Pedant’s Note 2: All of Europe is larger than the European Union plus the candidate countries… { Let’s not confuse the Americans… :-) } DAS — — NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling" —
> We could also re-name it The United Countries of Europe (UCE) You got it right > I am referring to Euro-Land as the 15 member "states" of the "Common Market" and > shortly the 27 member states and what a state we will be in then! > Hugh
I havent been to Los Angeles for 15 years now, but I have lived most recently in Michigan, Kansas City, Arlington Texas (Dallas Fort Worth Area) and now Oklahoma City (all sites of a domestic automaker’s assembly plants). Dinosaurs of the 70’s are gone, but in their place is appearing many SUV’s and pickup trucks. Here in the Midwest, many of the folks that work in the manufacturing plant with me have farms and horses, thus a pickup truck to move bales of hay and the implements of horse ownership certainly are practical tools and make sense. More people are choosing to drive pickup trucks. The increasing number of large vehicles like the Ford Expedition, Cadillac Escalades, Chevrolet Avalanche and Z71 and other full sized pickup trucks is nevermore evident to me as when I’m driving in my Z3 roadster. The only large sedans on the road that I’ve seen are police cruisers (Ford Crown Victoria’s), older Lincoln Continentals (my associate in the next office cube has one)/Mercury Marquis’. I rarely see the older full sized Chevrolet Caprice. I do see downsized Chevrolet Impala’s which is about the same size as my 528i. The narrower European roadways and the resultant smaller vehicles there remind me of an article I read that tied the size of the space shuttle rocket boosters to US tunnel sizes to US railroad track gauge, to European railroad track gauge, to width of wheel ruts in old Roman roads, to the width of Roman war chariot wheels which were made to accommodate the width of the hind ends of two war horses……
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I really agree with that. Ever since starting to participate in these >newgroups I have paid more attention to the ’street scene’, especially when >I am in North America and it struck me only recently how ‘not specially >large’ the Merc S-Class or BMW 7s are in NA. I even venture to state that >in general they don’t even look as special as in Europe. Yet on a London >street they stick out a mile, even though there are lots of them. >Last good look was in LA; maybe in the sunshine almost all cars look good.. >:-) >Pedant’s note: Euroland is normally the term given to the dozen members of >the Eurozone, the participants in the common currency, the euro. I am sure >you mean all of Europe… >DAS > We could also re-name it The United Countries of Europe (UCE) You got it right > I am referring to Euro-Land as the 15 member "states" of the "Common Market" and > shortly the 27 member states and what a state we will be in then! > Hugh > Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! > Hugh Gundersen > http://www.bognor-bill.co.uk > Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK > Vyisder Asmeni > Orsisarsis Asderisorsis. > B.Cozderiz > Vunarz > PERORZ
I really agree with that. Ever since starting to participate in these newgroups I have paid more attention to the ’street scene’, especially when I am in North America and it struck me only recently how ‘not specially large’ the Merc S-Class or BMW 7s are in NA. I even venture to state that in general they don’t even look as special as in Europe. Yet on a London street they stick out a mile, even though there are lots of them. Last good look was in LA; maybe in the sunshine almost all cars look good.. 
Pedant’s note: Euroland is normally the term given to the dozen members of the Eurozone, the participants in the common currency, the euro. I am sure you mean all of Europe… DAS — — NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling" —
Even the BMW and Mercedes "top of the range" cars were small by US > standards and BIG by Euro-Land specs. .
