The Hemi Engine Sucks

[frestkd]

DOHC engines are Hemis

 

[The359]

OK, so you admit that there are plenty of other tests out there for acceleration, but you don't actually bother to check them out, you just assume that because the Ram and Durango were slower compared to their comparitve vehicles that they are going to be crap at every other test?

Also, I'd like to see some weight numbers.

 

[Gil]

Dudes,
For the most part Dodge is marketing to those of us who grew up when Hemi's ruled the street.
And to the generation whose dads told them stories about Hemis, and owning or getting owned by them.
Doug, in the real world torque is important. Horsepower is too.
But a vehicle geared for acceleration will always beat a car geared for towing or economy, given similar vehicle weight and engine displacement.
Don't moan about not wanting to hear about torque.

But I do like the discourse you've opened about the whole thing.

 

[boombexus]

Originally posted by The359
Also, I'd like to see some weight numbers.

Durango with HEMI Magnum: 5079 lbs.

Lexus GX: 4740 lbs.

Ford Explorer: 4304 lbs.

GMC Envoy XL: 4968 lbs.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by frestkd
DOHC engines are Hemis

Care to enlighten us a little further?

 

[Darin]

Originally posted by frestkd
DOHC engines are Hemis

Now i'm interested. Explain.

 

[The359]

Originally posted by boombexus
Durango with HEMI Magnum: 5079 lbs.

Lexus GX: 4740 lbs.

Ford Explorer: 4304 lbs.

GMC Envoy XL: 4968 lbs.

Ah, I see...that makes quite a bit of difference in 0 - 60 times...

Are the the Hemis in Rams and Durangos available with DOD, just out of curiosity?

On an unrelated note, I imagine Dodge is trying to out economize the competition while out horsepowering them at the same time, which would mean slightly slower 0 - 60 times for better fuel economy.

 

[LoudMusic]

Originally posted by M5Power
The current Dodge Durango does 0-60 in 8.2 seconds with its 330-horsepower 5.7L Hemi engine.

The current Ford Explorer does 0-60 in 8.4 seconds with its 239-horsepower 4.6L non-Hemi engine.

The current Lexus GX470 does 0-60 in 7.7 seconds with its 235-horspower 4.7L non-Hemi engine.

The current GMC Envoy XL does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds with its 290-horsepower 5.3L non-Hemi engine.

MEANWHILE

The current Dodge Ram does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds with its 345-horsepower 5.7L Hemi engine.

The current Nissan Titan does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds with its 305-horsepower 5.6L non-Hemi engine.

The current Ford F-150 does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds with its 300-horsepower 5.4L non-Hemi engine.

The current Chevrolet Silverado does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds with its 295-horsepower 5.3L non-Hemi engine.

So - that thing got a Hemi? WHO CARES? It's no better. And if you people bring up torque even one time in this thread I'll feed you to a hippo. It's about acceleration, not torque: all the torque in the world can't save you from getting your ass kicked in a straight line. "Oh yeah, I have more pound-feet"? How about "oh yeah, I'm a second quicker to sixty"? Take your pound-feet and shove it.

That's my point and I hope you memorize it.

Why the **** are you drag racing SUVs?

 

[Joey D]

Why not I drag race mine all the time.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Doug, your analysis is flawed because there are so many other variables at work.

Let's talk about specific outputs, i.e. Horsepower per litre.

 

[retsmah]

There's a Hemi engine, as far as I know most DOHC engines have combustion chambers that are similar to that. I'm not an engine expert though.

 

[///M-Spec]

I think a better benchmark is horsepower vs...

weight of the engine
external dimensions
cost to build
milage
driveability

I think horsepower/liter is a somewhat overated way to look at efficiency. A lot of people look at something like an LS1 and presume its a huge motor just because it displaces 5.7 liters. In fact, it is physically a pretty small and light engine when you compare it to a more complex overhead quad cam designs from Japan or Europe. There is an excellent article in the recent Car and Driver about it, in fact.


M

 

[skip0110]

Originally posted by ///M-Spec
I think a better benchmark is horsepower vs...

weight of the engine
external dimensions
cost to build
milage
driveability

I think horsepower/liter is a somewhat overated way to look at efficiency. A lot of people look at something like an LS1 and presume its a huge motor just because it displaces 5.7 liters. In fact, it is physically a pretty small and light engine when you compare it to a more complex overhead quad cam designs from Japan or Europe. There is an excellent article in the recent Car and Driver about it, in fact.


M

Right on the money. I could not agree more. Also, you miught want to throw efficiency and reliablity/ease of maintenenace into the mix.

Originally posted by retsmah

There's a Hemi engine, as far as I know most DOHC engines have combustion chambers that are similar to that. I'm not an engine expert though.

True, but compare the depth of these DOHC Cobra heads to the depth of the real hemi heads I posted before.

The original hemi really did have combusiton chambers that were almost a full half of a sphere. But for the reasons that I cited before, they really werent that good at high RPM's, nor did they have a very efficient burn (means low gas milage and poor emissions). Today a rounded (but not hemispherical) combustion chamber is beneficial to put the sparkplug in the middle and minimize valve shrouding. Actually, the hemi idea came up long before the musclecar era. Do a web search for "early hemi." These were much lower displacement, and more comaparable to the new hemi.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by boombexus
No. You go buy the GMC Envoy XL. After looking at it, it's probably the best in the bunch considering acceleration, towing and payload capabilities.

You're going to hate me for saying this, but in the seventy-vehicle "large SUV" class, the Durango actually occupies my top four spots: Limited 8-passenger 5.7 (1), SLT 8-passenger 5.7 (2), Limited 5-passenger 5.7 (3), and SLT 5-passenger 5.7 (4). Following that is the Suburban LS 2500, Trailblazer LT EXT 5.3, Pathfinder Armada LE, and then - tied with the Armada - the Envoy XL SLT 5.3.

Meanwhile in the 61-vehicle "premium SUV" class, the Durango Limited 5.7 takes the top spot there, followed by the Axiom XS, Envoy XL SLT 5.3, Murano SL, Grand Cherokee Limited 4.7 High-Output, and Rainier CXL 5.3.

The Durango 5.7 was even one of the top finalists for my car of the year - it came down to the Vue V6 (which won), the 350Z Roadster, and the Dodge.

So this is all moot because I'm actually one of the Hemi Durango's biggest fans.

By the way, Lexus rates the 0-60 time of it's GX model as 8.5 seconds. That's almost a full second off the time you posted above. I've also seen 0-60 times for the Durango in the 7's. What gives?

I'm using ConsumerGuide, which I believe to be the most accurate automobile magazine/guide/book ever. Anyone's opinion but theirs makes little difference to me.

Also, what's the big difference between 8.2 seconds and 7.8 second 0-60 times? It's such a miniscule amount of time and even more redundant when comparing SUV's.

It's still time, and considering I'm trying to prove the Hemi sucks I'd be a fool not to bring it up.

Don't moan about not wanting to hear about torque.

But it doesn't make any difference.

But I do like the discourse you've opened about the whole thing.

So do I! Who says GTP's gone soft?!

 

[5LiterRiceEater]

ok, first of all, you cant compare the old Hemi to the new Hemi. theres just no way it would be fair. its all in the emissions standards why they suck so much anyways, dodge just sucks in general. except maybe the viper and that new bike with the 500hp viper motor!

 

[boombexus]

Originally posted by M5Power


You're going to hate me for saying this, but in the seventy-vehicle "large SUV" class, the Durango actually occupies my top four spots: Limited 8-passenger 5.7 (1), SLT 8-passenger 5.7 (2), Limited 5-passenger 5.7 (3), and SLT 5-passenger 5.7 (4). Following that is the Suburban LS 2500, Trailblazer LT EXT 5.3, Pathfinder Armada LE, and then - tied with the Armada - the Envoy XL SLT 5.3.

Meanwhile in the 61-vehicle "premium SUV" class, the Durango Limited 5.7 takes the top spot there, followed by the Axiom XS, Envoy XL SLT 5.3, Murano SL, Grand Cherokee Limited 4.7 High-Output, and Rainier CXL 5.3.

The Durango 5.7 was even one of the top finalists for my car of the year - it came down to the Vue V6 (which won), the 350Z Roadster, and the Dodge.

So this is all moot because I'm actually one of the Hemi Durango's biggest fans.[/b]

So, the, HEMI does indeed, not suck?

Well, after my research of it, my opinion still stands and that is the HEMI does not suck and you are loony.

I'm using ConsumerGuide, which I believe to be the most accurate automobile magazine/guide/book ever. Anyone's opinion but theirs makes little difference to me.

Is that a members only site? Can you link me please?

It's still time, and considering I'm trying to prove the Hemi sucks I'd be a fool not to bring it up.

Why do you put so much weight on 0-60 times? Elaborate please. I'm genuinely interested in knowing.


The Saturn VUE has grown on me quite a bit. But I would still get a Chevy Trailblazer over anything else in it's class. But not the Chevy Trailblazer with the extended wheelbase. That just throws off the looks of the entire vehicle.

 

[sliderulz]

1971 Hemi 265 Six Pack
4.3 litre inline six with hemi head (Australian Charger R/T E49) 301hp. Not bad for a six!

 

[Driftster]

Ok..isn't the "basis" of a hemi engine pretty much the same as any other DOHC engine..just with 2 spark plugs per cylinder?.......sooo.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Driftster
Ok..isn't the "basis" of a hemi engine pretty much the same as any other DOHC engine..just with 2 spark plugs per cylinder?.......sooo.

No, not at all. The shape of the combustion chamber is (at least theoretically) totally different. The number of cams has nothing to do with it. Nothing about the two-cam head design requires a hemispherical (or even approximately hemi) combustion chamber.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by boombexus

Well, after my research of it, my opinion still stands and that is the HEMI does not suck and you are loony.

I agree with that mostly.

Is that a members only site? Can you link me please?

I don't know what the website is, but I'd be willing to bet anything it's consumerguide.com.

Why do you put so much weight on 0-60 times? Elaborate please. I'm genuinely interested in knowing.

Best measure of acceleration known to man.

The Saturn VUE has grown on me quite a bit. But I would still get a Chevy Trailblazer over anything else in it's class. But not the Chevy Trailblazer with the extended wheelbase. That just throws off the looks of the entire vehicle.

Agreed. In my opinion, the Chevrolet Trailblazer EXT is the worst example of design espionage ever. Ford put a third row of seats in the 2002 Explorer, but the third row was absent from the 2002 Trailblazer - so Chevrolet's brilliant idea to stay with Ford? Don't move the second-row up: create an entirely new vehicle with a longer wheelbase to solve the problem. As if they had no idea Ford was going to put in a third row. And it wouldn't even be a damn problem if Chevrolet had styled it properly! Jeeze!!!

To me, Vue V6 is a compact SUV despite its length (181.6" makes it 0.3" longer than the Grand Cherokee, but I can't myself to call the Vue a midsize or the Grand Cherokee a compact). My favourite midsize SUVs (top ten percent of a class of 52) are, in order, the Nissan Murano SL, Isuzu Axiom XS, Isuzu Rodeo S 3.5 and Chrysler Pacifica AWD (tie), Chevrolet Trailblazer LT, and Nissan Pathfinder SE.

 

[milefile]

Doug check your PM's.

 

[skip0110]

Originally posted by M5Power
Agreed. In my opinion, the Chevrolet Trailblazer EXT is the worst example of design espionage ever. Ford put a third row of seats in the 2002 Explorer, but the third row was absent from the 2002 Trailblazer - so Chevrolet's brilliant idea to stay with Ford? Don't move the second-row up: create an entirely new vehicle with a longer wheelbase to solve the problem. As if they had no idea Ford was going to put in a third row. And it wouldn't even be a damn problem if Chevrolet had styled it properly! Jeeze!!!

To me, Vue V6 is a compact SUV despite its length (181.6" makes it 0.3" longer than the Grand Cherokee, but I can't myself to call the Vue a midsize or the Grand Cherokee a compact). My favourite midsize SUVs (top ten percent of a class of 52) are, in order, the Nissan Murano SL, Isuzu Axiom XS, Isuzu Rodeo S 3.5 and Chrysler Pacifica AWD (tie), Chevrolet Trailblazer LT, and Nissan Pathfinder SE. [/B]

I cant see the purpose of the Trailblazer EXT--its wheelbase is LONGER than that of the Tahoe (128.9" EXT vs. 116.0" Tahoe). The EXT comes with a V8, so does the Tahoe. Arent these SUVs supposed to be in different classes? I fail to see the differentialtion. Chevy is offering the same thing twice, with twice the expense, on two platforms. They should have sent everybody looking to get a third row to the Taho to begin with.

I like the Axion too, no one else seems to, but nice to see it on your list. A little surprised to see the Pacifica there, a lot of people like it, but to me it is just a slightly glorified AWD Town & Country without the minivan stigma. Quite expensive fo what it is. (Not disagreeing here, I know your lists are well thought out..., just stating my point of view)

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by skip0110
They should have sent everybody looking to get a third row to the Taho to begin with.

Can't do that - that drives away people with Explorer/Highlander money who want three rows. But of course your point is well-take on this end - the ultimate irony is that I let the Trailblazer EXT have a go in the large SUV category and it came out above the Tahoe in all cases. Tahoe's probably a better status symbol and entry and exit are certainly better - but it's even the same 5.3-liter V8 engine. There's no sense in getting a Tahoe.

I like the Axiom too, no one else seems to,

Axiom now puts out 250hp and the XS has a spec list that closely rivals the Lexus RX330. Of course quality's nowhere near it, but neither is price - Axiom is clearly one of the best cars in both the midsize and the premium segment.

but to me it is just a slightly glorified AWD Town & Country without the minivan stigma. Quite expensive fo what it is. (Not disagreeing here, I know your lists are well thought out..., just stating my point of view)

I disagree with that - I think Chrysler took everything they knew from the Town & Country and maybe some things they knew about making the PT Cruiser and combined the two. It's got somewhat decent cargo room and fair fuel economy, but its main attributes, to me, are no-frills option pricing (AWD has no big packages and no stupid requirements like a power driver's seat when you get a sunroof), a very refined 250-horsepower V6, standard third-row seating, and standard curtain side airbags for a very decent $32300. For that price a few more things ought to be standard (heated leather, 6-CD) but because of Chrysler's option pricing, they're cheap.

Doug check your PM's.

Done.

 

[locketine]

Originally posted by ///M-Spec
I think a better benchmark is horsepower vs...

weight of the engine
external dimensions
cost to build
milage
driveability

M

I don't see how mileage is ne different than a displacement to power figure. and how would u rate drivability? response time?

 

[sliderulz]

www.fastlane.com.au/Features/Charger_NZ_USA.htm

Hemi Forever

Road tests of the era recorded quarter mile times of between 14.1 and 14.5 seconds. 0-100 mph (160 kph) in 14.1 seconds was the norm. This compares to times of between 15.2 and 15.6 for the next quickest accelerating Australian muscle car, the mighty XY GTHO Falcon (V8 351)

The HEMI engine is an amazing piece of engineering.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by locketine
I don't see how mileage is ne different than a displacement to power figure. and how would u rate drivability? response time?

Consider this: an LS1 powered C5 gets better gas milage than the S54 powered M3. The LS1 is 5.7 liters, the S54 is 3.2. The LS1 makes ~17 more horsepower.

C5 Coupe 19/28 EPA mpg
M3 Coupe 16/24 EPA mpg

Granted, the C5 weighs about 250 lbs. less, but it is hardly a gas sucking neanderthal some people make it out to be.

Drivablity is a partially a subjective assessment. Low RPM performance, linear power delivery all plays into driveability. Race cams make high RPM power, but you can barely drive one in traffic.


M

 

[Altar000Altar]

Where did those sucky numbers for the Ram come up????

Heres a motor trend article comparing the Chevy SS to the Hemi Ram. Heres the Ram. The original post most likely took the worst times he could find.

The 0-60 time is 6.8 seconds
the 1/4 mile is 15.11

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/pickup/112_0310_trux/index5.html

As for the Hemi design itself, it is not a true Hemi. The sides are partially filled in. But it is more so than any other engine avalible for passanger cars on the road. Most 4v designs are penthouse, which are good designs but do not have the same swirl effect as the Hemi, and it is nearly impossible to incorperate a 4v hemi for a consumer vehicle. (Lots of hightech engineering would have to go into it.)

As for the Hemi E49, beautiful engine. I was very close to importing one to the states to install into my Duster. I found a great deal on the new hemi instead. If anyone wants a Hot Hemi 265 the plce to go is

http://www.hemiperformance.com.au/

370 Hp out of a N/A six cylinder engine. You are approaching RUF territory.

 

[1X83Z]

I said in this thread that I got every time from the same source, using four-wheel drive versions of each vehicle in question.

Now - had you read this, it'd be clear that your Motor Trend statistics have no place here, since they used the rear-drive Ram, which doesn't have a 4WD system that must be disengaged on pavement, meaning it's just dead weight.

Also, though I didn't state this, I was comparing quad cab versions of each vehicle, while Motor Trend isn't even using an extended cab as their test mule.

FURTHERMORE, you should be aware that Motor Trend, Car & Driver, and Road & Track are enthusiast magazines and often quote performance numbers that are better than the truth. In October 2001, Car & Driver (R&T? Not like it makes a difference) tested a 2002 Subaru Impreza WRX and said it did 0-60 in 5.4 seconds. Since this beat Subaru's own rating (by 0.2 seconds, even), Subaru has been using this in their ads ever since, despite the car having gone through a slight redesign and nearly three calendar years since the article came out.

But how many cars do you think Subaru sold based on that acceleration time? It was one of the first American drives of the WRX. And since the WRX's success eventually brought the WRX STi and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution to this country, I bet performance-loving Car & Driver was pretty satistfied. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they got the first American drive of the STi...

 

[Altar000Altar]

Originally posted by M5Power
I said in this thread that I got every time from the same source, using four-wheel drive versions of each vehicle in question.

Now - had you read this, it'd be clear that your Motor Trend statistics have no place here, since they used the rear-drive Ram, which doesn't have a 4WD system that must be disengaged on pavement, meaning it's just dead weight.

Also, though I didn't state this, I was comparing quad cab versions of each vehicle, while Motor Trend isn't even using an extended cab as their test mule.

FURTHERMORE, you should be aware that Motor Trend, Car & Driver, and Road & Track are enthusiast magazines and often quote performance numbers that are better than the truth. In October 2001, Car & Driver (R&T? Not like it makes a difference) tested a 2002 Subaru Impreza WRX and said it did 0-60 in 5.4 seconds. Since this beat Subaru's own rating (by 0.2 seconds, even), Subaru has been using this in their ads ever since, despite the car having gone through a slight redesign and nearly three calendar years since the article came out.

But how many cars do you think Subaru sold based on that acceleration time? It was one of the first American drives of the WRX. And since the WRX's success eventually brought the WRX STi and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution to this country, I bet performance-loving Car & Driver was pretty satistfied. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they got the first American drive of the STi...

OK, why is it not relevant!! You originally state the Hemi sucks, yet it drives the fastest standard production trucks in the industry (Excluding special edition like the Lightning, SS, SRT10). The engine itself IS the most powerful standard truck engine on the market. (Again excluding the special editions). I know, other engines do have more torque, but as far as HP is concerned the hemi takes it.

To further my point, the Engine itself (not the vehicle it is based around) has been on Wards top ten engines for 2 years in a row now, beating out the newer Nissan Endurance and the Ford Triton this year.

http://subscribers.wardsauto.com/mi...d=29125&pageid=5991&magazineid=1004&siteid=26

The fact of the matter remains that engines do help sell cars. The RX8 biggest selling point is its rotary engine which offers very little advantage over there piston counterparts. (They are less reliable, eat more fuel, do not weigh that much less that your standard piston engine) Or take Hondas VTEC, another gimmick to sell engines. (Granted, honda was the first to incorperate timing and lift being electronically controlled, but the first vvt production engine was a Cadillac in 1903, it was all manual back then).

Have you done any research on the Hemi besides 0-60 times? Here is a great article about the Hemi by David Vizard. (He has published many books about engine tuning, and is very respected in his field)

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0403phr_hemi/

Also the the quality manager for the engine was a former Toyota quality manager, and he has stated this engine has been put through more than any other engine that he has tested.

So why shouldn't Dodge brag about a great engine? As you pointed out, yes there 4wd is slower, but it by no means has anything to do with then engine itself. The engine is a very good engine.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Altar000Altar
OK, why is it not relevant!! You originally state the Hemi sucks, yet it drives the fastest standard production trucks in the industry (Excluding special edition like the Lightning, SS, SRT10).

No it doesn't. Go see my 0-60 times mentioned originally.

NO-ONE BUYS TWO-WHEEL DRIVE SHORT BED, SHORT CAB LARGE PICKUP TRUCKS. Not a single person has ever done this or will do this. Therefore comparing those trucks - which the manufacturers only offer to claim low base price (Toyota and Nissan don't even bother with MAKING them) is irrelevant.

The engine itself IS the most powerful standard truck engine on the market. (Again excluding the special editions). I know, other engines do have more torque, but as far as HP is concerned the hemi takes it.

True - but it's NOT the quickest, so what difference does it make whether it's the most powerful?

So why shouldn't Dodge brag about a great engine? As you pointed out, yes there 4wd is slower, but it by no means has anything to do with then engine itself. The engine is a very good engine.

If I'm buying a pickup based on engine, and I could get QUICKER trucks, why would I go for the slower one because it's a 'better' engine. What the hell does that even mean? Better engineering? If I wanted engineering, I'd stay clear of pickup trucks altogether.