Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, aarcuda69062 wrote:

> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote:
>
>> The 9" Ford is the rear end to have, until you get to the big medium
>> duty stuff. For cars it's the best and not just by a little.
>
> A common held belief not based upon fact.

Oh, pshaw. Why, it's based in *at least* as much fact as Bret's
hallucinatory brass-reluctor Mopar ignition systems (of which when he's
"reminded" the nonexistence, he allows as how it's actually the feeler
gauge used to set the reluctor air gap that's brass). And the superiority
of the Ford 9" is at least as factual as Bret's singular inability to get
Mopar alternators and carburetors to work, despite their being perfectly
adequate for everyone else who's used them. Perhaps he's never actually
used them, or suffers from a peculiar sort of selective blindness
rendering him able to see only the alternators rated at under 60 Amps. And
don't let's forget the slant-6 induction and exhaust systems that make
Bret wish to vomit (a ringing endorsement, given the fanciful nonsense
that passes for engineering knowledge from our friend Mr. Ludwig!).

In article >,
51_racing > wrote:

> > Hate to break it to you but the Chrysler 8.75 "pumpkin" is
> > serviced the exact same way, as was a version of Oldsmobile rear
> > axle used in the late 50s early 60s. The Chrysler advantage is
> > that the pinion stem is 3/8"-1/2" bigger in diameter which also
> > gets you bigger bearings. Ford 9 inch rear axles make me laugh
> > the same as Muncie and Borg Warner transmissions make me laugh
> > when I compare them to a Chrysler unit.
>
> How about gear selection?

You mean in .05 increments?
I know that above certain ratios, I have to do a lot of hugging
of metal from the pig on Ford 9" to get clearance for the ring
gear.

> I can put any rear end in the car that I race that I choose. It has a
> 9". I can change gears in my floating rear in less than 30 minutes at
> the track.

If my 8.75 had full floating axles, I'm sure I could meet that
time.

> I will agree that axles in the Ford aren't the greatest, and
> aftermarket parts help that, but stock parts are plenty strong for 500+
> H.P. how is that weak?

Not weak, weaker.

In article >,
51_racing > wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, 51_racing wrote:
> >
> >> How about gear selection?
> >
> >
> > How about it? 2.76, 2.94, 3.23, 3.55, 3.91, 4.10, 4.56, 5.13 and several
> > others I'm leaving out. Not enough choice for ya?
> >
>
> No as a matter of fact, not nearly enough. And not nearly steep enough,
> how about starting in the mid 5's and go up from there, the most common
> types used in racing.

If Chrysler 8.75" rear axles were dime a dozen, Richmond and the
like would make the ratios available.
It's not because it can't be done, it's because of what is
commonly used. What is commonly used is as I mentioned earlier,
perceived to be easier to service by a small margin.

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> I have no beef against DaimlerChrysler, FoMoCo or General Motors. In
> my opinion all have made some beautiful things and some dog poop.
> However it's been brought to my attention that some consider Chrysler
> Corp. engineering without peer or flaw.

I wouldn't say that Chrysler is without peer or flaw. Packard was
certainly a peer, and the current 2.7L v6 is certainly a flaw. So was
the F/M/J-body transverse torsion bar suspension. So was using a VW
short-block in the first Horizon/Omni.

>All I can say is, bull****.

All I can say is bring on the facts, buddy! I love a good engineering
debate.
>
> Bad points with Mopar:
>
> 1. Like Amiga computer users, Moparites can be real penises about
> their chosen folly. So can other marque partisans, I give them one
> demerit.

And Camaro drivers are all mullet-wearing inbreds? All BMW drivers are
self-centered yuppie dickheads? I don't think so. Why doncha bring a
real engineering based argument against the company if you want, but
screw the perceptions others have of the owners.

>
> 2. Lack of interchageability. Putting a Mopar engine in a chassis
> designed for that engine but sold with a different one is always a high
> pain in the ass factor procedure requiring different frame members,
> different bellhousings or automatic transmissions, etc. Putting Mopar
> engines in other chassis usually a major high hard one in the
> hindquarters because things are at odd angles. How often do you see a
> 318 or a 440 in,say, a Jaguar? I see Chevys in them all the time. Two
> demerits.

