@@markmerriman2468 South Africa as well. That market didn't receive the Aussie 265 'Hemi' Six
6 років тому+15
I love how honest they were back then, especially calling customers "prospects". Today the schmoozy dealerships pretend by calling customers "guests" or some such Disneyland nonsense. It seems like things would be better if everyone was honest as they were in 1964; a guy walking into a dealership in 2018 to look at cars is still a "prospect" to a salesman.
Calling a 3.23 or 3.08 rear gear a performance gear is a lie. The Ford 289 is lighter than the 273. Also they are comparing the valve size of economy V8's both Ford and Chevy offered performance V8's as well.
@@GlassTopRX7 ..Yes anything in the 3.xx range was more of a performance gear with 2 and 3 speed automatics.. Plymouth had a 2.73 if it had 3.23 gearing it would be a lot quicker..They also had a high performance 273 4bbl that ran 14's in the 1/4 and 6 second range 0-60.. A 3.92 axle with a 3 speed at 50 mph the engine was screaming !!
I didn't care for the a904 automatics, I had 2 that lost the 2nd to 3rd shift and 2 that lost reverse. On the other hand I've had 6 727's and never had a problem with any of them including one that was abused often to nearly 300k miles.
The 273 got new heads and intake, as well as a smaller bore, but most of the rest was straight from the poly 318, including rods, crank, distributor, alternator bracket, timing cover, harmonic balancer, and all pulleys. There's an extra bolt hole in the 273 timing cover that isn't used on the 273; it's there because the poly 318 block had a bolt in that location. There are two sets of bolt holes in the early 273 alternator bracket - one set for the 273 head, and the other for the poly 318 head. Bracket itself is the same. And the 273/318-poly timing cover, pulleys, harmonic balancer and alternator brackets bolt right up to a 340, and all are on the 340 that's been in my 65 Barracuda since 1973. Even further back, a distributor from a 340 will work in a 1956 Plymouth 277 poly, which is basically a poly 318 with a smaller bore and shorter stroke. My 277 has a Mallory Unilite distributor for an LA small block, and I'm also using a harmonic balancer and crank pulley from a 65 Poly 318. If you trace the history of the Mopar small block from its inception in 1956 as a 277 poly, to the 318 poly, to the 273 wedge and the larger wedges, to the Magnum truck motors and then to the V10 Viper (whose motor was essentially an LA with two added cylinders), the basic structure of the motor was used for sixty years. And the Gen III Hemi still shares its 4.46 bore spacing (bore center to center distance) with the old A and LA engines (albeit not much if anything else).
I wish the A poly v8 could had been lightened and made into a performance motor(some late '50s 318s had dual quads). It was too wide and heavy for the A bodies. Redesigned poly heads have a lot of potential, probably could have matched up well with the 5.7 hemi. The LA 318 kept small ports and valves - the focus was on economy of manufacturing and operation - until the Magnum of '92.
I had owned chevys and fords in the 1950s and 60s. I thought they were OK but when I got a 1963 Dodge with 318 motor and torguefleight tranmission I could tell it was in another world. It was the Honda of the 1960s. You could drag race it and it never broke. It was 17 year old proof!
