Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

6. Big wide flat iconic alternator, low output, PITA upgrade to
Delcotron possible. One demerit.

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

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

As I said, I think marque partisanship is unproductive and prefer a
best of breed approach. One reason why International Harvesters are
such good trucks is they could and did get the best things from each
vendor. I remember old Dave Blanton and how he would bitch about
General Motors. Half of what he said had some basis in fact and half
didn't. But he flew those junkyard refugee Ford V6s. He put his ass on
the line. You have to respect that. I notice DCX isn't having that
minxy broad that flies the T-34 with the pentagram, I mean pentastar,
on the tail put a Hemi under her cowling!

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, 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. All I can say is, bull****.

Well, of course it's bull****...*if* it's an argument that's actually
been
made. Who made it?

> 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


Er...no, that's frequently the case, but not always. I can think of
plenty of cases in which it's not necessary to change frame members.
But even in those cases where the K-member must be changed in order to
swap from, say, a slant-6 to a V8, or a small block to a big block:
Have you actually scrutinised the differences among the different
K-frames? No, of course you have not. When you do, assuming you know
what you're looking at, you'll find the differences are far more
significant than just engine mount pad locations. Engine swaps are
infrequent occurrences. I'll happily swap K-frames (oh NO! Eight big
bolts! WhaddamigonnaDO?) inorder to have a subframe specifically
designed for the loads and stresses involved. The alternative is
GM-style standardisation on the weakest common denominator. You can see
it in their brakes. You can see it in their U-joints. You can see it in
their frames and/or subframes, in their rear axles, in their cooling
systems. You can see it in Ford's electricals and cooling systems.

> Putting Mopar engines in other chassis usually a major high hard one in
> the hindquarters because things are at odd angles.

OK, I'll play: What do you think is at "odd angles" in which Mopar
engines?

> How often do you see a 318 or a 440 in,say, a Jaguar? I see Chevys in them all the time. Two > demerits.

I think that's more a function of what changeover kits get put on
theaftermarket, which in turn is a function of what's cheap in the
used-engine market, which means small block Chevrolets. And there're
lots of reasons they're cheap! And, erm, since when does an engine
swap that gets done maybe two dozen times in five years warrant a
"demerit"...? Who cares how many non-Jaguar engines are currently
installed in Jaguars? I might just as well ask how often you see
a Chevy or Ford engine in a Jensen Interceptor (never, they're all
Mopar 440s).

> 3. Cheesy interior, switches, et al on Mopars after '64 or so to the present.

You're a decade off; the cheesy switches and body hardware started
showing up in '74. It hit a low point in the 1980s and began recovering
in the early 1990s. Current-production body hardware and switchgear is
better in fit and feel than most of what comes out of Ford or GM.

> 4. Geared starter reliable at first but impossible to get properly rebuilt.

Horsepucky. That starter is easy to get *rebuilt* properly and
inexpensively. What's not possible is to find a *remanufactured* unit
off the parts store shelf that lasts worth a damn. This applies equally
to other-brand starters and alternators; the fault lies with the
"remanufacturers". Shall we discuss the Delco 5-hour starter? Or Ford's
movable-pole-shoe "better idea" unit?

> 5. Troublesome systems such as Lean Burn, et al.

First efforts at emission control. Worked very well for what they were
and the timeframe in which they were used; no more or less troublesome
overall than contemporary systems from other manufacturers *worldwide*.

> 6. Big wide flat iconic alternator, low output, PITA upgrade to Delcotron possible. One demerit.

Low output at idle from certain pre-1970 alternators. Direct drop-in
swap to post-1970 alternators, or if even more idle-speed charging is
needed, easy and cheap upgrade to post-'89 Chrysler, Bosch or
Nippondenso alternator from later-model Mopar. Yet another undeserved
"demerit" arising from nothing more or less than your own ignorance.

> 7. Engne cold start and driveability abysmal on carbureted engines '65-80s.

More baloney. It sounds as if you don't know how to adjust chokes and
choke pull-offs correctly. What's more, there's no difference in
cold-start/cold-driveability between a '64 and '65 Mopar: It's fine if
they're in correct repair and adjustment, and it's poor if they're not.
Same as every other carbureted vehicle.

