What's this Bluesmobile replica?
Discussion
The enquiry is complete
The vehicle details for ARP 608J are:
Date of Liability 01 11 2011
Date of First Registration 01 04 1978
Year of Manufacture 1971
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 5000CC
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type Petrol
Export Marker Not Applicable
Vehicle Status Licence Not Due
Vehicle Colour BLUE
Vehicle Type Approval
That would I guess make it a 318.
The vehicle details for ARP 608J are:
Date of Liability 01 11 2011
Date of First Registration 01 04 1978
Year of Manufacture 1971
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 5000CC
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type Petrol
Export Marker Not Applicable
Vehicle Status Licence Not Due
Vehicle Colour BLUE
Vehicle Type Approval
That would I guess make it a 318.
V88Dicky said:
5 litre equates to 305 cu in, if my calcliashuns are correct 
From wiki:wikip said:
307
A 307 cu in (5.0 L) was produced from 1968 through 1973. Engine bore was 3.875 inches (98.4 mm) with a 3.25-inch (82.6 mm) stroke.
The 307—essentially a 283 block with the longer-stroke 327 crankshaft—replaced the 283 in Chevrolet cars in 1968 and produced 200 hp (149 kW) SAE gross at 4600 rpm and 300 lb·ft (407 N·m) of torque at 2400 rpm. Later versions produced just 115 hp (86 kW) SAE net. Chevrolet didn't produce a high-performance version of the engine, but did produce for Outboard Marine Corporation, a high-performance marinized 307, rated at 235 hp (175 kW) and 245 hp (183 kW) SAE gross, depending on year, that shipped with the Corvette/Z-28's cast aluminum valve covers and Rochester QuadraJet carb. Chevy also built other versions of the OMC 307 rated at 210 hp (157 kW), 215 hp (160 kW) and 225 hp (168 kW) SAE gross.[/img]
5.0 litres, 115bhp !
A 307 cu in (5.0 L) was produced from 1968 through 1973. Engine bore was 3.875 inches (98.4 mm) with a 3.25-inch (82.6 mm) stroke.
The 307—essentially a 283 block with the longer-stroke 327 crankshaft—replaced the 283 in Chevrolet cars in 1968 and produced 200 hp (149 kW) SAE gross at 4600 rpm and 300 lb·ft (407 N·m) of torque at 2400 rpm. Later versions produced just 115 hp (86 kW) SAE net. Chevrolet didn't produce a high-performance version of the engine, but did produce for Outboard Marine Corporation, a high-performance marinized 307, rated at 235 hp (175 kW) and 245 hp (183 kW) SAE gross, depending on year, that shipped with the Corvette/Z-28's cast aluminum valve covers and Rochester QuadraJet carb. Chevy also built other versions of the OMC 307 rated at 210 hp (157 kW), 215 hp (160 kW) and 225 hp (168 kW) SAE gross.[/img]
5.0 litres, 115bhp !
DanielJames said:
V88Dicky said:
5 litre equates to 305 cu in, if my calcliashuns are correct
From wiki:wikip said:
307
A 307 cu in (5.0 L) was produced from 1968 through 1973. Engine bore was 3.875 inches (98.4 mm) with a 3.25-inch (82.6 mm) stroke.
The 307—essentially a 283 block with the longer-stroke 327 crankshaft—replaced the 283 in Chevrolet cars in 1968 and produced 200 hp (149 kW) SAE gross at 4600 rpm and 300 lb·ft (407 N·m) of torque at 2400 rpm. Later versions produced just 115 hp (86 kW) SAE net. Chevrolet didn't produce a high-performance version of the engine, but did produce for Outboard Marine Corporation, a high-performance marinized 307, rated at 235 hp (175 kW) and 245 hp (183 kW) SAE gross, depending on year, that shipped with the Corvette/Z-28's cast aluminum valve covers and Rochester QuadraJet carb. Chevy also built other versions of the OMC 307 rated at 210 hp (157 kW), 215 hp (160 kW) and 225 hp (168 kW) SAE gross.[/img]
5.0 litres, 115bhp !