>I really agree with that. Ever since starting to participate in these >newgroups I have paid more attention to the ’street scene’, especially when >I am in North America and it struck me only recently how ‘not specially >large’ the Merc S-Class or BMW 7s are in NA. I even venture to state that >in general they don’t even look as special as in Europe. Yet on a London >street they stick out a mile, even though there are lots of them. >Last good look was in LA; maybe in the sunshine almost all cars look good.. >:-) >Pedant’s note: Euroland is normally the term given to the dozen members of >the Eurozone, the participants in the common currency, the euro. I am sure >you mean all of Europe… >DAS
We could also re-name it The United Countries of Europe (UCE) You got it right I am referring to Euro-Land as the 15 member "states" of the "Common Market" and shortly the 27 member states and what a state we will be in then! Hugh Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen http://www.bognor-bill.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK Vyisder Asmeni Orsisarsis Asderisorsis. B.Cozderiz Vunarz PERORZ
Hi Folks Continuing this OT line a bit further, Remember the cars of the 70s – the boat tailed ugly Pontiacs and Buicks and those unwieldy Chevys and awful Mercurys and Ford (DORFs must have been designed backwards) The beautiful sexy lines of the 68 – 72 Chryslers (Charger, Challenger & Barracuda etc) FORD (Torino, Galaxy, Fairlane 500 Mustang?(not a patch on the 69-71 Boss)) Even American Motors had the Rebel! FOrget the blobs (Pacer etc) and the licence built Renaults. Those UGLY MONSTERS from everybody’s nightmare evolved in the 70s & early – mid 80s until the US shut everything down and decided to "DOWNSIZE". What really got me was the fact that they didn’t know how to build a smaller car. Even the BMW and Mercedes "top of the range" cars were small by US standards and BIG by Euro-Land specs. The Big US cars are still "ugly" and cumbersome and most big car drivers have the BM 7 series or similar sized autos. Even the US big car is BMW/MERC sized and there are a lot more people driving those Honda Civics and Nissan compacts and even the Eruo Opel/Vauxhall is sold as a Pontiac or Buick and the Chrysler Sebring is BMW 5 Series size. Come on guys who will admit to actually buying a fish tail US car in the 70s? Hugh Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen http://www.bognor-bill.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK Vyisder Asmeni Orsisarsis Asderisorsis. B.Cozderiz Vunarz PERORZ
> Here’s the link (sorry I didn’t put it in my earlier reply). You tell me > if it’s "Bull": > http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b102799.htm
Interesting. Not enough technical detail to convince me (of course Chrysler engineers would be guarding it fairly closely anyway). I’ll file that one in the "wait and see" category. And I do agree that the 42LE is overdue for a redesign (5xLE), given the troubles its had. I still think the *basic* design (power routing, clutching, gearing, pump, etc.) are very good. Its the little sh*t that kills it like seals and sensors. The one question I do have, and you mentioned it in your previous post, is the chain-type final drive. Granted, its a BIG chain, but chains still stretch over time and once it gets a little loose on the sprokets its torque-handling ability will go WAY down. I always believed that the chain was there for the sole reason that the original plan was to offer AWD, and it would then become the transfer case chain with rear-wheel power going straight out the back of the tranny. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off the irritating fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
> Reply-To: /dev/null > Distribution: World > That may be true NOW, but for a LONG time the TH700R4 was a timebomb > under > F-bodies and Impalas. Also, the Buick GN guys had similar problems with > their > TH200R4. Frankly, I’ve heard enough late-model F-body trans horror > stories to > seriously doubt that its any good. > Oh sure – bring the 200 and 700 into it .
OK, I’ll admit the low blow > Hey, the 700 wasn’t bad from > ‘87-up after they learned from the ‘86 GN.
<raising eyebrow> I have YET to talk to a tranny guy who’s found a good 700R4. > But we’re still talking 10 year > old trannies. The new ones (like the 4L80 auto and T-56 manual) are *very* > strong.
Agreed on the T-56. Heck, it may even be as tough as our old A-833 But I personally know several less-than-happy 4L80E owners. I think Detroit’s forgotten how to build an automatic, with the exception of the ones based on old designs on like the 46RH (and CC even managed to bugger up the O/D on it until circa 1993)You’re wrong about this (sorry), as the number of supercharged 4th gen LT1 > cars is in the thousands now. The advantage of keeping the stock CR high > and using a low-output centrifugal (not roots-type like GM) is that the > high CR keeps the motor strong on the low end and the blower only really > augments the high-end (since these blowers don’t make a lot of boost at > low RPM)
Call me skeptical, still. I hang around with a good many F-body folks (just about the only guys in modern iron who actually appreciate a 440 big block anymore) and most of them who’ve added Paxton, ATI, etc. blowers say they lose a noticeable amount of mileage, and detect pinging if they don’t run premium. Not all, but most. I’m still game to try, but I guess a lot of me is still "old school" in thinking that 6 psi is just a "band aid" and not "REAL BOOST!" I’d still buy one if the price were right, though! — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off the irritating fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Reply-To: /dev/null Distribution: World > Bull. IF the internal drag was really that high, the cars wouldn’t get 25-30 > mpg. Period. Any gain probably came from crisper shifting (people already > complain about the firmness of 42LE shifts, so the factory just keeps > imitating GM and making them sludgier and sludgier- give me hard shifts ANY > day!), and elimination of the torque-limiting feature of the stock tranny > controller (which cuts out alternate cylinders during 1-2 WOT shifts in order > to reduce wear).
Here’s the link (sorry I didn’t put it in my earlier reply). You tell me if it’s "Bull": http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b102799.htm CD
Reply-To: /dev/null Distribution: World > That may be true NOW, but for a LONG time the TH700R4 was a timebomb under > F-bodies and Impalas. Also, the Buick GN guys had similar problems with their > TH200R4. Frankly, I’ve heard enough late-model F-body trans horror stories to > seriously doubt that its any good.
