I normally despise Chrysler products but this is one car I'd love to own

 

Most of the time. Not always. I can count on my one hand the number of times we referred to the 5.0 as the 302. For my Elky, the Challenger, the Chevelle, the Mach 1, the 442 and et al we had were cubes. The 5.0 was always the 5.0. Everyone knew exactly what you were referring to, and it wasn't the shitbox 305 in the Camaro RS. 302 = Z/28. 5.0 = Stang. That was our world.

Of course, at one point my PIN number was 5733. Litres, cubes, cc's...didn't matter.

 

I just went to DMV to get my nova inspected and they would only accept a litre displacement. I didn't know what the 350 was at the time.

 

I blame Jimmy Carter

 

 

Jimmy who?

 

The displacement of the 350 Chevy was 349.849 cibic inches which in liters would work out to 5.733. Of course, it's rare to see either CID or liter displacements with such precision. But the 350 Nova was NOT a 5.7 liter engine... it was a 350 CID engine. The DMV needs to get their act together. What would happen if a 396 Chevelle showed up?

 

I will now refer to my car as being an Acura Legend with a 214 motor in it

 

In fact, the so-called 5.0 Mustang (302 engine was not a 5.0 liter at all. It was a 4.9 (rounded) displacement. The 305 Chevy (which I agree was an anomaly at best) was a true 5.0 liter displacement.

The first car I can recall that displayed a liter designation was the 1964 Pontiac Tempest LeMans with the GTO option package. It's insignia was "6.5 litre". In 1966, the full sized Ford Galaxy equipped with the 427 engine had a "7 Litre" (or Litres.. not sure which). Strange since the Fairlane 427 said.... 427 with the well know Thunderbolt symbol.

 

love the new charger except for one thing.. the plastic around the shifter is too plain/cheap looking. should've put a leather shift boot around it or ditch the annoying zig zag

 

So what do you call a GTO if you don't like using European designations?

GTO = Gran Turismo Omologato = Italian

 

Hey Paul.

How are you? Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. I know many enthusiasts who use both litre and ci when referring to various engines. I often refer to my 427s as seven litre and 428s in ci. Even my small engines such as 390s I refer to as 6.4s. I think marketing often has a pronounced effect of various engines having a certain appeal. Look at the current Hemi. An engine that shares little with the 426s of old. Chrysler owns the trademark and can basically apply the moniker to anything they wish.

During Ford's global racing initiative in the sixties, they often used metric when referring to engine size. Even when referring to certain engines in ci it isn't always correct. The Ford FE 427 for example does not displace 427 cubic inches. It actually displaces 425 ci. "427" however has arguably a much more pleasing ring. Ford also wanted it to displace the NASCAR maximum and decided to market it as a maximum displacement engine.



Terry

 

Goat has spoken.

 

Well, you're Canadian, so we'll forgive you.

SouthernBoy is right about using cubic inches for most pushrod hi-po engines in the USA. A few exceptions existed, like the 7-liter Ford (probably for export purposes) and the 6.6 liter hood decal Pontiac Firebirds (which were actually 400 c.i. small blocks), until the most recent decade or so when new engines replaced the older designs.

Many American enthusiasts know the 340 4-Barrel, 383, 440 Magnum, 428 CJ, Boss 302, 351 Cleveland, 351 Windsor, 327 Mouse, 427 Rat, etc., but have no idea what metric designations apply to those hi-po pushrod engines.

The 302 was originally a 4.9 on the first Fox-body Mustangs, then became a 5.0, but was replaced by the modular 4.6 and 5.0, while the Chevy LS1 still uses bore and stroke measurements in inches although it's referred to as the "5.7."

 

Beautiful!

 

I like the Challenger but I wish they would ax the Charger.

 

The 427 Ford engine which appeared in the 1966 Shelby AC Cobra, commonly referred to as the NASCAR engine (side oiler), had a bore of 4.24 inches and a stroke of 3.78 inches. That works out to 426.977 cubic inches, or 427 CID rounded (source: Car and Driver Nov. '65 issue).

Keep in mind that there two factors at play here with you and one factor with most of our friends here. You are a Canadian and that means the metric system. And you grew up in a time when the liter (litre) designation became the predominant descriptor for engine displacement. However, most of us are Americans and we use inches and feet and yards and miles and pints and quarts and cubic inches. Unfortunately, we also use liters (litres) almost always when speaking of engines... the exception being for vintage American supercars of the 60's and before.

 

The original Firebird 400 engines were big blocks and shared much with the famed 389. I knew a fellow who bought a '66 GTO 389 Tri-Power (360 HP) and when the Firebirds came out in '67, he bought one with the 400 CID engine. It only had a single 4-barrel, so he swapped the intake system from the GTO to the Firebird and sold the GTO. That firebird was quick and acually looked good. It was yellow with a black vinyl top.

