Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"
19349 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jan 16, 2009 5:50 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jan 16, 2009 5:49 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Can You Do a Little Better On the Price? I guess a Volvo 940 isn't a classic? It's a rare one, it runs! Tempting Shoot, the WHEEL is worth that!
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 17, 2009 10:31 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 17, 2009 10:31 pm) I'm a little leery of something that big with only 90 hp. Probably adequate around town and taking trips to the local dump, but I imagine merging onto the highway could raise your heartbeat a bit! |
|
|
|
|
"I'm a little leery of something that big with only 90 hp." Was the horsepower that low, andre? Doesn't that truck have the 225 c.i. Slant Six, which continued to be installed in Dodge trucks after it was discontinued in cars? The reason I'm wondering about your horsepower figure, which is probably correct, is that trucks had more liberal emissions standards than cars. Therefore, I'm thinking that the Slant Six engine that was installed in trucks could have been less chocked down than the Slant Six in the '80s M and R bodies. No? Incidentally, Since I'm going by memory rather than by reference, please correct me if those body designations are incorrect.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jan 18, 2009 7:37 am) For 1973, the 225 was cut a bit to 105, and the 198, to 95 hp. Same for 1974. For 1975, the 198 was dropped, and the 225 was reduced to 95 hp. It recovered slightly to 100 hp for 1976. For 1977-79, the 225 put out 100 hp. For 1978 though, my book lists a 90 hp version that was optional. I wonder if that was some attempt at an economy version? Also for 1977-79, a 2-bbl was offered, with 110 hp. The 2-bbl setup was standard on the Aspen/Volare (F-body) and LeBaron/Diplomat (M-body) wagons, as well as the Newport/St. Regis (R-body). The 1-bbl was standard in the F- and M-body sedans and coupes. In 1980, the 2-bbl was dropped. The 1-bbl was cut to 90 hp, then a measly 85 for 1981! For 1982 it went back up to 90 hp, where it stayed through the end, which was 1983 in cars, and I want to say 1987 in pickups. After the 2-bbl slant six was dropped, you were probably better off just upgrading to the 318, as the cars were too big and heavy, and the 1-bbl was just too weak and overburdened with emissions controls. In 1981, Chrysler started using a tall 2.26:1 axle in the V-8 cars, while the slant six was stuck with a 2.94:1 axle, so I wouldn't be surprised in the V-8 got better economy in most driving conditions. When it comes to truck 6-cyl engines in those days, I guess the Ford 300 was about the best of the lot. I've heard that in terms of durability, it was to Ford what the slant six had been to Mopar. It was big enough that I'm sure it still had enough hp and torque to move a full-sized truck with some dignity. The 4.1 inline-6 that GM used only had 105-110 hp, so it wasn't much better than the slant six. I think the 4.3 that came out for 1985 was pretty good though.
|
|
|
|
| Interesting chronology. Thanks. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 18, 2009 10:30 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 18, 2009 7:44 pm) 
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
