On 11 Sep 2006 04:40:05 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
> wrote:

>good post- he's trying to impress people with that rolling POS car that
>is 20 years old- all of a sudden he's a "big USA car" man- when before,
>all he talked about was his Honda. <snip>

My Honda gets better on the road (32-33), much better around town
(30.) Your point, as usual, is that you're simply a troll with no
knowledge, and you're still angry about my crushing of your eBay fraud
empire.

>His Honda has a 60 HP engine in it. <snip>

65.

>How much HP does this ' 86 Chrysler have, around 100 ? <snip>

120. I don't require a car to be a "dick extension" like you do,
Noodles.

>this "Bob" guy obviously has no clue just how much further advanced
>modern automotive technology has come. NOTHING has a carburetor on it
>anymore- all the new cars are fuel injected. 30 MPG highway is the
>norm, or better. Many get 35 MPG with 350 CID V-8's in them <snip>

Try 20-25. The Chevy small block's a pig...always has been. Modern
V6s, yes. As Bill Putney says, the LHs were good on fuel economy
while providing good power and response. The later roller cam 318s,
while an improvement in emissions and economy, were lethargic in their
2 bbl version, which came in most M-bodies of that era. The 360 with
a Carter Thermoquad fixed the power, but tanked the economy. The 360
was standard only on the Fifth Avenue Brougham. They were good for
maybe 20-23 on the road tops, but produced good power. Most police
packages ordered in those days had special cam grind 360s.

The California Highway Patrol had fleets of 1980s Dodge Diplomats, and
a few batches came with a special version of the 318. Although
economy shot up, saving the state millions of dollars a quarter, they
couldn't chase an overpowered muscle car or a Euro sportster like a
Porsche. For that duty, the 5 speed Ford Mustang 302s were introduced
as an interceptor. Didn't really matter...maybe Porsche WAS faster
than Chrysler, but it sure wasn't faster than Motorola or a Bell
chopper! What the CHP liked about the Diplomats, though, was their
toughness and longevity, even though they were lacking in pursuit
power. The Mustangs barely lasted the two years duty cycle, while the
'92 Camaros were retired after 6 months due to high maintenance and
low reliability.

The Camaro also suffered from dangerous wet surface handling. Most
districts would "ground" the Camaros during rainy weather, as their
accident rate was 5 times the fleet average on slick pavement. I know
this well...my wife bought a '92 RS and the rear end would come
completely unglued on wet pavement, even with Goodrich T/As. She had
the 3.1 60° V6, which would turn in 30 MPG on the road and was a tough
little mill, but reliability of that car overall was fair to poor. I
got really tired of replacing speed transducers on the 4L60
transmission (later, lighter version of the THM700) at $78 a pop, too.
The 1980s vintage ECM was less than forthright on giving good
information for troubleshooting, as well.