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
Automotive News & Views Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars
386 messages, Last post on Dec 04, 2009 at 9:01 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 07, 2009 12:07 pm) "The new Plymouth "Hyfire" V8 was available in two displacement and three horsepower ranges. The 157 hp engine was of 241 cubic inches, while a 260 cubic inch engine produced 167 horsepower, and later, a mid-year addition of a power package (four-barrel carburetor and dual exhaust) increased the 260 to 177 horsepower. The latter engine was not part of the original plan. J.C. Zeder, Director of Engineering, claimed 'we are not seeking to develop higher speeds and greater power than anyone else. The increased speeds and torque of the 1955 Plymouth, when combined with the PowerFlite transmission, results in improved performance in low and middle ranges, plus greater economy.' In other words, Plymouth's new V8 was considered to be no more than a higher-powered extension of the traditional and reliable Plymouth flathead six. The horsepower race, at the time, was considered to be the exclusive property of luxury cars. But Chevrolet's new V8 brought that concept to an end and the horsepower race to the low-priced field. Plymouth had to respond, and they did — with the 1955 power package and later with the 1956 Fury. The overhead V8 was another facet of the latest automotive fashion. Everyone had to have one if they wished to keep selling cars. So Plymouth had one. If people like Zeder had their way, the familiar flathead six would still be Plymouth's sole powerplant. It was still available in spite of automotive writers, who, caught up in the V8 fervor of the times, claimed that the days of the six were numbered, and that if it weren't for fleet buyers and a few thrifty individuals, it would vanish completely. This year for Plymouth, the 230 cid six was upped to 117 horsepower for those who really wanted it. Those who really wanted the six appeared to be mostly in Canada. But then, the six was what the Chrysler Corporation of Canada mostly offered. On the north side of the border, only the Belvedere series was available with the new V8. It came either in the 240 or 260 size, but not with the power package. The Plaza and Savoy series were six-cylinder powered only. The body availability in these series was different from that in the US, as was the model coding. The Plaza was coded P26-1 and was available as a four door sedan, a club coupe and as a two-door wagon. The Savoy was called P26-2 (not P26-3 as in the US) and it came in four (not two) body styles: four door sedan, club coupe, special club coupe (hardtop) and four door wagon. The Belvedere was designated P27-2 (as in the US) and was available In the same four body styles as the Savoy. Later demand brought on a six-cylinder Belvedere series under a P26-4 designation- The Savoy hardtop was the beginning of a common Canadian practise of offering this body style one model lower than in the U.S. When ordered with twotone paint, the Savoy even came with the Belvedere side trim! The Canadian Savoy outsold all other series combined, and Plymouth's sixes outsold its eights five- to-one. It would be two years before Plymouth's V8 would outsell the six in Canada. Of course the Canadian Plymouth six continued to be the 25" long block. In fact a six-cylinder PowerFlite car came with the big 251 ci engine just discontinued on the Chrysler Windsor. Surprisingly, this engine was larger in displacement than the small V8 Plymouth offered. Not surprisingly, only 486 of the 241 V8 engines were sold in Canadian Plymouths that year." |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jun 07, 2009 10:28 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 07, 2009 12:07 pm) I bought my '57 Dodge in 1966. I had a job as a service technician for burglar and fire alarm systems; and was often driving long distances; so I needed a car that would be reliable. The car was a bread and butter 4 door sedan; I think it was a Coronet. It had the 325 poly engine with a Stromberg WW 2 barrel carb, single exhaust and 2 speed Powerflite transmission. I couldn't afford to make it look nice; but I put a lot of work into the mechanicals. Freshened the motor with a ring and valve job; along with a set of anti pump up hydraulic lifters. Bought 4 new Michelin tires, Monroe HD shocks, installed a noticeable but not obnoxious dual exhaust system, assembled and installed one of the early model CDI ignitions; I think it was a Heathkit (I used to be able to quote all those names and models; but after 43 years, I don't remember it all anymore) and a Mallory coil. Then bought a Stromberg jet wrench (which I still have) and a Mallory adjustable pressure electric fuel pump; and began blueprinting the tuning. Eventually got it up to 21mpg. But the car looked like a beater. One day, a CHP car stopped me as I went through the toll plaza on the Golden Gate Bridge. The officer had spotted the crack in my windshield. He walked up to me and began looking over the car. He noticed the brand new Michelins, and then saw the fire extinguisher mounted in the passenger footwell. At that, he turned to me and said "I saw the crack in your windshield; but I can see now that the car is well maintained; so I'm not going to make an issue of it. Drive carefully, and have a nice day!!!" And he drove away. That left me with a good feeling. |
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Jun 06, 2009 5:08 pm) Heck, my wife's 01 Impala with the crappy 3.4 had that feature. I figured they put it in their because the clientele was loosing their hearing. LOL. The 3.4 was hardly refined. I believe my wife's current '07 GP with the 3800 v6 has the same feature. I can't remember because I try my best never to drive it. IMO, you'd have to be deaf and numb all over to not realize it' running. |
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Jun 07, 2009 7:05 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jun 07, 2009 9:46 pm) For me it's been all over the map. I've had engines big and small, low revving and high revving that have and have not used oil. The worst was a '92 Saturn SL2 that burned about a 1qt every 500 miles after 60k miles and Saturn said it was normal. My first car was a '75 Buick Regal with a 350, my grandpa bought it new and gave it to me in '87. It used a qt every 1,000 miles since it was new. It still lasted well over 130k. Trans was heading south when I got rid of it. I had a '98 Ford SVT Contour which had a DOHC 2.5L 195hp v6 that would easily rev to it's 7200rpm fuel cut off. It never used a drop of oil over the 75k miles I put on it and I beat that car using it in many SCCA Solo II competitions and such. The '03 305 v8 in our boat has never used any oil either and you'll be hard pressed to find a harsher environment for a car engine (basically a car engine with a few marine spec parts). It's spent many hours running 1/2 to full throttle at 3k - 5k rpm. I had a '95 Neon with the DOHC 150hp 2.0L 4cylinder that also would rev to 7k rpm and it would occasionally use a qt per oil change interval, never a big deal. I'd have to add a qt occasionally to my 5.3 powered Suburban, primarily if I had been towing the camper or boat a lot in hot weather. The 5.4 in my Expedition has yet to use any oil at 51k miles. I think the owners manual in every vehicle I've owned has stated some oil consumption is considered normal. It probably comes down to variation in the manufacturing process. Some will some won't I guess unless it's a Northstar and then it's considered a normal side effect of it's exotic machining process or whatever...LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dieselone (Jun 08, 2009 5:21 am) I've had a couple of Mazda RX-7's and they need to burn some oil. I know that I had to watch the oil level and add a quart about once every 1000 miles. If I had a Northstar I would do the same thing. Not a big deal. With our Hondas, I rarely check the oil level between changes and I guess I should in case they decide to start using a bit of oil.
|
|
|
Replying to: isellhondas (Jun 08, 2009 5:58 am) Many years/decades ago, that was the norm, the expectation. In my own experience with GM vehicles with V8's in the 70's, 80's, 90's, adding oil was not questioned. Starting in 1984 with first Honda, I was pleasantly surprised that it did not need any oil additions to crankcase between changes. That has been my experience with many Hondas and Acuras (and Nissan) since then. The Japanese auto builders had refined the engineering of their engines to have attributes of good power, reliability and no (or extremely low) oil consumption between changes.I recall the sales brochure of my 97 Maxima extolling the advanced engineering features of their engine including a term, if I recall, micro fine finishing on all interior engine and component touching surfaces. Apparently, GM was incapable of engineering a Northstar engine without having to use a quart of oil every 1k-1.5k from what I hear. Imagine if norm was "burning" one quart of oil every 1k miles for every vehicle manufactured today. What a waste of petroleum resource, not to mention added pollution. |
|
|
Replying to: isellhondas (Jun 08, 2009 5:58 am) |
|
|
Replying to: tomcatt630 (Jun 06, 2009 2:52 pm) They do?  I can't think of anything better!
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