Oh sure – bring the 200 and 700 into it . Hey, the 700 wasn’t bad from ‘87-up after they learned from the ‘86 GN. But we’re still talking 10 year old trannies. The new ones (like the 4L80 auto and T-56 manual) are *very* strong. I have a ‘94 Formula with the T56 and I’ve followed discussions about these cars online from the get-go. If there’s a problem with either of these trannies that shows up under 500HP, I’m not aware of it (except for isolated incidents). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> GM has a front drive tranny that can handle the 300hp Northstar as well as > the 240hp/280 lb-ft blown 3.8. Why doesn’t Chrysler have one ??? > I think they do, and its called the 42LE. Look, NONE of the all-too-common > problems that have occured with the 42LE have been in the load-bearing > components! Clutch packs don’t disintegrate (like the 700R4), the main > hydraulic pump doesn’t fall apart (like the 700R4, which used plastic > rotors!), planetary sets don’t break, half-shafts don’t grenade (like > Hondas). The problems it has had have been twofold: internal seal failures, > and control system failures-mainly sensors. It is my belief that the > power-bearing components of the 42LE would be just fine up into the 300 HP/ > 300lb-ft zone. I could be wrong, but nothing I see tells me I am.
We’ll there’s some third-hand evidence floating around these parts that says the tranny folds when you supercharge the motor. I guess more of us are just going to have to do this so that we have more data . > That’s actually not that bad. Lots of people have put blowers on the > 10.5:1 GM LT1 motor with great results, > Great results AT THE STRIP. I want something flexible for day-to-day driving > AND thrashing, much more like the factory blower on the Buick 3.8 (which runs > at around 8:1 base compression). You want to be able to modulate your boost > as needed, not have to limit it to only 6 PSI in order to avoid running race > fuel all the time. 10:1 motors are NOT suited for forced induction combined > with daily driving, in general.
You’re wrong about this (sorry), as the number of supercharged 4th gen LT1 cars is in the thousands now. The advantage of keeping the stock CR high and using a low-output centrifugal (not roots-type like GM) is that the high CR keeps the motor strong on the low end and the blower only really augments the high-end (since these blowers don’t make a lot of boost at low RPM). Those LT1’s do not need race fuel and with a better fuel pump and agressive detonation control they are reliable (even economical) daily drivers that make 400HP. Look, like I said I’ve been a 4th gen f-body owner since the beginning and I’ve been online in owner’s groups since day one. Using modern blowers like Vortech, Paxton, ATI or even Powerdyne on a high-CR motor is a "been there, done that" deal. It’s been done, and it works. Period. I’m certain that a 6lb Vortech would give tha 3.5HO just that little "extra" it needs without undue strain on the motor. After all – if you’re going to take the motor apart just to put in lower CR pistons, why not scrap the blower idea altogether and just build the motor for more HP (heads, cams, bore, stroke, etc) ? Or just buy a faster car in the first place… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Speaking of trannies – did anyone else see that article on one of the > Mopar sites where they talked about swapping in ZF 4 and 5 speed > automatics on European 300m’s ? The 5 speed supposedly dropped the > 1/4 mile and 0-60 times by a full second due mostly to the "high internal > drag" of the Chrysler 4-speed. > Bull. IF the internal drag was really that high, the cars wouldn’t get 25-30 > mpg. Period. Any gain probably came from crisper shifting (people already > complain about the firmness of 42LE shifts, so the factory just keeps > imitating GM and making them sludgier and sludgier- give me hard shifts ANY > day!), and elimination of the torque-limiting feature of the stock tranny > controller (which cuts out alternate cylinders during 1-2 WOT shifts in order > to reduce wear).
Hey – it was a *Mopar* web site and I believe it. This is only a 3600lb car with 250HP and a pretty flat 250lb-ft of torque. The Taurus SHO was a ~3400lb car with 30 less HP and Torque and it was a 7.0/15.0 0-60/1/4 mile car unlike our 8.0/16.0 300m. The numbers just don’t work right unless the tranny is wasting power, has ratios that are too wide, takes too long to shift, or all 3. I guess we’ll never know until they put a different tranny in there or put that motor in a different car with a manual transmission. CD
> Steve writes > Then re-build the transmission to handle the power you put in front of > it… same > as its been for the last 50 years. > I don’t think it’s been that way for the past 50 years. You shouldn’t have > to rebuild the tranny to handle a 30-40% power increase.
OF course, I exaggerated a bit. But I don’t see the 42LE having a huge problem with a 30-40% increase either (see below). > Look around at > GM and Ford – no one is rebuilding trannies on Z-28’s and TransAm’s when > they install blowers. Same for Impala SS’s, same for Mustangs.
That may be true NOW, but for a LONG time the TH700R4 was a timebomb under F-bodies and Impalas. Also, the Buick GN guys had similar problems with their TH200R4. Frankly, I’ve heard enough late-model F-body trans horror stories to seriously doubt that its any good. > GM has a front drive tranny that can handle the 300hp Northstar as well as > the 240hp/280 lb-ft blown 3.8. Why doesn’t Chrysler have one ???
