've owned a

1. Fiat 500 (while stationed in Naples, Italy)
2. 196something Bentley (while stationed in Ponce, Puerto Rico)
3. Plymouth "Cricket" ..... that never ran. Replaced by the Buttercup
Yellow Valiant.

Eisboch

Mine was a 1963 Rambler Classic, 3 speed with an automatic clutch. It was
actually a pool car I had to share with my 2 older sisters till I had enough
cash to buy my own.

Speaking of cars...
 

trainfan1 wrote:
Don White wrote:


That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.

Have you noticed you can now buy a brand new Chrysler Aspen? D-C has
revived the nameplate. That takes guts after the Aspen/Volare
debacle(it should have been a worthy successor to the Dart/Valiant
except for the careless way Chrysler designed/built/marketed cars in the
mid 70's... I mean who wanted an olive green Aspen w/ orange vinyl
interior, that rusted out in 2 years?).

Sounds like you are familiar with a vehicle of that description, did you
own it?

Speaking of cars...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...

Don White wrote:


That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.

Have you noticed you can now buy a brand new Chrysler Aspen? D-C has
revived the nameplate. That takes guts after the Aspen/Volare debacle(it
should have been a worthy successor to the Dart/Valiant except for the
careless way Chrysler designed/built/marketed cars in the mid 70's... I
mean who wanted an olive green Aspen w/ orange vinyl interior, that rusted
out in 2 years?).

Rob


Yep. Remember the top of the fenders over the front tires? They always
rusted through.

Eisboch


We got new fenders free up here.

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really
sure
why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps
it's
the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the
relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque.
Modern
V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer
stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


Torque is relative to crank throw- longer stroke = more torque, not
less
as
you've stated.

Now will you shut up? Hmm, so I take it that you think torque is
relative
to ONLY stroke?? Are you REALLY saying that?


Everything else being equal (# cylinders, displacement)- yes.

Now that's just a plain stupid answer!


How so brain sturgeon?

I'm not a brain surgeon.

Thats obvious.


The real measurement would be to change the stroke AND bore to keep the
same displacement.

Exactly what I said- "Everything else being equal (# cylinders,
displacement)- yes"

Lets REALLY dumb this down for you.


Engine #1- 250 ci straight 6 in a under square configuration (Stroke is
longer than the bore- long stroke)

Engine #2- 250 ci straight 6 engine in a over square configuration (Stroke
is smaller than the bore- short stroke)

Engine #1 will have more torque than engine #2 at a lower rpm.
Engine #2 will rev higher and achieve its max torque at a higher rpm than
Engine #1
Engine #2 will also redline @ a higher rpm than Engine #1

capiche?

Speaking of cars...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..


My memories of my Valiant are more pleasant than my memories of my Lotus
Cortina.


The weirdest cars I've owned a

1. Fiat 500 (while stationed in Naples, Italy)
2. 196something Bentley (while stationed in Ponce, Puerto Rico)
3. Plymouth "Cricket" ..... that never ran. Replaced by the Buttercup
Yellow Valiant.

Eisboch


Mine were the 1962 Morris 850 SW and a 1981 Lada.

Speaking of cars...
 

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:04:42 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


I had a Valiant slant-six station wagon for a while. Must have been, this
is a guess, 1961? Silver. Crummy seats, but a tough little car. I really
abused it. Got rid of it before it rusted through.

We had a '61 Valiant. Got it for Mrs.E. when I first got out of the Navy.
Had to be one of the ugliest cars ever made and to make it worse she had it
painted "Buttercup Yellow". There was more bondo and filler on that car
than metal ... but it ran great.

It's one of the many cars we've owned that I try to forget.

Eisboch


One of my relatives had a '61 Valiant with a 426 Hemi in it. What a
sleeper. :o)
I always thought it was funny having wheelie-bars on a Valiant until I
saw the engine.
Mark E. Williams

Speaking of cars...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

US cars are routinely getting over 100K miles now, many over 200K miles.
Keep up with the oil changes and you can almost run them forever. Nothing
like the cars of the past...........


I still have a 1985 F150 straight 6 that runs fine at 170k miles

Those 300 ci Ford engines were excellent.

Eisboch

\
My dad bought a Ford Station wagon years ago, that had the 300 ci Ford 6 in
it. They said they thought the tranny was broke as it stopped driving but
the engine was still running. Since then they could not get the engine
started. Problem was the motor sheared the crankshaft at the main for #6
and off course to restart it the camshaft would not turn from the starter
end. Tossed a new crank in and engine good to go. Why can't Ford make
something as dependable now?

Speaking of cars...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:24:22 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Back in the olden days short stroke engines were very common (a 302
was a 327 with a shorter stroke).

Those really aren't representitive of the "olden days". The old,
straight 6
and 8 engines had relatively long strokes with small bores ...

I was referring to the performance engines of the late 60s when power
was the only real goal. The 302 was developed for the 5 liter racing
circuit (Can Am?)

Gotcha.

Eisboch




But the 307 was a dog of a Chevy engine. Under square. A 302 (305) CID
engine was a 327 with a265 CID crank. Whereas the 307 was a 265 with a 327
crank. The reason for Over square on high reving engines is to keep down
the ring speed.

Speaking of cars...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
On 10/15/2006 3:42 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...
Don White wrote:

That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.
Have you noticed you can now buy a brand new Chrysler Aspen? D-C has
revived the nameplate. That takes guts after the Aspen/Volare debacle(it
should have been a worthy successor to the Dart/Valiant except for the
careless way Chrysler designed/built/marketed cars in the mid 70's... I
mean who wanted an olive green Aspen w/ orange vinyl interior, that rusted
out in 2 years?).

Rob

Yep. Remember the top of the fenders over the front tires? They always
rusted through.

Eisboch




I had a Valiant slant-six station wagon for a while. Must have been,
this is a guess, 1961? Silver. Crummy seats, but a tough little car. I
really abused it. Got rid of it before it rusted through.

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?