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

slant6 vs. small block
https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12540		 Page 4 of 4
Author:  slantzilla [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:55 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
My brother-in-law has a concourse restored Shelby Mustang GT 500 that he just wrote checks for and keeps in a trailer and only drives in parades and on to the show field to win trophies.
But Rob, shouldn't he give the trophies to the builders? I mean they're the one's who actually put their heart and soul into the car. Maybe they should give out a trophy for "most checks". :roll:

D/W
Some people just don't have the mechanical ability or time to do a big resto. So what? :shock:

I have found that as I get older I just don't have the desire to do major work anymore. I have also found that as I get older I am making more money and can afford to pay others to do stuff. :shock:

My final point is that I have also grown impatient. Why should I waste my time trying to pioneer something that I can just buy and achieve my specific goal? Does that make me a bad person? :twisted:
Author:  Dennis Weaver [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My brother-in-law has a concourse restored Shelby Mustang GT 500 that he just wrote checks for and keeps in a trailer and only drives in parades and on to the show field to win trophies.
But Rob, shouldn't he give the trophies to the builders? I mean they're the one's who actually put their heart and soul into the car. Maybe they should give out a trophy for "most checks". :roll:

D/W
Some people just don't have the mechanical ability or time to do a big resto. So what? :shock:
So nothing. Neither do I. My point is people who do NOTHING other than pay someone else to do a car(their right), then show it off and have all this unearned pride in it and accept trophies. I feel the same way about people who drive brand-new cars off the dealer lot to a car show. That's bullshit. It's a given that most people are going to have to pay someone else to do something. Even if all the owner does is come up with a creative concept, or do his own research and find all those impossible-to-find NOS pieces on his own. But those who write a check and have others do everything, they'll get no respect or compliments from me.

D/W
Author:  Rob Simmons [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:03 am ]
Post subject: 
That sounds fair enough to me.
Author:  440_Magnum [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:47 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I'll be the voice of dissention here. I'm a Mopar guy and am seriously hooked on the Slant 6 racing thing, but I appreciate all makes and approaches.
Wow, my little comment about the ubiquity of SBC street rods sure spawned a discussion! :D

I'll claify *MY* views. I appreciate craftsmanship, regardless of the brand that is used as the foundation. The thing about doing an SBC rod is that it requires so much LESS craftsmanship than, say, a Nailhead Buick or a turbo slant six. If the car builder executes good craftsmanship and creativity ELSEWHERE on the car, then its no big deal that he/she used an SBC to me. But that rarely happens... I have voted for SBC-powered cars before, but only because the car was well crafted overall.

As for brand loyalities, there's nothing I love more than a good discussion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the different brands from an engineering point of view. On that score, I'm afraid the Chevy 350 comes out fairly badly. Yes, its overall well-engineered and a good package, but its got way too many shortcomings. The original 265, the 283, the 302, and the other very short-stroke versions are actually a lot better than the 350 in my book just because they have a reasonable rod length/stroke ratio. Now I will admit that the 225 sl6 has about the *same* rod ratio as a 350... and while that certainly limits its potential, it has enough other strengths to offset that shortcoming. And besides, it was never intended to rev to 6000 RPM either, and that's where the SBC gets in big trouble with its rod ratio.

Of the common "small block" (a term which has no meaning with Oldsmobile and Buick, but consider it "engines below 400 cid") American v8s from the 60s, and 70s, I'd rate the SBC behind the Ford Windsor and Cleveland, WAY behind the Mopar LA, behind Olds and Buick, but ahead of Pontiac.

Of the big-blocks, of course I think the Mopar B/RB is defensibly the best. Great rod-ratios, hell-for-strong block castings, good cranks, good oiling, the whole 9 yards. The only shortcoming except for the Hemi tends to be limited breathing with the inline-valve heads, but there are well-documented solutions for that. Next I'd have to offer up the Cadillac 472 and the Buick 455, then the Fords, then Oldsmobile, then Pontiac. In the big-block world, Chevy doesn't even rate. The "rat" motors were just ill-concieved and ill-executed from the get-go, with all the SBC problems plus a bunch more of their own.

The Buick 455 is interesting because the whole package weighs about what a smallblock Chevy does. It gives up a bit of block strength against the others because of that, but Buick came out with some creative fixes like semi-structural oil pans that add strength back. Plus it has internal geometry that is amazingly "Mopar-like" in that its the only GM big-bore/short stroke big-block. And although all-out high performance Buicks were some of the more rare muscle cars, they were *STOUT*.

