Better Torque From A 318

-
When he's ready I'll tell all about a 318 I know with ported 318 head with stock size valves a small hydraulic cam 218 @ 0.050 that runs 1.6 60fts with 3.23 rear gears 225 street tyres. its a full bodied A body sedan that weighs at least 3400 LBS and runs mid 12's......
Can't wait to see the info for this mid 12 second 318.
 
One way to skin the cat is with information within….

IMG_1649.jpeg
 
Without reading the entire thread (bottom of page 2)...

I have a question for the OP-

When was the last time you drove a 318 powered car or truck?

How about in an A body?

The reason I ask is-

My stock 318 2 barrel with only dual exhaust as a mod in my 3700 pound B body with 2.76 gears will spin the tire for about 50-75 feet.
No problem getting up to speed or merging into 75-80 MPH interstate traffic, contrary to what I've seen posted here a few times.

Hard to improve on something you don't have.
 
Without reading the entire thread (bottom of page 2)...

I have a question for the OP-

When was the last time you drove a 318 powered car or truck?

How about in an A body?

The reason I ask is-

My stock 318 2 barrel with only dual exhaust as a mod in my 3700 pound B body with 2.76 gears will spin the tire for about 50-75 feet.
No problem getting up to speed or merging into 75-80 MPH interstate traffic, contrary to what I've seen posted here a few times.

Hard to improve on something you don't have.
Go back to the very beginning and you'll see that I was merely asking a question and I acknowledged that I don't have a car at this time. What do you have against doing some research on something before hand? FYI I've had 3 318's, they were all in 1/2 ton 2 wheel drive. The '89 ran the best. The '67 & the '98 both were not only dog's but gas hogs as well.
 
Nothing against research.

See my 318 cam thread posts.

I do agree there is certainly a wide variance in consistency with respect to seat of the pants power and torque from 318 engines.
 
Go back to the very beginning and you'll see that I was merely asking a question and I acknowledged that I don't have a car at this time. What do you have against doing some research on something before hand? FYI I've had 3 318's, they were all in 1/2 ton 2 wheel drive. The '89 ran the best. The '67 & the '98 both were not only dog's but gas hogs as well.
Asking questions is how you learn.
 
@Dan the man You called some other rides pigs. What kind of mileage were they getting?
I've had a few slant 6's over the years and they got decent mileage. My 1972 gremlin x with a 258 6 cylinder got as good as mileage as my 1974 duster with a 225 and the gremlin would leave the duster behind every time
 
True, mileage masters they’re not known to be.
There’s not much to do to help the ‘98, the ‘89 could have used some hot rod mods.

In my ‘79 Dodge Magnum that had a LA 360/904/2.76 gears, I was able to get 20 mpg Hwy. and around town, it was 16/17.
 
True, though questioning the questioner over and over hoping they suddenly have a light build turn on in there head isn't helpful ether.
Yes it does. It forces the lazy to have to think. Concepts are hard for some people to grasp but once you grasp them they lay the foundation for future understanding.

There's even a way you can tell when you have a SSR issue in particular a fuel separation issue and how it manifests itself but since people can't grasp the concept I won't waste my time.
 
Yes it does. It forces the lazy to have to think. Concepts are hard for some people to grasp but once you grasp them they lay the foundation for future understanding.

There's even a way you can tell when you have a SSR issue in particular a fuel separation issue and how it manifests itself but since people can't grasp the concept I won't waste my time.
Glad that I'm not lazy.
 
Once I get my car, I just want it to run decent I'm not looking for lots of power just a fun car
 
The best my 89 & 98 got was around 14 on the highway. I don't remember what the 67 was getting. Kinda sad, but after all mopars are not known for mileage

You must not know how to tune or drive. Almost any MOPAR will beat any Chevy or Ford for highway mpg.
 
Last edited:
Yes it does. It forces the lazy to have to think. Concepts are hard for some people to grasp but once you grasp them they lay the foundation for future understanding.

There's even a way you can tell when you have a SSR issue in particular a fuel separation issue and how it manifests itself but since people can't grasp the concept I won't waste my time.
But when people are asking for help and you yourself said ask questions and do your homework, there asking the question and that’s doing some homework.

If they could grasp the concept, they would not continue to ask over and over again and again.

Consider yourself a bad teacher for not helping. Just fruitlessly leading and frustrating a bunch of people. Ether answer the question or don’t.
 
If they could grasp the concept, they would not continue to ask over and over again and again.
I answered the question. He can't grasp it, not my problem.

He then went on to state:

Even the pros don't agree, I was reading about all this on some engine forum and Eric, Chad and Darin among others arguing the validity of all this.
Figured it out yet? He wants a concrete answer to a question guys like Darin and Chad disagree on. Like I alluded to earlier do you think a number on a flow bench will dictate what the fuel will do when its time to get round the SSR and into the cylinder? Do you magically believe that the FPS you target on a flow bench is what the engine will create?

Sorry to the OP for getting the thread off track.
 
I can do both. Mopars are simply not known for mileage

By who, not by me. Nor my friends either. All my cars were great highway mpg for what they were. 170 around 30 mpg, 273 around 25 mpg, 340 about 20 mpg, 383 about 18 mpg. All trucks stink for mpg, too much frontal area and the tailgate acts as a parachute besides. Try driving with the tailgate down, instant +2 mpg.
 
Figured it out yet? He wants a concrete answer to a question

All I'm looking for what Chad meant, that's all. I may dismiss it all afterwards or incorporate all or part of it into my thinking or may lay dormant until some other info chimes with it. I don't take all this **** as gospel obviously no one has all this **** figured out and there's many way to get there, less ways when approaching max effort.

It just seemed like Chad had a general rule of thumb for fps for different applications, that's what he seems base everything on. If it's an only him thing and others don't do similar, and I can't find what he meant that's ok. Didn't think it would of been a problem asking people here for their thoughts on the subject. Thank to the few offered constructive input.
 
-
Back
Top