yeah. 3.54. Used to have 3.31'sStuka wrote:What axle gears do your new axles have? 3.54's? I know my Cherokee, even with a manual, was no speed demon when it had 33's or 34's and 3.54 gears. But with 31's it ripped pretty good, it could actually smoke the tires with 31's (With the detroit even).Dr. Marneaus wrote:I wish i could say that! Pedal to the floor on them mountain roads and barely pushin' 50mph.Renodemona wrote: She's got more oomph than my skinny pedal really needs to put out all the time
165hp is powerful? lol.FSJunkie wrote:Huh...
I consider my stock 360 to be quite powerful. Never has disappointed me, except for one time, and that was only because the girl of my fancy was riding in the other guy's passenger seat and his car had nitrous and 40 more cubic inches. But he burned all his valves to beat me and I had him until he flipped the switch, so I definitely put up a good fight.
Still hurt a lot. I've sworn off racing now because that experience ruined it for me. never race anybody out of spite or anger. Christ almighty I wanted to strange him... Never been so mad in my life.
Quoted for great post!FSJunkie wrote:Compression dropped in 1971. That took roughly 10% off the top.
Rating methods changed in 1972, and so did the posted numbers, but the engines did not. The 360 from 1972-1974 carried three different ratings, ranging from 175 horsepower to 220 horsepower depending on 2 barrel or 4 barrel carburetor, and single or dual exhaust. It wasn't for emissions.
1975-1980 used the early pellet-type catalytic converters that were very restrictive, and the posted ratings assumed you had a California engine with 3 converters on it. Not all engines received converters, so the output of you own engine might have been much higher, matching the 1972-1974 numbers for that particular carburetor/exhaust system configuration.
1980-1991 received the newer monolithic converters that were less restrictive, so the ratings jumped back up to nearly their 1972-1974 level. The new converters still restricted a little... Still, it was only 35 horsepower behind the same configuration (2 barrel, single exhaust) of 360 from 1972. Considering all that changed in that decade and yearly changes in rating requirements, I say they did pretty good.
Aside from those things, the differences you see in the ratings were minor. Ignition timing and carburetor calibration changed slightly over the years, but practical impact on power output was less than 5%....negligible. The bolt-on emission controls (EGR, smog pump, TCS, etc.) are mostly part throttle controls that do not affect full throttle power output. In other words, they are harmless. Again, less than a 5% impact. Nothing to worry about.
Much of the perceived loss in performance in the emissions era 1970's and 1980's wasn't the engine's fault. The cars got much heavier. More options, heavy 5 MPH crash safety bumpers, side impact beams in the doors, etc. Plus they geared them lower for improved fuel economy and high-speed cruising on the then-new interstate highways. Performance fell in those years, but there was a lot more to it than just the engine, and especially more than just the vacuum lines and EGR valve....
I highly doubt it still has it. Unless you have a pretty low number of miles. They don't make that style anymore, so if it was replaced, it was with a newer style.Charles Kline wrote:Quoted for great post!FSJunkie wrote:Compression dropped in 1971. That took roughly 10% off the top.
Rating methods changed in 1972, and so did the posted numbers, but the engines did not. The 360 from 1972-1974 carried three different ratings, ranging from 175 horsepower to 220 horsepower depending on 2 barrel or 4 barrel carburetor, and single or dual exhaust. It wasn't for emissions.
1975-1980 used the early pellet-type catalytic converters that were very restrictive, and the posted ratings assumed you had a California engine with 3 converters on it. Not all engines received converters, so the output of you own engine might have been much higher, matching the 1972-1974 numbers for that particular carburetor/exhaust system configuration.
1980-1991 received the newer monolithic converters that were less restrictive, so the ratings jumped back up to nearly their 1972-1974 level. The new converters still restricted a little... Still, it was only 35 horsepower behind the same configuration (2 barrel, single exhaust) of 360 from 1972. Considering all that changed in that decade and yearly changes in rating requirements, I say they did pretty good.
Aside from those things, the differences you see in the ratings were minor. Ignition timing and carburetor calibration changed slightly over the years, but practical impact on power output was less than 5%....negligible. The bolt-on emission controls (EGR, smog pump, TCS, etc.) are mostly part throttle controls that do not affect full throttle power output. In other words, they are harmless. Again, less than a 5% impact. Nothing to worry about.
Much of the perceived loss in performance in the emissions era 1970's and 1980's wasn't the engine's fault. The cars got much heavier. More options, heavy 5 MPH crash safety bumpers, side impact beams in the doors, etc. Plus they geared them lower for improved fuel economy and high-speed cruising on the then-new interstate highways. Performance fell in those years, but there was a lot more to it than just the engine, and especially more than just the vacuum lines and EGR valve....
Is the pellet type converters easy to ID? I'm sure my 79 has one since it falls in the date range.
It seems like my Honcho's 360 has good power it just doesn't have the pedal response I think it should... I need to check what gears I have.
First of all, everything I say below is in SAE Net power rating, or converted to SAE Net from SAE Gross.Dr. Marneaus wrote: 165hp is powerful? lol.
There is an ever so slight difference between weight and aero with a 426 Challenger and a Wagoneer. Power does not make something "fast" in itself, its power to weight that does.FSJunkie wrote:The way I see it, a 360 Wagoneer is not slow, it is on the upper end of average, boarderline fast. I just think everything else on the road is STUPID INSANE UNNECESARILY fast.
