1979 Plymouth Arrow for sale in Hamilton

Just posting this because I never ever see these around these days, let alone for sale. It's on autotrader.ca if anyone wants a gander.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

Holy fuck it's Hemi Orange it must be fast .

---

...If you don't go off at least once a season you are not trying hard enough...

GB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Holy fuck it's Hemi Orange it must burn gas .
>
> ...If you don't go off at least once a season you
> are not trying hard enough...


Fixed

My 4.7l dodge motor burns fuel even when it's not running.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

4.7l? That's the SOHC bastard arrangement they made back when they were trying to be all "sophisticated" before they realized that bigger is better (TOOK 'em long enough!) and when you're going for a truck powerband in a V engine, there's nothing but gain with a pushrod design. As long as you figure out how to snake the ports between the pushrods, anyway. (Ford couldn't which is why they went SOHC in the 60's)

Er, I mean, neat, an old Arrow...

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.

Pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4.7l? That's the SOHC bastard arrangement they
> made back when they were trying to be all
> "sophisticated" before they realized that bigger
> is better (TOOK 'em long enough!) and when you're
> going for a truck powerband in a V engine, there's
> nothing but gain with a pushrod design. As long
> as you figure out how to snake the ports between
> the pushrods, anyway. (Ford couldn't which is why
> they went SOHC in the 60's)
>
> Er, I mean, neat, an old Arrow...

The arrow has a 2.9l.

My truck has a 4.7l.. and yeah it's SOHC. Not a big fan of the fuel economy, but it's claimed to be better than the old mills. The truck has more than enough power than it needs. Exactly why do you say pushrods are better for a truck powerband?

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

> >
> > Er, I mean, neat, an old Arrow...
>
> The arrow has a 2.9l.

I think you might find that the motor is a 91.1mm bore and a 98mm stroke which gives exactly 2555.1cc which they called for a while 2.6 as in G52.
A real pick up motor.

>
> Andrew McNally
> Hamilton ON
> 26

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Pushrod engines have less complicated castings, less machining to do, and generally a pushrod V engine take up less space than an equivalent SOHC, so you can either REALLY cram the engine in a tight engine bay OR you can just make the engine bigger in the first place. Doesn't apply so much to inline engines though, and of course if you're shootin' for power from a given displacement (instead of power from a given external size) then it only makes sense to throw the cams up top as long as you're also using them to opem more than two valves per cylinder.

Dodge realized all this too late, which is why they are stuck with the 4.7 for a while even though the 5.7 pushrod mill works out better. Ford realized it too late too, and they've finally got rid of their 2 valve designs in order to take advantage of all that weight and size. Chevy always realized it and thumbed their nose at DOHC V-engines, except for *two* cases where they were hunting for a different kind of car buyer. Now they make pushrod engines that would eat those expensive DOHCs for lunch size-for-size...

I heard that Toyota makes trucks too. I wonder what kinda engines they're using.

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.

Pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pushrod engines have less complicated castings,
> less machining to do, and generally a pushrod V
> engine take up less space than an equivalent SOHC,
> so you can either REALLY cram the engine in a
> tight engine bay OR you can just make the engine
> bigger in the first place. Doesn't apply so much
> to inline engines though, and of course if you're
> shootin' for power from a given displacement
> (instead of power from a given external size) then
> it only makes sense to throw the cams up top as
> long as you're also using them to opem more than
> two valves per cylinder.
>
> Dodge realized all this too late, which is why
> they are stuck with the 4.7 for a while even
> though the 5.7 pushrod mill works out better.
> Ford realized it too late too, and they've finally
> got rid of their 2 valve designs in order to take
> advantage of all that weight and size. Chevy
> always realized it and thumbed their nose at DOHC
> V-engines, except for *two* cases where they were
> hunting for a different kind of car buyer. Now
> they make pushrod engines that would eat those
> expensive DOHCs for lunch size-for-size...
>
> I heard that Toyota makes trucks too. I wonder
> what kinda engines they're using.

I hear what your saying. I don't know enough about the engine or engine design to argue.

But it doesn't affect me at all. It's in the truck, it starts everytime, has lots of power, and I'm not going to do any major work on it anyways since I'll have the truck bashed to pieces and or sold before the engine will need any major work.

Dakotas are the right size of truck for me. Everything else is either too small to be usefull or too big to not be a major pain in the ass in city environments. After that as long as the engine is good enough to make it capable and reliable then who cares.

Now if you could figure out how they could make one that didn't run on fuel, then I'd be interested.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

Pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard that Toyota makes trucks too. I wonder
> what kinda engines they're using.

I drove a tundra the other day with a 4.7l v8 in it, DOHC and 4 vavles per cylinder. Definately felt waaaay more powerful than any domestic with a similar sized engine. Hell it felt better than an f250 with the 460 to me, same goes for a chevy with the 454, though that was a dually. Amazing what a little technilogy can do.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2006 06:45AM by Carl S.

Carl S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I drove a tundra the other day with a 4.7l v8 in
> it, DOHC and 4 vavles per cylinder. Definately
> felt waaaay more powerful than any domestic with a
> similar sized engine. Hell it felt better than an
> f250 with the 460 to me, same goes for a chevy
> with the 454, though that was a dually. Amazing
> what a little technilogy can do.

I still have trouble seeing Toyota trucks as work trucks.. they were toy trucks for yuppies around here for the longest time.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

the v8 tundas hoof it pretty good.

You should have looked into them before you bought that dodge.

Parry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the v8 tundas hoof it pretty good.
>
> You should have looked into them before you bought
> that dodge.


You're probably right. I got a good deal on the dodge though. 7k off the sticker and 0% financing. Also of note, although I don't know if this is true, but I think modern cars have a built in break in period set into the computer. I got the truck with 30 km on it and have since put on 2k during that period I have noticed a distinct change in exhaust note and power. This may just be my mind playing tricks on me though. Regardless the dodge has more than enough power to burn gas until my wallet hurts and get me in trouble with the fuzz.

I agree that I need to realign my views of Toyota Trucks. They now make some real sensical work trucks.. especially considering the current domestic full size truck ridiculousness.. WHO want's a work truck where the top of the bed side is damn neigh 5 feet high? I'm 6'3 and the thought of loading up a truck like that by hand is enough to keep me far away from them. Also, I haul a lot of dirt/concrete/crap, since I do major renovations to my house myself.. being able to walk a wheelbarrow into the bed of the truck saves a lot of work.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

I doubt they dick about with the ECU. it's probably just the mill starting to wear in a bit.

my problem is that i'm a serious pessimist from putting together other people's junk all day. when day in and day out every honda and toyota repair order you get simply says it needs routine service despite the odometer saying 250,000 then your opinions start to sway haha.

Parry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I doubt they dick about with the ECU. it's
> probably just the mill starting to wear in a bit.
>
> my problem is that i'm a serious pessimist from
> putting together other people's junk all day.
> when day in and day out every honda and toyota
> repair order you get simply says it needs routine
> service despite the odometer saying 250,000 then
> your opinions start to sway haha.


Yeah I hear you, but then again how many chrysler 318 or 318 derivative engines (3.9l) have you known to need work even when abused? Same with the slant 6. That being said they had a real bad run with automatic transmissions (especially front wheel drive) for a while (not a problem when the tranny fluid was regularly changed)

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

the 318 isn't that bad, what it's attached to often is hahaha.