Slant Six Forum :: /6 competion against othe 6 cyl

Quote:

Y
Does anybody here remember that huge V-6 that GMC used back in the sixties and fifties in their heavy duty 1 tons.
:

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.

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.

Once apon a time Hot Rod Magazine contracted for a Street Rod 'T' Bucket to be built using the Slant/6 for power

Author:	Valianator [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:54 pm ]
Post subject:
I see yer point Sick6, but I gotta say in defense of AMC and their sixes that most of your Eagle's problems stem more from it being an '82 than from being an AMC six. The early '80s were just about the lowest of times for traditional detroit iron, trying to meet ever stricter CAFE and smog standards with band-aided 70s technology. Swap on earlier AMC igintion and induction, and that Eagle prolly would have settled down into a reliable ride. Or, goin' the other way, I read a while back about a guy who swapped the entire engine/trans/electronics/etc from a late model jeep 4.0 into an Eagle Lurch, my faithful D150, is an '82, but the only reason it's smooth and reliable is because all the stuff that made that era so rotten has long since been trashed- the Lean Burn, the carb, the cat convertor (sshhh!) and replaced with simpler early 70s based stuff.

Author:	Todd360 [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:
My 2 cents worth.... The slant and the AMC motors would run a close race.... What if Chrysler had kept the slant in production and updated it with Multi port fuel injection, better head design,etc. etc. Isn't that what the 4.0 Jeep motors are? A modern 232/258? Every slant I've owned has been reliable and went well past 200,000 miles. Every 4.0 Jeep I've owned has done the same (and still going). I've owned three 250 Chebby motors. The first in a '74 Nova (my first car) which went through 2 sets of timing gears, a distributor, 2 valve jobs, had to tighten the intake/exhaust bolts up about once a month because they liked to back out, also had to adjust the valves about 3 times a year, this car was low mileage when I bought it and despite being my first car I did not run it hard and maintained it extremely well. Also had a '70 Pontiac LeMans with a 250 Chebby six and a 3 speed trans (yes that was the way it came from the factory- bought it from the original owner) and by the time it reached 100,000 miles it was worn out. Third Chebby was in a 63 Pickup. Prior owner had replaced the original motor with a '78 model. He stated that it was low mileage but had never ran quite right. The 78 motor had the integral intake. Got it home and ran a compression test. Low compression on two cylinders so I yanked the head. Two burnt valves and cracked around the intake. So I replaced the head and got rid of it. Since then I've owned nothing but Chrysler products which includes Jeeps. Anyways...I'm pretty much convinced through personal experience that the slants and 4.0's I've owned are superior to the Chebby 6. Todd

Author:	Jeb [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:21 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Quote: Y Does anybody here remember that huge V-6 that GMC used back in the sixties and fifties in their heavy duty 1 tons. : 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. Yeah that's it, but the version I've seen was a 478 V-6. This was a BIG engine. I onetime drove a 1966 GMC pulpwood truck with that engine. I could start it off in high gear and it would chug it's way right on up. But as fast as it would run was about 60 MPH.

Author:	dusty7t4 [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 am ]
Post subject:
I gotta agree with sick6 too......That motor wasn't good for anything 'cept staining my driveway -dave

Author:	voiceofstl [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: 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. Isn't that AMC GREMLIN with a 258 a version of the Jeep 4.0?

Slant Six Forum https://www.slantsix.org/forum/

/6 competion against othe 6 cyl https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15879	Page 3 of 3

Author:	Terencejiminy [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:03 am ]
Post subject:	6 banger Pro's, Mods & Con's
My opinion with 40 + years in the engine building business, Gas, Diesel and LP, Oval Track racing Slants for 4 years, Drag racing on and off since 1965..... The Slants are TUFF - No Question and DURABLE - No Question. Back in the '60's & '70's while living right here in the Detroit area and having access to Highland Park Engineering where there WERE back room attempts to see just how far a Slant could be pushed AND for how long, there were weekends and evenings when I LIVED THERE. Remember they got 275hp out of one with mostly production line parts. I'd KILL for that head they finally did. Oval Track: An .060" and .100" over /6 was the plan. Cutting .110" (total) off the block and head was the norm also. Remember: One of the main down falls of EVERYBODY'S inline 6 AND 8 is BREATHING. These heads share one side for both ports. Intake & Exhaust. Not Flow through like a V-6 or V-8. We are talking now in hi Performance, hi RPM applications NOT in your grocery getter economy ride or even a mild street engine. The cold/cool intake charge is polluted by the HOT outlet charge. This even brings up issues with the direct injected racing /6 engines. Notice in production EFI - PORT INJECTED engines if you've ever seen one where the injector is so close to the exhaust port? Nope. Adding a cooling passage between the exhaust port and the intake ports on the Slant can help but this is only being developed here recently. May be tested this season. Ford Tricks: Ford Total Performance (Detroit) built a 300 Ford 6 and threw a pair of 351 Cleveland heads (with their apposing cylinders CNC removed) on to the 300 block. At the center cyl.s (#3 & #4 cyl) these 2 heads were apoxied together. Interesting that the bolt pattern of the 300-6 head and the 351 heads are the same. Flow through technology for the Ford 6. Matter of Record: Jim Britt here at Flat Rock Speedway won 2 fast heats and finished in the top 10 EVERY night against 355ci V-8s with this gem. They only gave him a 200 lb. break for having the 6. AMC Tricks: I have little performance knowledge of these engines other than that Mopar would have kept the /6 and dumped the 258 when they took over AMC but, by a minimal margin, AMC had developed the 4.0 to run cleaner with less HP loss than Chrysler could with the Leaning Tower of power. The slants did NOT fend very welll when slid into the narrow confines of most Jeep Chassis. Guess who won? Chevy Mods. There were quite a few REAL wild ones in the group that won 90% of the time. Running 7000 rpms in a Wild combo, like using a 250 block with .060" over 327 pistons and sleeves and the 292 truck rods and crank, pushing the cubes to 304. AND it had to run ALL NIGHT LONG TOO! Having GM's Main worldwide Engine Lab in Warren Michigan helped a LOT. Final note. Watch the Slant-6 Shootout boys. They are doing their home work. Don't count out the Slant as your power plant. You can create a screamer. Once apon a time Hot Rod Magazine contracted for a Street Rod 'T' Bucket to be built using the Slant/6 for power. I will go to my grave still believing this to be one of the GREATEST & COOLEST rods ever built. I believe it was called the XR-6 ?? I haven't seen a picture of it in 20 some years. Hope to see you all at the strip, at least once this season. Terry

Author:	slantvaliant [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:24 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Once apon a time Hot Rod Magazine contracted for a Street Rod 'T' Bucket to be built using the Slant/6 for power You mean Tex Smith's XR6? http://www.motorcarportfolio.com/site/p ... fm?id=2460 [/quote]

Page 3 of 3	All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/