What made the slant-6 so good?
Graham Shortt
indestructable. I know of thier legendary reialbility and the high esteem
in which they are held. What particular design feature(s) of the slant 6
can account for thier reliability?
D J Mann
No particular design feature I can think of beyond simplicity, good selection
of materials, and not trying to wring every last ounce of torque or drop of HP
for the given displacement.
Whatshisname
the pistons would wear on the bottom side of the slant. All the experts said
this engine would be plagued with piston failures.
Bob
D J Mann
>I recall years ago when CC introduced the slant 6 all the comments about how
>the pistons would wear on the bottom side of the slant. All the experts said
>this engine would be plagued with piston failures.
Yeah. Funny how angled cylinders on a V8 were never addressed with that same
"logic".
Daniel J Stern
> >I had several slant 6's in my household and they were virtually
> >indestructable. I know of thier legendary reialbility and the high esteem
> >in which they are held. What particular design feature(s) of the slant 6
> >can account for thier reliability?
>
Here are a few:
-High levels of nickel and elemental tin in the iron used for the cylinder
block and high levels of chrome in the iron used for the cylinder head.
These premium iron alloys wear longer than the lower grade stuff that was
typically being used by competitors at the time.
-A massive, fully-balanced forged steel crankshaft. Extremely rigid and
with bearings the size of those used in the 440 V8 engine. The bearing
centreline is set above the oil pan rails,(a "Deep skirt" block design)
which gives this engine incredible rigidity.
-Forged steel connecting rods. Again, an extremely tough, rigid material.
-Autothermic aluminum pistons with high-manganese steel piston pins. More
heavy-duty materials and techniques
-Solid, rather than hydraulic, valve lifters with tubular pushrods. These
have only ONE moving part--the lifter itself--in comparison to hydraulic
lifters with many delicate moving parts that can leak/wear out/break. The
tradeoff here is that the Slant-6s require periodic tappet clearance
adjustment. (Hydraulic lifters were added in '81).
-Hardened camshaft lobes
-Relatively small valve size in relation to engine displacement, which
boosts low-end torque and driveability and ensures more-than-adequate
cooling of the exhaust valve face surfaces.
-Excellent rod ratio minimizes side loading of pistons to reduce internal
friction and wear.
The fact that the Slant-6s have such comparatively long stroke:bore ratios
means that they develop a LOT of low-end torque--in daily-driver service,
they rarely see the high side of 3000 rpm. This, together with HD
construction and materials (for which hoppers-up of other brands of V8
engines pay lots of extra money to build-in to their engines, but which
come standard in a Slant-6) means that the SL6 just keeps running and
running and running.
--Daniel
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> I recall years ago when CC introduced the slant 6 all the comments about how
> the pistons would wear on the bottom side of the slant. All the experts said
> this engine would be plagued with piston failures.
>
That's pretty hilarious. The force from piston weight is miniscule next
to the side thrust caused when the engine is running and the piston is
being driven by the combustion pressure. The wear due to the engine
being tilted is probably not even measurable. What about almost all
light airplane engines that are of the horizontally-opposed design?
These are some of the hardest run IC engines in use (typical cruise is
65% power or higher and they run at nearly 100% power during climb) yet
routinely run 1500-2000 hours between overhauls. And this is with the
pistons lying completely on their sides.
Matt
MAX340
>how
>> the pistons would wear on the bottom side of the slant. All the experts
>said
>> this engine would be plagued with piston failures.
>That's pretty hilarious. The force from piston weight is miniscule next
>to the side thrust caused when the engine is running and the piston is
>being driven by the combustion pressure.
>The wear due to the engine
>being tilted is probably not even measurable.
Um, you can luagh, but it does happen. We had one do that at the 210,000 mark.
It was bad enought to require an overhaul. Of course, most engines dont make
the 200,000 mark, so....
Max
Citizen Joe
> I had several slant 6's in my household and they were virtually
> indestructable. I know of thier legendary reialbility and the high esteem
> in which they are held. What particular design feature(s) of the slant 6
> can account for thier reliability?
This was discussed almost 2 years ago on the newsgroup.