> As I said, I think marque partisanship is unproductive and prefer a best of breed
> approach. One reason why International Harvesters are such good trucks

....says the staunch marque non-partisan...

> is they could and did get the best things from each vendor.

Now you're hallucinating. They did no such thing. There was plenty of
good in-house engineering from IH, but for their pickups and SUVs, they
did a great deal of buying components that would meet spec from whoever
put in the lowest bid. Solid designs ruined by extreme susceptibility
to rust and near-nil parts interchangeability. Known as
"Intertrashionals" in the trade because while
the entry for, say, a rear brake drum for a Ford, Chev or Dodge pickup
looks like this:

DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: 1966 through 1982, interchange #3652

the analogous listing for an IH pickup looks like this:

DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH:
3/66 - 7/15/66, interchange #2095
7/16/66 - 9/66 and 11/66 - 2/67, interchange #3656
10/66 exc. serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2098
10/66 serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2193
3/67 - 8/69, exc. build plant "A", interchange #3755
3/67 - 8/69, build plant "A", interchange #3839

and so forth. Five million and a half demerits.

You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your
ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact.

DS

Geez Dan , glad I ran a SS 64 Belvedere Hemi all over the the coast at NHRA
events, the K frame comment brought a smile. All stated, true.
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, 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. All I can say is, bull****.
>
> Well, of course it's bull****...*if* it's an argument that's actually
> been
> made. Who made it?
>
>> 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
>
>
> Er...no, that's frequently the case, but not always. I can think of
> plenty of cases in which it's not necessary to change frame members.
> But even in those cases where the K-member must be changed in order to
> swap from, say, a slant-6 to a V8, or a small block to a big block:
> Have you actually scrutinised the differences among the different
> K-frames? No, of course you have not. When you do, assuming you know
> what you're looking at, you'll find the differences are far more
> significant than just engine mount pad locations. Engine swaps are
> infrequent occurrences. I'll happily swap K-frames (oh NO! Eight big
> bolts! WhaddamigonnaDO?) inorder to have a subframe specifically
> designed for the loads and stresses involved. The alternative is
> GM-style standardisation on the weakest common denominator. You can see
> it in their brakes. You can see it in their U-joints. You can see it in
> their frames and/or subframes, in their rear axles, in their cooling
> systems. You can see it in Ford's electricals and cooling systems.
>
>> Putting Mopar engines in other chassis usually a major high hard one in
>> the hindquarters because things are at odd angles.
>
> OK, I'll play: What do you think is at "odd angles" in which Mopar
> engines?
>
>> How often do you see a 318 or a 440 in,say, a Jaguar? I see Chevys in
>> them all the time. Two > demerits.
>
> I think that's more a function of what changeover kits get put on
> theaftermarket, which in turn is a function of what's cheap in the
> used-engine market, which means small block Chevrolets. And there're
> lots of reasons they're cheap! And, erm, since when does an engine
> swap that gets done maybe two dozen times in five years warrant a
> "demerit"...? Who cares how many non-Jaguar engines are currently
> installed in Jaguars? I might just as well ask how often you see
> a Chevy or Ford engine in a Jensen Interceptor (never, they're all
> Mopar 440s).
>
>> 3. Cheesy interior, switches, et al on Mopars after '64 or so to the
>> present.
>
> You're a decade off; the cheesy switches and body hardware started
> showing up in '74. It hit a low point in the 1980s and began recovering
> in the early 1990s. Current-production body hardware and switchgear is
> better in fit and feel than most of what comes out of Ford or GM.
>
>> 4. Geared starter reliable at first but impossible to get properly
>> rebuilt.
>
> Horsepucky. That starter is easy to get *rebuilt* properly and
