Slant six or bust.
Slant six or bust.
slowbird said:Slant six or bust.
That already happened
are 1JZ front clips still cheap? that's a fun one and keeps the I-6 theme, makes good power, reliable, sounds cool and has enough general swap knowledge out there, that at least some of it could apply to putting it in a real old car.
Magnum 5.9 and A500.
It's the Easy Button for a reason. That engine bay is pretty tight, even for an LA V8. And it's not like '66 Darts are at all common, V8 or not. The Magnum is going to be your cheapest option by far at this point.
If you want it to be funky, swap a 5 speed behind it.
Dodge truck V10. But seriously,
Stick to the slants IMO, because as you said everything else will require fabrication and clearance-ing. As for why it failed, Uncle Tony on youtube has some great /6 content about them and the problem is likely due to hard(ish) launches causing oil slosh and froth at the 6th piston- there's no windage tray in these motors and the pans are weird because of their arrangement.
Turbo Slant 6 for the win.
GIRTHQUAKE said:As for why it failed, Uncle Tony on youtube has some great /6 content about them and the problem is likely due to hard(ish) launches causing oil slosh and froth at the 6th piston- there's no windage tray in these motors and the pans are weird because of their arrangement.
I never got as far as getting in hard launches on this one - I suspect the failure may be due to this instead.
More autopsy pics here.
“We choose to go with the slant 6 in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
An aluminum slant 6 would be interesting:
http://www.slantsix.org/articles/dutra-blocks/alm-block-sl6.htm
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/mopp-0303-chrysler-slant-six/
Another vote for the /6. Although a Pentastar would be cool and they're getting a lot easier to find here recently.
-AMM
Turbo 2.5!
Why should the EEK guys have all the fun?
Bonus: Allegedly the 2.2/2.5 were designed such that they could reuse a lot of Slant Six tooling, so there's a kind of rightness to it.
FWIW I've seen 2 very interesting A-body builds that would likely fit your fancy:
#1 was a /6 with a draw through turbo, fed by a Weber DCOE. I'm not sure how fast it was, probably not very, but it was neat.
#2 was a Honda K-series. I was shocked and confused when I saw it, but it makes sense.
The Early A body is a tight fit for anything much more than an LA Or LS motor on the V8 front. Just to get a good header in there, it's a lot of cutting. I do have a set of LA early A body headers that I could pass on if you go that route that keeps the shock towers in tack.
It's an interesting beast up front there.
Knurled. said:Turbo 2.5!
Why should the EEK guys have all the fun?
Bonus: Allegedly the 2.2/2.5 were designed such that they could reuse a lot of Slant Six tooling, so there's a kind of rightness to it.
The 2.0/2.4 uses the same bore spacing and head bolt pattern as the older 2.2/2.5 and was built from all the knowledge Chrysler gained from the work they did on the 2.2/2.5. This is why the 2.0 came out with 150hp without a turbo and the 2.2 needed a turbo to make that same power.
Most RWD 2.2/2.5 conversions have issues with the intake manifold hitting the firewall or the exhaust manifold pointing the turbo outlet at inconvienent locations like control arms. Not insurmountable, but the bellhousings for RWD for both use are available for a number of transmissions, so the rest of it falls into engine swap work.
In reply to Stefan :
All that is true, but none of it is relevant because the 2.5 is an inherently cooler engine than the 2.4 because it's more old-school.
Now for something completely different, turbo 13b rotary! Compact and lots of development done opn these,
aircooled said:“We choose to go with the slant 6 in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
And we all know how that turned out. Are you suggesting an abrupt end to the project less than three years from now, followed by decades of conspiracy theories about who really killed it, how, and why?
Knurled. said:In reply to Stefan :
All that is true, but none of it is relevant because the 2.5 is an inherently cooler engine than the 2.4 because it's more old-school.
Understood. I still have two 2.2 turbo motors to build (one machined and ready for assembly) and most of a Mopar Suerpcharger kit. If I didn't, I'd be looking for a 2.4 over a 2.5 just due to the improvements inherent in the design.
02Pilot said:aircooled said:“We choose to go with the slant 6 in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
And we all know how that turned out. Are you suggesting an abrupt end to the project less than three years from now, followed by decades of conspiracy theories about who really killed it, how, and why?
Boosting your slant six to the moon is pretty much required now.
aircooled said:“We choose to go with the slant 6 in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
We choose to boost to the moon!
Appleseed said:aircooled said:“We choose to go with the slant 6 in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
We choose to boost to the moon!
The regiment elects to have it repaired!
Looks like boost it to the moon or send a rod into the atmosphere trying. Do it do it do it. #peerpressure
SEND THOSE PISTONS INTO THE STRATOSPHERE !
I have an unconditional love for the /6, so that would be my first choice. But if for some reason that absolutely isnt an option, I like the idea of a 2.4 turbo. It keeps it mopar, makes cool noises. And can make a ton of power
Stefan said:Knurled. said:In reply to Stefan :
All that is true, but none of it is relevant because the 2.5 is an inherently cooler engine than the 2.4 because it's more old-school.
Understood. I still have two 2.2 turbo motors to build (one machined and ready for assembly) and most of a Mopar Suerpcharger kit. If I didn't, I'd be looking for a 2.4 over a 2.5 just due to the improvements inherent in the design.
Could always do a 2.5L with the 2.0/2.4 DOHC head swap....true, still limited by the less-than-ideal block design...but it would still make plenty of power and breath a lot better than the SOHC head.
You'll need to log in to post.