I think they do, and its called the 42LE. Look, NONE of the all-too-common problems that have occured with the 42LE have been in the load-bearing components! Clutch packs don’t disintegrate (like the 700R4), the main hydraulic pump doesn’t fall apart (like the 700R4, which used plastic rotors!), planetary sets don’t break, half-shafts don’t grenade (like Hondas). The problems it has had have been twofold: internal seal failures, and control system failures-mainly sensors. It is my belief that the power-bearing components of the 42LE would be just fine up into the 300 HP/ 300lb-ft zone. I could be wrong, but nothing I see tells me I am. > One other thing- the 3.5 runs 10:1 compression already (well, the 93 and > the > post-98 versions anyway) and that makes it a pretty poor candidate for > supercharging. I’d hate to have to lower the compression just to hang a > blower on it. > That’s actually not that bad. Lots of people have put blowers on the > 10.5:1 GM LT1 motor with great results,
Great results AT THE STRIP. I want something flexible for day-to-day driving AND thrashing, much more like the factory blower on the Buick 3.8 (which runs at around 8:1 base compression). You want to be able to modulate your boost as needed, not have to limit it to only 6 PSI in order to avoid running race fuel all the time. 10:1 motors are NOT suited for forced induction combined with daily driving, in general. > Speaking of trannies – did anyone else see that article on one of the > Mopar sites where they talked about swapping in ZF 4 and 5 speed > automatics on European 300m’s ? The 5 speed supposedly dropped the > 1/4 mile and 0-60 times by a full second due mostly to the "high internal > drag" of the Chrysler 4-speed.
Bull. IF the internal drag was really that high, the cars wouldn’t get 25-30 mpg. Period. Any gain probably came from crisper shifting (people already complain about the firmness of 42LE shifts, so the factory just keeps imitating GM and making them sludgier and sludgier- give me hard shifts ANY day!), and elimination of the torque-limiting feature of the stock tranny controller (which cuts out alternate cylinders during 1-2 WOT shifts in order to reduce wear). I’ve found that you can fool the torque limiter by doing a "lift-foot" 1-2 shift and then flooring it again as the tranny begins to shift- the car absolutely LUNGES forward like it was shot out of a slingshot. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off the irritating fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
All owners of Chrysler LH platform and Prowlers with the 3.5L V6 engine, no matter what year, who desire more performance here is your chance. SD Concept Engineering, Inc. wants to know if there is a market for owners of these cars that want a supercharger kit. I have spoke with them and if they get a decent response this can become a reality. All you have to do is kit for your car. This is your chance for all you LH car owners to finally get some aftermarket equipment to realize the true potential of these cars. Please consider this seriously and help create an aftermarket for a car that deserves such attention. Corey Warren Proud owner of a 1994 Dodge Intrepid ES and 1970 Dodge Charger 500
Steve writes > Then re-build the transmission to handle the power you put in front of it… same > as its been for the last 50 years. My question is just how "builidable" is the > tranny. I know that there are much better clutch materials and seals avaialble > for most Chrysler trannies, but has the aftermarket completely ignored the 42LE > since its not in a "performance" vehicle.
I don’t think it’s been that way for the past 50 years. You shouldn’t have to rebuild the tranny to handle a 30-40% power increase. Look around at GM and Ford – no one is rebuilding trannies on Z-28’s and TransAm’s when they install blowers. Same for Impala SS’s, same for Mustangs. The tranny on the LH cars is *weak* for the 3.5HO application. Who wants to spend $2k to build a tranny on top of the $3.5k blower/installation ? GM has a front drive tranny that can handle the 300hp Northstar as well as the 240hp/280 lb-ft blown 3.8. Why doesn’t Chrysler have one ??? -> > One other thing- the 3.5 runs 10:1 compression already (well, the 93 and the > post-98 versions anyway) and that makes it a pretty poor candidate for > supercharging. I’d hate to have to lower the compression just to hang a
blower on it. That’s actually not that bad. Lots of people have put blowers on the 10.5:1 GM LT1 motor with great results, as long as they don’t get crazy with boost. As long as you have adequate fuel flow and good detonation control/management you’ll be fine. I’m sure the 3.5HO would take nicely to a 6lb Vortech or a 9lb intercooled ATI Procharger. The big question is how long would the tranny last pushing over 300 lb-ft of torque. Not long says the collective net wisdom. Speaking of trannies – did anyone else see that article on one of the Mopar sites where they talked about swapping in ZF 4 and 5 speed automatics on European 300m’s ? The 5 speed supposedly dropped the 1/4 mile and 0-60 times by a full second due mostly to the "high internal drag" of the Chrysler 4-speed. The more I learn about this tranny, the more I want to buy that extended warranty … CD
> All owners of Chrysler LH platform and Prowlers with the 3.5L V6 engine, no > matter what year, who desire more performance here is your chance. SD > Concept Engineering, Inc. wants to know if there is a market for owners of > these cars that want a supercharger kit. I have spoke with them and if they > get a decent response this can become a reality. All you have to do is > kit for your car. This is your chance for all you LH car owners to finally > get some aftermarket equipment to realize the true potential of these cars. > Please consider this seriously and help create an aftermarket for a car that > deserves such attention.
