M-body road trip success

Steve wrote:
> DeserTBoB wrote:
>
>>
>>> But it also had a 2.45 rear gear and couldn't get out of its own
>>> way off the line (though the top end was darn near unlimited). My
>>> wife's 93 v6 LH would simultaneously out-accelerate the M-body, AND
>>> get better mileage, AND has cleaner exhaust. <snip>
>>
>>
>> I have the 2:45 Dana 44 rear end as well
>
> No Dana 44 in an M-body. Either Chrysler 7.25 (behind /6 engines
> through 1983) or Chrysler 8.25
>
>> The point is exactly as you
>> state...even though Chrysler was reeling from almost collapsing in
>> the late '70s, they alway still did their best in terms of putting
>> out a good product, and their economy and emissions were far better
>> than what GM and Ford could offer in an RWD sedan at that time.
>
> They did *well* but not always their best. The M-body would have been
> far better with a simple throttle-body fuel injection system, such as
> GM was already using at the time on its high-end cars, and Chrysler
> was already using on THEIR OWN 4-cylinder turbo cars. If you could
> take an equivalent the nice engine management system that GM put on
> the Cad HT4100 off that piece of sh*t engine and put it on the bulletproof
> 318
> engine from an M-body, you'd have the mythical "good" 80s drivetrain
> that never actually existed in any form. Of course anything beat Ford
> screwing around with the "variable venturi" carb for so long, but I
> digress.

Well my 2001 jeep still only gets 23 mpg as per a 2006 model so no
improvements at all even with a 6 speed gearbox and a cd stacker lol.
Lushy form AU

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:01:43 -0500, Steve > wrote:

>No Dana 44 in an M-body. Either Chrysler 7.25 (behind /6 engines through
>1983) or Chrysler 8.25 <snip>

OK, it's an 8.25...but that housing sure LOOKS like a 44!

>They did *well* but not always their best. The M-body would have been
>far better with a simple throttle-body fuel injection system, such as GM
>was already using at the time on its high-end cars, and Chrysler was
>already using on THEIR OWN 4-cylinder turbo cars. If you could take an
>equivalent the nice engine management system that GM put on the Cad
>HT4100 off that piece of sh*t engine and put it on the bulletproof 318
>engine from an M-body, you'd have the mythical "good" 80s drivetrain
>that never actually existed in any form. Of course anything beat Ford
>screwing around with the "variable venturi" carb for so long, but I digress. <snip>

GM got into that trap on '80s 2.8 V6s, such as in the "Blazé," with
the Rochester Model VV. Barely passed smog even when new, and
troubleshooting was a nightmare.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:01:43 -0500, Steve > wrote:

>If you could take an
>equivalent the nice engine management system that GM put on the Cad
>HT4100 off that piece of sh*t engine and put it on the bulletproof 318
>engine from an M-body, you'd have the mythical "good" 80s drivetrain
>that never actually existed in any form. <snip>

All very true. Cash strapped Chrysler had invested heavily in the
K-car adventure and was more concerned at that time with stretching
that platform to get as much as they could out of it before going
forward, and Iacocca had already dictated that RWD V8 cars were
history, preferring instead to market the hell out of turbocharged
K-car stretches. So, the Ms got essentially a
rehashed/added-to/improved version of the "Lean Burn" box of the '70s,
which saw its last incarnation for the 318 in '87, if memory serves.

GM meanwhile adopted the never-really-very-good small block Chevy as
their "base" V8 for all lines after retiring the Olds V8 in '85, but
had superior EM systems already in place. Still, a contemporary base
Chevy Crap-ice with a 305, although more powerful due to TBI, couldn't
touch the 318 in terms of both economy or durability. An example
would be a '90 Crap-ice with 305 (most came with 350s as options), TBI
and the usual stuff. Best on road with that, even with fastideous
tuning and maintenance and egg-on-gas-pedal driving, would be around
20-23. Hell, a 318 equipped M-body would beat that easily, as I just
proved. Add to that that the rock solid LA could probably outlast two
Chevy rebuilds, and you have a superior product. The proof is I still
see quite a few old M-bodies soldiering on, usually beat to crap but
still going, while I haven't seen a running '90 Crap-ice in many
years...although many can be found in junkyards everywhere.