Funny how old car buffs always say the original 426 Street Hemi was FAST at ~300 Net HP, yet you guys complain about your AMC 360's at ~200 Net HP being SLOW. It's amazing that there is only a 33% difference be FAST and SLOW.
She spent much of her life in a garage in California (there 'Non operation vehicle registration in the glove box) From mid 90's to 2006. The odo says 81kStuka wrote:I highly doubt it still has it. Unless you have a pretty low number of miles. They don't make that style anymore, so if it was replaced, it was with a newer style.
The street Hemi's had closer to 430 hp net. They were underrated from the factory and actually were ~470 hp gross. Hemi cars weren't available with AC and I don't think power steering also.FSJunkie wrote:Funny how old car buffs always say the original 426 Street Hemi was FAST at ~300 Net HP, yet you guys complain about your AMC 360's at ~200 Net HP being SLOW. It's amazing that there is only a 33% difference be FAST and SLOW.Dr. Marneaus wrote: 165hp is powerful? lol.
And driving habits.FSJunkie wrote:It's all perspective.Dr. Marneaus wrote: 165hp is powerful? lol.
Nikkormat wrote: And driving habits.
Our Jeeps are heavy, but not unnecessarily so. Most real modern SUVs have a curb weight of around 5000 too.
We also have to remember modern SUVs are geared much much deeper. Most have around a 3:1 first gear and the Audi Q7's that I'm familiar with have a 4.32:1 axle gear on 31 ish inch tires. So acceleration from a stop happens very quickly. The tires are wider, suspensions tighter, gears more tightly spaced and more available.
Our Jeeps do a whole lot with very little. And compared to there competition, up to about 1987, they easily out haul out climb out corner and out run Blazers Broncos Ramchargers and scouts. While the competition was stuck with half assed 5.0's we had the brick shithouse reliable 360. They had TTB and ten bolts we had 44's.
And everyone complains about how un aero dynamic our Jeeps are. Out Jeeps are way way more aero dynamic than the competition. Especially with late style grilles. A Wagoneer on 33's lifted 4 inches is the same height as a stock blazer on 32's. Even now with 31's my Cherokee is a foot shorter than an 89 bronco on 235's. And it's more than a foot shorter than a 2004 Sierra on a 33 ish inch tire.
You aren't driving an underpowered brick. Your driving one of the greatest multi use automobiles to ever exist. Period. And certainly the best looking one.
I can hold 75 on Floyd Hill but just barely fully loaded. The hill that gets me is coming from the western slope up to the Eisenhower tunnel. (Is that the Roosevelt tunnel?) Usually it will stick in 3rd for a while and slowly bleed speed. When it gets down to 65, I'll drop down to second and get back up to 75. For some reason, the Jeep has more problems with that hill than Monarch!Nikkormat wrote: Floyd hill on I70 from Idaho Springs to Bergen park is one that give people alot of trouble. An average of a 7.7% grade and a few short sections hitting 10-12%. The speed limit is 65 but most folks manage to pull about 50 if there willing to run there car hard.
With the Jeep fully loaded I can pull that hill at 75 no problem.
The Ike tunnel is over 11k ft altitude, so lot of lost power up there.Lumpskie wrote:I can hold 75 on Floyd Hill but just barely fully loaded. The hill that gets me is coming from the western slope up to the Eisenhower tunnel. (Is that the Roosevelt tunnel?) Usually it will stick in 3rd for a while and slowly bleed speed. When it gets down to 65, I'll drop down to second and get back up to 75. For some reason, the Jeep has more problems with that hill than Monarch!Nikkormat wrote: Floyd hill on I70 from Idaho Springs to Bergen park is one that give people alot of trouble. An average of a 7.7% grade and a few short sections hitting 10-12%. The speed limit is 65 but most folks manage to pull about 50 if there willing to run there car hard.
With the Jeep fully loaded I can pull that hill at 75 no problem.
Don't worry, I wasn't aiming at you in any way and I knew what you meant. You just reminded me of the Eisenhower tunnel as a good example of testing vehicle for power. I actually know guys who climb the Eisenhower tunnel in Model T's.Lumpskie wrote:I was using my tunnel reference to say that I was pretty impressed on the hill climbing ability of my Wagoneer. Another funny thing. Check out the Wikipedia page for the Eisenhower Tunnel, down in the history section. There's a picture of a wagoner about to enter it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhowe ... l_1978.jpg
The TFL Truck channel on you tube does a towing test called the "Ike Gauntlet" where they tow heavy loads with various model trucks. Loads vary on class. But the gooseneck tests on new HD's are damn impressive. A new Ram 3500 will pull 21k lbs up that grade without losing speed.FSJunkie wrote:Don't worry, I wasn't aiming at you in any way and I knew what you meant. You just reminded me of the Eisenhower tunnel as a good example of testing vehicle for power. I actually know guys who climb the Eisenhower tunnel in Model T's.Lumpskie wrote:I was using my tunnel reference to say that I was pretty impressed on the hill climbing ability of my Wagoneer. Another funny thing. Check out the Wikipedia page for the Eisenhower Tunnel, down in the history section. There's a picture of a wagoner about to enter it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhowe ... l_1978.jpg
I would honestly be surprised by any vehicle that can haul 75 MPH through it. At 11,000 feet above sea level any engine, carbureted, EFI, turbo, Diesel, whatever, will automatically be down roughly 50% on power.
I grew up at 7000 feet above sea level, and my Wagoneer never failed to haul any speed I wanted up any hill I pointed it, even up to 9500 feet, but 11,000 feet is asking a lot.