I quote:
If you have to ask...well, you've never driven one 150,000 miles and
then sold it to someone who drove it another 100k '-)
___________________________________________________________________________________
tak...@my-dejanews.com
where they tested an early 1960s Dodge Lancer (small car on the order of the
Valiant) equipped with a "hyper pack" version of the 225 slant six. If I
remember right, the thing was rated at 196 horsepower or something phenomenal
like that. The car had a 4-pot carb & low restriction exhaust headers, along
with other performance goodies. Apparently, the hyper pack was a Chrysler
option for at least one or two years in the early 1960s. I'm going from
memory here (which is very dangerous at my age), but it seems as though they
got this Lancer up to 60 MPH in around 9 seconds--pretty healthy performance
for a six of that era!
Drew
In article <Pine.SOL.4.02.981206...@kevlar.engin.umich.edu>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
tak...@my-dejanews.com
Corvair, etc.
Drew
In article <19981206223848...@ng150.aol.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Daniel J Stern
Full description of the Hyper Pak is in the tech library of the Internet
Slant-6 Club, www.tailfins.com/slant6
--Daniel
To write to me, make my address go:
dastern "at" umich "dot" edu
"KRACH - Gerausch von Glassplittern..."
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> >> I recall years ago when CC introduced the slant 6 all the comments about
> >how
> >> the pistons would wear on the bottom side of the slant. All the experts
> >said
> >> this engine would be plagued with piston failures.
>
> >That's pretty hilarious. The force from piston weight is miniscule next
> >to the side thrust caused when the engine is running and the piston is
> >being driven by the combustion pressure.
>
> >The wear due to the engine
> >being tilted is probably not even measurable.
>
> Um, you can luagh, but it does happen. We had one do that at the 210,000 mark.
> It was bad enought to require an overhaul. Of course, most engines dont make
> the 200,000 mark, so....
I'm still laughing. The cylinder angle of the slant six is less than a
V-8 and probably less even than the 60 degree V-6 engines (I think the
angle was around 20-25 degrees). Therefore, the concern about a slant
six is nothing compared to the 45 degree angle of a typical V-8 or the
90 degree angle of a horizontally-opposed configuration.
MAtt
Daniel J Stern
> I'm still laughing. The cylinder angle of the slant six is less than a
> V-8 and probably less even than the 60 degree V-6 engines (I think the
> angle was around 20-25 degrees).
The Slant-6 was inclined 30 degrees, so the cylinder inclination is equal
to that in a 60-degree V-type engine.
Graham Shortt
Citizen Joe wrote in message <74g3qh$eb7$1...@ns2.foothill.net>...
>Graham Shortt <Canad...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>> I had several slant 6's in my household and they were virtually
>> indestructable. I know of thier legendary reialbility and the high
esteem
>> in which they are held. What particular design feature(s) of the slant 6
>> can account for thier reliability?
>
>
>
>This was discussed almost 2 years ago on the newsgroup.
>I quote:
>
>
>If you have to ask...well, you've never driven one 150,000 miles and
>then sold it to someone who drove it another 100k '-)
I had one slant six in a 79 Dodge Aspen wagon that did 400 000 km's (250 000
miles)and i sold it to someone and I saw it a couple of years later still
ugly and still running. It was handed down twice. First my dad who bought
it brand new in 79 drove it till it reached 260 000km's and then my brother
abused it for another 40 000 and I rigorously thrashed it for another 100
000. The thing was totally indestructable and mechanically never let me
down. The alternators were a different story, as were the ignition modules.
tak...@my-dejanews.com
fan of the slant six for years...I've always regarded it and the AMC seven
main bearing six (199/232/258/4.0L) as two of the best & sturdiest engines
around--having seen examples of both keep giving reliable service for a LOT
of miles with minimal maintenance (AMC sixes did tend to have a slightly
higher incidence of valve-train problems than slant-sixes because they used
hydraulic lifters, but their bottom ends are incredibly rugged).
Drew
Daniel J Stern <das...@ftp.japan.com> wrote:
> Hi, Drew.
>
> Full description of the Hyper Pak is in the tech library of the Internet
> Slant-6 Club, www.tailfins.com/slant6
>
> --Daniel
>
> To write to me, make my address go:
> dastern "at" umich "dot" edu
>
> "KRACH - Gerausch von Glassplittern..."
>
Chris
SL6, I have questions about engine design in general for engines in the 4 to
6 cylinder range.
I have had the sneaking suspicion that inline 6, 5 or even 4 cylinder cars
are a better design than a V6 design. I have often guessed that it had to
do with 1) a geometry that lended itself to a strong-rigid casting, and 2)
NOT inherently balanced design like the V6 is, requiring more inertial mass
which keeps out-of-the-ordinary bumps, misses and sputters from exerting
certain forces which could cause wear and trouble.
Is there any truth to the statement that inline 4,5 or 6 engines are better
than V6 engines?
Thanks,
Chris
( a cc: or reply to the following address would be appreciated since I often
miss replies in the group)
mailto:ch...@brainiac.com
Joe Bays
<ch...@noemail.com> wrote:
> I certainly was. Not intending to ever compare or match goodness to the
> SL6, I have questions about engine design in general for engines in the 4 to
> 6 cylinder range.
>
> I have had the sneaking suspicion that inline 6, 5 or even 4 cylinder cars
> are a better design than a V6 design. I have often guessed that it had to
> do with 1) a geometry that lended itself to a strong-rigid casting, and 2)
> NOT inherently balanced design like the V6 is, requiring more inertial mass
> which keeps out-of-the-ordinary bumps, misses and sputters from exerting
> certain forces which could cause wear and trouble.
>
> Is there any truth to the statement that inline 4,5 or 6 engines are better
> than V6 engines?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
Your middle paragraph is a little discombobulated, but the answer is yes.
The inline six is inherently balanced. In the days of simple crankshafts,
only Ford and Cadillac used V-8s, and they did vibrate, but nothing like a
unbalanced V-6 would have, if anybody was fool enough to try it.
--
Joe Bays
my e-mail address is jnbays at tricon dot net
tak...@my-dejanews.com
jnb...@nospam.net (Joe Bays) wrote:
> Your middle paragraph is a little discombobulated, but the answer is yes.
> The inline six is inherently balanced. In the days of simple crankshafts,
> only Ford and Cadillac used V-8s, and they did vibrate, but nothing like a
> unbalanced V-6 would have, if anybody was fool enough to try it.
A 90 degree V6 is inherently unbalanced, but how about a 60 degree V6? I
remember the 60-degree angle was a big thing with the GMC truck V6s that came
out around 1960 (and most modern V6s are 60 degree designs too).
I'm a fan of in-line sixes myself--they generally seem to be long lived and
torquey. Of course, the same can be said for many modern V6s too...
Drew
Chris
general~ than V6 engines? I have always wondered about the V6 being nearly
inherently balanced and its lower rotational inertial mass causing bumps and
sputters to cause more wear, along with a simpler block geometry to add
stiffness. Any truth to any of this?
Chris
Daniel J Stern
balanced than a V6, and the placement relationship of the crank in the
block allows longer rods, which allow better low-end torque.
--Daniel
Gary
run lower hood lines without sacrificing cubic inches. Look at Fords
300 6 and GM's 302 both were two large to fit under the hoods of cars.
The 200 inch engines they did use sacrificed rod lenght and stroke to
build a straight six that would fit. Chrysler solved the problem with
good engineering lean it over.
Gary
6 in a row will make it go
--
Howell Automotive
Po Box 39
3 Mopar Place, Rt. 46 East
Keyser, WV 26726 USA
Telephone: 1 (304) 788-5391
Fax: 1 (304) 788-3096
E@mail: In...@howellautomotive.com
In English: http://www.howellautomotive.com
In het Nederlands:
http://www.howellautomotive.com/indexnl.html
MAX340
>
>
Uh, no. The Chevy 4.3, Chevy 3.8(229ci), Dodge 3.9, Buick 3.8(231ci), and Ford
3.8 are all 90 degree V6's.
And honestly, not going overseas, the only 60 degree V6 I can think of is the
2.8/3.1/3.4 Chevy, and it eats crankshafts, particularly the carbed RWD 2.8.
Max
Some people think they know it all. The rest of us have the skill/experience to
overcome our lack of knowledge, research the facts, ask questions, or even the
sense to walk away, letting well enough alone.
Steve Fleckenstein
an old v12 ??
Steve
tak...@my-dejanews.com
ga...@howellautomotive.com wrote:
> Chrysler engineers angled the /6 for hood clearance. It allowed them to
> run lower hood lines without sacrificing cubic inches. Look at Fords
> 300 6 and GM's 302 both were two large to fit under the hoods of cars.
> The 200 inch engines they did use sacrificed rod lenght and stroke to
> build a straight six that would fit. Chrysler solved the problem with
> good engineering lean it over.
Another advantage of the 15-degree slant of the Chrysler slant six was that it
allowed an intake manifold with LONG runners to give a bit of a ram effect to
the incoming air/fuel mixture of these engines.
Ford actually did use its 240 cubic inch six for many years in full sized
cars. The 240 was based on the same block as the 300 six used in trucks.
The smaller Ford six (144/170/200/250) was developed as a light-weight engine
for use in compact cars like the Falcon & Comet (later used in Mustangs,
Mavericks, etc.). The early 144 & 170 versions of this engine had ultra-short
strokes--the 144 had a 2.5 inch stroke, and the 170 had 2.94". They weren't
real torquers by any means, but they did OK.
GM developed a new line of sixes for automotive applications in the early
1960s. The primary focus of these engines was lighter weight casting and
better fuel economy & performance than the older 235 six they replaced. The
first of these new sixes was the 194 cubic inch version used in the Chevy II
starting in 1962. This engine later expanded to 230 and 250 cubic inches.
The 194 ran a bore & stroke of 3.56" X 3.25". The 230 used a 3.875" bore
with the same stroke as the 194. The 250 was a stroked 230--3.875" x 3.53".
The big 292 six used in trucks was a derivative of this same basic engine,
though it had a different block casting with more cylinder depth to
accomodate its 4.125" stroke (same length as the 225!).
AMC developed a new line of sixes which appeared in 1964. They were somewhat
similar to the GM & Ford designs. These engines came in 199, 232 and 258
cubic inches. All had a 3.75" bore, with varying strokes (3.00", 3.50" and
3.90" respectively). The AMC six used a relatively lightweight, thin-wall
casting as well, with an extremely rugged bottom end featuring a
well-balanced 7-main-bearing crankshaft.
These in-line sixes from the various manufacturers were all quite durable.
I've owned examples of each and never experienced major problems with any of
them...
tak...@my-dejanews.com
max...@aol.com (MAX340) wrote:
> > (and most modern V6s are 60 degree designs too).
> >
> >
>
> Uh, no. The Chevy 4.3, Chevy 3.8(229ci), Dodge 3.9, Buick 3.8(231ci), and Ford
> 3.8 are all 90 degree V6's.
True enough. But the GM 4.3 is primarily a truck engine, as is the Dodge
3.9L. In auto use, the V6s such as Ford's 3.0L, Chrysler's 2.7/3.2, 3.3/3.5
& the Mitsu 2.5L & 3.0L are all 60 degree engines. I can't think of any
"imports" that use a 90-degree V6--all Honda, Mitsu, Toyota, Nissan V6s are
60 degree units. VW had a narrow angle 2.8L six for awhile; it may still be
used in Golfs (though the Passat has a 60 degree V6 "borrowed" from the
Audi).
>
> And honestly, not going overseas, the only 60 degree V6 I can think of is the
> 2.8/3.1/3.4 Chevy, and it eats crankshafts, particularly the carbed RWD 2.8.
>
> Max
Drew
Daniel J Stern
> Another advantage of the 15-degree slant of the Chrysler slant six
30-degree.
> allowed an intake manifold with LONG runners to give a bit of a ram effect
To reduce intake and exhaust tract restriction and allow more even
distribution of fuel/air mixture to each cylinder. There is no "ram
effect" in the stock intake manifold. The long-ram Hyper Pak intake does
have some wave-type ram charging.
The slant of the Slant-6 also allowed the placement of the water pump to
the left side of the block, rather than directly in front, which shortened
the overall package.
--Daniel
MAX340
>it
>allowed an intake manifold with LONG runners to give a bit of a ram effect to
>the incoming air/fuel mixture of these engines.
It was 30 or 60, depending on your plane of reference.
MAX340
>3.9L.
Perhaps, but the fact is, the 4.3 found itself in MANY Caprice, Monte Carlo,
and other RWD cars. As for the Mopar 3.9, well, its hard to stick it in a a car
when you dont have any RWD cars to put it in.
>In auto use, the V6s such as Ford's 3.0L, Chrysler's 2.7/3.2, 3.3/3.5
>& the Mitsu 2.5L & 3.0L are all 60 degree engines.
The primary reasoning here is that the 90 degree V6's have a "split" rod
journal, which presents a ridgidity problem and there fore is wise to avoid.
Also, the 60 degree engines take less space, and lead to shorter cars and are
easier to stuff in minivans.
Max
EHaase2463
>"imports" that use a 90-degree V6--all Honda, Mitsu, Toyota, Nissan V6s are
>60 degree units.
I believe that the 3.5 (but not the 3.5 used in the Odyssey) used in the Acura
RL3.5, and the 2.5, 2.7 (also used in the Accord for 1996 and 1997), and 3.2
for the Legend are all 90 degree units.
D J Mann
>I was under the impression that the 190 / 225 slant sixes were actually half on
>an old v12 ??
>Steve
Not really, but there was an engine from that era used only for about 3 model
years. It was a 195 cubic inch four cylinder engine from Pontiac for the
Tempest "rope drive" models. It was "half" of the 389 cubic inch V8 used in
the full size Pontiac. We had one of these miserable, shaky bastards. Never
could get it to idle smoothly, but with the factory 4-barrel and high lift
cam, and 10.25:1 compression ratio it was a spunky little motor when mated to
the four speed tranaxle we had on ours.
Daniel J Stern
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Steve Fleckenstein wrote:
> I was under the impression that the 190 / 225 slant sixes were
> actually half on an old v12 ??
> Steve
No. The Slant-6 was a clean-sheet design released in 170 CID (low block)
and 225 CID (raised block) displacements for the 1960 model year. The 170
was dropped on the North American market for 1970 and replaced by a
destroked raised-block engine of 198 cubic inches' displacement.
--Daniel
To write to me, make my address go:
dastern "at" umich "dot" edu
"KRACH - Gerausch von Glassplittern..."
GLIPSS
>and 225 CID (raised block) displacements for the 1960 model year. The 170
>was dropped on the North American market for 1970 and replaced by a
>destroked raised-block engine of 198 cubic inches' displacement.
>
Steve Fleckenstein
with an unusual gear pattern ?
Steve
D J Mann wrote:
> In article <367030A9...@warwick.net>, spf...@warwick.net wrote:
> >I was under the impression that the 190 / 225 slant sixes were actually half on
> >an old v12 ??
> >Steve
>
tak...@my-dejanews.com
big...@darkforest.com (D J Mann) wrote:
> In article <367030A9...@warwick.net>, spf...@warwick.net wrote:
> >I was under the impression that the 190 / 225 slant sixes were actually half
on
> >an old v12 ??
> >Steve
>
> Not really, but there was an engine from that era used only for about 3 model
> years. It was a 195 cubic inch four cylinder engine from Pontiac for the
> Tempest "rope drive" models. It was "half" of the 389 cubic inch V8 used in
> the full size Pontiac. We had one of these miserable, shaky bastards. Never
> could get it to idle smoothly, but with the factory 4-barrel and high lift
> cam, and 10.25:1 compression ratio it was a spunky little motor when mated to
> the four speed tranaxle we had on ours.
I remember seeing a lot of those engines used in small dirt track racers.
They definitely had some power...Detroit did some interesting "hack" jobs in
those days. The early Buick V6s (198 & 225 cubes) were not too far removed
from being Buick "nail valve" V8s with two cylinders hacked away. Similarly,
the 153 cubic inch 4-cylinder used in the early Chevy IIs was based on the
existing 230 cubic inch six (both engines, along with the 194 six that was an
option on the Chevy II, shared some innards with the 283/327 V8s of the
period as well). But the Pontiac 4 was probably the most obvious "hack"
job--it definitely looked like half of a 389, right down to the valve cover &
air cleaner!
tak...@my-dejanews.com
OK, I'm throwing in the towel...there must be plenty of 90 degree automotive
V6s still in production, my earlier comments notwithstanding. Yes, I
remember the 4.3L V6 being used in the full sized Chevies of the late '80s &
early '90s.
I can't verify the V-angle of the Honda/Acura V6s, at least not from their
respective home pages, but I wonder if they are derivatives of some kind of
Honda V8 if the engineers went through all of the trouble of designing an
engine with a split-throw crank to get around the balance problem of a
90-degree V6...
I still can't help but remember the GMC truck V6s of the 1960s--they made
such a big deal about the smoothness of that engine being attributable to the
60 degree V-angle. They were torquey buggers too.
tak...@my-dejanews.com
stuff with limited sleep...3 hours/night was fine when I was in school, but it
doesn't do the trick now, at my advanced age...
But didn't the long runners of the stock slant six intake manifold enhance low
end torque? It may not have been a "ram effect" at work, but I do seem to
remember hearing about the long runners boosting torque output...
I'm going to bed now.
Drew
In article <Pine.SOL.4.02.981211...@kevlar.engin.umich.edu>,
Daniel J Stern <das...@ftp.japan.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 tak...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Another advantage of the 15-degree slant of the Chrysler slant six
>
> 30-degree.
>
> > allowed an intake manifold with LONG runners to give a bit of a ram effect
>
> To reduce intake and exhaust tract restriction and allow more even
> distribution of fuel/air mixture to each cylinder. There is no "ram
> effect" in the stock intake manifold. The long-ram Hyper Pak intake does
> have some wave-type ram charging.
>
> The slant of the Slant-6 also allowed the placement of the water pump to
> the left side of the block, rather than directly in front, which shortened
> the overall package.
>
> --Daniel
>
> "KRACH - Gerausch von Glassplittern..."
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
D J Mann
Scott
Bill A
wrote:
>Chrysler engineers angled the /6 for hood clearance. It allowed them to
>run lower hood lines without sacrificing cubic inches. Look at Fords
>300 6 and GM's 302 both were two large to fit under the hoods of cars.
>The 200 inch engines they did use sacrificed rod lenght and stroke to
>build a straight six that would fit. Chrysler solved the problem with
>good engineering lean it over.
>
302? I am familiar with the Chevy 250/292 six, what is a 302 six, or
did I miss something altogether?
Bill
Daniel J Stern
> Oops, you're right--30 degrees. I've got to quit reading/writing
> newsgroup stuff with limited sleep...3 hours/night was fine when I was
> in school, but it doesn't do the trick now, at my advanced age...
Maybe you can answer this question, since nobody I know seems to be able
to...what is this 'sleep' thing I keep hearing about???
> But didn't the long runners of the stock slant six intake manifold enhance low
> end torque?
> It may not have been a "ram effect" at work, but I do seem to
> remember hearing about the long runners boosting torque output...
Compared to much less efficient "log type" manifolds and shared exhaust
ports as found on the more primitive "contemporaries" of the Slant-6, the
efficient runners of the Slant-6's manifolds did boost torque.
DS
--Daniel
To write to me, make my address go:
dastern "at" umich "dot" edu
"KRACH - Gerausch von Glassplittern..."
Ryan M. Landry
>
> Didn't the Pontiac Tempest of which you speak have a two-speed
> semi-automatic (it had to be shifted like a manual, but without a
> clutch) known as 'Torque-Drive' or something similiar?
Torque-Drive was a Powerglide with the automatic shifting stuff
removed. It was offered on 69-70 four and six cylinder Chevrolet Novas
and Camaros. I've only seen one in person once, on a trashed (and I do
mean trashed) early '70 Camaro. The shifter was on the column.
--
Ryan M. Landry fiveca...@worldnet.att.net
608˝ Main Avenue, No. 1 (701) ADams 2-4302
Fargo, No. Dakota 58103 (701) 232-4302
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.tripod.com/~ninthward/index.htm
=============================================================
Scott
>
> Scott wrote:
> >
> > Didn't the Pontiac Tempest of which you speak have a two-speed
> > semi-automatic (it had to be shifted like a manual, but without a
> > clutch) known as 'Torque-Drive' or something similiar?
>
> Torque-Drive was a Powerglide with the automatic shifting stuff
> removed. It was offered on 69-70 four and six cylinder Chevrolet Novas
> and Camaros. I've only seen one in person once, on a trashed (and I do
> mean trashed) early '70 Camaro. The shifter was on the column.
Okay, maybe it was called 'Tempes-Torque'. The point is, didn't the
'rope-drive', half-of-a-389 Tempest only come with *one* transaxle, and
wasn't that transaxle the 'Tempes-Torque' two-speed semi-automatic?
tak...@my-dejanews.com
I think the original poster was referring to the GMC 302 in-line six. It was
a fairly popular hot rod engine during the 1950s and early '60s. If I
remember right (a BIG if), it was a "square" engine running a 4" bore and a
4" stroke. There were a bunch of "Jimmy" in-line sixes in those days; I can't
remember all of the sizes but some were down around 220 cubes and some went
way up into the 300+ cubic inch range. My brother and his buddies had a
figure-8 track racer powered by a 302 Jimmy. It had triple dueces for carbs,
milled head for higher compression and split exhaust headers--a fairly mean
set up which could keep up with most of the V8s on the track.
Drew
tak...@my-dejanews.com
>
> > Oops, you're right--30 degrees. I've got to quit reading/writing
> > newsgroup stuff with limited sleep...3 hours/night was fine when I was
> > in school, but it doesn't do the trick now, at my advanced age...
>
> Maybe you can answer this question, since nobody I know seems to be able
> to...what is this 'sleep' thing I keep hearing about???
I'm not really sure--but sometimes when I close my eyes, I re-open them and
the hands on the clock have moved quite a bit. There's also a bunch of drool
running off my chin. Try it sometime and see if it works the same for you...
>
> > But didn't the long runners of the stock slant six intake manifold enhance
low
> > end torque?
> > It may not have been a "ram effect" at work, but I do seem to
> > remember hearing about the long runners boosting torque output...
>
> Compared to much less efficient "log type" manifolds and shared exhaust
> ports as found on the more primitive "contemporaries" of the Slant-6, the
> efficient runners of the Slant-6's manifolds did boost torque.
Ah, that's probably it...I do remember reading something about that, probably
in a Chrysler PR piece of the period...looonnnggg ago....
Steve Fleckenstein
surprised to see 4 barrel intake manifolds available for the 225 /6. Neat trick.
Steve
Daniel J Stern
> Many years back I picked up a Mopar factory performance parts catalog. I was
> surprised to see 4 barrel intake manifolds available for the 225 /6. Neat trick.
That would be the Offenhauser 4bbl intake, which they still make. They
also still make their twin 1bbl intake (front 3/rear 3). Weiand used to
make a slightly different 4bbl intake. There are several different 2bbl
intakes floating around, plus the DutraPak repro of the long-ram Hyper Pak
intake. Numerous cams, lots of pistons, roller rockers. Three or four
distributor options, windage trays, double-roller timing chain + sprocket
sets, and a couple of people are working on (or have completed, in the
case of a bloke in Australia) Port Electronic Fuel Injection setups. It's
all out there, ya just have to scratch a little to find some of the more
exotic stuff.
James Deane
the 1960 Valiant, without having the carbuerator stick through the hood.
Hemi4268
I was also under the same impression. The slant six was really 1/2 of a V12
WWII tank motor. It was never used in the war so Chrysler dusted off the old
govt purchased design and sliced it in half. Presto, a low cost 6 with no R&D
costs.
Larry
Daniel J Stern
> The slant six was really 1/2 of a V12 WWII tank motor. It was never
> used in the war so Chrysler dusted off the old govt purchased design
> and sliced it in half. Presto, a low cost 6 with no R&D costs.
A nifty story, but utterly false. The Slant-6 was not "half of a V12" or
any other kind of "recycled" design. It was a clean-sheet design,
development of which began in late 1957.
My source is the three-volume "History of Chrysler Corporation's Slant-6
Engine", by Willem Weertman, 30-year managing engine engineer at Chrysler
Corp.
MAX340
>Engine", by Willem Weertman, 30-year managing engine engineer at Chrysler
>Corp.
>
>
Three volumes on one engine? jeez..... so where does one find that?
Max
Sid Witzer
quality and reliability of the engine, three volumes just begins
to cover what it deserves. It was/is virtually indestructible.
I bought the second from my sister after her husband had driven
it as a taxi for 300,000 miles. I put it back on the streets of
Atlantic City NJ as a taxi for another year and a half, then sold
it to a friend who decided to 'modify' it and use it for small
track racing.
I can only hope CC put as much into the 3.5L in my 300M.
--
The capital letters in my email address are a spam filter
MAX340 wrote in message
<19981219184649...@ng149.aol.com>...