In article >,
DeserTBoB > wrote:

> >Of course anything beat Ford
> >screwing around with the "variable venturi" carb for so long, but I digress.
> ><snip>
>
> GM got into that trap on '80s 2.8 V6s, such as in the "Blazé," with
> the Rochester Model VV.

No such thing. (VV)

The VaraJet was not a variable venturi carburetor.

> Barely passed smog even when new, and
> troubleshooting was a nightmare.

Not really.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:54:28 GMT, aarcuda69062
> wrote:

>In article >,

>The VaraJet was not a variable venturi carburetor.
>
>> Barely passed smog even when new, and
>> troubleshooting was a nightmare. <snip>

You've obviously never had to work on a CA-only '83 Blazer.

Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> DeserTBoB wrote:
>> Those who read what I did to my '86 Fifth Avenue may find this
>> somewhat interesting. I just took a 678 mile road trip to northern
>> Nevada via US 395 in the car, using cruise control, AC about 40% of
>> the time, speeds at posted limits not exceeding 65. Average max road
>> speed: around 62 MPH.
>>
>> Vehicle/drive train: '86 M-body, LA roller cam 318, Holly "Carter
>> clone" 6280 feedback carb., A-904 trans with lockup converter. Basic
>> timing: 7° BTDC @ 630 RPM per California spec. Fuel: 87 average
>> octane "regular."
>>
>> Trip plan: Lv Lancaster CA via north CA 14 to US 395 to the Nevada
>> state line at Topaz Lake and return. No local driving at destination
>> (just bicycling around the lake), no idling with AC on, no "warm up"
>> idling, etc.
>>
>> Elevation at start and destination: 2580 and 5950 ft above sea level.
>> Maximum elevation: Conway Summit, 8130 ft. Route has three major
>> 6-8% grades northbound.
>>
>> Fuel economy going: 25.4 MPG
>> " " return: 28.9 MPG
>> Average: 27.2 MPG
>>
>> All CA smog gear is working as per spec., as well, with no
>> disconnected EGR or other illegal mods.
>>
>> The best mileage ever from this vehicle was a trip from Laughlin, NV
>> to Barstow, CA: 29.1 MPG, average max speed 55 MPH.
>>
>> I think it's fixed. Why do newer, smaller models with V6s get worse?
>> One can only ponder, but the answer always comes back the same.
>
> The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde
> would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop
> highway.
>
> Bill Putney

Well, since you mentioned that, I just got back from a 1000 mile roadtrip in
a 96 LHS. It got about 28, and that's the most I've ever gotten. I thought
that kind of invites comparison to the 5th avenue above. I didn't drive all
that fast, and that seems to help quite a bit. I was around 70 mph on
average, I guess. That's with the 24 valve 3.5, 214 hp. Probably more
horsepower than the M body that Bob has. It's geared extremely well, I
think. Not a bit too high for good acceleration. Rpms get well above 2500
on the interstate.

My 3.5 only gets 20 around town, compared to Bill's 26-28. It's interesting
to me that smaller new cars with similar horsepower to the 3.5 don't get
better gas mileage. We need to replace it, but nothing offers any
improvement except a much smaller car with less horsepower. Smaller cars
with more horspower, like a V6 Camry or Accord, for instance, get around
20/28 EPA ratings. It seems like they could do better.

In article >,
DeserTBoB > wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:54:28 GMT, aarcuda69062
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
>
> >The VaraJet was not a variable venturi carburetor.
> >
> >> Barely passed smog even when new, and
> >> troubleshooting was a nightmare. <snip>
>
> You've obviously never had to work on a CA-only '83 Blazer.

