Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)

In article
.com>,
"Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> Ford has done some really good things and some poor ones. The nine
> inch Ford rear end,

The pinion stem diameter of a Ford 9 inch is the same as the
smallest (least desirable) Chrysler 8.75. Let's see, you don't
need to press the rear pinion bearing off to change pinion depth
shims. That doesn't lend itself to durability, just negates the
need for a press and a bearing splitter during set up. I'll take
strong over dumbed down any day.

> the metallurgy in their iron castings,

Offset by the crap aluminum they use other places.

> some of
> their suspensions and brakes are really good.

Historically, Ford sourced their brakes from Kelsey-Hayes (front
disc)and Bendix (rear drum), same as ChryCo.

<snip airplane stuff>

> 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.

Ford has used MAP sensors on plenty of applications.
Then again, I can't remember the last time I saw a Chrysler MAP
sensor fail because it was contaminated from dirt making it's way
past the air filter. Seen plenty of Ford MAP sensors with snot
hanging out of them though.

> Chrysler's old brass reluctor electronic ignition is an excellent
> system

Brass reluctor?

> but their emissions systems stunk on ice for years,

No different than any other manufacturer.
Wanna see a maze of make do ****, open the hood of an 83 Ford LTD.

> their big
> alternator put out little zap,

Sure, like GM and Ford alternators aren't prone to failure.
Uh-huh.

> and their current electronics are Nazi
> (good hacking could fix that.). I do think CAN is a good move in the
> long run

CCD has been around what, 16 years, now?

> and the gradual transition to Benz mechanicals (see Thielert
> TAE125) is going to be good in the long run.

Does this mean my next Dodge will have a big pointless vanity
cover over the engine like a C-230?
(isn't that a Buick thing?)

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Bret Ludwig wrote:

> > 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.

At least some 1975 or 1976 Slant 6 cars with the single barrel Holly
stalled so badly that the federal government forced a recall for the
problem. The modifications included keeping the EGR closed until a
higher temperature and using a different accelerator pump diaphram
material, but they didn't help much, unlike a change to the 2-barrel
carb did. The V-8s with the Carter 2-barrels didn't stall.

Apparently the hesitation was caused by Chrsyler's difficulties meeting
EPA regulations, and only aA few years earlier the EPA thought Chrysler
would have the most problems meeting emissions standards, GM the least.

aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article
> .com>,
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote:
>
> > Ford has done some really good things and some poor ones. The nine
> > inch Ford rear end,
>
> The pinion stem diameter of a Ford 9 inch is the same as the
> smallest (least desirable) Chrysler 8.75. Let's see, you don't
> need to press the rear pinion bearing off to change pinion depth
> shims. That doesn't lend itself to durability, just negates the
> need for a press and a bearing splitter during set up. I'll take
> strong over dumbed down any day.


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. Of course,
if the stock ones were full floating like the properly modified ones it
would be better. Still, with the Ford you have your "pumpkin" ready to
go and swap them out, removing the old diff, ring, and pinion in one
fell swoop.

The only thing better is a Jag XJ setup. Guess what, with a little
machine work it takes Ford ring and pinion too!
>
> <snip airplane stuff>
>
> > 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.
>
> Ford has used MAP sensors on plenty of applications.
> Then again, I can't remember the last time I saw a Chrysler MAP
> sensor fail because it was contaminated from dirt making it's way
> past the air filter. Seen plenty of Ford MAP sensors with snot
> hanging out of them though.

MAP is not a speed density system, MAF is. It's right from a
computational standpoint. It is more accurate over the full engine mapp
especially with modification.
>
> > Chrysler's old brass reluctor electronic ignition is an excellent
> > system
>
> Brass reluctor?

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.
>
> > but their emissions systems stunk on ice for years,
>
> No different than any other manufacturer.
> Wanna see a maze of make do ****, open the hood of an 83 Ford LTD.

All that winds up in a cardboard box and we put on a good aftermarket
manifold and carb and jet to taste. If I had to drive an '83 LTD in
Californicator country I'd put a big propane cylinder in the trunk and
convert to LPG.
>
> > their big
> > alternator put out little zap,
>
> Sure, like GM and Ford alternators aren't prone to failure.
> Uh-huh.

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

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

>
> > and their current electronics are Nazi
> > (good hacking could fix that.). I do think CAN is a good move in the
> > long run
>
>
> Does this mean my next Dodge will have a big pointless vanity
> cover over the engine like a C-230?
> (isn't that a Buick thing?)

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, wrote:

> At least some 1975 or 1976 Slant 6 cars with the single barrel Holly
> stalled so badly that the federal government forced a recall for the
> problem.

True. And? Find me *any* automaker's product that didn't have *at least*
one significant driveability-related TSB or recall in the mid-1970s. Find
me *one*. Hence my earlier comments regarding "no more or less troublesome
than any other make, first attempts at emission control" comments.

In article
.com>,
"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.