Fun to watch little film strip. Here are a few comments regarding other comments that have been made here...This is a long comment so SKIP if you desire. The hp ratings back then in 1964 were "gross hp", not the later utilized "net hp" engine ratings (that started showing up in the the 1972 models), Thus the engine would appear produce more hp. The reason for this is that gross hp ratings were typically for engines without emission controls, power steering pumps, air conditioning compressors, and typically no water pump or even a cooling fan as the engine was attached to a separate cooling system. Thus the hp rating would not be reduced from the parasitic drag from these items. Regarding emission controls: There was basically only one emission control nationwide back in 1964, the PCV (positive crankcase ventilation system) system which was mandated in 1961 to eliminate the road tube emissions which leaked out drips of oil from blow-by gasses (clouds of unburned fuel and engine oil vapor), that got past the piston rings and into the crankcase. By 1968 of course there were more emission controls such as the preheat tubes (to increase the rapidity of the engine warm-up since warm engines create less emissions), and in the early 1970s a slew of them such as the carbon canisters onboard cars (charcoal that absorbs fuel vapors from the fuel tank and then recycles it back to the engine) and later on the catalytic converters in 1974 model years and later (except for Honda sold in the US because they could still meet the emission numbers without it for a while). On a typical vehicle that had a cooling fan, water pump, (all of them that had a water cooled engine) and any emission systems, you could often expect more and more vehicles to add power steering systems and air conditioning compressors, meaning that in a crude manner a net hp engine would produce a reduction of 15-20% of the gross hp levels. So think of the hp levels of 144-153. of course these hp levels could also be fudged downward in the 1960s so that a manufacturer could be placed in a more competitive position vs other manufactures (for example in racing if you had an engine that was rated at a lower hp than in reality you could be at a competitive advantage). Regarding the Slant 6 introduced in the 1960 Valiant (sold through Plymouth Dealerships but called just a Valiant until the next model year when it became the Plymouth Valiant). Yes this was an impressive 6 cylinder engine, but no engine is perfect. For about 10 model years for example the slant 6 came with a rather weak iron exhaust manifold. These manifolds were not terrible but did typically break well before 100,000 miles. The Chrysler Corporation deemed it unnecessary to resolve this issue until the 1970 model year. It is not a major hit to its reputation but nothing is ever perfect. Every a manufacturer should go all out to designs a product properly from the start and engine proper final assembly and of course parts product quality to be sufficient to fully do the job required. If they try to do this and a quality issue is observed it is not unusual for manufacturers to determine if it will be observed within the warranty period or beyond it and proceed to either fix it or live with it until the vehicle part or assembly process is redesigned (sometimes poor assembly techniques can cause quality issues). That's what Toyota and Honda tried hard to do during the 1950s when quality was quite poor. They brought in and actually listened to William Edwards Deming (although he was misunderstood & somewhat ignored at first). Thus the idea of building in the quality from the start rapidly took hold. Within a few years the quality issues at Toyota had been solved & it was only a matter of time & engineering development to address concerns with poor handling or ergonomic issues. By the early 1970s the Detroit Big Three still could not understand this & vowed to drive the competition from Japan (particularly Toyota & Honda but also others) back, but essentially failed & only began to make real quality headway in the mid 1980s after Chrysler & Ford & GM were getting hammered…. Regarding the 0-60 times as a way to measure acceleration performance of a vehicle, as many of you know Tom McCahill pushed these performance parameters back in the 1950s and they stuck and are still used to this day. Although the times recorded by the Valiant and Falcon and Chevy II are slow by today's standards they were decent times especially when compared to many foreign autos available at this time. According to Motor Trend the 0-60 times of a 1964 Beetle (with a 4 speed manual transmission) was nearly 30 seconds! In fact it took so long to reach 60 mph that it would reach the 1/4 mile mark BEFORE reaching 60 mph! (ET: 23.3 sec @ 56.5 mph). So the Valiant, Falcon, and Chevy II were rockets in comparison. Regarding the Torqueflite automatic transmission yes it was truly a fine automatic, & Chrysler did produce a heavy duty version of this transmission for the 1961 model year which really helped in muscle-car or performance or heavy duty applications like towing, etc, while Ford produced their HD version for 1965 & GM for 1967. It is interesting to note that when the push button automatic transmission was replaced with the column shift as on most other automatics at the time, it was missed by I think it was 18% of respondents (according to one magazine reporting on 1965 model Chrysler vehicles) yet most were familiar with the column type shift & welcomed this change. The push-button transmissions were well engineered & perhaps a little safer once parked, as long as you engaged the parking brake after putting the vehicle in neutral. As most of you know the vehicles had a bypass that would move the trans to neutral if you mistakenly pushed the Reverse button while driving. If anyone has any additions or corrections to my comments please feel free to suggest them! I am just going mostly by memory...