Close enough. I just used the template of 427 ci = 7.0 LA 307 cu in (5.0 L) was produced from 1968 through 1973. Engine bore was 3.875 inches (98.4 mm) with a 3.25-inch (82.6 mm) stroke.
The 307—essentially a 283 block with the longer-stroke 327 crankshaft—replaced the 283 in Chevrolet cars in 1968 and produced 200 hp (149 kW) SAE gross at 4600 rpm and 300 lb·ft (407 N·m) of torque at 2400 rpm. Later versions produced just 115 hp (86 kW) SAE net. Chevrolet didn't produce a high-performance version of the engine, but did produce for Outboard Marine Corporation, a high-performance marinized 307, rated at 235 hp (175 kW) and 245 hp (183 kW) SAE gross, depending on year, that shipped with the Corvette/Z-28's cast aluminum valve covers and Rochester QuadraJet carb. Chevy also built other versions of the OMC 307 rated at 210 hp (157 kW), 215 hp (160 kW) and 225 hp (168 kW) SAE gross.[/img]
5.0 litres, 115bhp !
I like the Americans' "Tell it like it is" reporting:
http://jalopnik.com/5835418/chevy-poops-on-john-be...
http://jalopnik.com/5835418/chevy-poops-on-john-be...
LuS1fer said:
I like the Americans' "Tell it like it is" reporting:
http://jalopnik.com/5835418/chevy-poops-on-john-be...
Christ, that's awful.http://jalopnik.com/5835418/chevy-poops-on-john-be...
J4CKO said:
Stop geeking out, its just cool, end of !
It isn't cool though, because it's wrong
Standard American cars usually came with 5 plus litre engines, they werent considered huge, typical American engineering, robust, simple, to the point and effective.
I remember driving some old Land Yacht seventies thing as a 20 year old on a Summer camp in Rhode Island (think Beaver Falls but with less sex, for me anyway), think the car was one of these,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Thunderbird_%28s...
Utterly gutless, at home I had a Mk1 Golf GTI 1600 and despite nearly five litres it was slow and was totally devoid of feedback, it did the screeching tyres thing at a hint of the wheel being turned at walking pace and had a dispenser to fire hubcaps every time, it lolloped, rolled, bounced and flopped if you tried to have fun, I tried a doughnut and it didnt want to play either, the yanks couldnt understand what I was trying to do but if you kicked back and relaxed, stuck the air con on (real novelty to me in 1990, I thought they were mad closing windows on a hot day) put a bit of JJ Cale on the tape deck and let it waft you along it was a beguiling way to get around, complete antithesis to a Golf GTI driven everywhere bouncing off the rev limiter.
They are built to do a job and they do it well if you dont want to "hoon" or conserve fuel, fuel was cheap and plentiful then, so its perhaps why do they only get such low outputs, more why do we focus so much on huge specific outputs and miss out on all that lovely torque.
I remember driving some old Land Yacht seventies thing as a 20 year old on a Summer camp in Rhode Island (think Beaver Falls but with less sex, for me anyway), think the car was one of these,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Thunderbird_%28s...
Utterly gutless, at home I had a Mk1 Golf GTI 1600 and despite nearly five litres it was slow and was totally devoid of feedback, it did the screeching tyres thing at a hint of the wheel being turned at walking pace and had a dispenser to fire hubcaps every time, it lolloped, rolled, bounced and flopped if you tried to have fun, I tried a doughnut and it didnt want to play either, the yanks couldnt understand what I was trying to do but if you kicked back and relaxed, stuck the air con on (real novelty to me in 1990, I thought they were mad closing windows on a hot day) put a bit of JJ Cale on the tape deck and let it waft you along it was a beguiling way to get around, complete antithesis to a Golf GTI driven everywhere bouncing off the rev limiter.