For the model year 1983, the emissions standards were;
(grams per mile)
CO HC
Fed. 3.4 .41
Calif 7.0 .39

Looks like the California standards were a little easier to meet.

DeserTBoB wrote:
> Those who read what I did to my '86 Fifth Avenue may find this
> somewhat interesting. I just took a 678 mile road trip to northern
> Nevada via US 395 in the car, using cruise control, AC about 40% of
> the time, speeds at posted limits not exceeding 65. Average max road
> speed: around 62 MPH.
>
> Vehicle/drive train: '86 M-body, LA roller cam 318, Holly "Carter
> clone" 6280 feedback carb., A-904 trans with lockup converter. Basic
> timing: 7° BTDC @ 630 RPM per California spec. Fuel: 87 average
> octane "regular."
>
> Trip plan: Lv Lancaster CA via north CA 14 to US 395 to the Nevada
> state line at Topaz Lake and return. No local driving at destination
> (just bicycling around the lake), no idling with AC on, no "warm up"
> idling, etc.
>
> Elevation at start and destination: 2580 and 5950 ft above sea level.
> Maximum elevation: Conway Summit, 8130 ft. Route has three major
> 6-8% grades northbound.
>
> Fuel economy going: 25.4 MPG
> " " return: 28.9 MPG
> Average: 27.2 MPG
>
> All CA smog gear is working as per spec., as well, with no
> disconnected EGR or other illegal mods.
>
> The best mileage ever from this vehicle was a trip from Laughlin, NV
> to Barstow, CA: 29.1 MPG, average max speed 55 MPH.
>
> I think it's fixed. Why do newer, smaller models with V6s get worse?
> One can only ponder, but the answer always comes back the same.


So the car actually ran, and that's a "success" ??

translation:

#1- you finally changed the friggin' THERMOSTAT based on my posts, and
fixed the overheating/backflow into the radiator problem. This, after
tearing down the entire engine, including heads and oil pan/pump,
looking for the problem.

#2- you ran a straight vacuum advance from manifold vacuum to the
distributor, and bypassed the BS controls for the vac advance- like I
told you to- and the car runs better.

#3- you disconnected the EGR valve, and the car runs better, after
reading my posts about removing the EGR

you are such a wannabee....you deserve that ****box

On 12 Sep 2006 03:53:06 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
> wrote:

>#1- you finally changed the friggin' THERMOSTAT based on my posts <snip>

You're an idiot. Who'd listen to you? The thermostat in the car is
the same one that was there before all this began. I tested it, and
it tested fine, opening at 192°. Of course, an idiot like you
probably doesn't know HOW to test a thermostat, but...who cares?

>#2- you ran a straight vacuum advance from manifold vacuum to the
>distributor, and bypassed the BS controls for the vac advance- like I
>told you to- and the car runs better. <snip>

WRONG. You get too fast an idle and illegal emissions.

>#3- you disconnected the EGR valve, and the car runs better, after
>reading my posts about removing the EGR <snip>

A felony in all 50 states.
>
>you are such a wannabee....you deserve that ****box <snip>

More projection from Charlie Nudo, who has been trying to get that
pizza chit Pontiac to run for years, but can't.

>
>>#2- you ran a straight vacuum advance from manifold vacuum to the
>>distributor, and bypassed the BS controls for the vac advance- like I
>>told you to- and the car runs better. <snip>
>
>
> WRONG. You get too fast an idle and illegal emissions.

I'm wondering if either of you (or are you one person stalking
yourself?) have ever even laid hands on an M-body. 'Splain to me how you
run manifold vacuum to a distributor that doesn't have a vacuum fitting
on it. Unless its been converted to old-style Mopar electronic ignition
(which is as big an emissions no-no as disconnecting EGR, at least in
the eyes of the law although it probably does actually clean up the
exhaust compared to a non-functioning feedback computer).