These times were very conservative ,plus the 273 4bbl ran 6 second range and 14's in the 1/4.. Also remember times were different due to 300 pounds of test equipment they used,plus 2 people in the car ! Magazines tested cars on back roads,parking lots and drag strips if used didnt have the compounds of today for traction.. Older cars bias ply tires didnt get traction,my buddies 318 Polara could peel out with no brake holding 1968 model ! Tires were skinny back then...Valiant had 13 inch tires and 14 and 15 inch were narrow 185,195 series were wide tread..in 1970 wide tread 60 series were 205 wide lol..Slicks of the day were equal to a modern drag radial ! My 56,000 mile bone stock 1968 Charger RT,440 magnum 4bbl,727 auto and 3.23 gear bone stock,was tested doing 13.60-13.80's back then and slower times due to spinning !! I tested my stock 68 Charger in 1972 bone stock 185 75 series bias ply white wall tires..I ran 15 flat going sideways lol..then low 14's..5 th time I ran 13.60's with no traction for 110 feet !!!! I later with balder bias ply tires ran 13.20's !! In 1975 with the new widest tires ever,Pro Trac 275 wide bias ply tires I ran 12.70's easily all the time and it still spun past 100 feet but grabbed more.. By 1980 I had 235 radial tires and the car with 130,000 miles (was never my daily driver fyi,these cars all had 160,000 plus miles by 1984 as 5 digit odometers never read over 99,999) I added headers,carb swap,exhaust and ran 12.60's..a intake later that summer and ran 12.30's on a stock engine,stock trans and 3.23 gears..Just minor headers,carb,intake total of 3 hours work (2 for the headers).. **Cars h.p numbers were lowered on the performance era due to high insurance rates.. ***Dont get confused with 1972 NET numbers..ALL engines were changed !!! Lower compression,different heads,cam,cranks,carbs,restrictive exhaust manifolds that alone was 150 hp less than my stock 68 440 375 was 410 hp -430 actually and torque was over 500 at low rpm,thus tire frying action at less than 1/4 throttle !!
Those "pre-heat tubes" you talk about did NOT speed up engine warm up, the ducting from the exhaust manifold to the air cleaner was to warm the intake air to allow the choke to come off sooner and prevent engine stumble by warming the leaner mixture. This allowed better driveability while the cooling system was warming up.
Your statement "sometimes poor assembly techniques can cause quality problems". SOMETIMES? I suggest you proof read your comments BEFORE you post them. That statement makes NO sense at all!
@@TheOzthewiz Thanks for pointing this out to me, Mr. Ojars Zvaingzne, yet both you & I got it wrong! I should have stated: "poor assembly techniques DO cause quality issues." However, I will forget your faux paus, THIS TIME, if you will forgive mine. ;-) And really now, Mr Ojars, was my overall statement indeed such a dubious, scurrilous, abject compilation of incoherent ramblings that I need a course in “How to PROOFREAD,” or was there indeed some value in it? In fact, many of the general readers on UA-cam may still not fully understand my comment because they may have little or no experience assembling a relatively complex machine such as an automobile. And many writers, such as myself, for brevity's sake, may not include all the details necessary to complete all the “loose ends” of an argument, therefore I will use this opening to expand a bit on this topic: The way that an engineer designs a process of assembly may cause issues such physical maladies & injuries, like carpal tunnel syndrome (weakness, numbness, or pain in the hand or wrist), back pain, or many other maladies that the assemblyman has to endure & which can therefore cause quality issues as the appointed assembly task becomes so difficult that it is poorly completed through no fault of the individual trying to assemble a complex machine! And these issues are not always the fault of the engineers developing the ergonomics of assembly, because they are also under pressure to design an assembly line within limited resources of time or money & told to complete the objective design as best as possible within these limitations by management, even if he knows that the design could be improved, & often at little cost! Thus the assembly process often includes aspects such as awkward & difficult to complete & highly repetitive movements that cause pain or injuries, & are situations that many readers may have never experienced. And that was my intention in the original statement: To indicate that poor assembly techniques do cause quality issues. So thank you for allowing me to correct & expand on this a bit further.
@@garypaul1033 When I used "sometimes" in upper case with a question mark, I was implying that poor assembly techniques always lead to quality/reliability issues! I am sorry my meaning did not come across as I wanted it to, English was not my strong point in school! Again my apologies for the misunderstanding. Have a good day, sir!
Yep, those two speed automatics really killed the Ford and Chevy, but the Falcon got the 289 and C4 three speed auto the next year, changing the whole game. It took GM a few years more to get the TH-350 three speed auto, not a good thing as everyone else had a better trans by then.
Remember the Valiant had 2.73 axle,so Ford wasnt a game changer..Plus the Valiant could have a 4bbl and a high performance 273 4bbl solid cam !! That ate the Falcon tenfold !
Hello guys, I am new to V8 Valiant. Always had \6 before. Does the 273 have the same exhaust manifold as the later 318 ones (for example 1968 Valiant)? What are exterior differences?