I’d buy one in a second. Consensus seems to be, however, that the transmission can’t handle it. C — Christopher Mauritz
> > All owners of Chrysler LH platform and Prowlers with the 3.5L V6 engine, no > matter what year, who desire more performance here is your chance. SD > Concept Engineering, Inc. wants to know if there is a market for owners of > these cars that want a supercharger kit. > I’d buy one in a second. Consensus seems to be, however, that the > transmission can’t handle it.
Then re-build the transmission to handle the power you put in front of it… same as its been for the last 50 years. My question is just how "builidable" is the tranny. I know that there are much better clutch materials and seals avaialble for most Chrysler trannies, but has the aftermarket completely ignored the 42LE since its not in a "performance" vehicle. I’d love the blower also, and wouldn’t hesitate to see if it blew the tranny out. After all, mines already got 145k miles on it, I don’t think I’ll have been overly short-changed if it blew up Unfortunately, we’re talking about my WIFE’s car, and she’d probably complain about the more frequent gas stops. :-p One other thing- the 3.5 runs 10:1 compression already (well, the 93 and the post-98 versions anyway) and that makes it a pretty poor candidate for supercharging. I’d hate to have to lower the compression just to hang a blower on it. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off the irritating fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
All owners of Chrysler LH platform and Prowlers with the 3.5L V6 engine, no matter what year, who desire more performance here is your chance. SD Concept Engineering, Inc. wants to know if there is a market for owners of these cars that want a supercharger kit. I have spoke with them and if they get a decent response this can become a reality. All you have to do is kit for your car. This is your chance for all you LH car owners to finally get some aftermarket equipment to realize the true potential of these cars. Please consider this seriously and help create an aftermarket for a car that deserves such attention. Corey Warren Proud owner of a 1994 Dodge Intrepid ES and 1970 Dodge Charger 500
> All owners of Chrysler LH platform and Prowlers with the 3.5L V6 engine, no > matter what year, who desire more performance here is your chance. SD > Concept Engineering, Inc. wants to know if there is a market for owners of > these cars that want a supercharger kit. I have spoke with them and if they > get a decent response this can become a reality. All you have to do is > kit for your car. This is your chance for all you LH car owners to finally > get some aftermarket equipment to realize the true potential of these cars. > Please consider this seriously and help create an aftermarket for a car that > deserves such attention.
I’d buy one in a second. Consensus seems to be, however, that the transmission can’t handle it. C — Christopher Mauritz
> > All owners of Chrysler LH platform and Prowlers with the 3.5L V6 engine, no > matter what year, who desire more performance here is your chance. SD > Concept Engineering, Inc. wants to know if there is a market for owners of > these cars that want a supercharger kit. > I’d buy one in a second. Consensus seems to be, however, that the > transmission can’t handle it.
Then re-build the transmission to handle the power you put in front of it… same as its been for the last 50 years. My question is just how "builidable" is the tranny. I know that there are much better clutch materials and seals avaialble for most Chrysler trannies, but has the aftermarket completely ignored the 42LE since its not in a "performance" vehicle. I’d love the blower also, and wouldn’t hesitate to see if it blew the tranny out. After all, mines already got 145k miles on it, I don’t think I’ll have been overly short-changed if it blew up Unfortunately, we’re talking about my WIFE’s car, and she’d probably complain about the more frequent gas stops. :-p One other thing- the 3.5 runs 10:1 compression already (well, the 93 and the post-98 versions anyway) and that makes it a pretty poor candidate for supercharging. I’d hate to have to lower the compression just to hang a blower on it. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off the irritating fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Steve writes > Then re-build the transmission to handle the power you put in front of it… same > as its been for the last 50 years. My question is just how "builidable" is the > tranny. I know that there are much better clutch materials and seals avaialble > for most Chrysler trannies, but has the aftermarket completely ignored the 42LE > since its not in a "performance" vehicle.