> inexpensively. What's not possible is to find a *remanufactured* unit
> off the parts store shelf that lasts worth a damn. This applies equally
> to other-brand starters and alternators; the fault lies with the
> "remanufacturers". Shall we discuss the Delco 5-hour starter? Or Ford's
> movable-pole-shoe "better idea" unit?
>
>> 5. Troublesome systems such as Lean Burn, et al.
>
> First efforts at emission control. Worked very well for what they were
> and the timeframe in which they were used; no more or less troublesome
> overall than contemporary systems from other manufacturers *worldwide*.
>
>> 6. Big wide flat iconic alternator, low output, PITA upgrade to Delcotron
>> possible. One demerit.
>
> Low output at idle from certain pre-1970 alternators. Direct drop-in
> swap to post-1970 alternators, or if even more idle-speed charging is
> needed, easy and cheap upgrade to post-'89 Chrysler, Bosch or
> Nippondenso alternator from later-model Mopar. Yet another undeserved
> "demerit" arising from nothing more or less than your own ignorance.
>
>> 7. Engne cold start and driveability abysmal on carbureted engines
>> '65-80s.
>
> More baloney. It sounds as if you don't know how to adjust chokes and
> choke pull-offs correctly. What's more, there's no difference in
> cold-start/cold-driveability between a '64 and '65 Mopar: It's fine if
> they're in correct repair and adjustment, and it's poor if they're not.
> Same as every other carbureted vehicle.
>
>> As I said, I think marque partisanship is unproductive and prefer a best
>> of breed
>> approach. One reason why International Harvesters are such good trucks
>
> ...says the staunch marque non-partisan...
>
>> is they could and did get the best things from each vendor.
>
> Now you're hallucinating. They did no such thing. There was plenty of
> good in-house engineering from IH, but for their pickups and SUVs, they
> did a great deal of buying components that would meet spec from whoever
> put in the lowest bid. Solid designs ruined by extreme susceptibility
> to rust and near-nil parts interchangeability. Known as
> "Intertrashionals" in the trade because while
> the entry for, say, a rear brake drum for a Ford, Chev or Dodge pickup
> looks like this:
>
> DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: 1966 through 1982, interchange #3652
>
> the analogous listing for an IH pickup looks like this:
>
> DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH:
> 3/66 - 7/15/66, interchange #2095
> 7/16/66 - 9/66 and 11/66 - 2/67, interchange #3656
> 10/66 exc. serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2098
> 10/66 serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2193
> 3/67 - 8/69, exc. build plant "A", interchange #3755
> 3/67 - 8/69, build plant "A", interchange #3839
>
> and so forth. Five million and a half demerits.
>
> You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your
> ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact.
>
> DS
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Shep wrote:
> Geez Dan , glad I ran a SS 64 Belvedere Hemi all over the the coast at NHRA
> events, the K frame comment brought a smile. All stated, true.
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > Er...no, that's frequently the case, but not always. I can think of
> > plenty of cases in which it's not necessary to change frame members.
> > But even in those cases where the K-member must be changed in order to
> > swap from, say, a slant-6 to a V8, or a small block to a big block:
> > Have you actually scrutinised the differences among the different
> > K-frames? No, of course you have not. When you do, assuming you know
> > what you're looking at, you'll find the differences are far more
> > significant than just engine mount pad locations. Engine swaps are
> > infrequent occurrences. I'll happily swap K-frames (oh NO! Eight big
> > bolts! WhaddamigonnaDO?) inorder to have a subframe specifically
> > designed for the loads and stresses involved. The alternative is
> > GM-style standardisation on the weakest common denominator. You can see
> > it in their brakes. You can see it in their U-joints. You can see it in
> > their frames and/or subframes, in their rear axles, in their cooling
> > systems. You can see it in Ford's electricals and cooling systems.