In the first place, you GROSSLY overstate the lack of
interchangeability. You can change engines in any chassis (with some
exceptions for the slant 6 and the older flathead sixes) by changing
engine *mounts*. Not K-members. As for transmissions, I for one think
that its a good thing that big-blocks have one bellhousing pattern,
smallblocks another, and sixes a third. It keeps idiots from doing what
Chevy-philes do all too often- putting a built-up big-block in front of
a transmission with 6-cylinder internals and selling it to a hapless
buyer before it disintigrates. Then let's talk about upgradeability- I'm
in the process of upgrading my '66 Polara to front disk brakes. Using
100% bolt-in factory parts from a '72 New Yorker. I'll get
factory-proven braking performance at a lower price than I would buying
a kit whose parts have never undergone safety testing.

In the second place, if you're going to say that its any harder to put a
Mopar drivetrain in a street rod, prove it. Don't just drivel about "odd
angles." I've personally seen plenty of Mopar-powered street rods, and I
always judge them (or Ford or Buick or anything BUT SBC-powered rods) up
a few points for being creative. I think the most creative rod
powertrain I've recently seen utilized a supercharged Mercruiser
4-cylinder that's basically half of a Ford 460. Now that was cool!

And I'll give 5 merits to the fact that Jensen Interceptors used Mopar
power. Got a similar example for Chevy?

>
> 3. Cheesy interior, switches, et al on Mopars after '64 or so to the
> present. Feels tacky. One and a half demerits.

The solid metal knobs and switches on my '66 Polara and '69 Coronet
nullify this. The fact that none of the plastic knobs or swiches on my
431,000 mile 73 Satellite or my 220,000 mile 93 Eagle have broken also
nullfy this claim as baseless. About the only complaint I have is that
the 80's M-body and truck turn signal combination stalk always *felt*
like it was going to break off, but I never had one fail.

>
> 4. Geared starter reliable at first but impossible to get properly
> rebuilt. Two demerits, but if modern high torque aftermarket starter
> fitted, waived.

The geared starter is only hard to rebuild if you're an idiot that can't
follow procedure. Fortunately, it doesn't have to be fitted with shims
to engage the flywheel without self-destructing. And it can effortlessly
crank a high-compression engine on a hot day, unlike the Delco starter
GM used for so long.

>
> 5. Troublesome systems such as Lean Burn, et al. Two demerits, waived
> in states where depollutionizing feasible.

Lean Burn is no worse in hindsight than the Cadillac HT-4100. Both were
a crappy solution to government interfering in engineering.

>
> 6. Big wide flat iconic alternator, low output, PITA upgrade to
> Delcotron possible. One demerit.
Like the starter, the alternator works just fine unless its been
boogered up by an idiot. And the last thing I'd replace it with is a
Delco- because the Chrysler 100A version used in copcars (the big one
with the exposed fan, capable of actually putting out a full 100A
indefinitely) is superior. So is a modern Nippondenso.


> 7. Engne cold start and driveability abysmal on carbureted engines
> '65-80s. Two demerits, waived with aftermarket aluminum intake manifold
> on V8's.

Come start and drive *ANY* of my cars on any cold morning. The two that
start and run the best have stock Mopar carb/choke configurations on
them. Now if you take any old un-maintained 60s car with a stuck choke
and a half-clogged carb and start it on a cold morning, yeah its gonna
be tempermental. Mopars are no different in that regard.

>
> 8. Left hand threaded lug nuts, one demerit for confusion, one-half
> demerit waived for innovation. One-half demerit.

I could give GM a demerit for using only 3 torque convertor bolts with
just as much validity.

aarcuda69062 wrote:


>
> If Chrysler 8.75" rear axles were dime a dozen, Richmond and the
> like would make the ratios available.
> It's not because it can't be done, it's because of what is
> commonly used. What is commonly used is as I mentioned earlier,
> perceived to be easier to service by a small margin.

