What do you think about this statement.........

-
Newbomb Turk said:
Whatever gets you through the day. I laid out my thoughts on magnum engines. You don’t like it. Move on then.

Not once have you shown (or anyone else for that matter) how the magnum is superior to the LA.
Click to expand...
Jeeze I didn’t mention your name here, why are you quoting my post and getting all angry at me. I was just making a general post. But I guess you felt the the ‘shoe fit’ so you’re wearing it?
 
Last edited:
Newbomb Turk said:
Whatever gets you through the day. I laid out my thoughts on magnum engines. You don’t like it. Move on then.

Not once have you shown (or anyone else for that matter) how the magnum is superior to the LA.
Click to expand...
There is a fairly large thread here on exactly this subject, check it out , tons of info, see what others say

I'm Not ragging you
 
Brooks James said:
There is a fairly large thread here on exactly this subject, check it out , tons of info, see what others say

I'm Not ragging you
Click to expand...


Lol. Ok. I’ll help you out.

The Magnum is superior in every way. It’s the best engine ever devised.

Does that make you feel any better? It’s sad to be a fan boi just because.
 
If the Magnums came with LA rocker gear I don’t think we would be having these debates.
 
Lol, metric bolts ...we're in the USA. HA HA HA! True enough but it is a world market out there. New design heavy duty engines designed in the good 'ol US of A are designed/engineered with metric fasteners for 3 to 4 decades now. Get with the times. The General, Ford and Mopar engine displacements are in metric and have been for years now.
For those that complain about people using Chev roller rockers on a Magnum, check the cost of Mopar rockers. You insist on Mopar parts you better be prepared to bend over. 1.7:1 Chev or Ford roller rockers are less expensive for a bit more lift. The issue is drilling and taping the bolt holes from 8mm to 7/16UNC for the studs to mount them.
It comes down to parts availability and fitment with cost in mind. If it works, have at it.
 
4mulas said:
You sure seem to be pretty negative on this and any comment on them, not sure why?

All I know is I have a 9.0:1 magnum crate motor with R/T heads, M1 single plane and a carb that makes around 450 horse power and even more ft. pound's tq in a ‘70 duster and it hauls ***. I’m a fan! **** I can even use regular pump gas if I wanted too. I splurge for premium though!

Just out freshening up the engine and engine bay. Getting ready for tti exhaust this time and a more user friendly automatic valve body trans vs the tci manual race one that was in before.

View attachment 1716208130

View attachment 1716208131
Click to expand...
Nice lookin car!
 
toolmanmike said:
I agree there. The chevy boys have been modifying for shafts and girdles and the like to make their junk strong enough to live with big springs and at healthy rpm. Mopar can probably get the job done with stock shafts and factory iron rockers.



View attachment 1716207024
Click to expand...
Yes, wellll, Magnums do not come with shaft rockers so you are back to following the Chevy and Ford guys lead, stud girdles or engineering a shaft system.
 
I don't think either engine is superior. They are both different. I like shaft mounted rockers. I like the factory roller camshaft setups. I like the closed chamber Magnum heads. I like the fact that LA heads rarely crack. Magnum heads probably already are cracked. Just pick your poison and run it.
 
Dale Davies said:
Yes, wellll, Magnums do not come with shaft rockers so you are back to following the Chevy and Ford guys lead, stud girdles or engineering a shaft system.
Click to expand...
Hughes Engines sells some Billy Badass shaft mounted rockers for the Magnum. They ain't cheap.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
Low friction rings? They are 1/16 inch rings. Nothing trick about that. I can buy off the shelf pistons with that ring pack.

The skirt coating is a joke. Waste of money but it’s done to make folks think it’s trick. It’s not.

Reusable gaskets? You can get them for anything.

When I get excited about 9:1 I’ll let you know. I’ve not measured one to know for sure but I doubt the vast majority are 9:1.

The heads aren’t better.

I get it. You can’t tune a carb because if you could you wouldn’t brag on EFI.

There is nothing “superior” about the magnum.
Click to expand...
U R wrong Turk on EFI. There is a good reason engine life doubled or tripled after the introduction of EFI. Generally better mixture management combined with fuel atomization at higher pressures than atmosphereic, Throttle bodies at 15PSI and then with MPI whether batch or sequential at about 45 to 50PSI. Now a well calibrated carb can do an excellent job of metering the fuel, but atomization is still an issue that causes fuel wash of the cylinder walls which enables cylinder and ring wear.
 
toolmanmike said:
Magnums were an improvement over the LA's. Metric and fuel injection needed to happen. There are some good things that happened:

"Introduced back in 1992, the 5.9L Magnum was the successor to Mopar's successful LA-series 360. With improved cylinder heads, better sealing, higher compression, thinner rings, and an all-new higher ratio valvetrain among the many modifications, the 5.9 Magnum breathed new life in the old small-block V-8. The revision extended the service of the traditional Mopar small-block another 12 years, finally ending production with the 2003 model year. The 5.9 was strictly a truck engine, powering the likes of Durangos, Dakotas, Rams, vans, and Jeeps. Although not a muscle car engine in the traditional sense, power ratings were between 230 and 250 net horsepower depending upon year and application, up from the last LA-series 360's 190 hp.



With a long production run as the last Mopar small-block, these Magnum engines are stacked up like cordwood in boneyards across the country. As pretty much a direct bolt-in for any classic Mopar muscle car or truck, a used 5.9 is an easy and cheap way to up-power your Mopar. We find these truck engines tend to survive very well, often with minimal bore wear owing to the factory 1/16-inch moly compression rings, tall overdrive gears, and the port fuel injection system. The short-blocks more often than not can be freshened with little more than a set of rings, bearings, and gaskets, and sometimes they are good enough to run right out of the boneyard."

The Motor Trend article went on to say the downfall was the head cracking issue and followed up with mention of the Engine Quest heads being a good fix for the problem.
Click to expand...
Even if the blocks have identical metalurgy, cylinder maching techniques with plateau honing improves the surface finish for less wear during breakin which is almost instantanious now. Then rings metalurgy and surface finishes come into play and combined with narrower rings to reduce friction, wear is reduced.
 
Dale Davies said:
U R wrong Turk on EFI. There is a good reason engine life doubled or tripled after the introduction of EFI. Generally better mixture management combined with fuel atomization at higher pressures than atmosphereic, Throttle bodies at 15PSI and then with MPI whether batch or sequential at about 45 to 50PSI. Now a well calibrated carb can do an excellent job of metering the fuel, but atomization is still an issue that causes fuel wash of the cylinder walls which enables cylinder and ring wear.
Click to expand...


Only because the computer made EFI moron proof. Pretty hard to do that with a carb.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
Only because the computer made EFI moron proof. Pretty hard to do that with a carb.
Click to expand...
The advantage EFI remtains over a carburetor is atomization. Nothing to do with idiot proof. No carburetor disburses as fine droplets as injection. Annular boosters atomize better than conventional boosters. The best carb at coming close to injection atomization is the SU constant vaccum ca rbiretors
 
Dale Davies said:
The advantage EFI remtains over a carburetor is atomization. Nothing to do with idiot proof. No carburetor disburses as fine droplets as injection. Annular boosters atomize better than conventional boosters. The best carb at coming close to injection atomization is the SU constant vaccum ca rbiretors
Click to expand...


LOL.
 
Let's also not forget how dog **** carbs run when the engine is cold. Slow idle, choke on, super rich. All this while parts are all still cold. Versus instant startup, fast idle, nice transition to lean burn at idle that a carb can only dream of.

Wanna know why EFI engines last longer? There you go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top