I don’t think it’s been that way for the past 50 years. You shouldn’t have to rebuild the tranny to handle a 30-40% power increase. Look around at GM and Ford – no one is rebuilding trannies on Z-28’s and TransAm’s when they install blowers. Same for Impala SS’s, same for Mustangs. The tranny on the LH cars is *weak* for the 3.5HO application. Who wants to spend $2k to build a tranny on top of the $3.5k blower/installation ? GM has a front drive tranny that can handle the 300hp Northstar as well as the 240hp/280 lb-ft blown 3.8. Why doesn’t Chrysler have one ??? -> > One other thing- the 3.5 runs 10:1 compression already (well, the 93 and the > post-98 versions anyway) and that makes it a pretty poor candidate for > supercharging. I’d hate to have to lower the compression just to hang a
blower on it. That’s actually not that bad. Lots of people have put blowers on the 10.5:1 GM LT1 motor with great results, as long as they don’t get crazy with boost. As long as you have adequate fuel flow and good detonation control/management you’ll be fine. I’m sure the 3.5HO would take nicely to a 6lb Vortech or a 9lb intercooled ATI Procharger. The big question is how long would the tranny last pushing over 300 lb-ft of torque. Not long says the collective net wisdom. Speaking of trannies – did anyone else see that article on one of the Mopar sites where they talked about swapping in ZF 4 and 5 speed automatics on European 300m’s ? The 5 speed supposedly dropped the 1/4 mile and 0-60 times by a full second due mostly to the "high internal drag" of the Chrysler 4-speed. The more I learn about this tranny, the more I want to buy that extended warranty … CD
> Steve writes > Then re-build the transmission to handle the power you put in front of > it… same > as its been for the last 50 years. > I don’t think it’s been that way for the past 50 years. You shouldn’t have > to rebuild the tranny to handle a 30-40% power increase.
OF course, I exaggerated a bit. But I don’t see the 42LE having a huge problem with a 30-40% increase either (see below). > Look around at > GM and Ford – no one is rebuilding trannies on Z-28’s and TransAm’s when > they install blowers. Same for Impala SS’s, same for Mustangs.
That may be true NOW, but for a LONG time the TH700R4 was a timebomb under F-bodies and Impalas. Also, the Buick GN guys had similar problems with their TH200R4. Frankly, I’ve heard enough late-model F-body trans horror stories to seriously doubt that its any good. > GM has a front drive tranny that can handle the 300hp Northstar as well as > the 240hp/280 lb-ft blown 3.8. Why doesn’t Chrysler have one ???
I think they do, and its called the 42LE. Look, NONE of the all-too-common problems that have occured with the 42LE have been in the load-bearing components! Clutch packs don’t disintegrate (like the 700R4), the main hydraulic pump doesn’t fall apart (like the 700R4, which used plastic rotors!), planetary sets don’t break, half-shafts don’t grenade (like Hondas). The problems it has had have been twofold: internal seal failures, and control system failures-mainly sensors. It is my belief that the power-bearing components of the 42LE would be just fine up into the 300 HP/ 300lb-ft zone. I could be wrong, but nothing I see tells me I am. > One other thing- the 3.5 runs 10:1 compression already (well, the 93 and > the > post-98 versions anyway) and that makes it a pretty poor candidate for > supercharging. I’d hate to have to lower the compression just to hang a > blower on it. > That’s actually not that bad. Lots of people have put blowers on the > 10.5:1 GM LT1 motor with great results,
Great results AT THE STRIP. I want something flexible for day-to-day driving AND thrashing, much more like the factory blower on the Buick 3.8 (which runs at around 8:1 base compression). You want to be able to modulate your boost as needed, not have to limit it to only 6 PSI in order to avoid running race fuel all the time. 10:1 motors are NOT suited for forced induction combined with daily driving, in general. > Speaking of trannies – did anyone else see that article on one of the > Mopar sites where they talked about swapping in ZF 4 and 5 speed > automatics on European 300m’s ? The 5 speed supposedly dropped the > 1/4 mile and 0-60 times by a full second due mostly to the "high internal > drag" of the Chrysler 4-speed.
Bull. IF the internal drag was really that high, the cars wouldn’t get 25-30 mpg. Period. Any gain probably came from crisper shifting (people already complain about the firmness of 42LE shifts, so the factory just keeps imitating GM and making them sludgier and sludgier- give me hard shifts ANY day!), and elimination of the torque-limiting feature of the stock tranny controller (which cuts out alternate cylinders during 1-2 WOT shifts in order to reduce wear). I’ve found that you can fool the torque limiter by doing a "lift-foot" 1-2 shift and then flooring it again as the tranny begins to shift- the car absolutely LUNGES forward like it was shot out of a slingshot. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off the irritating fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Reply-To: /dev/null Distribution: World > That may be true NOW, but for a LONG time the TH700R4 was a timebomb under > F-bodies and Impalas. Also, the Buick GN guys had similar problems with their > TH200R4. Frankly, I’ve heard enough late-model F-body trans horror stories to > seriously doubt that its any good.
