Talk:Chrysler Hemi engine/Archive 2

A Suggestion for clarifying the advantages of the "Hemi" design

The second paragraph of the main article states: "A hemispherical (inverted bowl-shape) combustion chamber allows the valves of a two valve-per-cylinder engine to be angled rather than side-by-side."

OK - but so what? That doesn't explain why the Hemi was worshiped by engine performance gurus. What's missing is an explanation of what difference the Hemispherical combustion chamber makes. I suggest following that first line with something like:

This creates more space in the combustion chamber roof for the use of larger valves and also straightens the airflow passages through the cylinder head. These improvements result in significantly more horsepower from the same engine displacement.

signed - DanEastwood@principia.edu (a former Chrysler engine development engineer). 66.227.205.18 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The hemi engine has been awarded again in 2009 one of the 10 best engines, so you should add it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.94.183 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah the real engine makes about 520 horsepower at the crank, where as the newer crate engine makes about 375hp due to the very small cam that comes in the crate engine, making it much more streetable, a simple cam swap would get the numbers back up where they should be, the article is very missleading saying that it only produced 360hp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.192.75 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Four Cylinder "Hemi"

Chrysler marketed the Mitsubishi 2.6L I4 as a "Hemi" engine during the 1970s and 80s. This should at least be noted in the article. 71.134.245.164 (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"During the 1970s and 1980s, Chrysler also used the 'Hemi' designation for the four-cylinder Mitsubishi 2.6L engine."

Could someone with edit rights add this to the introduction? There are thousands of cars with "Hemis" still driving around that are not reflected by this article. Thanks! Atarivideomusic (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

another point that the article fails to mention is the fact that while the hemi design is inherantly more powerful than a similarly equiped and sized motor, it really begins to shine with its ability to make great power with forced induction, namely superchargers. supercharged hemis can make a great deal more power with a supercharger than any other type of engine of similer displacement. this is one of the biggest reasons they are still the #1 and only choice design for top-fuel and funny car drag racing engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase.chapman (talk • contribs) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

it is NOT "inherently more powerful", it just allowed for more valve opening area into the chamber than other designs OF THE PERIOD. since then, multi-valve designs have become more prevalent and if not for racing organizations being stuck in a timewarp, would, and are for the classes that allow them, the preferred method of increasing flow into a combustion chamber. just because nascar, nhra, ihra, whoever, decide they don't want to allow true competition in design, doesn't make a hemispherical chamber "inherently" better. don't drink that flavoraide please. as for forced induction helping old chrysler hemis, that was well-known back in the day. the reason it helps is that the ports and valves were sooooo large and chambers soooo cavernous, that only the extra force from a supercharger would properly fill the chamber for combustion. real racers of the day preferred the wedge-headed 440's over the 426 hemis because at anything less than 7k rpm, or with a blower, the intake flow through those valves was turgid to say the least. might as well have been trying to combust mud. as for a "hemi" being the only choice in top-fuel and funny cars today? that's a rule, they are REQUIRED by the organizers of those events to keep costs down for the racers, not because of any "inherent" benefit. It's just where the needle got stuck back in the 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.220.112 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The name Hemi

It has not been registered until very recently. No where in an old ad you will find the TM sign. It has been reserved with the return of the hemi recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.147.254 (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Need for statement clarification

The main article contains the following: "To date the engines based on the old Chrysler design predominate Top Fuel and Funny Car classes due to low costs and plentiful parts after their long monopoly in the classes.:

This statement is not accurate. A Top Fuel/Funny car engine will cost in the area of $50,000. It is good for one run down the quarter mile before it has to be rebuilt or replaced.

Please see http://www.insideline.com/features/drag-racing-inside-the-heart-of-the-us-army-top-fuel-dragster.html

Low cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.35.169 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Lower" cost might be a better word choice. No, top fuel engines are not "cheap". But parts designed for one common engine are "cheaper" than custom designed and custom manufactured parts for other engines. Many suppliers make parts for the "standard" top fuel hemi and that keeps the already expensive engines from costing twice as much to campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.238.234 (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)