I sure love these videos. The 273 seemed to be s little screamer. The 318 had 'grocery getter' written on it but i saw a guy at a private party lot float the valves in a '71 Challenger while parked, which seemed extreme. Thing is, he bought it. 180hp sounds low buy today's standards. Maybe they was downgrading ratings then as they did later.
g mat I know someone who owned a 74 challenger rallye that came with a 318 and 3 speed manual on the floor and rebuilt that same 318 bored it out to almost a 340 and put the 350/360 J heads and 340 cam and put a 4 speed and that car beat his brother”s 71 cougar powered by a 429 scj in the quarter mile and the challlenger was heavier than the cougar too.
The lower compression 273 put out 180 hp. The higher compression 4bbl 273 made 235 hp. The 318, either the older poly sphere A engine or the later LA based wedge, made 230 HP until 1972 when the change to SAE net HP ratings.
@@calvinhandley2373, they also had a 275 horsepower version in the 1966 Dodge D Dart, specially built street legal drag racing engine! I'm sure that Plymouth offered it too in the Barracuda but I don't know!
@@johneddy908 The Barracuda came out 2 weeks before the Mustang in 1964. I didn't like the early ones. I really liked the second gen Barracuda's. 67-69
@@herman452 ..And the 8.0 V-10 ,8.3 V-10 and 8.4 V-10 Viper engines ! And the Cast iron 1994-2003 truck version of the 8.0 Viper engine all from the LA engine !!!
I wanted to modify my comment on emissions: Of course California has generally had more severe emission controls and often earlier than the rest of the country...
The chrysler small blocks had a much beefier bottom end than the small block shivvies , and they didn't suffer from cam wear like small block chebbies.
In the early 60s nascar had a compact car series and plymouth had 7 valiants the first race they finished all one through seven out of the top 10. The second race they finished 1,2,3 only because there was a crash that took out the other valiants and of course nascar shutdown the series cant have Chrysler products dominate they are not part of the good ole boy network still to this day nascar hates mopar. Petty won the oval track race cant remember who won the road corse but 2 races won both by plymouth valiants
I don’t care how quickly it can go from 0-60 or 40-60. I only care about how quickly is can go in the 1/4 mile and how much rubber it’ll burn. Right at the end of the video when they start the engine there should be a huge burn out to finish with.
Elevation,air density and 300 pounds of test equipment in the car..These cars were all a bit quicker,The Valiant could do 7 second range,Chev and Ford 8 second range !
When you rebuild a 273 Commando V8 and compare it to the early Chevy small blocks, you’ll change your mind. Bigger valves, forged crank standard, 8.8:1 compression. There was a hi-po version offered that put out 275hp from 273 cubic inches. The standard 4bbl GM 350 put out 270hp but was 77 ci bigger.
Comparing vintage cast iron pushrod V8 with carbs and points ignition to a modern engine is like comparing a typewriter to a word processor. But I can assure of this: there are original 273 V8s out there still running but no Hyundai will last 60 years.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The 225 slant 6 was the best of all the Valiants .I had Australian AP5 and AP6 sedans and Safari wagons and they were tough as nails.
The 225 slant 6 was an awesome engine, extremely durable and very smooth running. I didn't realize you could get them in Oz.
The 225 slant 6 was an awesome engine, extremely durable and very smooth running. I didn't realize you could get them in Oz.
Many in Australia and lots here in New Zealand as well.
@@markmerriman2468 South Africa as well. That market didn't receive the Aussie 265 'Hemi' Six
I love how honest they were back then, especially calling customers "prospects".
Today the schmoozy dealerships pretend by calling customers "guests" or some such Disneyland nonsense. It seems like things would be better if everyone was honest as they were in 1964; a guy walking into a dealership in 2018 to look at cars is still a "prospect" to a salesman.
Calling a 3.23 or 3.08 rear gear a performance gear is a lie. The Ford 289 is lighter than the 273. Also they are comparing the valve size of economy V8's both Ford and Chevy offered performance V8's as well.
@@GlassTopRX7 ..Yes anything in the 3.xx range was more of a performance gear with 2 and 3 speed automatics..
Plymouth had a 2.73 if it had 3.23 gearing it would be a lot quicker..They also had a high performance 273 4bbl that ran 14's in the 1/4 and 6 second range 0-60..
A 3.92 axle with a 3 speed at 50 mph the engine was screaming !!
Thor Swenson Today’s customer is more akin to a “piece of meat” for the vulture.
I didn't care for the a904 automatics, I had 2 that lost the 2nd to 3rd shift and 2 that lost reverse. On the other hand I've had 6 727's and never had a problem with any of them including one that was abused often to nearly 300k miles.