Oh sure – bring the 200 and 700 into it . Hey, the 700 wasn’t bad from ‘87-up after they learned from the ‘86 GN. But we’re still talking 10 year old trannies. The new ones (like the 4L80 auto and T-56 manual) are *very* strong. I have a ‘94 Formula with the T56 and I’ve followed discussions about these cars online from the get-go. If there’s a problem with either of these trannies that shows up under 500HP, I’m not aware of it (except for isolated incidents). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> GM has a front drive tranny that can handle the 300hp Northstar as well as > the 240hp/280 lb-ft blown 3.8. Why doesn’t Chrysler have one ??? > I think they do, and its called the 42LE. Look, NONE of the all-too-common > problems that have occured with the 42LE have been in the load-bearing > components! Clutch packs don’t disintegrate (like the 700R4), the main > hydraulic pump doesn’t fall apart (like the 700R4, which used plastic > rotors!), planetary sets don’t break, half-shafts don’t grenade (like > Hondas). The problems it has had have been twofold: internal seal failures, > and control system failures-mainly sensors. It is my belief that the > power-bearing components of the 42LE would be just fine up into the 300 HP/ > 300lb-ft zone. I could be wrong, but nothing I see tells me I am.
We’ll there’s some third-hand evidence floating around these parts that says the tranny folds when you supercharge the motor. I guess more of us are just going to have to do this so that we have more data . > That’s actually not that bad. Lots of people have put blowers on the > 10.5:1 GM LT1 motor with great results, > Great results AT THE STRIP. I want something flexible for day-to-day driving > AND thrashing, much more like the factory blower on the Buick 3.8 (which runs > at around 8:1 base compression). You want to be able to modulate your boost > as needed, not have to limit it to only 6 PSI in order to avoid running race > fuel all the time. 10:1 motors are NOT suited for forced induction combined > with daily driving, in general.
You’re wrong about this (sorry), as the number of supercharged 4th gen LT1 cars is in the thousands now. The advantage of keeping the stock CR high and using a low-output centrifugal (not roots-type like GM) is that the high CR keeps the motor strong on the low end and the blower only really augments the high-end (since these blowers don’t make a lot of boost at low RPM). Those LT1’s do not need race fuel and with a better fuel pump and agressive detonation control they are reliable (even economical) daily drivers that make 400HP. Look, like I said I’ve been a 4th gen f-body owner since the beginning and I’ve been online in owner’s groups since day one. Using modern blowers like Vortech, Paxton, ATI or even Powerdyne on a high-CR motor is a "been there, done that" deal. It’s been done, and it works. Period. I’m certain that a 6lb Vortech would give tha 3.5HO just that little "extra" it needs without undue strain on the motor. After all – if you’re going to take the motor apart just to put in lower CR pistons, why not scrap the blower idea altogether and just build the motor for more HP (heads, cams, bore, stroke, etc) ? Or just buy a faster car in the first place… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Speaking of trannies – did anyone else see that article on one of the > Mopar sites where they talked about swapping in ZF 4 and 5 speed > automatics on European 300m’s ? The 5 speed supposedly dropped the > 1/4 mile and 0-60 times by a full second due mostly to the "high internal > drag" of the Chrysler 4-speed. > Bull. IF the internal drag was really that high, the cars wouldn’t get 25-30 > mpg. Period. Any gain probably came from crisper shifting (people already > complain about the firmness of 42LE shifts, so the factory just keeps > imitating GM and making them sludgier and sludgier- give me hard shifts ANY > day!), and elimination of the torque-limiting feature of the stock tranny > controller (which cuts out alternate cylinders during 1-2 WOT shifts in order > to reduce wear).
Hey – it was a *Mopar* web site and I believe it. This is only a 3600lb car with 250HP and a pretty flat 250lb-ft of torque. The Taurus SHO was a ~3400lb car with 30 less HP and Torque and it was a 7.0/15.0 0-60/1/4 mile car unlike our 8.0/16.0 300m. The numbers just don’t work right unless the tranny is wasting power, has ratios that are too wide, takes too long to shift, or all 3. I guess we’ll never know until they put a different tranny in there or put that motor in a different car with a manual transmission. CD
Reply-To: /dev/null Distribution: World > Bull. IF the internal drag was really that high, the cars wouldn’t get 25-30 > mpg. Period. Any gain probably came from crisper shifting (people already > complain about the firmness of 42LE shifts, so the factory just keeps > imitating GM and making them sludgier and sludgier- give me hard shifts ANY > day!), and elimination of the torque-limiting feature of the stock tranny > controller (which cuts out alternate cylinders during 1-2 WOT shifts in order > to reduce wear).
