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

Differeces between hydraulic motors and non-hydraulic
https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32808		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Reed [ Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Differeces between hydraulic motors and non-hydraulic
After tearing into EricW's 83 Hydraulic motor yesterday, I though it might be a fun project to try and document all the little differences between the hydraulic and on-hydraulic motors.

So far, I have read on AllPar that the hydraulic motors had a 4 pound lighter block and that some of the later cast cranks had smaller counterweghts. Also, I read on AllPar that the hydraulic motors had some extra oil passages. True?

Also from AllPar and a Popular Mechanics article, I read that the hydraulic motors came from the factory with high-volume oil pumps.

One change I can document is in the timing sets:

Image

On the left is the stock 1983 slant six cam gear. On the right is the stock 1963 cam gear. What a difference 20 years makes. The 63 gear is heavy, probably steel with metal teeth, fewer holes, and a single hole drilled for the cam locating dowel. The 83 gear is aluminium, has more holes, the teeth are 100% nylon (not just nylon coated, there is a nylone ring around the alulminium center), and instead of a dowel locating hole there is that big groove. Wow. However, despite significant timing chain stretch, the nylon teeth actually look pretty good. Interesting.
Author:  6shotvanner [ Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ah Ha,a cold snowy day project for in the house,right? I only know that the crank is about 14# lighter in my 83 hydro than an earlier crank,both cast.I'm not sure if thats for all hydro motors or not.
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
First year for nylon-over-aluminum cam sprocket was '67.
Crank counterweight differences see here.
Author:  Reed [ Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yep, just playing around on a snowy day indoors, and I happen to be holding EricW's 1963 Dart motor and 1973 Dart motor and I just helped him install his 83 Dodge van motor in his 72 Satellite yesterday, so some parts are still laying around my garage..

Interesting. So the later the motor, the lighter the crank and the block. Interesting. I need to start taking notes of this stuff for my future MPG intensive slant six build. Nothing as fancy as Doc's "Buster" motor, but a lightweight 225 is always good.

Oh yeah, and Dan is a Wizard with that search button!
Author:  Aggressive Ted [ Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Reed,

How much mpg are you shooting for?
Author:  Reed [ Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, I am looking at purchasing a 80s era Chrysler product (don't know exactly what yet, still sorting my options), so I figure I will be looking at a 3500-3800 pound sedan with extremely high rear axle gearing (like 2.2, 2.7, maybe 2.9 or 3.2 if I am LUCKY). Whatever I buy will almost certainly come with a 318, so I will have time to slowly and carefully build a slant six motor designed to maximize torque and fuel economy. I figure a 225 built to maximize torque and minimize rotating mass in the motor could pull down a smidge over 20 MPG and still get decent performance. With the weight of the car, the rear axle gear ratio, and the automatic transmission, the motor will never get over 3000 RPM, so a low-weight, high-torque build would be a good idea.

Plus, I am liking the sounds of a hydraulic motor more and more, especially in a street driven daily driver.
Author:  6shotvanner [ Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Reed,problem with these cold/snowy days/nights is we all do a bunch of extra thinking :wink: So I'm thinking since I'll be making a run over there with your air cond pieces some one of these days,how about....I got a complete 83 van hydro motor setting here,it's apart needs boiled,bored,yada yada,etc.Good oil pump,cam,new never run lifters,just a buildable hydro slant.I can haul it over with the other stuff,what say you? Oh and how much do I have to pay you to take it? Seriously if you want it,yours for free(I need my wood shop/tinkerin space back) 8)
Author:  Eric W [ Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
So far I can say the hydro motor seems quiter than the '73 motor that was in the Satellite. I was shocked how small the crank shaft seemed to be...hardly any counter weight material compared to the '73 and '64 engine. I havn't had a chance to compare how the hydro engine performs vs the '73 engine...to icy on the roads around here.
Author:  Reed [ Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
:shock: :shock:

wow. WOW! You really don't have to deliver all that stuff! I am perfectly happy to make a run over to your place with my trailer and my Ford van. I mean, you are already GIVING it to me for crying out loud! If you really are going to give me a complete motor and all that A/C stuff, the least I can do is get my freeloading butt over there and haul it away for you!

Seriously, I am more than happy to get over there nad pick it all up. It won't be this week, or even next, but I will do it late this year or early next. Dang, man, your garage must be even more cluttered than mine if you are willing to give this stuff away! Now I need to figure out where to stuff all these slant sixes. Not a bad problem to have really. :lol: :wink:
Author:  DusterIdiot [ Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Rotating mass...
Quote:
I havn't had a chance to compare how the hydro engine performs vs the '73 engine..
Where you'll notice the difference is the ability to spool up the rpm a bit quicker with the lighter crank (punch it and watch the tach climb)...

-D.Idiot
Author:  Reed [ Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:12 am ]
Post subject: 
I was looking at my 1984 Dodge van shop manual last night, and it looks like the hydraulic heads have a oil feed pocket around the rearmost rocker shaft bolt. It appears that this is why Mopar switched to the stepped bolt in that location.

Taking this into consideration, is it possible to use a non-hydraulic head on a hydraulic motor? If the non-hydraulic head does not have this oil passage, will the lifters not get an adequate oil supply? :?
Author:  Charrlie_S [ Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have never had a hydro head in my hands. But I have seen the stepped bolt on heads I have worked on. So the conclusion, I have to make, is mopar switched to the steped bolt prior to the hydro head.
Author:  volaredon [ Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
yeah; when my Dad had his 82 Gran Fury we found it to have a cracked head and I had a drool tube head laying here; I used it w/no problem other than the difference in valve covers between hydro and solid lifter motors.
Author:  slantzilla [ Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I have never had a hydro head in my hands. But I have seen the stepped bolt on heads I have worked on. So the conclusion, I have to make, is mopar switched to the steped bolt prior to the hydro head.
I believe the switch came around '76. My race head is the '76 and up peanut plug style and it has the step bolt in it too. :shock:
Author:  Doc [ Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
The stepped bolt did arrive before the hydraulic lifters, that change was made to prevent incorrect installation of the rocker arm shaft.
With the stepped bolt and the matching rocker arm shaft, (two different size bolt holes in the rear location) the shaft can only be installed one way.
DD
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC-07:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/