The 273 got new heads and intake, as well as a smaller bore, but most of the rest was straight from the poly 318, including rods, crank, distributor, alternator bracket, timing cover, harmonic balancer, and all pulleys. There's an extra bolt hole in the 273 timing cover that isn't used on the 273; it's there because the poly 318 block had a bolt in that location. There are two sets of bolt holes in the early 273 alternator bracket - one set for the 273 head, and the other for the poly 318 head. Bracket itself is the same. And the 273/318-poly timing cover, pulleys, harmonic balancer and alternator brackets bolt right up to a 340, and all are on the 340 that's been in my 65 Barracuda since 1973. Even further back, a distributor from a 340 will work in a 1956 Plymouth 277 poly, which is basically a poly 318 with a smaller bore and shorter stroke. My 277 has a Mallory Unilite distributor for an LA small block, and I'm also using a harmonic balancer and crank pulley from a 65 Poly 318. If you trace the history of the Mopar small block from its inception in 1956 as a 277 poly, to the 318 poly, to the 273 wedge and the larger wedges, to the Magnum truck motors and then to the V10 Viper (whose motor was essentially an LA with two added cylinders), the basic structure of the motor was used for sixty years. And the Gen III Hemi still shares its 4.46 bore spacing (bore center to center distance) with the old A and LA engines (albeit not much if anything else).
I wish the A poly v8 could had been lightened and made into a performance motor(some late '50s 318s had dual quads). It was too wide and heavy for the A bodies. Redesigned poly heads have a lot of potential, probably could have matched up well with the 5.7 hemi. The LA 318 kept small ports and valves - the focus was on economy of manufacturing and operation - until the Magnum of '92.
I had owned chevys and fords in the 1950s and 60s. I thought they were OK but when I got a 1963 Dodge with 318 motor and torguefleight tranmission I could tell it was in another world. It was the Honda of the 1960s. You could drag race it and it never broke. It was 17 year old proof!
They COULDN'T be beat for rust out!
Fun to watch little film strip. Here are a few comments regarding other comments that have been made here...This is a long comment so SKIP if you desire.
The hp ratings back then in 1964 were "gross hp", not the later utilized "net hp" engine ratings (that started showing up in the the 1972 models), Thus the engine would appear produce more hp. The reason for this is that gross hp ratings were typically for engines without emission controls, power steering pumps, air conditioning compressors, and typically no water pump or even a cooling fan as the engine was attached to a separate cooling system. Thus the hp rating would not be reduced from the parasitic drag from these items. Regarding emission controls: There was basically only one emission control nationwide back in 1964, the PCV (positive crankcase ventilation system) system which was mandated in 1961 to eliminate the road tube emissions which leaked out drips of oil from blow-by gasses (clouds of unburned fuel and engine oil vapor), that got past the piston rings and into the crankcase. By 1968 of course there were more emission controls such as the preheat tubes (to increase the rapidity of the engine warm-up since warm engines create less emissions), and in the early 1970s a slew of them such as the carbon canisters onboard cars (charcoal that absorbs fuel vapors from the fuel tank and then recycles it back to the engine) and later on the catalytic converters in 1974 model years and later (except for Honda sold in the US because they could still meet the emission numbers without it for a while). On a typical vehicle that had a cooling fan, water pump, (all of them that had a water cooled engine) and any emission systems, you could often expect more and more vehicles to add power steering systems and air conditioning compressors, meaning that in a crude manner a net hp engine would produce a reduction of 15-20% of the gross hp levels. So think of the hp levels of 144-153. of course these hp levels could also be fudged downward in the 1960s so that a manufacturer could be placed in a more competitive position vs other manufactures (for example in racing if you had an engine that was rated at a lower hp than in reality you could be at a competitive advantage).