What's wrong with standardizing on the strongest common denominator?



> > I think that's more a function of what changeover kits get put on
> > theaftermarket, which in turn is a function of what's cheap in the
> > used-engine market, which means small block Chevrolets. And there're
> > lots of reasons they're cheap! And, erm, since when does an engine
> > swap that gets done maybe two dozen times in five years warrant a
> > "demerit"...? Who cares how many non-Jaguar engines are currently
> > installed in Jaguars? I might just as well ask how often you see
> > a Chevy or Ford engine in a Jensen Interceptor (never, they're all
> > Mopar 440s).

I agree the Jensen is a great car, but they were designed around mopar
power in the first place. You could also mention the Facel Vega, the
Dual Ghia, the later Bristols and the Monteverdis, ditto. Monteverdi's
Hai was what proved what a un-Autobahnworthy and specialized affair the
426 Race Hemi was- you couldn't keep valvetrains in them. Don Aronow
knew this too but he didn't see the need to tip fellow boat builders
off.

> >
> >> 3. Cheesy interior, switches, et al on Mopars after '64 or so to the
> >> present.
> >
> > You're a decade off; the cheesy switches and body hardware started
> > showing up in '74. It hit a low point in the 1980s and began recovering
> > in the early 1990s. Current-production body hardware and switchgear is
> > better in fit and feel than most of what comes out of Ford or GM.

Okay, conceded.

> >
> >> 4. Geared starter reliable at first but impossible to get properly
> >> rebuilt.
> >
> > Horsepucky. That starter is easy to get *rebuilt* properly and
> > inexpensively. What's not possible is to find a *remanufactured* unit
> > off the parts store shelf that lasts worth a damn. This applies equally
> > to other-brand starters and alternators; the fault lies with the
> > "remanufacturers". Shall we discuss the Delco 5-hour starter? Or Ford's
> > movable-pole-shoe "better idea" unit?
> >
>


> >> 6. Big wide flat iconic alternator, low output, PITA upgrade to Delcotron
> >> possible. One demerit.
> >
> > Low output at idle from certain pre-1970 alternators. Direct drop-in
> > swap to post-1970 alternators, or if even more idle-speed charging is
> > needed, easy and cheap upgrade to post-'89 Chrysler, Bosch or
> > Nippondenso alternator from later-model Mopar. Yet another undeserved
> > "demerit" arising from nothing more or less than your own ignorance.
> >
> >> 7. Engne cold start and driveability abysmal on carbureted engines
> >> '65-80s.
> >
> > More baloney. It sounds as if you don't know how to adjust chokes and
> > choke pull-offs correctly. What's more, there's no difference in
> > cold-start/cold-driveability between a '64 and '65 Mopar: It's fine if
> > they're in correct repair and adjustment, and it's poor if they're not.
> > Same as every other carbureted vehicle.


Have you ever drilled the rivets out and dropped the heat shield from
under the iron intake manifold of a Mopar engine??? What a sewer pit.
They should have used a valley cover and a separate manifold if they
wanted the carb kept cold, which the heat shield did, but it took
forever for the system to reach heat equilibrium. At least, longer than
the average suburban car trip.

> >
> >> As I said, I think marque partisanship is unproductive and prefer a best
> >> of breed
> >> approach. One reason why International Harvesters are such good trucks
> >
> > ...says the staunch marque non-partisan...
> >
> >> is they could and did get the best things from each vendor.
> >
> > Now you're hallucinating. They did no such thing. There was plenty of
> > good in-house engineering from IH, but for their pickups and SUVs, they
> > did a great deal of buying components that would meet spec from whoever
> > put in the lowest bid. Solid designs ruined by extreme susceptibility
> > to rust and near-nil parts interchangeability. Known as
> > "Intertrashionals" in the trade because while
> > the entry for, say, a rear brake drum for a Ford, Chev or Dodge pickup
> > looks like this:
> >
> > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: 1966 through 1982, interchange #3652
> >
> > the analogous listing for an IH pickup looks like this:
> >
> > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH:
> > 3/66 - 7/15/66, interchange #2095
> > 7/16/66 - 9/66 and 11/66 - 2/67, interchange #3656
> > 10/66 exc. serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2098
> > 10/66 serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2193
> > 3/67 - 8/69, exc. build plant "A", interchange #3755
> > 3/67 - 8/69, build plant "A", interchange #3839
> >
> > and so forth. Five million and a half demerits.
> >
> > You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your
> > ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact.

Internationals maintained by owners or fleet mechanics who know the
difference between a Dana 44 and a Dana 60 or a Ford pickup vs.
Cadillac commercial chassis brake drum have no problem. Often times you
upgrade them to an entirely different assembly anyway since dedicated
Binder owners tend to be serious off roaders.

I agree Internationals in the later era of light line production were
poor from a corrosion control standpoint but so were Mopars and Chevys
and Fords, in other words, everyone.