Anyway, enough off-topic rambling.
Author:  Dartvader [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:04 am ]
Post subject: 
See there, you have just proven my point. I can really relate to car guy who knows and can use the term,"ubiquity". :lol: I found your rating of the small and big blocks v-8's most interesting. I can certainly agree with your placing of the Pontiac v-8 design. You have several strikes against you trying to race a Pontiac v-8. I rebuilt both my slant engine, and my 360 side by side with a ford 5 litre engine. Everything about the Mopar engines was at least 25% beafier than the Ford. Rod size, bearing sizes, block thickness, etc,etc. It was very illuminating. I realize there is a downsize to added beef, but early failure is not one of them. One of the tricks that Ford engine builders are doing now is using slant six rods in 5.0 v-8s. They get a better rod ratio and more strength. They must have the journals machined narrow to work, but they apparently produce a better Ford engine that with a Mopar crank in it.Now that is "a better idea".
Author:  Jeb [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
A 302 or 351W ain't nuttin when compared with a 318. In my opinon the 400M is a pretty well thought out, if smogged engine. But I have discovered through experience that if you take time to richen up the carb and advance the timing there is a TON of torque to found. My F-150 runs 15s with a tuned 400M 2-barrel.

The Ford FE's are great designs to. I've seen many a 390 FE run over 300,000 miles with no major work done. My neighbor with a 390 Mustang and that thing will FLY!

The Olds 455 was pretty cool also. And don't forget the Buick Grand National. 8)

I've seen plenty of 350's with thrown rods though. How dare they call the 454 a "Hemi killer". Thats heresy! :shock:

What shortcomings do the Mopar small blocks have any. They are almost perfect.
Author:  panic [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
"Ford engine builders are doing now is using slant six rods in 5.0 v-8"
??
The Ford rod journal is only 2.123" OD, /6 is 2.1875" so you have to grind down the journal.
Ford rod length 5.09", /6 is 5.707".
Math: Ford deck 8.206"
- /6 rod = 2.499"
- 50% of 5.0 stroke (1.50") = .999" maximum compression distance.
Author:  Jon Dahlberg [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
[quote="Jeb"]A 302 or 351W ain't nuttin when compared with a 318. In my opinon the 400M is a pretty well thought out, if smogged engine.

I had a 77 Mercury Marquis with that engine, the thing was a dog. 170hp in a car that was close to 2.5 tons. I don't know about Ford 5.0ers using Slant Six rods, but I've heard of built Slant Sixes using Ford valves.
Author:  shiftless [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Ford 302 sucks, in my opinion. Works good for a stout little street motor that gets decent economy, but the blocks tend to split in half (literally) around the 500 HP mark. The 351W is a much better motor, in my opinion.

Not a big fan of the 351M/400 engines. Sure, you can bolt Cleveland heads and stuff on them and make a decent motor, but you still have big bearings and the big block bolt pattern.

The Ford 460 is a bad ass motor. Incidentally, it is very similar to the Cadillac 472/500 motors. Not a coincidence - the same guy designed them. I haven't studied Mopar big blocks to know how good they are, but I can tell you 440_Magnum is right to rank the Cadillac 472/500 way up there. It has a stock block and crank that can take 1,500+ HP, good heads, equal port spacing (none of that good port/bad port B.S.), good firing order, the most stock cubic inches, light weight, good oiling and cooling system, ease of maintenance (distributor at front and external oil pump), and the list goes on virtually forever.
Author:  440_Magnum [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:

What shortcomings do the Mopar small blocks have any. They are almost perfect.
#3 and #4 main bearings have a tendency to starve for oil, IF you rev above 6500 RPM and IF you don't modify the oiling system with a crossover tube between the lifter galleries.

But thats certainly not MUCH of a shortcoming :D
Author:  440_Magnum [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
The Ford 460 is a bad ass motor. Incidentally, it is very similar to the Cadillac 472/500 motors. Not a coincidence - the same guy designed them. I haven't studied Mopar big blocks to know how good they are, but I can tell you 440_Magnum is right to rank the Cadillac 472/500 way up there. It has a stock block and crank that can take 1,500+ HP, good heads, equal port spacing (none of that good port/bad port B.S.), good firing order, the most stock cubic inches, light weight, good oiling and cooling system, ease of maintenance (distributor at front and external oil pump), and the list goes on virtually forever.
The 460 is a monster torque motor and dead-on reliable, but it has a pretty heavy rotating assembly which tends to require massaging (lightening during the balancing process) to get fast 1/4 mile times

The Caddy 472 engine is very much like the Mopar big-blocks in a lot of ways- including the front distributor and external oil pump, plus all-around strong as a brick sh*thouse. IIRC, it even has a deep skirt block like the Mopar B/RB and Ford FE (and UNlike the Ford 429/460). I've always suspected one of the reasons the 429/460 have such freakin' heavy crankshafts is that they "put strength in the crank" whereas the deep-skirted blocks like Mopars and the Ford FEs have a more rigid block structure and don't need such massive cranks. And of course Buick did it by using an oil pan that doubles as a block girdle.
Author:  Jeb [ Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
The 400M is a pretty good engine as long as you take some time with it to work around the lean carb mixtures and retatarded timing.
Author:  slantzilla [ Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:

What shortcomings do the Mopar small blocks have any. They are almost perfect.
#3 and #4 main bearings have a tendency to starve for oil, IF you rev above 6500 RPM and IF you don't modify the oiling system with a crossover tube between the lifter galleries.

But thats certainly not MUCH of a shortcoming :D
They will also starve the #5 and 6 rods. DAMHIK :shock:
Page 4 of 4 All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/