Regarding the Slant 6 introduced in the 1960 Valiant (sold through Plymouth Dealerships but called just a Valiant until the next model year when it became the Plymouth Valiant). Yes this was an impressive 6 cylinder engine, but no engine is perfect. For about 10 model years for example the slant 6 came with a rather weak iron exhaust manifold. These manifolds were not terrible but did typically break well before 100,000 miles. The Chrysler Corporation deemed it unnecessary to resolve this issue until the 1970 model year. It is not a major hit to its reputation but nothing is ever perfect. Every a manufacturer should go all out to designs a product properly from the start and engine proper final assembly and of course parts product quality to be sufficient to fully do the job required. If they try to do this and a quality issue is observed it is not unusual for manufacturers to determine if it will be observed within the warranty period or beyond it and proceed to either fix it or live with it until the vehicle part or assembly process is redesigned (sometimes poor assembly techniques can cause quality issues). That's what Toyota and Honda tried hard to do during the 1950s when quality was quite poor. They brought in and actually listened to William Edwards Deming (although he was misunderstood & somewhat ignored at first). Thus the idea of building in the quality from the start rapidly took hold. Within a few years the quality issues at Toyota had been solved & it was only a matter of time & engineering development to address concerns with poor handling or ergonomic issues. By the early 1970s the Detroit Big Three still could not understand this & vowed to drive the competition from Japan (particularly Toyota & Honda but also others) back, but essentially failed & only began to make real quality headway in the mid 1980s after Chrysler & Ford & GM were getting hammered….
Regarding the 0-60 times as a way to measure acceleration performance of a vehicle, as many of you know Tom McCahill pushed these performance parameters back in the 1950s and they stuck and are still used to this day. Although the times recorded by the Valiant and Falcon and Chevy II are slow by today's standards they were decent times especially when compared to many foreign autos available at this time. According to Motor Trend the 0-60 times of a 1964 Beetle (with a 4 speed manual transmission) was nearly 30 seconds! In fact it took so long to reach 60 mph that it would reach the 1/4 mile mark BEFORE reaching 60 mph! (ET: 23.3 sec @ 56.5 mph). So the Valiant, Falcon, and Chevy II were rockets in comparison.
Regarding the Torqueflite automatic transmission yes it was truly a fine automatic, & Chrysler did produce a heavy duty version of this transmission for the 1961 model year which really helped in muscle-car or performance or heavy duty applications like towing, etc, while Ford produced their HD version for 1965 & GM for 1967. It is interesting to note that when the push button automatic transmission was replaced with the column shift as on most other automatics at the time, it was missed by I think it was 18% of respondents (according to one magazine reporting on 1965 model Chrysler vehicles) yet most were familiar with the column type shift & welcomed this change. The push-button transmissions were well engineered & perhaps a little safer once parked, as long as you engaged the parking brake after putting the vehicle in neutral. As most of you know the vehicles had a bypass that would move the trans to neutral if you mistakenly pushed the Reverse button while driving.
If anyone has any additions or corrections to my comments please feel free to suggest them! I am just going mostly by memory...
These times were very conservative ,plus the 273 4bbl ran 6 second range and 14's in the 1/4..
Also remember times were different due to 300 pounds of test equipment they used,plus 2 people in the car !
Magazines tested cars on back roads,parking lots and drag strips if used didnt have the compounds of today for traction..
Older cars bias ply tires didnt get traction,my buddies 318 Polara could peel out with no brake holding 1968 model !
Tires were skinny back then...Valiant had 13 inch tires and 14 and 15 inch were narrow 185,195 series were wide tread..in 1970 wide tread 60 series were 205 wide lol..Slicks of the day were equal to a modern drag radial !
My 56,000 mile bone stock 1968 Charger RT,440 magnum 4bbl,727 auto and 3.23 gear bone stock,was tested doing 13.60-13.80's back then and slower times due to spinning !! I tested my stock 68 Charger in 1972 bone stock 185 75 series bias ply white wall tires..I ran 15 flat going sideways lol..then low 14's..5 th time I ran 13.60's with no traction for 110 feet !!!! I later with balder bias ply tires ran 13.20's !! In 1975 with the new widest tires ever,Pro Trac 275 wide bias ply tires I ran 12.70's easily all the time and it still spun past 100 feet but grabbed more..
By 1980 I had 235 radial tires and the car with 130,000 miles (was never my daily driver fyi,these cars all had 160,000 plus miles by 1984 as 5 digit odometers never read over 99,999) I added headers,carb swap,exhaust and ran 12.60's..a intake later that summer and ran 12.30's on a stock engine,stock trans and 3.23 gears..Just minor headers,carb,intake total of 3 hours work (2 for the headers)..
**Cars h.p numbers were lowered on the performance era due to high insurance rates..
***Dont get confused with 1972 NET numbers..ALL engines were changed !!! Lower compression,different heads,cam,cranks,carbs,restrictive exhaust manifolds that alone was 150 hp less than my stock 68 440 375 was 410 hp -430 actually and torque was over 500 at low rpm,thus tire frying action at less than 1/4 throttle !!