You win a one way ticket to the L.W. Bill OIIIIIIO Hughes Museum of
Redneck Science.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:


<snip>


> There was plenty of
> good in-house engineering from IH, but for their pickups and SUVs,
> they did a great deal of buying components that would meet spec from
> whoever put in the lowest bid. Solid designs ruined by extreme
> susceptibility to rust and near-nil parts interchangeability. Known as
> "Intertrashionals" in the trade because while
> the entry for, say, a rear brake drum for a Ford, Chev or Dodge pickup
> looks like this:
>
> DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: 1966 through 1982, interchange #3652
>
> the analogous listing for an IH pickup looks like this:
>
> DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH:
> 3/66 - 7/15/66, interchange #2095
> 7/16/66 - 9/66 and 11/66 - 2/67, interchange #3656
> 10/66 exc. serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2098
> 10/66 serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2193
> 3/67 - 8/69, exc. build plant "A", interchange #3755
> 3/67 - 8/69, build plant "A", interchange #3839
>


Good grief.

WHY on earth would they do such a thing?

Hugo Schmeisser wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > There was plenty of
> > good in-house engineering from IH, but for their pickups and SUVs,
> > they did a great deal of buying components that would meet spec from
> > whoever put in the lowest bid. Solid designs ruined by extreme
> > susceptibility to rust and near-nil parts interchangeability. Known as
> > "Intertrashionals" in the trade because while
> > the entry for, say, a rear brake drum for a Ford, Chev or Dodge pickup
> > looks like this:
> >
> > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: 1966 through 1982, interchange #3652
> >
> > the analogous listing for an IH pickup looks like this:
> >
> > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH:
> > 3/66 - 7/15/66, interchange #2095
> > 7/16/66 - 9/66 and 11/66 - 2/67, interchange #3656
> > 10/66 exc. serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2098
> > 10/66 serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2193
> > 3/67 - 8/69, exc. build plant "A", interchange #3755
> > 3/67 - 8/69, build plant "A", interchange #3839
> >
>
>
> Good grief.
>
> WHY on earth would they do such a thing?

The great thing is you can't even reliably go by that list since most
Binders have been swapped around pretty hard. You have to know the part
and its main OEM application. That scares the non-serious off and the
hard core Binder buff can get them cheap.


Chrysler and AMC are not innocent of that kind of thing either. Medium
duty and heavy trucks are all like that-you can't specify a
transmission part for "a '82 Peterbuilt". You have to say it's a 13
speed Fuller RoadRanger of such and such series.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your
> ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact.
>
> DS

All I can say is that Bret's subject #1 was correct and look who posted
a reply before anyone else.....
It's okay to bad mouth other manufacturers, but when a Dodge gets hit,
Danny gets a little peeved.

I still won way more races then lost on the drag strip, agreed it does not
equate to everyday driveability and long term reliability, the is 1964
remember.
"Kruse" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your
>> ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact.
>>
>> DS
>
> All I can say is that Bret's subject #1 was correct and look who posted
> a reply before anyone else.....
> It's okay to bad mouth other manufacturers, but when a Dodge gets hit,
> Danny gets a little peeved.
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Kruse" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your
>> ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact.
>>
>> DS
>
> All I can say is that Bret's subject #1 was correct and look who posted
> a reply before anyone else.....
> It's okay to bad mouth other manufacturers, but when a Dodge gets hit,
> Danny gets a little peeved.
>

LOL! And yet he runs down Ford at every opportunity.

Bob wrote:
<<snip>>

> LOL! And yet he runs down Ford at every opportunity.

Ford has done some really good things and some poor ones. The nine
inch Ford rear end, the metallurgy in their iron castings, some of
their suspensions and brakes are really good.

Not that it necessarily makes their cars good, but Ford engines have
flown a lot of planes. Bernie Pietenpol built his Air Camper with a
Model A engine. The Funk brothers got a Model B powered plane actually
certificated engine and all. We all know about Geschwender and
Blanton. Ford also manufactured the Trimotor transport. They are big
aerospace contractors. GM, Volkswagen and Subaru engines have also
flown but to my knowledge no Chrysler engines.

The Brits think very highly of the little two liter Ford four that
goes in Contours, for racing and in fact English and German Ford
engines are still big staples in road racing, here and there.

Ford's EFI with MAF sensors are better than the MAP sensor systems in
a lot of ways. MegaSquirt is actually somewhat crude in that respect.

Chrysler's old brass reluctor electronic ignition is an excellent
system but their emissions systems stunk on ice for years, their big
alternator put out little zap, and their current electronics are Nazi
(good hacking could fix that.). I do think CAN is a good move in the
long run and the gradual transition to Benz mechanicals (see Thielert
TAE125) is going to be good in the long run.