They are built to do a job and they do it well if you dont want to "hoon" or conserve fuel, fuel was cheap and plentiful then, so its perhaps why do they only get such low outputs, more why do we focus so much on huge specific outputs and miss out on all that lovely torque.
james_tigerwoods said:
Ok - idiot question.
How is it that the A-merry-cans managed to get such low power from such mahoosive engines?
They also managed to get mahoosive power from mahoosive engines.How is it that the A-merry-cans managed to get such low power from such mahoosive engines?
These engines came from an era when they had to run low compression, unleaded fuel, air conditioning and pass draconian California emissions tests with full exhaust gas recirculation and catalysts at a time when the UK demanded high compression, leaded fuel and a pipe from the engine to the back of the car. Cars here at that time would also be no more economical and my 1978 Alfetta 122hp 2.0 returned an average of 22mpg which was perfectly normal back then. Bear in mind that the 70s Capri 3.0 V6 only made 136hp and there were plenty of European cars that were similarly strangled like Vauxhall's 3.3 used in the Viscount and Ventora which barely made 100hp.
If they couldn't get the power, they certainly nailed the effortless wafting that so many these days suddenly think is cool and in a countrty where 100 mile trips are perfectly normal on straight roads, why would you want anything else?
If anything, it was the Europeans who were way behind the curve in terms of safety and emissions.
B Huey said:
LuS1fer said:
If anything, it was the Europeans who were way behind the curve in terms of safety and emissions.
The Americans have been way behind the curve style wise since the mid seventies.Where did it all go wrong?
You may find that many European cars owe their existence to American buyers and American tastes and in many cases, American stylists.
There are a whole tonnage of European designs and styles that are utter crap in my opinion being either ugly or utterly bland or "one style fits all".
In fact, as I even type that, I'm struggling to think of any new European design of late that has any great merit at all.
Audi, BMW, Citroen, Peugeot, Volvo, Saab...nope.
LuS1fer said:
In your opinion, maybe.
You may find that many European cars owe their existence to American buyers and American tastes and in many cases, American stylists.
There are a whole tonnage of European designs and styles that are utter crap in my opinion being either ugly or utterly bland or "one style fits all".
In fact, as I even type that, I'm struggling to think of any new European design of late that has any great merit at all.
Audi, BMW, Citroen, Peugeot, Volvo, Saab...nope.
Apart from a few niche coupes, can you name an American car with a design of any great merit from the last 35 years?You may find that many European cars owe their existence to American buyers and American tastes and in many cases, American stylists.
There are a whole tonnage of European designs and styles that are utter crap in my opinion being either ugly or utterly bland or "one style fits all".
In fact, as I even type that, I'm struggling to think of any new European design of late that has any great merit at all.
Audi, BMW, Citroen, Peugeot, Volvo, Saab...nope.
B Huey said:
Apart from a few niche coupes, can you name an American car with a design of any great merit from the last 35 years?
Their "niche coupes" are million sellers though - Corvette, Challenger, Mustang, Camaro and probably bought by the same demographic that would buy 3 series here - they like their coupes as the Hyundai Genesis and Accord Coupe show.Chrysler 300, Cadillac CTS are two for starters. You may not like the mainstream models but they are no worse nor better than many mainstream boring stuff here.
What European ones are you proposing that have been launched to universal acclaim (ignoring the 100k plus "designer" strata)
LuS1fer said:
Their "niche coupes" are million sellers though - Corvette, Challenger, Mustang, Camaro and probably bought by the same demographic that would buy 3 series here - they like their coupes as the Hyundai Genesis and Accord Coupe show.
Chrysler 300, Cadillac CTS are two for starters. You may not like the mainstream models but they are no worse nor better than many mainstream boring stuff here.
What European ones are you proposing that have been launched to universal acclaim (ignoring the 100k plus "designer" strata)
Things may be improving, but American cars have been generally gash for a long time.Chrysler 300, Cadillac CTS are two for starters. You may not like the mainstream models but they are no worse nor better than many mainstream boring stuff here.
What European ones are you proposing that have been launched to universal acclaim (ignoring the 100k plus "designer" strata)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff