Did the 1979 Lil Red Express come with an air pump?

-
here's a link to what certainly appears to be an OG underhood emissions sticker

www.exoticmotorcars.com

1979 Dodge Lil Red Express D100 Adventurer Stock # DO30 for sale near Palm Springs, CA | CA Dodge Dealer

This truck is one of 5,118 produced in the final 1979 Model year. When first introduced in 1978 the Dodge engineers took advantage of loopholes in emission regulations and launched the Lil Red Express which was not only the fastest 0-100 mph American built vehicle but also what is known as the...
www.exoticmotorcars.com www.exoticmotorcars.com
 
DeltaV said:
'79 Chrysler 300 E58 360-4V info:

Intake duration: 252 degrees
Exhaust duration: 252 degrees
Overlap: 33 degrees

Intake valve: 1.88" dia., .410" lift
Exhaust valve: 1.88" dia., .410" lift

Valve springs:
Free length: .210"
Compressed load-closed:
108-118 lbs @ 1-21/32"
Compressed load-open:
186-200 lbs @ 1-1/4"

Carb:
Carter Thermo-Quad four barrel, 650 cfm

Compression ratio: 8.0 to 1
:(

Source:
1979 Chrysler 300 Handbook
Dale Burkhardt & John Veatch
Copyright 1989, All rights reserved
Click to expand...

Below is a picture from the aforementioned 1979 Chrysler 300 Handbook.

I'll look through my other collected info to find out more info on the Carter TQ carb that came on these E58 cars. I have the original TQ from my '79 300 boxed up and in my garage. I'll look for it this weekend and cross-reference the numbers to known TQ carb info.

I'll post to this thread with an update.

I'll send Dale the info for his records.


IMG_20240525_072920114.jpg
 
Last edited:
Let’s settle the cam debate, I have a 78 LRE, it has been in the family since new so I can guarantee it has not been messed with. Anyone with an unmolested 79 LRE, 78 dodge pickup with a 360, a 78 passenger car with a 360, a 340 automatic, and a 340 4 speed car, and lets race. I know weight and aerodynamics is a factor, but if the LRE can out run a passenger car and pickup, but not the 340 cars, we know it’s more then just a 360 under the hood, if it out runs the 340 cars, then
We know it’s really special :lol:
 
If you're on Facebook, look up Sam Bledsoe. He's in central California and has a very unmolested LRE, which I seem to recall being a '79. He's been around these '72-80 truck for a long time and has parted out many.
 
Cheapsunglasses said:
Let’s settle the cam debate, I have a 78 LRE, it has been in the family since new so I can guarantee it has not been messed with. Anyone with an unmolested 79 LRE, 78 dodge pickup with a 360, a 78 passenger car with a 360, a 340 automatic, and a 340 4 speed car, and lets race. I know weight and aerodynamics is a factor, but if the LRE can out run a passenger car and pickup, but not the 340 cars, we know it’s more then just a 360 under the hood, if it out runs the 340 cars, then
We know it’s really special :lol:
Click to expand...
On the matter of camshafts there's this nice summary from Larry Shepard's book entitled "How To Hot Rod Small Block Mopar Engines".

IMG_20240525_104108758~2.jpg
 
ESP47 said:
I'm getting serious about buying one in CA and I know CA has/had stricter emissions than the rest of the states but I can't find out for the life of me whether or not an air pump was ever on one of these things.

I read some articles that stated that Mopar was able to use some loopholes in 78/79 to skirt the "performance" 360 through for the LREs because of their weight but they don't say anything exact and they certainly don't mention anything special about CA.

I called a couple smog shops asking if they had a book that could tell me what exactly I needed to be connected emissions wise to pass inspection and they either wouldn't tell me or they said they just go off of whatever is on the emissions sticker. I found an emissions sticker for I believe a 79 Ramcharger on ebay and it mentions catalyst, EGR, PCV and cannister but no mention of an air pump.
Click to expand...
The E58 was considered a HD (Heavy Duty) engine and got a pass of sorts on emissions. That's why the rated GVW is 6100lbs and not 6000. Check the parts manual to be sure, but I don't think they did. Was the truck you're looking at sold NEW in California? I don't think they were allow in CA when new.
 
Cheapsunglasses said:
Let’s settle the cam debate, I have a 78 LRE, it has been in the family since new so I can guarantee it has not been messed with. Anyone with an unmolested 79 LRE, 78 dodge pickup with a 360, a 78 passenger car with a 360, a 340 automatic, and a 340 4 speed car, and lets race. I know weight and aerodynamics is a factor, but if the LRE can out run a passenger car and pickup, but not the 340 cars, we know it’s more then just a 360 under the hood, if it out runs the 340 cars, then
We know it’s really special :lol:
Click to expand...

Easy Enough

Let's measure the valve lift at the valve tip on your '78 LRE 360 4 barrel.

Want to start it up quick to pump up the lifters if it has been sitting, for accurate lift readings.

Pull one valve cover, start by getting the #1 intake valve on the bottom of the cam base circle.

Zero out your Dial Indicator on the valve stem tip area of the rocker arm.

Now roll it over to maximum lift as it is pushing the valve stem down, read the dial indicator at this point.

What are your findings?

Intake > .430
Exhaust > .444


Should be a fun experiment to see what the old gal has really got in her... camshaft wise.


Screenshot_20210707-195309_Messages.jpg


Thank You


☆☆☆☆☆
 
George Jets said:
Easy Enough

Let's measure the valve lift at the valve tip on your '78 LRE 360 4 barrel.

Want to start it up quick to pump up the lifters if it has been sitting, for accurate lift readings.

Pull one valve cover, start by getting the #1 intake valve on the bottom of the cam base circle.

Zero out your Dial Indicator on the valve stem tip area of the rocker arm.

Now roll it over to maximum lift as it is pushing the valve stem down, read the dial indicator at this point.

What are your findings?

Intake > .430
Exhaust > .444


Should be a fun experiment to see what the old gal has really got in her... camshaft wise.


View attachment 1716254192

Thank You


☆☆☆☆☆
Click to expand...
If I had dial indicators that could work…..but who doesn’t love a drag race :lol:
 
Cheapsunglasses said:
Let’s settle the cam debate, I have a 78 LRE, it has been in the family since new so I can guarantee it has not been messed with. Anyone with an unmolested 79 LRE, 78 dodge pickup with a 360, a 78 passenger car with a 360, a 340 automatic, and a 340 4 speed car, and lets race. I know weight and aerodynamics is a factor, but if the LRE can out run a passenger car and pickup, but not the 340 cars, we know it’s more then just a 360 under the hood, if it out runs the 340 cars, then
We know it’s really special :lol:
Click to expand...

I posted magazine 1/4 miles times earlier, not that I am in favor of racing magazine articles. But based on those numbers, the LRE isn't anywhere near as fast a '74 Duster 360. It was faster than a car E58 though.

I'd be curious if you can hear any kind of a lope in yours. Wonder if the exhaust note would give a clue.
 
DionR said:
I posted magazine 1/4 miles times earlier, not that I am in favor of racing magazine articles. But based on those numbers, the LRE isn't anywhere near as fast a '74 Duster 360. It was faster than a car E58 though.

I'd be curious if you can hear any kind of a lope in yours. Wonder if the exhaust note would give a clue.
Click to expand...
There’s a decent amount of lope in the exhaust

Other reason I suggested a drag race, No magazine magic :lol:
 
DionR said:
That article is funny. It mentions a 650 TQ as well. And the prototype got a 252/252 cam while the production EH1 got the 340 cam?
Click to expand...
pretty wild.

i can understand the prototype getting all the **** hot parts what with dodge skunk works being, well, dodge skunk works and hoover's involvement.

that's the third mention of the 650 TQ, which really has me scratching my head. i've pulled, handled and rebuilt my fair share of 70's~80's TQ's and never seen such a beast to my knowledge.

ETA: my google-fu isn't usually super strong in the am, but i unearthed this gem from dick landy via mopar muscle column in 94

"There are two basic ThermoQuad Carburetors: one with 1 3/8" primaries and 2 1/4" secondaries for the 318 and 340 (A) engines and a Holley comparison CFM of 650 CFM. The second one had 1 1/2" primaries and 2 1/4" secondaries with a Holley comparison CFM of 820. It's used with some 360s and all the 'B' engines. Actually, Carter called this one a 1000 CFM unit. Their airflow numbers were measured differently than Holley. Also, some ThermoQuads the secondary air-door limited, which also decreased
the secondary air-door limited, which also decreased the CFM."
Click to expand...

so maybe it's just a matter of flow rating, method of flow rating or an installed limiter.

the secondary air-door limited, which also decreased the CFM."
 
Last edited:
Here is the factory offerings for '75 - https://www.hamtramck-historical.co...DataBook/1975/75-1-Dodge-engineering_0004.jpg

1716653911606.png


Note that there were two versions of the E58 that year, federal and CA. For the federal motor, torque peak RPM is the same as for the '74 E58 while the HP peak is 400 RPM lower. And the federal E58 is noted to have an HP cam.

Here is the '76 offerings. - https://www.hamtramck-historical.com/images/dealerships/DealershipDataBook/1976/76-Dodge engineering_0004.jpg

1716654065828.png


Again with the two versions of the E58.

1977 - https://www.hamtramck-historical.co...ipDataBook/1977/77_Dodge_engineering_0004.jpg

1716654211392.png


Note that now no listing of an HP cam version, and the federal version peaks are lower again. Still not as low the CA one, but pretty low. And now 800/1600 RPM lower than the '74 E58.

1978 - https://www.hamtramck-historical.co...ipDataBook/1978/78_Dodge_engineering_0004.jpg

1716654565409.png


Interesting that the peak rpm for torque actually went up at that point. I also just noticed that is says the CA E58 did not get Lean Burn. That seems backwards to me.

There does still appear to be a difference in output between the federal and CA motors, but my guess is it is tuning and not that the '77+ federal E58 got the 340 cam. And I find it hard to believe that if the E58 was available at the same time, Dodge wouldn't have dropped it in to the truck as is and called it the EH1 due to a different tune since it didn't have LB, cat's and used dual exhaust.

It's all just speculation, the factory could have done any number of things. Could be the lack of an HP cam listing after '76 was just to condense the listings. And they could have played games with the ratings for some reason. But it doesn't make sense to me that they would put the 340 cam in the later cars. They were fighting to keep up with the emissions laws and I doubt the 340 cam would have helped them. Nor do I see a reason to fudge the numbers for insurance or NHRA factoring by then.

I think the '77+ E58 was still a special motor, and I think the EH1 was even more so. But I doubt they had the 340 cam, they were special for other reasons.
 
Last edited:
junkyardhero said:
pretty wild.

i can understand the prototype getting all the **** hot parts what with dodge skunk works being, well, dodge skunk works and hoover's involvement.

that's the third mention of the 650 TQ, which really has me scratching my head. i've pulled, handled and rebuilt my fair share of 70's~80's TQ's and never seen such a beast to my knowledge.

ETA: my google-fu isn't usually super strong in the am, but i unearthed this gem from dick landy via mopar muscle column in 94



so maybe it's just a matter of flow rating, method of flow rating or an installed limiter.

the secondary air-door limited, which also decreased the CFM."
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I would have argued that the 650 number was maybe someone misreading it (6 does look like 8). I've always heard of them as rated at 800 and 850 cfm.

Looking at the list of TQ numbers, it does appear that the later E58 motors did get the smaller (1 3/8" primary) TQ, so that would match up.
 
DionR said:
That's interesting. I would have argued that the 650 number was maybe someone misreading it (6 does look like 8). I've always heard of them as rated at 800 and 850 cfm.

Looking at the list of TQ numbers, it does appear that the later E58 motors did get the smaller (1 3/8" primary) TQ, so that would match up.
Click to expand...
i think it's a matter of some pendant pushing their glasses up on their nose and saying: well actually it's flow and rating are two different things

and then that just became what was published. or they just installed a limiter on the air door because the feds were putting the screws to them.
 
My Ca. version 1978 W250 360 auto has a smog pump. It would be a bit strange that a 100 would not need one, but, a 250 would. Usually, it's the other way around.
 
I found it interesting that the '75-'77 E58 is listed with dual exhaust. I figured the drop in HP/TQ between '74 and '75 was due to having to use a single exhaust and a cat, but I found this post that makes me think they did actually keep the dual exhaust through at least probably '76. Not sure how the '77 E58 worked since it still listed dual exhaust and the only place it appears to have been offered was the F-Body coupe but it can't do a dual exhaust. And the '76 F-Body doesn't list the E58 as an option.

I wonder how many '77 E58 F-Bodies were actually produced. The literature is confusing and is certainly from the beginning of the MY so probably went through changes. But the only listing of the E58 in '77 also has an asterixis that says federal only, while the engine availability for the F-Body says federal, high altitude and CA. My bet is the only car you could get the E58 in that year was a non-CA F-Body coupe, if at all.

BTW, the '75-'76 E58 had different carb tuning per the Vaanth documentation. Might help explain the drop in power compared to the '74 E58?
 
kmccabe56 said:
The E58 was considered a HD (Heavy Duty) engine and got a pass of sorts on emissions. That's why the rated GVW is 6100lbs and not 6000. Check the parts manual to be sure, but I don't think they did. Was the truck you're looking at sold NEW in California? I don't think they were allow in CA when new.
Click to expand...
I don't have concrete evidence, but to my knowledge both '78 and '79 LRE's were available in California. As for how a smog pump works, I have a theory. They claim it allows for unburned gasoline in the exhaust to burn due to the introduction of more oxygen. My theory is that all it does is dilute the exhaust by introducing "clean" air to reduce the parts per million of the exhaust coming out the port.
 
DionR said:
I found it interesting that the '75-'77 E58 is listed with dual exhaust. I figured the drop in HP/TQ between '74 and '75 was due to having to use a single exhaust and a cat, but I found this post that makes me think they did actually keep the dual exhaust through at least probably '76. Not sure how the '77 E58 worked since it still listed dual exhaust and the only place it appears to have been offered was the F-Body coupe but it can't do a dual exhaust. And the '76 F-Body doesn't list the E58 as an option.

I wonder how many '77 E58 F-Bodies were actually produced. The literature is confusing and is certainly from the beginning of the MY so probably went through changes. But the only listing of the E58 in '77 also has an asterixis that says federal only, while the engine availability for the F-Body says federal, high altitude and CA. My bet is the only car you could get the E58 in that year was a non-CA F-Body coupe, if at all.

BTW, the '75-'76 E58 had different carb tuning per the Vaanth documentation. Might help explain the drop in power compared to the '74 E58?
Click to expand...
i find it all fascinating. i mean, not that it makes a lick of difference for what i'm doing, but it's interesting none the less.

here's a question on the 75~76 dip in power, was that in conjunction with the debut of lean burn? or was that when they went to the 8:1 compression vs. the 8.4:1?
 
This will not help the question on 1979 LRT air pump. But my story on what cam is in mine.

I have the EH1 from my 1978 LRT on a stand buried in the garage. The engine was pulled and regasketed around 1989 due to leaking coolant at right headgasket. Has steel dual chain cam sprockets, Windage Tray. The cam was sent to Delta Cams in Tacoma to have it checked and reground to the 340 HP spec's and they said it already spec'ed out the same as a 1968 340 Auto. He said he could regrind it to give it some more lift but I said no. He did regrind a E58 cam to Heim specs for me but I did not use it in the EH1.

Has a spun rod bearing.

If I wanted to, I could pull the cam, set it in some v blocks and measure the loab lift. Just too much going on so not happening.

The engine in the LRT right now is a 1977 E58 from a Dippy Cop Car. Had a nylon timing gear but does have a windage tray, 6 blade water pump. A set of highly ported closed chamber 1967 273 heads with 1.88 intake and 1.5 ex. Put a HEMI Grind cam in it. Really does not have much lope, some but not a lot. But will set off all car alarms in the neighborhood. A999 with low 1st gear, 3.55:1 gears and 265/75 15s and pulls like a freight train. Block has a crack in the rear China Wall and leaks oil bad.
 
Last edited:
Dave_J said:
This will not help the question on 1979 LRT air pump. But my story on what cam is in mine.

I have the EH1 from my 1978 LRT on a stand buried in the garage. The engine was pulled and regasketed around 1989 due to leaking coolant at right headgasket. Has steel dual chain cam sprockets, Windage Tray. The cam was sent to Delta Cams in Tacoma to have it checked and reground to the 340 HP spec's and they said it already spec'ed out the same as a 1968 340 Auto. He said he could regrind it to give it some more lift but I said no. He did regrind a E58 cam to Heim specs for me but I did not use it in the EH1.

Has a spun rod bearing.

If I wanted to, I could pull the cam, set it in some v blocks and measure the loab lift. Just too much going on so not happening.

The engine in the LRT right now is a 1977 E58 from a Dippy Cop Car. Had a nylon timing gear but does have a windage tray, 6 blade water pump. A set of highly ported closed chamber 1967 273 heads with 1.88 intake and 1.5 ex. Put a HEMI Grind cam in it. Really does not have much lope, some but not a lot. But will set off all car alarms in the neighborhood. A999 with low 1st gear, 3.55:1 gears and 265/75 15s and pulls like a freight train. Block has a crack in the rear China Wall and leaks oil bad.
Click to expand...

Proof ^ is in the pudding, cam shop said it has the '68 340 auto cam specs.

Thanks for posting up your experience.


☆☆☆☆☆
 
junkyardhero said:
i find it all fascinating. i mean, not that it makes a lick of difference for what i'm doing, but it's interesting none the less.

here's a question on the 75~76 dip in power, was that in conjunction with the debut of lean burn? or was that when they went to the 8:1 compression vs. the 8.4:1?
Click to expand...
I really doubt that a .3 drop in compression would account for that much power loss. I do suspect that the addition of the catalytic convertor, which in those days was very restrictive, single exhaust, carb and distributor changes for smog, lean burn, and other things like less cam caused the drop. The E58 in my old '79 W250 (club cab, long bed, 4.10s) never seemed to really lack power in my opinion. It wasn't fast by any stretch of the imagination, but would climb the Grapevine at speed (in a lower gear). I figure the fuel mileage was not terrible considering everything (8-9 in town, 13 on the highway).

One more note on compression. Our GTS (727, 3.23 open) had a '73 340 short block in it when we bought it and was topped with a pair of stock 318 heads. I got a pair of 340 heads and really didn't FEEL much difference. Replaced the short block with a '70 .030 340 with TRW 10.5 pistons. This was all with a stock 340 cam, intake, and AVS. There was no seat of the pants difference in any of the combos. Now, with that said, compression and heads start to make a bigger difference as the cam gets more aggressive.
 
ESP47 said:
I'm getting serious about buying one in CA and I know CA has/had stricter emissions than the rest of the states but I can't find out for the life of me whether or not an air pump was ever on one of these things.

I read some articles that stated that Mopar was able to use some loopholes in 78/79 to skirt the "performance" 360 through for the LREs because of their weight but they don't say anything exact and they certainly don't mention anything special about CA.

I called a couple smog shops asking if they had a book that could tell me what exactly I needed to be connected emissions wise to pass inspection and they either wouldn't tell me or they said they just go off of whatever is on the emissions sticker. I found an emissions sticker for I believe a 79 Ramcharger on ebay and it mentions catalyst, EGR, PCV and cannister but no mention of an air pump.
Click to expand...
What exactly is a smog shop?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top