Here’s the link (sorry I didn’t put it in my earlier reply). You tell me if it’s "Bull": http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b102799.htm CD
> Here’s the link (sorry I didn’t put it in my earlier reply). You tell me > if it’s "Bull": > http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b102799.htm
Interesting. Not enough technical detail to convince me (of course Chrysler engineers would be guarding it fairly closely anyway). I’ll file that one in the "wait and see" category. And I do agree that the 42LE is overdue for a redesign (5xLE), given the troubles its had. I still think the *basic* design (power routing, clutching, gearing, pump, etc.) are very good. Its the little sh*t that kills it like seals and sensors. The one question I do have, and you mentioned it in your previous post, is the chain-type final drive. Granted, its a BIG chain, but chains still stretch over time and once it gets a little loose on the sprokets its torque-handling ability will go WAY down. I always believed that the chain was there for the sole reason that the original plan was to offer AWD, and it would then become the transfer case chain with rear-wheel power going straight out the back of the tranny. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off the irritating fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
> Reply-To: /dev/null > Distribution: World > That may be true NOW, but for a LONG time the TH700R4 was a timebomb > under > F-bodies and Impalas. Also, the Buick GN guys had similar problems with > their > TH200R4. Frankly, I’ve heard enough late-model F-body trans horror > stories to > seriously doubt that its any good. > Oh sure – bring the 200 and 700 into it .
OK, I’ll admit the low blow > Hey, the 700 wasn’t bad from > ‘87-up after they learned from the ‘86 GN.
<raising eyebrow> I have YET to talk to a tranny guy who’s found a good 700R4. > But we’re still talking 10 year > old trannies. The new ones (like the 4L80 auto and T-56 manual) are *very* > strong.
Agreed on the T-56. Heck, it may even be as tough as our old A-833 But I personally know several less-than-happy 4L80E owners. I think Detroit’s forgotten how to build an automatic, with the exception of the ones based on old designs on like the 46RH (and CC even managed to bugger up the O/D on it until circa 1993)You’re wrong about this (sorry), as the number of supercharged 4th gen LT1 > cars is in the thousands now. The advantage of keeping the stock CR high > and using a low-output centrifugal (not roots-type like GM) is that the > high CR keeps the motor strong on the low end and the blower only really > augments the high-end (since these blowers don’t make a lot of boost at > low RPM)
Call me skeptical, still. I hang around with a good many F-body folks (just about the only guys in modern iron who actually appreciate a 440 big block anymore) and most of them who’ve added Paxton, ATI, etc. blowers say they lose a noticeable amount of mileage, and detect pinging if they don’t run premium. Not all, but most. I’m still game to try, but I guess a lot of me is still "old school" in thinking that 6 psi is just a "band aid" and not "REAL BOOST!" I’d still buy one if the price were right, though! — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off the irritating fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
I am looking for some ideas on how to build an automatic deer feeder. I enjoy building rather than buying plus the cost is a lot less. I am particularly intrested in finding a good motor to spread the corn, I have a few ideas but would like to hear some more. Thank you for your time. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
I was thinking of doing the same thing. I have a friend that is relay good at building stuff plus he has all the tools to do the job. After we decided what kind of feeder we were going to build we started looking at timers, well I came to the conclusion that I would be better off buying one. To build the timer itself , would have taken more time & money than I that was worth it. I bought 2 , 55 gallon drum feeders with 12 foot legs and a 7 day a week timer for $145 each from a small company close to my house in Ft. Worth. The timer is what relay makes the feeder any way so maybe you should look around . Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
> I was thinking of doing the same thing. I have a friend that is relay good > at building stuff plus he has all the tools to do the job. After we decided > what kind of feeder we were going to build we started looking at timers, > well I came to the conclusion that I would be better off buying one. To > build the timer itself , would have taken more time & money than I that was > worth it. I bought 2 , 55 gallon drum feeders with 12 foot legs and a 7 day > a week timer for $145 each from a small company close to my house in Ft. > Worth. The timer is what relay makes the feeder any way so maybe you should > look around .
Last year I built my own feeder, buying only the timer mechanism. This year I bought one out of the Cabela’s catalog. The one I bought from Cabela’s was cheaper…. (incidentally, I really, REALLY like the one from Cabella’s). — + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chris Barnes AOL IM: cnbarnes Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
>I was thinking of doing the same thing. I have a friend that is relay good >at building stuff plus he has all the tools to do the job. After we decided >what kind of feeder we were going to build we started looking at timers, >well I came to the conclusion that I would be better off buying one. To >build the timer itself , would have taken more time & money than I that was
You may have missed the point of the exercise a bit. I’m a bit of a tinkerer myself and I find it more satisfying to me to "engineer" and adapt components to "make" something than to buy it outright. For instance the works of a cordless drill might make a good basis for "building" a feeder. Or maybe the motor from one of those radio controlled trucks you see kids playing with. After that one of those electric clocks that run on small batteries might be a good candidate for a timer. I have one of those on my wall that uses the same battery for at least two years and keeps almost perfect time. Bill Van Houten (USA Ret) Nothing that is politicaly Right can be Moraly wrong.—— Th. Jefferson Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/