My buddy has a 39 dodge with a blown flat head. Since we don't have a lot of access to welding equipment. he was thinking about using the Jeep 4.0 as the easiest way to go. The /6 may have clearence issues therefore the Jeep 4.0 and its almost a Mopar. We can use the entire drivetrain from a Jeep and only with the minor modifacations.

Good one Cecil!,,,,yep Sizemore held the record. When I had my Falcon it was based on his(he had a 62). I ran that class(H/mp ) for several years in the mid 70s...Sizemore had the record at 11.28. He later had a Maverick and a Pinto. The Pinto was like a 6 cyl Pro Stock....ran in the 10s.

My car eventually came apart due to the lack of subframe connectors.It used to break the back window on launch....

_________________
Yeah....Im the one who destroyed this rare, vintage automobile.....

Yeah I've heard of that Pinto before. I've already found out those Ford 300s are not something to be messed around with. They've got more torque than a 302. I think they are the only stock sixes that could take a 4-barrel with no cam changes or anything like that.

I know one thing, god those things could pull.

Does anybody here remember that huge V-6 that GMC used back in the sixties and fifties in their heavy duty 1 tons. I've seen a lot of those in pulpwood trucks. Engine stands almost waist high and has a stroke as long as your arm.

Ah the good old days, wait, I'm only 18

_________________
82 D150-225/727
02 Dakota-3.9/5 speed
87 GMC C7000-8.2 Detroit Diesel/5+2

Good thread... comments on the Japanese 240/280 Z motor? A friend took me out in his 280 pushing 15lbs of boost, it was insaaaaanely fast. The motor wound up real tight and fast.

Sizemore's Pinto looked a lot like Bob Glidden's Pinto. Red, white, and blue. IIRC he actually made it into the 9's with it. He was the one who sectioned and welded 3 sets of Boss 351 heads together to make a head for his motor.

Sandy, there used to be a guy at Motion who had a '65 Mustang fastback with a 302ci 6 and a 5 speed. It ran low 11's, also without subframe connectors. (IIRC they were not allowed in the class he ran) He would get out after every pass and thump the driver's side 1/4 panel with his fist to pop it back in shape.

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.

Agreed! We're also overlooking a very good |-6 engine right in our own backyard: The Chrysler D-engine, i.e., the Australian Hemi-6. I have no direct experience with this engine, which was originally planned in the US as an eventual replacement for the slant-6. By most all reports, though it's not quite as smooth as the slant, it's just as durable and reliable, and more efficient.

As regards the Ford Six, I'll grudgingly acknowledge it was a durable engine and that by the time the later 300-cid version was released they'd fixed most of the poor engineering and gotten nice torque out of it. But Ford Australia has a honey of a 4-litre inline-6 in their present product line. Distant descendant of the 240/300/etc family, it and the cars it comes in make any gearhead North American cry upon return home to the land of thoroughly pathetic Ford cars with V6 engines that do only one thing well (make the guys at Car and Driver crack jokes about inline-6 engines except those installed in BMWs).
Disagree. This is neither necessary nor sufficient to call the bottom end of an inline six "good" (or "bad" for that matter). More important as it seems to me is total bearing area and the block and crank design factors that go into bottom-end rigidity. Magazine writers (e.g. Norbye and Dunne) used to write dumb articles starting in about '65, "Ewwwwww, the slant-6 is obsolete, because it only has four main bearings! Gross, don't buy one of those!
Erm...where're we finding the extra main bearing? And what oil pump woes...? I know of some people who've had some problems with some oil pumps, but oil pump problems are not endemic to the slant-6.

DS

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Like this.....
270KW is approx. 360Hp
http://www.fpv.com.au/index.asp?link_id=2.440

_________________
Richard (aka Fingers)

The 250 in the 78 Nova defintely out accelerates my Valiant. I don't know if the power to weight ratio is different, but on paper the 250 is putting out 10 more horses than the 76 225. Probably more torque with bigger cubes too.

Of course the TLC inline 6 based on an old post-WWII GM design that Toyota bought...

_________________

There are a LOT of really tough inline sixes out there, so its hard to come up with just a few.

But there aren't ALL that many that I'd put in the same class as the slant.

First, forget ALL post-50s Ford inlines except the 300. The 250 and its relatives are rugged enough, but with stupid-lame design features like no intake manifold (the passages are cast into the HEAD!!!) they just don't cut the mustard. They more nearly cut the cheese.

Second, the Chevy stove-bolt six was a steaming pile. It didn't even have pressure lubrication.

On the other hand, pretty much all the Mopar flatheads are as rugged as the slant. They just didn't have quite as much specific power output, but they were even smoother and more oriented to low-RPM torque.

A few non-Mopar that float to the top enough to be compared to the slant:

- The Hudson inline sixes. Twin-H power. Woof!
- The AMC/Jeep inline sixes, including the 4.0
- The GMC 292. Truck-only engine- everything from pickups to dump trucks. A wildebeest. I'd rather have it than any small-block cheevy v8 in a truck.
- 95% credit to the Ford 300. Tough as nails, powerful enough... but I've always found them irritating to live with. Prone to knock like a rock crusher when lugged too hard. A tad harsh. But overall a great engine.

_________________

Are you thinking of the 305 v-SIX (not the POS 305 v8 small-block-chevy) and its relatives?

If so, you're exaggerating a wee bit (stroke was under 4" in all versions). But it was certainly a fine heavy-duty serious get-down-to-bidness truck engine. It was only built from 1960 on, so it wouldn't be in any 50s trucks.

It was also available in other sizes, including a v12 that was essentially two of the v6's siamesed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_V6_engine#305
http://www.6066gmcguy.org/305V6.htm

Spark plug access almost as easy as a flathead.

It was always a pretty low specfic-power engine, with compression ratios down in the mid 7s for durability.

_________________

my dad (and then my brother) once owned an 82 amc eagle, with a beleive a 258 six with a manual trans. this was the doggiest pile of crap I ever had driven.

the valve cover was constantly leaking oil (they made a replacement gasket that was supposed to fix this but never did anything for us), we went through selonoids like bubble gum (we kept getting ford replacements I beleive, was amc using just whatever was available?), it never did get warm in the winter, and that carb........*shudder*.......I wish I had back all the mornings I spent trying to get that thing to run decent so my brother could get to work.

In its defense I will say it was a great 4x4 for the winter, but past that it was crap.

If for some reason I had to give up slant sixes but was allowed to run another straight six and the only limit would be the base motor had to be available for the car, my choice would be,
early AMC GREMLIN with a 258!
There's no way a, 225 Valaint/Dart, 250 Nova/Camaro, 250 Falcon/Mustang/Maverick, would touch one given the same basic modifications using OEM and aftermarket parts. Maybe a 250 OHC Firebird would have a shot but I think it would lose also.

_________________
Slant Cecil

OK, that's an engine problem, for sure. Definitely.
Not an engine problem.
Not an engine problem.
Not an engine problem.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

not really going to run without those items though, is it?