Dan,

Last night must have been foggy down in the subterranean man cave (basement for you living in Florida) where the communication center is housed. Firstly, the idiotic confusion between diameter and radius, and now mixing d with C in previous postings. I'm aghast at the density of this cereal senior moment, and apologize for waisting precious forum electrons.

Thanks for the formula converting mph to rpm. I should have figured it out on my own, it ain't rocket science... Last night I had asked you about the constant 63360. Tonight the fog has lifted, oxygen rich blood flow to the cranium has returned to the old numbskull, and quess what, 63360=1 mile in inches... One more "duah" moment over the bow, I see you fulfilled my request after a second read. Gezz.

Sincerely,
Halfzhimer

Fuel consumption in June was 21 mpg, now it appears to have diminished greatly. I did not run any numbers, but top third of a tank of "cheep gas" to go 50 miles is a bit glutinous. Maybe I should calculate in dollars per mile not gallons.

My suspicion is the secondaries are cracking open too soon. There is also a flat spot when wide open throttle is applied at road speed. Hey slanters, perhaps I shall continue this carb chatter over on "Engines".

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.
82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp
07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

When Car and Driver set out to find the fastest (highest top speed) American car in 1976, #1 was the Corvette. #2 was a Dodge Dart 360 with a 2.76:1 rear gear in it. Using that ratio and assuming a 205/70-14 tire on the car, rpm @ 60 mph = 2200 rpm & 70 mph = 2567. If the power is there to take it to 4500 rpm in 3rd gear, it ought to be going close to 120 mph on the top end.

_________________
You can't fix stupid. - Ron White

The Cordoba we had would bring the speedo needle back around to zero on a 100 mph calibration, Zero @ 7 o'clock & 100 @ 5 o'clock. So at seventy mph, the back of the needle pointed at zero. When the back of the needle was pointing at 70 mph, the other end was at zero, or 130 mph. I never had it going any faster, but it still had some legs left.

From what I have found on the net this car came with a 2.45:1 rear end, and the optional 400 4bl lean burn engine. I suspect that C&D never opened the door of Cordoba. That engine had more torque, and HP at a higher rpm for 76' than the 360.

I used to love eating some BMW's lunch leaving the Newton Toll both on the Mass Pike, or at a light on RT. 2 west of Boston. They would always beat me across the intersection until we hit 35 mph at which point the front would come up, the carb would howl, and the Euro trash would see my tail lights.

http://www.moparautos.com/cordoba75-77.htm

Never mind the dissing of the lean burn on the above web site, it worked great on our car for the 86K miles we had it. I think the problem was, most people never opened up their engines in these cars. Mine would carbon up in a week or so of in town driving, so it got treated to a weekly Italian tune-up.

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.
82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp
07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

No, the problems with Lean Burn were/are quite real. You just got lucky, kinda (the fact that the engine carboned up so quickly is a good indication it wasn't burning anywhere near as lean as the air cleaner sticker wanted you to believe...)

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

You are right, lugging around Boston metro west traffic idling 20 miles per hour dragging the brakes she did not run lean running on the accelerator pump. Only when out on the open road at a steady speed did the carb lean out.

The less the throttle moved the quicker it leaned out. If the throttle was always moving as in stop and sit traffic, she ran like a regular carb. Once leaned out, one had to move the throttle a few times in anticipation of a passing maneuver to get the crummy slow analog computer to reconfigure timing and mixture so the car would respond. Other wise it would kind of hesitate, think it over, and then go. Once that thing decided you wanted to play it was ready.

In those days I kept the throttle moving unless there was no traffic and nothing to pass, then she would lean out and give 19 - 20 mpg.

Back then I readily warmed to new technology, now, not so much, particulary the gaggle of expensive electrinic entertainment crap cars are filled with these days. I nixed upgrade sound system, gps, tv, and sun roof in my 300. Who needs that junk.

I did go with side air bags, xenon projector moose illuminating head lights, and satellite radio due to living in radio free boondocks.

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.
82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp
07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

Good call on the Xenon headlamps. They're much better engineered than the halogen junk Chrysler installs as standard equipment. Too bad no headlamp self-levelling like on the European model, though; that makes them much better.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

No self leveling headlamps in US probably dictated by government fiat. But, self leveling suspension to keep headlights true is a real cheep way around this restriction.

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.
82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp
07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC