You are here: Forums Sedans Chrysler 300/300C/300C SRT-8 Chrylser 300C Oil

Chrylser 300C Oil

24 messages,  Last post on Mar 17, 2009 at 7:58 AM

You are in the Chrysler 300/300C/300C SRT-8 Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Chrysler 300C SRT-8, Sedan

Messages Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#18 of 24 Re: Chrylser 300C Oil [shipo] by batista Jun 08, 2008 (12:30 pm)
Replying to: shipo (Jun 08, 2008 10:48 am) Engines made of iron are cheaper to make and by using aluminum you save weight so it would result in a more fuel efficient car. Replies to this message: shipo (Jun 08, 2008 3:01 pm)
#19 of 24 Re: Chrylser 300C Oil [batista] by shipo Jun 08, 2008 (3:01 pm)
Replying to: batista (Jun 08, 2008 12:30 pm) In a car the size of a 300? Nah, not buying.   FWIW, I'm thinking that you'd be hard pressed to find another car the size of a 300, and with as much power as the Hemi that is capable of getting fuel economy as good as the 300C.   Best Regards, Shipo
#20 of 24 Re: Chrylser 300C Oil [shipo] by smithed Jun 18, 2008 (9:29 am)
Replying to: shipo (Jun 08, 2008 10:48 am) No, they aren't. It's an iron block with aluminum heads."    What does the metallurgy of the block and the heads have to do with engine efficiency?   Iron atomic mass= 55.85, Aluminum=26.98. Therefore an iron engine of the same volume weighs more than twice that of aluminum. Aluminum is more expensive. Replies to this message: shipo (Jun 18, 2008 10:33 am) smithed (Jun 18, 2008 11:34 am) shipo (Jun 18, 2008 1:04 pm)
#21 of 24 Re: Chrylser 300C Oil [smithed] by shipo Jun 18, 2008 (10:33 am)
Replying to: smithed (Jun 18, 2008 9:29 am) Agreed, however, I feel the need to make a few points:   1) I've been turning a wrench for lots of years, and I've yet to see any aluminum heads that have roughly the same volume of metal as a comparable iron head. Said another way, while I absolutely agree that an aluminum head capable of doing the same job as an iron head will weigh less, it will weigh in at well over half of the weight. Why? I suspect that you know this already, but I'll answer it anyway: Aluminum doesn't have the same structural integrity as does iron, and so more of it needs to be used to match the capabilities of the "smaller" iron head.   2) Implied in original post about the aluminum construction was that an aluminum engine would be more efficient than a comparable iron engine. I'm having a problem accepting that.   3) Given that aluminum can conduct more heat, aluminum engines have a tendency to draw considerably more heat out of the combustion chamber on every power stoke, and as such, engine efficiency has a tendency to drop. I remember first reading about this phenomena in a study prepared by GM back in the 1960s when they were developing their all-aluminum 427 for racing Corvettes. They performed the study because they were surprised when their new aluminum engine put out rather less power than the identical (from a bore, stroke, timing and cam profile) iron engine.   Best Regards, Shipo Replies to this message: smithed (Jun 18, 2008 11:34 am) shipo (Jun 18, 2008 1:04 pm)
#22 of 24 Re: Chrylser 300C Oil [shipo] by smithed Jun 18, 2008 (11:34 am)
Replying to: shipo (Jun 18, 2008 10:33 am) Thanks for the technical information   I wonder if, in a vehicle that is lighter because of an aluminum engine of the same size, that might be more efficient, even if the engine is not as efficient taken by itself. Not arguing, just wondering. Replies to this message: shipo (Jun 18, 2008 1:04 pm)
#23 of 24 Re: Chrylser 300C Oil [smithed] by shipo Jun 18, 2008 (1:04 pm)
Replying to: smithed (Jun 18, 2008 11:34 am) Hmmm, well, if we lose the word "efficient" and replace it with "better power to weight ratio" and "better weight distribution", then yes, the car will have better performance in most areas. In fact, the case study that I referred to earlier is a good example of that. Two identical 1967 Corvettes, both with 427 cubic inch engines hooked to the rear end via the good old Muncie Rock Crusher 4-Speed manual transmission. The only difference was that one car had a conventional iron engine, and the other had an aluminum one. The lower powered ligher car was significantly faster on a tight race track (better braking, better/more neutral handling at the limit, quicker steering response), however, the heaver and higher powered car was faster in straight ahead acceleration (but not by much).   At least, that's how I recall the summation.   Best Regards, Shipo
#24 of 24 Re: Chrylser 300C Oil [shipo] by brit5 Mar 17, 2009 (7:58 am)
Replying to: shipo (Oct 27, 2006 4:51 am) Chrysler specifically recommends 5W20 not 0W20 -- period -- full stop -- the end

Messages Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Sedans Chrysler 300/300C/300C SRT-8 Chrylser 300C Oil