You are here: Forums Classic Cars Classic Cars as daily drivers

Classic Cars as daily drivers

552 messages,  Last post on May 11, 2009 at 8:03 AM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright

What is this discussion about? Coupe, Convertible, Sedan

Messages Page 47 of 56 1 ... 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ... 56 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#453 of 552 I remember... by isellhondas Oct 05, 2002 (6:16 am)
A 250 hp 327 would easily whip a 348 with the same H.P.   Still, the 348 was a tough, rugged engine that was no slouch in it's time.
#454 of 552 by speedshift Oct 05, 2002 (8:26 am)
I think there were 348s and there were 348s.   The problem with the 250, aside from being a boat anchor, is that it used a WCFB four barrel (the first four barrel, along with the first Holley 4150 IIRC) about as big as your fist.   The hi-perf 348s used either an AFB or three Rochester two barrels. They also used some very aggressive sold lifter cams that got hotter every year. Compression ratios were around 11:1. And from what I can tell they had better heads and exhaust manifolds.
#455 of 552 Andre by speedshift Oct 05, 2002 (8:39 am)
Don't know about your car's engine but I do have some times for a '57 Dodge D-500 with the Dodge 325/310 hemi (there was also a D-500 that year that had the '56 Chrysler 300 engine):   0-60 8.3 seconds 1/4-mile 15.8 88 mph   Not bad for a car that probably weighed close to 4000 lbs. depending on how it was optioned.
#456 of 552 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Oct 05, 2002 (10:18 am)
The 348 was a truck engine, but so was (in origins anyway) the Viper engine. I think it was a good block but not well-developed and it was never a popular engine in its day. Chevy lovers shunned it and it was soon out of the line up. Possibly part of the problem was that it debuted in the somewhat clunky-looking (or so people thought at the time) '58 Chevrolet.. So there were two problems in one right there for Chevrolet.
#457 of 552 by speedshift Oct 05, 2002 (7:39 pm)
The hot rodders knew right away that the 348 didn't have near the potential of the 283. Fortunately for Chevy, the 352 Ford introduced in '58 was also an anchor, grossly overrated at 300 hp.   Here's some times for a '59 Chevy 348/250 with Turboglide:   0-60 10.7 seconds 1/4 mile 18.5 80 mph   Shipping weight was 3606 lbs. Axle ratio 3.08:1.   Just guessing but the Turboglide probably added another second or so to the 0-60 times and maybe that much to the 1/4 mile time, compared to the standard close ratio 3 speed.   Here's a '63 Impala SS 327/250 with Powerglide:   0-60 10.4 seconds 1/4 mile 17.8 80 mph   Weight as tested 3829 lbs. Axle ratio 3.08:1.   Mph is the best indicator of horsepower. The '63 was about 200 lbs. heavier yet both did 80 through the traps so you'd have to say the 327/250's horses were a little stronger than the 348's.   The transmissions are different, although neither was known for enhancing performance. Axle ratios are identical although that would influence elapsed time more than mph. Note the '63's big advantage in ET, much greater than its .3 second advantage 0-60. Might be the transmission or just proof the 327 breathed a lot better.
#458 of 552 Interesting that in 1958 by carnut4 Oct 07, 2002 (12:49 am)
Mopar also brought out its new big block, at 350 cubes, and it evolved into the 361,383,413,andfinally the screaming 426 Max Wedge and Hemi motors. Oh yeah-also the 440. I think that Mopar 350 must have been a lot stronger than either the Chev 348 or the Ford 352. Mopar woke up that big block pretty good over the next few years.
#459 of 552 Mopar 350 by andre1969 Oct 07, 2002 (4:45 am)
I drove a '58 DeSoto Firesweep with a 350-2bbl, about 7 years ago. A local guy was selling it cheap, and I was thinking about buying it for a daily driver. IIRC, the 2-bbl was rated at 280 hp and the 4-bbl was rated at 295. This particular one had the 2-speed Powerflite tranny, which I'm sure hurt performance somewhat, but it still had some kick to it!   The next engine up, the 361, had 295 hp in 2-bbl form, and 305 in 4-bbl.   Interestingly, Chrysler actually had two different 383's! The one used in Chrysler Windsors and Saratogas was based on the raised-deck engine, same as the 413, 426, and 440, while the 383 used in the other cars was based on the lower-deck 350/361/400 block.   There was one or two years that they also had a 326. I believe it was just a slightly bigger 318. Interesting though, as they also had the 325.
#460 of 552 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Oct 07, 2002 (9:19 am)
426 Hemis are fierce. You can barely drive them on the street. A Max Wedge with a 4 bbl isn't bad though.   But I find none of these high compression big blocks all that pleasant to use as everyday drivers, especially the stick shift ones. The problem is that when you are going along in traffic and you let up on the gas, the car just "sucks down" and your head bobs forward like you hit the brakes. Then you try to squeeze the gas to get going again and your head lurches back. It's really annoying, no matter how you try to smooth it out. Automatics are a bit better, easier to modulate all that power.   Still, for an everyday car, it wouldn't be my first choice, a big block like that with hi-comp and lumpy cam or 2 X 3 pots.
#461 of 552 by speedshift Oct 07, 2002 (9:29 am)
That's why the first GTO was a big hit. It weighed a good 500 lbs. less than the full sizers so it didn't need all the compression and camming. The standard 4-bbl. engine was relatively mild and very smooth and torquey, and the optional Tri-Power was a lot stronger but still idled well.   Speaking of the Mopar 350, there was a 2x4v version for the '58 Fury.
#462 of 552 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Oct 07, 2002 (9:33 am)
Yep, sometimes less is more.   But in the quest for more and more speed, sometimes very nice driving cars are turned into brutes, which is unfortunate in my eyes.

Messages Page 47 of 56 1 ... 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ... 56 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Classic Cars Classic Cars as daily drivers