Those "pre-heat tubes" you talk about did NOT speed up engine warm up, the ducting from the exhaust manifold to the air cleaner was to warm the intake air to allow the choke to come off sooner and prevent engine stumble by warming the leaner mixture. This allowed better driveability while the cooling system was warming up.
Your statement "sometimes poor assembly techniques can cause quality problems". SOMETIMES? I suggest you proof read your comments BEFORE you post them. That statement makes NO sense at all!
@@TheOzthewiz Thanks for pointing this out to me, Mr. Ojars Zvaingzne, yet both you & I got it wrong! I should have stated: "poor assembly techniques DO cause quality issues." However, I will forget your faux paus, THIS TIME, if you will forgive mine. ;-) And really now, Mr Ojars, was my overall statement indeed such a dubious, scurrilous, abject compilation of incoherent ramblings that I need a course in “How to PROOFREAD,” or was there indeed some value in it?
In fact, many of the general readers on UA-cam may still not fully understand my comment because they may have little or no experience assembling a relatively complex machine such as an automobile. And many writers, such as myself, for brevity's sake, may not include all the details necessary to complete all the “loose ends” of an argument, therefore I will use this opening to expand a bit on this topic:
The way that an engineer designs a process of assembly may cause issues such physical maladies & injuries, like carpal tunnel syndrome (weakness, numbness, or pain in the hand or wrist), back pain, or many other maladies that the assemblyman has to endure & which can therefore cause quality issues as the appointed assembly task becomes so difficult that it is poorly completed through no fault of the individual trying to assemble a complex machine! And these issues are not always the fault of the engineers developing the ergonomics of assembly, because they are also under pressure to design an assembly line within limited resources of time or money & told to complete the objective design as best as possible within these limitations by management, even if he knows that the design could be improved, & often at little cost! Thus the assembly process often includes aspects such as awkward & difficult to complete & highly repetitive movements that cause pain or injuries, & are situations that many readers may have never experienced. And that was my intention in the original statement: To indicate that poor assembly techniques do cause quality issues. So thank you for allowing me to correct & expand on this a bit further.
@@garypaul1033 When I used "sometimes" in upper case with a question mark, I was implying that poor assembly techniques always lead to quality/reliability issues! I am sorry my meaning did not come across as I wanted it to, English was not my strong point in school! Again my apologies for the misunderstanding. Have a good day, sir!
Yep, those two speed automatics really killed the Ford and Chevy, but the Falcon got the 289 and C4 three speed auto the next year, changing the whole game. It took GM a few years more to get the TH-350 three speed auto, not a good thing as everyone else had a better trans by then.
Remember the Valiant had 2.73 axle,so Ford wasnt a game changer..Plus the Valiant could have a 4bbl and a high performance 273 4bbl solid cam !! That ate the Falcon tenfold !
Chrysler would counter with the bigger 318 V8 for the Valiant and Dart beginning in 1966.
Ford's C6 was king!
Had a 65 Valiant 2 door. Of all the many beaters I’ve owned it was one of my favorites.
I just overhauled a 273 V8 from a 1966 Dodge A100. It’s a better motor than the early Chevy small block.
That little 273 run good
The LA 273 was a screamer too
Johnnie Swisher ++especially as a 273 4 BBL high compesion formula S
Hello guys, I am new to V8 Valiant. Always had \6 before. Does the 273 have the same exhaust manifold as the later 318 ones (for example 1968 Valiant)? What are exterior differences?
Check out Uncle Tony's Garage, he gets very technical with Mopars.
I sure love these videos. The 273 seemed to be s little screamer. The 318 had 'grocery getter' written on it but i saw a guy at a private party lot float the valves in a '71 Challenger while parked, which seemed extreme. Thing is, he bought it. 180hp sounds low buy today's standards. Maybe they was downgrading ratings then as they did later.
g mat I know someone who owned a 74 challenger rallye that came with a 318 and 3 speed manual on the floor and rebuilt that same 318 bored it out to almost a 340 and put the 350/360 J heads and 340 cam and put a 4 speed and that car beat his brother”s 71 cougar powered by a 429 scj in the quarter mile and the challlenger was heavier than the cougar too.
