On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:29:51 UTC, Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote:

The most reliable Chrysler engines were their famous flathead 6's and
8's. I know, I have a 1940 241.5c.i. flathead six, and have had
others in 48 Plymouths and a 49 Chrysler Windsor.

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:40:07 -0400, Joe wrote:

It's not the size of the engine, its the weight of the car that
determines the fuel economy. There is only 1 mpg difference between the
300 and the 300C. I had a 94 Concord with a 3.5 (which needed a head
gasket at 50K miles, as did my 85 LeBaron GTS with a 2.? Turbo). I
currently have a 300C AWD. The Hemi is an awesome engine, it has
incredible acceleration and its very smooth. The 300 has awful mileage
compared to the Concord, I averages 22 MPG, 29 on long trips, with the
Concorde, I average 19, 22 on long trips, with the 300C, so if you can't
afford the gas don't buy a 300 in any flavor. I don't commute, I have a
home office, so I can live with the gas costs. The Hemi was the reason
that I bought the 300C, without it it's just a car with bad visibility.
Nothing else that I test drove had anything like the 300Cs performance,
not even cars that cost 20K more.

also, the hemi takes mid grade fuel.

--


Count Floyd (AT) MonsterChillerHorrorTheater (DOT) com wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:30:31 UTC, "Sharkman (AT) comcast (DOT) net"
<sharkman (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

My flatheads take unleaded regular and still get over 20mpg! Thank
you to Walter P. Chrysler for putting hardened valve seats in the
flathead allowing for unleaded gas.


--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

In article <pan.2007.05.17.12.24.18 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>,
General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Weight, wind resistance, AWD,
and particularly in city driving engine size.

The engine is a variable displacement engine so it's not nearly as
inefficient as it could be. I'm not sure about the aerodynamics, the
Concord certainly looked more aerodynamic then the 300 but the 300 is
fairly low so it might not be as bad a problem as it appears. AWD hurts a
little but it's an absolute necessity, I wouldn't even consider a car
without AWD. If you live in a sunny state then RWD is a good choice, but
I live in New England.

camaroz396 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

Rockers? On an OVERHEAD CAM engine? Roller followers, yeah. Rockers that
can "pop off" like a ball-stud Chebby? Nah.

Sorry, that kinda casts the whole claim into doubt.

Vaughan wrote:

The 3.5 is perfectly "refined," (whatever that stupid, subjective,
non-engineering-based, I turn-the-key-and-it-goes car-magazine writer
term may mean to you) but they mate it to a transmission with one less
forward gear ratio than the Hemi gets, so it has to run up and down a
wider RPM range, which makes it a bit louder. Also, ALL v6 engines have
a relatively unpleasant exhaust note to start with. Nature of the beast.

Count Floyd (AT) MonsterChillerHorrorTheater (DOT) com wrote:

I LOVE the old flatheads (I have had a 218 flat 6 in a '49 Club Coupe
for 30 years) but sorry, reliability wise they weren't on a par with the
slant-6 and 318 v8. But then nothing else on the planet short of a
diesel is, either.

Sharkman (AT) comcast (DOT) net wrote:

So does the 3.5, as it has since its introduction in 1993 (maybe the
current non-HO 3.5 has been de-tuned for regular, now that I think about
it).