Making power out of the 318

-
Status
Not open for further replies.
My daily is 2013 sonata se 2.0 274 hp weighs 3700 lbs with me in it
ran 14.2@98 with a piss poor 2.3 60 ft
Has and electronic waste gate the computer limits the torque in 1st and 2nd gear if you try and spool it the computer brain farts.
from 70 mph on the hi-way it gets full boost i think its 20 psi pretty snappy from there for a 2.0 ive had it up to 145 mph
its suppose to do 152 mph factory top end limit was still pulling@145 not bad for a pos. Ive had zero issues the motors have a lifetime warranty because of con/rod failures. Fully loaded 18 inch rims bumper to bumper warranty for 3 yrs or to 60k miles was a certified car 14k miles when purchased made them give me new brakes new wipers had new tires free oil changes for 3yrs 16k out the door couldnt be happier. forgt gets 22 city 33 Hi-way like that alot
 
Last edited:
Hey, 9 out of 10 gangbangers can't be wrong... The Honda civic is a dependable get away car!
 
Hey I don't have anything that new now let alone when I was a kid... And I don't go for "fully loaded all options" either. I don't want anything that new... That creates many problems of their own.
I'm happy to drive 20+ yo vehicles. But no, I won't have any of those import brands.
I'm happy as shyt with an old /6 or 318 in current times...
 
Hysteric said:
The sharpest guys I know stated it took 12 months to properly tune an engine.
Click to expand...
You always holding people up to super high standards of top builders and racers.
Are you getting these same results?
Eg.. 1.35+ lbs-ft per cid, 2.25+ hp per cfm, 9/10's et out of 273/318 heads etc..
 
What % of "kids" under 30 (40?) don't want a Toyota or Honda!?

A stock 318 AND360 are simply gas sucking people transporters. Anything more requires some $$ and a roadmap (blueprint) that works.
 
I think I googled stock MPG of my 70 Swinger 340 and it was something like 13 when new but gas was cheap...:)
now V8 mileage in a standard car is what 18-20? like my 86 Fuel injected Mustang gets that I believe.
I don't daily drive a v8 car, but when I drive them on weekends I do have to put gas in them its just the way it is you pay for that power.
Ill drive my Fox body all weekend on interstate trips. I figure I'm paying for the enjoyment of driving that V8 its something that young people may or may not ever know but the torque, power and response of even a stock V8 is special and unique.
 
Last edited:
Dartswinger70 said:
I think I googled stock MPG of my 70nSwinger 340 and it was something like 13 when new but gas was cheap...:)
Click to expand...
It was. Back in about 72,, we had a gas war with the Mobil station down the street. 19.9 ¢
 
What kind of mileage difference are we really taking about ?
Your only gonna get so much In town mpg's, if you get around 15 mpg's give or take a few mpg's does it really matter?
 
273 said:
What kind of mileage difference are we really taking about ?
Your only gonna get so much In town mpg's, if you get around 15 mpg's give or take a few mpg's does it really matter?
Click to expand...

I always ask that and never get an answer. It's the age old dilemma. I want 1,000 horsepower, with power everything and AC, but it needs to idle at 500 RPM like my Kia while getting 40 MPG.

It just doesn't happen that way. Unrealistic expectations have ruined many a build.

IMO if you can't afford the fuel it takes to horsepower than hit the links. It doesn't matter how you do it because it takes roughly .45 pounds of fuel per horsepower per hour.

That means 1,000 HP takes 450 pounds of fuel per hour or 500 HP needs 225 pounds of fuel per hour. It is what it is.

Most fuel waste on these engines is from NOT running a vacuum advance and not cleaning up the cruise carb tune.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
I always ask that and never get an answer. It's the age old dilemma. I want 1,000 horsepower, with power everything and AC, but it needs to idle at 500 RPM like my Kia while getting 40 MPG.

It just doesn't happen that way. Unrealistic expectations have ruined many a build.

IMO if you can't afford the fuel it takes to horsepower than hit the links. It doesn't matter how you do it because it takes roughly .45 pounds of fuel per horsepower per hour.

That means 1,000 HP takes 450 pounds of fuel per hour or 500 HP needs 225 pounds of fuel per hour. It is what it is.

Most fuel waste on these engines is from NOT running a vacuum advance and not cleaning up the cruise carb tune.
Click to expand...
Plus how many miles do most of us put on a year on these cars?
Is spending $800 vs $1000 or even $2000 vs $2500 a year that big of a deal.
 
toolmanmike said:
It was. Back in about 72,, we had a gas war with the Mobil station down the street. 19.9 ¢
Click to expand...
I worked construction years ago with an older guy who actually told me he had a 69 Chevelle SS 396 in the 70s. he said he "never drove past a gas station without stopping" I believe it to this day LOL! It explains why during the late 70s or about 1980 Muscle cars were so cheap, no one wanted them.
 
I've had a mild 360 in a 71 Dart years ago that I got to the mid 13s with 4.10 gears swapped in from the 3.23 street gears. It routinely knocked down 17-21 MPG running around on the street. Thermoquad, of course. So I've never seen the 318 argument for mileage, when the 360 CAN get decent mileage.
 
I have news for everyone here. Chrysler, pre-gen3 hemi, only ever made one actual performance engine for passenger cars. And it's not a small block. And it's not a 440 either.
 
Mean416 said:
I have news for everyone here. Chrysler, pre-gen3 hemi, only ever made one actual performance engine for passenger cars. And it's not a small block. And it's not a 440 either.
Click to expand...
There's 2 that I can think of. 340's were performance only. No 2 barrel engines in sedans or trucks. So, saying all that, the 340 and 426 Hemi were the only 2 that were "performance only" engines.
 
toolmanmike said:
There's 2 that I can think of. 340's were performance only. No 2 barrel engines in sedans or trucks. So, saying all that, the 340 and 426 Hemi were the only 2 that were "performance only" engines.
Click to expand...
Hemi. Full stop.

I love small blocks but they weren't performance engines "from the factory". Head flow was abysmal, They had hydraulic cans with non-adjustable valvetrain, two bolt mains, cast pistons, low compression, on and on. They were designed for reliable passenger car transportation.
 
Mean416 said:
Hemi. Full stop.

I love small blocks but they weren't performance engines "from the factory". Head flow was abysmal, They had hydraulic cans with non-adjustable valvetrain, two bolt mains, cast pistons, low compression, on and on. They were designed for reliable passenger car transportation.
Click to expand...
You better get off your high horse and go back to school. 340 was a performance engine. Tom Hoover's name come up in the development. Was the basic engine designed from the start? No. But it wasn't used for anything other than performance is my point. The Amazing Mopar (Dodge/Plymouth) 340 V8 Engine
 
Last edited:
toolmanmike said:
You better get off your high horse and go back to school. 340 was a performance engine. The Amazing Mopar (Dodge/Plymouth) 340 V8 Engine
Click to expand...
200w.gif
 
I think I just have a different set of criteria regarding what constitutes a performance engine. I think of an engine designed with racing/high performance in mind, from the outset.

To me the hemi was the only engine that met these criteria, and that was because it was designed as a racing engine first, and a passenger car engine second. Just my opinion. I know many of you won't agree or are too brand loyal to see it.
 
Obviously each can have their own interpretation of what performance is but yours is pretty limiting, Hemi was more of a race engine in a production car, to me performance is when you have an excess of power more than what's needed to do everyday driving, where the line of peppy to performance car is ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
-

Back
Top