Granted, it's partially a supply/demand situation but not all housings
can handle these types of gear sets. GM for instance in the 7.5"
carriers had to use two, the 2 series and the 3 series. Can the Chrysler
physically fit those gears?

Bret Ludwig wrote:


>
> Yeah, the reluctor, actually it's the feeler gauge that's brass.
> Sorry. It has the TO case transistor on the little box with the five
> pin connector with the screw through it. You can usually fix them
> yourself by changing the power transistor and the diodes and caps out,
> if you can get it depotted.

Why would you want to, when a brand new one is under $20? And here, I'll
surprise you: GM's HEI is a bit better ignition than Mopar's electronic,
at least from a performance standpoint. Capacitive-discharge allows a
hotter spark without added power draw.

a
> GM alternators are the best. Period. They are reliable and more to the
> point, can be had in high current versions cheaply.
>

GM alternators range from very good to utter crap (CS series anyone?)
Mopar alternators range from reliable but low output through superb with
high output. Sadly, Mopar doesn't build alternators and hasn't since
1988 or so- but at least they mostly buy Nippondensos, which are for the
most part far better than Delco.

> The Chrysler is reliable enough. But it's what, 60 amps? And that's
> the BIG version.

That's the biggest finned-case version. The biggest is the 100A
exposed-fan version that can deliver a constant 100+ amps at 14.8 volts
for as long as you want it to without failing. Its one of the few
automotive alternators (not counting big truck units like Leece-Neville)
that actually is rated at its *sustainable* output.

51_racing wrote:

> How about gear selection?
> I can put any rear end in the car that I race that I choose. It has a
> 9". I can change gears in my floating rear in less than 30 minutes at
> the track. I will agree that axles in the Ford aren't the greatest, and
> aftermarket parts help that, but stock parts are plenty strong for 500+
> H.P. how is that weak?

Gear availability for the 8.75 is beginning to be an issue since it
hasn't been built since 73. On the other hand, you can still get:

2.76, 2.93, 3.23, 3.55, 4.10, 4.80, and (IIRC) 5.30 ratios for a Mopar
8.75. Not bad for a 30 year out-of-production piece!

That said, I also like the Ford 9" fine. Its smaller pinion shaft is
offset by having bearings on both sides of the pinion gear, but that
also makes setup quite a bit harder.

51_racing wrote:

> aarcuda69062 wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If Chrysler 8.75" rear axles were dime a dozen, Richmond and the like
>> would make the ratios available.
>> It's not because it can't be done, it's because of what is commonly
>> used. What is commonly used is as I mentioned earlier, perceived to
>> be easier to service by a small margin.
>
>
> Granted, it's partially a supply/demand situation but not all housings
> can handle these types of gear sets. GM for instance in the 7.5"
> carriers had to use two, the 2 series and the 3 series. Can the Chrysler
> physically fit those gears?

To the best of my memory, the "742" and "489" housings can physically
fit all the gears (and probably the 741 and earlier housings too, just
less experience with those). At some point in there as you go through
the ratios, you have to change to a different ring-gear carrier in order
to allow the pinion adjustment range to stay centered as the ring gear
gets thicker. I don't remember the break-point though.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Steve wrote:

>> The Chrysler is reliable enough. But it's what, 60 amps? And that's
>> the BIG version.
>
> That's the biggest finned-case version.

Nope. The highest-output small (finned) case Chrysler alternator is 80A.

> The biggest is the 100A exposed-fan
> version

Physically biggest, yes. There is the '88-up Chrysler-built 120A unit,
which has a smaller case than the exposed-fan unit you're talking about.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, 51_racing wrote:

>> How about it? 2.76, 2.94, 3.23, 3.55, 3.91, 4.10, 4.56, 5.13 and several
>> others I'm leaving out. Not enough choice for ya?

> No as a matter of fact, not nearly enough.

Sorry, no sale. You'd have to do a great deal of very persuasive talking
to convince me that a 186% spread split up into steps of 5% and 10% is
"not nearly enough" for any real-world purpose.