The lower compression 273 put out 180 hp. The higher compression 4bbl 273 made 235 hp. The 318, either the older poly sphere A engine or the later LA based wedge, made 230 HP until 1972 when the change to SAE net HP ratings.
@@calvinhandley2373, they also had a 275 horsepower version in the 1966 Dodge D Dart, specially built street legal drag racing engine! I'm sure that Plymouth offered it too in the Barracuda but I don't know!
The "big" V8s were low on HP, but had high torque output, as everyone knows, torque makes the wheels turn!
Regret selling my 65 273 a/c barracuda.
By the middle of 1964 no one cared about the Valiant. Everyone wanted a Mustang.
Which was why Chrysler would introduce Plymouth Barracuda one year later.
@@johneddy908 The Barracuda came out 2 weeks before the Mustang in 1964.
I didn't like the early ones. I really liked the second gen Barracuda's. 67-69
People still wanted 4-door sedans and wagons
YOU CANT KILL A 318... they replaced it with the 4.7 v8... its disposable.. ive rebuilt my motor at 150.000 km .. ..headgasket.. ect.ect
I think I would'
ve opted for the larger slant six.
1964 Valent Barracuda first pony car
They didn't use that 273 very long.
No, they just turned it into the wedge 318, the 340 and the 360.
orange70383 bigger was the name of the day back then. The 273 really do a great job and the (S) trim was a strong runner. Next stop 340.
@@herman452 ..And the 8.0 V-10 ,8.3 V-10 and 8.4 V-10 Viper engines ! And the Cast iron 1994-2003 truck version of the 8.0 Viper engine all from the LA engine !!!
@@01trsmar Hah! Good point!
I believe 273 was dropped after '69
180 horsepower, the same as the Studebaker 259 without the power kit?
All i'd want is a six cyl. with auto. trans., am-fm radio, heater, defroster.
I wanted to modify my comment on emissions: Of course California has generally had more severe emission controls and often earlier than the rest of the country...
A three speed automatic, helps the performance.
I don't see Daddy Dave or Bodie running a Valiant or Falcon.
You couldn't kill a 283.
The chrysler small blocks had a much beefier bottom end than the small block shivvies , and they didn't suffer from cam wear like small block chebbies.
I live to 283 on my 64 Chevy Impala super sport
That's why Chevrolet stopped making it, see my comment above!
The cars are not moving im the photographs... moving Objects in photographs looks undefined!!
Valiant, aka why Chrysler ended up needing a bailout in 1979
273 cubic inches = 4.5 liters.
In the early 60s nascar had a compact car series and plymouth had 7 valiants the first race they finished all one through seven out of the top 10. The second race they finished 1,2,3 only because there was a crash that took out the other valiants and of course nascar shutdown the series cant have Chrysler products dominate they are not part of the good ole boy network still to this day nascar hates mopar. Petty won the oval track race cant remember who won the road corse but 2 races won both by plymouth valiants
I don’t care how quickly it can go from 0-60 or 40-60. I only care about how quickly is can go in the 1/4 mile and how much rubber it’ll burn. Right at the end of the video when they start the engine there should be a huge burn out to finish with.
Chevy II 283 195 HP w Powerglide zero to sixty was 8.6 sec. What kind of crock o sht is this?
Elevation,air density and 300 pounds of test equipment in the car..These cars were all a bit quicker,The Valiant could do 7 second range,Chev and Ford 8 second range !
I used to own the ugliest Dodge ever it was the 63 Dodge 880 Custom with the 383 wedge
The '59 Dodge was FUGLIER than the '63!
i call bs, sbc is the best engine ever built.
When you rebuild a 273 Commando V8 and compare it to the early Chevy small blocks, you’ll change your mind. Bigger valves, forged crank standard, 8.8:1 compression. There was a hi-po version offered that put out 275hp from 273 cubic inches. The standard 4bbl GM 350 put out 270hp but was 77 ci bigger.
@@edbenti5007 there are over 50 million reasons why you are wrong.
well my 4 cylinder gets more HP than your V8
My '13 2L, NA Focus puts out 160 NET horsepower!
That's just dopey
@@TheOzthewiz the hyundai 2.5T has 281bph 311fp yeah it moves and gets 20+ mpg city
Comparing vintage cast iron pushrod V8 with carbs and points ignition to a modern engine is like comparing a typewriter to a word processor. But I can assure of this: there are original 273 V8s out there still running but no Hyundai will last 60 years.