> Of course,
> if the stock ones were full floating like the properly modified ones it
> would be better. Still, with the Ford you have your "pumpkin" ready to
> go and swap them out, removing the old diff, ring, and pinion in one
> fell swoop.

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.

> The only thing better is a Jag XJ setup. Guess what, with a little
> machine work it takes Ford ring and pinion too!
> >
> > <snip airplane stuff>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Ford has used MAP sensors on plenty of applications.
> > Then again, I can't remember the last time I saw a Chrysler MAP
> > sensor fail because it was contaminated from dirt making it's way
> > past the air filter. Seen plenty of Ford MAP sensors with snot
> > hanging out of them though.
>
> MAP is not a speed density system,

MAP -is- speed density.
MAF is just that, Mass Air Flow.
Density and mass are not the same thing.

> MAF is. It's right from a
> computational standpoint. It is more accurate over the full engine mapp
> especially with modification.

That additional accuracy must be needed to make up for other
shortcomings. ChryCo meets all requirements without having to
resort to such an expensive fragile component, and your accuracy
goes to **** as soon as a little fuzz accumulates on the sensor
element. Oh, and what a dismal failure GMs hot film MAF sensor
was...

> > > Chrysler's old brass reluctor electronic ignition is an excellent
> > > system
> >
> > Brass reluctor?
>
> Yeah, the reluctor, actually it's the feeler gauge that's brass.

The feeler gauge is not part of the ignition system.

> Sorry. It has the TO case transistor on the little box with the five
> pin connector with the screw through it.

I'm quite familiar, and the five pin became obsolete over 20
years ago.

> You can usually fix them
> yourself by changing the power transistor and the diodes and caps out,
> if you can get it depotted.

That's a lot of work for something that carries a 5 year 50,000
mile warranty, even today.

> > > but their emissions systems stunk on ice for years,
> >
> > No different than any other manufacturer.
> > Wanna see a maze of make do ****, open the hood of an 83 Ford LTD.
>
> All that winds up in a cardboard box and we put on a good aftermarket
> manifold and carb and jet to taste.

And your point is what,, that [that] can't be done on a Chrysler
product?

> If I had to drive an '83 LTD in
> Californicator country I'd put a big propane cylinder in the trunk and
> convert to LPG.

What happens when you need the trunk?

> > > their big
> > > alternator put out little zap,
> >
> > Sure, like GM and Ford alternators aren't prone to failure.
> > Uh-huh.
>
> GM alternators are the best.

The 10SI was a good alternator, made lots of money on 'em, the CS
version that replaced it is pure garbage with a dismal service
history.

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

And replacing a voltage regulator means splitting the case,
something that not everyone is comfortable with.

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

I have a 42 amp version that works just fine.
Exactly why do I need all those amps anyway?

> >
> > > and their current electronics are Nazi
> > > (good hacking could fix that.). I do think CAN is a good move in the
> > > long run
> >
> >
> > Does this mean my next Dodge will have a big pointless vanity
> > cover over the engine like a C-230?
> > (isn't that a Buick thing?)

In article
.com>,
wrote:

> At least some 1975 or 1976 Slant 6 cars with the single barrel Holly
> stalled so badly that the federal government forced a recall for the
> problem. The modifications included keeping the EGR closed until a
> higher temperature and using a different accelerator pump diaphram
> material, but they didn't help much, unlike a change to the 2-barrel
> carb did. The V-8s with the Carter 2-barrels didn't stall.
>
> Apparently the hesitation was caused by Chrsyler's difficulties meeting
> EPA regulations, and only aA few years earlier the EPA thought Chrysler
> would have the most problems meeting emissions standards, GM the least.

The off idle stumble/stall fix was;
1) Adjust the power valve piston
2) Bypass the OSAC valve
3) Tweak the hot air intake sensor in the air cleaner so the air
door stayed closed until 110 degrees.

And it took about as long to do as it took me to type this...

aarcuda69062 wrote:
>> especially with modification.
>
> That additional accuracy must be needed to make up for other
> shortcomings. ChryCo meets all requirements without having to
> resort to such an expensive fragile component, and your accuracy
> goes to **** as soon as a little fuzz accumulates on the sensor
> element. Oh, and what a dismal failure GMs hot film MAF sensor
> was...
>

I was an advisor at a Ford dealer for a while and I had a vehicle with
the check engine light on, the tech found a flys wing in the MAF.



--
http://www.hostmybb.com/phpbb/index.php?mforum=rftg
B-N-Ps, no B no Ps,no spam, trades,post,chat
come join!

aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article
> .com>,
> "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.
>
>
>>Of course,
>>if the stock ones were full floating like the properly modified ones it
>>would be better. Still, with the Ford you have your "pumpkin" ready to
>>go and swap them out, removing the old diff, ring, and pinion in one
>>fell swoop.
>
>
> 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?
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?

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?

> can change gears in my floating rear in less than 30 minutes at the track.

Same can be done with the 8-3/4". Your point is...?

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.