I didn't know that Pontiac had a small block engine to use as a 400 CID version.

 

And this is why Pontiac used the "litre" designation on their side panel emblem. They borrowed GTO from Ferrari. The kicker was that Car and Driver made a statement in their September '63 issue (think that month is right) when they road tested the Pontiac Tempest LeMans with the GTO option package, that got them in hot water with the purists. They said that the "GTO" they tested would beat any Ferrari on any American road course. It was quicker than the Mercury Merauder 427 which was not exactly a slug. Thing is, the "GTO" they tested was later found out to have a 421 in it and not a 389.

Oops.

 

Car and Driver, as usual, are wrong. They have been wildly inaccurate at times and are again in this instance.

Here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_427_side_oiler

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ford_FE_engine

http://www.autoracing.com/blog/ford-...7-auto-racing/

There is plenty of reference material available that states the same. And as one who has built them, I am aware firsthand of their true bore.


I do not think my being Canadian has anything to do with the acceptance of certain engines being referred to in metric displacement. I know plenty of American enthusiasts that refer to them in the same manner. In fact many American vendors I deal with for Ford engine parts often list them in metric displacement. I grew up in a time of 5.0 Mustangs and 5.7 Camaros. These metric designations were often used to identify the car as well. There were cars like the 3.8 Turbo Regals, again always referred to litres. Many of the smaller Chrysler performance models were also identified by litre displacement. There were many others. I still contend that both metric and ci can be used by enthusiasts to identify an engine.



Terry

 

Ahhhhhh yes, the rather interesting Car and Driver.

It was the editor of Car and Driver, David E. Davis that made that comment at the time. Rather interesting, in that Car and Driver never tested the GTO for comparison. It was purely speculative. And so were the lap times for the Pontiac. Davis kind of forgot to mention that the Pontiac tossed a bearing in basically the first corner of the road course. He also forgot to mention that he knew very well the Pontiac's 421 was heavily modified.

But in the end the article, later admitted to be entirely speculative, did exactly what it intended it to do. That being to create plenty of controversy for the fledgling Car and Driver (a mere two years old at the time) and increased exposure. Jim Wangner, the almost legendary ad man for Pontiac and arguably responsible for much of it's ad campaigns, had some interesting comments years later. He commented that the magazine's acceleration results were purely fanciful and the claims that it could out handle a Ferrari absurd. He is later quoted to have said, "I stood there and watched them come up with these numbers. I wasn't about to stop them, but I knew they were ridiculous".




Terry

 

Hey Terry;

Hope it didn't sound as though I was disparaging the fact that you are a Canadian. Not one bit my intention, I can assure you - which I would bet you already know to be true.

It's largely a time period and background thing. That's all. However for me, it's also a preference thing as well. You know you're good with me.

 

Box stock '64 Goats with the Tri-power setup (348 HP) and progressive linkage, plus a decent rear end, such as at least a 3.90, were easily capable of mid to lower 13-second quarter miles. Add in a set of headers and block the heat risers and you were under 13.10 (I know, I've seen it). But then again, these were rather typical times of the GM supercars of the day (Chevy was a late comer - not in it until '66).

It never ceases to amaze me how some people today swear that those cars would only turn, at best, mid 14's at around 97 MPH and 0-60 runs of around 7.2 to 7.5 seconds. Hogwash. I was there. I owned one of the real deals. The major problem with these cars as they rolled off of the assembly lines was the factory tires. Traction in first gear was a joke. And second gear was likely to be halfway spent spinning your tires. That costs time and trap speed. Mount a decent set of tires and the E.T.'s dropped significantly. The president of our car club back then had a beautiful '65 Chevelle Malibu SS with the L79 327 engine (350 HP, 360 lb/ft). A Muncie 4-speed box (don't know which one) and 3.73's out back. With slicks and nothing else, he ran around a 14.16. Not as quick as my '88 Mustang LX 302CID, but not at all bad.

 

Not at all Paul. You and I have been friends for some time. I consider you to be one of the most knowledgeable individuals around, and you know my own background and interests.

I agree we both experienced two different decades during our youth in regards to automotive offerings. In the end, however, I think it's important that we acknowledge all offerings and experiences, and although our views by be different at times, we both remember these times with fondness while respecting the other.





Terry

 

I've just ordered a set of 7.10-15s reproduction bias ply tires to be mounted on a set of genuine Kelsey-Hayes 406/427 steel stockers. They have a width of about five inches. I'm trying to get 457 ft/lbs. of torque at 1500 to the ground. The rear diff is a 3.00 open. Methinks I'll be ordering a couple more shortly.



Terry

 

Yes, yep... I got your back. (I know, terrible English but the current vernacular gets the point across).

