| Slant Six Forum https://www.slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| 225 to 198 swap https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=44668 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Smokin Jays [ Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 225 to 198 swap |
I just picked up a 198 with a 3 spd manual 833 (i think). I have a 225 with a 727 torqueflight. I want to hook up the engine 198 with the 727 auto already in the car. What do I need for the swap? Will it hook right up to the 727? |
|
| Author: | Smokin Jays [ Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think it might even be a 170 now that I look at it. Not too sure? |
|
| Author: | Doctor Dodge [ Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Check the length of the coolent by-pass hose. DD http://slantsix.org/articles/sa-franks-book/pg1.jpg |
|
| Author: | Smokin Jays [ Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
it is the smaller hose. I guess it's a 170  anyways I got it for real cheap and looks to be rebuilt. Really clean engine and supposedly ran really good. I just want to know if it will bolt right in to where the 225 was without changing too much.Thanks |
|
| Author: | mpgFanatic [ Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: it is the smaller hose. I guess it's a 170
My friend, if you're that disappointed at finding a 170, I can assure you there are a few of us who would happily offer you whatever you paid, and maybe even help you find a 225 instead. anyways I got it for real cheap and looks to be rebuilt. Really clean engine and supposedly ran really good. I just want to know if it will bolt right in to where the 225 was without changing too much. (Nudge nudge, wink wink)- Erik _________________ 64 Valiant 170 3-on-the-tree, faded turquoise putt-putt mobile 82 Volvo 5.0 wagon, Mustang in disguise. Never giggled so much. 
|
|
| Author: | WagonsRcool [ Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It all depends on what year the 225 & 170 are. There was a change in the auto trans from 67 to 68. The input shaft & torque converter hub got bigger, so the hole in the back of the crankshaft was increased as well. So if your two /6 are both 67-older or both 68-newer, then you you should be ok. (It gets "messy" to try & go across the change-over point) That's the only major hurdle to bolting in the 170 BTW, if you really have the big 727 trans (has the kickout on the right side of the oil pan- the 904 has a rectangular pan) then you are not going to be happy with the performance. The stock 170 has little low rpm torque while the 727 is heavy, & sucks up much more power than the 904. |
|
| Author: | Smokin Jays [ Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks for the input. I am not that disappointed really. The engine is a 225 is a 67 and the 170 is a 64. I have to go look at the pan on the transmission. If there is anyone in the S.F bay area with a GOOD running 225 I would swap the 170 with the 3 spd 833. |
|
| Author: | Smokin Jays [ Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was wondering how big of a difference in power is there from a 225 down to a 170? I live around some mountain ranges and want to have enough power to get up them. How much better of gas mileage am I going to get with the 170 as opposed to the 225? |
|
| Author: | Charrlie_S [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If the car is a 67 or older, it is very unlikly it had a 727 trans, as there were no slant six 727 transmissions, back then. To put a 727 behind a slant required a semi rare factory adapter plate, to allow use of a small block 727 trans. These were mostley in trucks. It is possible (don't know) that it could be in a "fleet" vehicle. |
|
| Author: | walpolla [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I was wondering how big of a difference in power is there from a 225 down to a 170? I live around some mountain ranges and want to have enough power to get up them. How much better of gas mileage am I going to get with the 170 as opposed to the 225?
http://www.valiant.org/stats.htmlThats about all I know about those little screamers - we never saw them in Australia. Only the 225 cu.in. and the V 8,s. regards,Rod
|
|
| Author: | Smokin Jays [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am positive it has a 727. Is there two different types of 727? a little confused 
|
|
| Author: | Charrlie_S [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There are several different type of 727 trans. Basically they are the same internally, but have different case/belhousing. There is one version for the big block engines (383, 440, 426, hemi). Another version for the small block (340, 360), but will also fit the 273/318 engines. Then there is the slant six version. Each version will only fit one engine family, as the bellhousing bolt patterns are different. The slant six version of the 727 trans did not appear until about 1969 (not sure of the exact year). PS: there are some other differences in the 727 depending on the year, such as cable shifter, parking brake on the tail housing, etc. |
|
| Author: | WagonsRcool [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There are two major families of automatic 3 speed transmissions. First is the light duty "904" ( nicknamed the torqueflite 6 ). One version for the slant six, & one for smallblock V-8's. They had different bellhousings but similar internals;- V-8 models got more clutch discs, but was more or less identical.So 2 basic 904 versions. Second is the heavy duty "727" (aka torqueflite 8 ). There was one for big blocks & one for small blocks. The design is much like the 904, but all the parts are about 50% bigger (& heavier). This trans is tough but sucks up much more power than a 904. Early on there was an adapter to fit a small-block 727 behind a slant for HD use. later (70's?) they made slant 6 - 727's (I got one on the shelf). So there are 3 basic 727 versions. If you want to be more thorough ( & confused), each family of torqueflite had early (65 & older) cable shift vs "later" (66 & newer) linkage shift versions. There's the input shaft/ torque converter size change 67vs 68. In the late 70's there was the debut of lock-up torque converters. I've driven both 225 & 170 in similar cars. There 225 gives you grunt off the line, pulling from 5 mph on up, but running out of breath if you try to rev it. (drop it into 2nd at 65+ & the car will slow down) The 170 is a screamer. I'd pull the auto trans shifter into 1st & floor it. It wouldn't pull (as hard as the 225) until 15-20 mph. I'd shift into 2nd at 25-30mph. This eng was "happy" to rev to 70 in 2nd. So more revs, but less torque. If you have hills with a 170 then you'd better have a light car with a high rear axle ratio. |
|
| Author: | Smokin Jays [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
thanks for all the knowledge. I am new to the Mopar game but am in love with my 67 dart gt! I think the 170 i bought is a beast! It has the 2 barrel intake and looks GREAT for a '64, I can't wait to put it in. Gas is going to $6 a gallon by summer. The 170 is sounding nice right now. |
|
| Author: | Doc [ Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Be sure to change the oil pan and pick-up tube, the 67 Dart uses a different style oil pan than the 60-66 A-body cars. DD |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