The designation 427 has a magic ring to it. Hell, even the number itself almost looks mystical. I was never a fan of the 454 Chevy engine, preferring the 396 and especially the 427 designations over it. As for Ford, I liked the 406 and 427 nomenclature best. Something very gut-moving about these two engines to me.

With Chrysler, the 413, 426 wedge, and 426 Hemi come instantly to mind as having a certain meaning. The 440 never did it for me, but I have a huge amount of respect for that engine. And I never cared for the 318, 361, or 383 either. I knew a guy who's parents bought him a '65 Plymouth Fury 4-speed 426 wedge. I loved that car. Not particularly quick (I could kill him with my '66 396 Chevelle), but damn that thing really looked great.

 

Why so high with the rear?

 

Tell me about it. Most full size Fords of the early sixties came with either a 3.00 or a 3.50. Surprisingly most were open. Even the 427 8Vs were open. Me? That's what this particular car was built with October 12, 1963, and that's what she'll have as long as it's in my possession.




Terry

 

You never liked the 440? Even V code? I love that engine, and would take it over a 426 for the street any day. There seems to be a real division between the guys in the Chrysler camp which is best. I know one guy who has both, and he claims the 440 walks all over his 426.



Terry

 

Getting back to the thread topic, of which I am sorry I led the deviation, we were talking about the new 392 Hemi. I can well recall the first '66 426 Street Hemi I ever saw, on the street.. not in a show. It was a Sunday morning in the late spring of '66 and I was cruising in my '66 396 Chevelle, which was all of maybe a month or two old, and I passed by a gas station where a group of guys were clustered around a dark green '66 Plymouth Belvedere Satellite. As I went by, I noticed the telltale emblem on the lower front fender behind the wheel well.

So I pulled a uhey and went back into that gas station to uggle just like the others at what rested in the engine bay. Lord was that pretty. A $907 option and worth every penny.

 

Gentlemen,
If I may please weigh in here...

As an enthusiast of both new model imports and old school muscle, I gotta say that displacement applies as it was labeled by the manufacturer...period.

If the moniker says 5.0, that's what it is.
If it says 400, that's what it is.

My camaro was a 327, my firebird was a 400, my G35 was a 3.5 and my TL is a 3.7. There is no changing any of it...except in the case of my Nova; It started as a 350 and now it's a 355

If it's different in Canada because of the metric system...you guys just lose out on a piece of our history...or we miss out on yours?

 

I guess I should have turned the page before weighing in

 

Pretty sexy lookin'...........

 

I'm with you on that one. The 426 has attained mythical status, but for my money (and so much less of it), I'll take the 440 six out of every seven days.

 

By 426, are you referring to the wedge head or the hemi? I have a great deal of respect for the 440 and really liked the '67 Plymouth GTX with this engine. It was a serious badass motivator.

Uh-Oh, I thought I see I apparently was clear. It's not the engine I didn't care for. It was the cubic inch designation. In other words the term "440". The engine itself was great. I just think 426, 427, 406, 413, 396, 409... numerations like that have a nice ring to the for me. It's not the engine itself, its the number.

When the 440 was introduced in its first supercar, it was the '67 GTX that was the premier entry. Mostly because of its looks. However, at 375 HP and, as memory allows, 480 lb/ft of torque, this baby was no sneeze. Not as quick as a 396/375 L78 Chevelle, but by no means a slug. I really liked that car.

As for Chrysler engines that appeared in Plymouth and Dodge supercars, I never cared for the 383 as an engine and it never really got the job done. Chrysler knew that and the 440 was their answer to the problem. The 383 just didn't cut it at the drag strips or stop lights.

 

Hemi. As CoUGA mentioned, it seems to have achieved mythical status, but many of the hardcore Chrysler guys seem to think the 440 in correct configuration is by far the superior motor. I've driven both 440 and 426 that my friend owns, and I found the 440 a more tractable and stronger motor. He doesn't even like driving the 426 aggressively as the majority of the oil pushes up top, starving the rest of the engine.

I've never built a 426, but would like to familiarize myself with them. Someone I know has a complete he's had for years and I've been trying to convince him to part with it.





Terry

 

I'd take a FoMoCo semi-hemi over a Mopar Hemi anyday of the week. Of course I've never been lucky enough to drive either, but I've assembled both engines... in 1/24th scale.

 

Or a Cammer. The doomsday engine.






Terry

 

So.... um..... the 392/6.4L Challenger looks hot. Love the Viper blue with white stripes! I like the Charger interior, its a vast improvement over the old one in any case. Love the exterior, the only gripe I have with it is the indents in the doors should be pushed forward more. It looks funny from the side

 

Love that color. Hadnt seen that pic yet.