Allpar Forums banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Everywhere I drive my '62 Valiant, people stop and tell me how they had one like it and ask if it has the Slant 6. The Slant 6 sure does seem to trigger a lot of fond memories in people of a certain age.

My guess is that the Slant 6 actually had more owner loyalty, awareness and approval than the Hemi did.

Of course, inline sixes are no longer fashionable, but it has often occurred to me that it's too bad that Chrysler can't harness the public's affection for the Slant 6 the way they did with the new Hemi.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
Well, opposite ends of the scale. The Hemi was the top end engine, limited production on purpose, the slant six was the basic engine and standard in most cases, a staple engine so to speak. Yes, straight sixes of different configurations go all the way back to the beginning of almost all car companies (a few exceptions), and are/were as common as a pair of shoes. Not a real reason to promote such a staple actually, but yes, great engines.
 

·
Radioactive
Joined
·
5,347 Posts
Fond memories indeed, but what would a modern I6 do that the 3.6 V6 can't?

You might get better torque, so there could be a truck angle, but I don't think there is room for it in the market under the current 5.7 Hemi .
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
31,978 Posts
There was also a lot of loyalty to the 2.2L/2.5L 4-cylinder (and it was designed by the same people as the slant-6).

The slant-6 was produced in far greater numbers and was cheaper, and probably more bulletproof. But yes, today's engines make more hp and torque for their size, and don't have the tappet tap of the earlier slant-sixes with mechanical lifters. Look at the Pentastar V-6 - 283 hp from the same displacement as a 100 hp slant-6. And better gas mileage.
 

·
Virginia Gentleman
Joined
·
14,667 Posts
Back in the day, the /6 was the "base" engine. They weren't stuffing Hemi's in nearly every Valiant as they came down the line like they do with the Challenger's and Charger's today.

The 225 /6 in my ole '65 Dart was decent, but I have to admit I do like the 5.7L Hemi in my '06 Ram and the 3.5L V6 in my Journey could probably run circles around the old /6.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,138 Posts
52Dodgecoronet said:
Everywhere I drive my '62 Valiant, people stop and tell me how they had one like it and ask if it has the Slant 6. The Slant 6 sure does seem to trigger a lot of fond memories in people of a certain age.

My guess is that the Slant 6 actually had more owner loyalty, awareness and approval than the Hemi did.

Of course, inline sixes are no longer fashionable, but it has often occurred to me that it's too bad that Chrysler can't harness the public's affection for the Slant 6 the way they did with the new Hemi.
When the I6 in the Jeep was getting long in the tooth, it was determined that emissions, fuel economy and engine bay packaging had passed by the in line six motors.
Probably the fact that Daimler rival, BMW, had a workable I6 didn't endear it to the Daimler henchmen. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,421 Posts
I too, get many coments about my Slant Six Valiant, but should there be modern version? Not sure how the market would do with that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
Well, have to admit the inline six can be balanced a lot nicer than a V6, and am sure with today's technology could rival any of the V6s. Problem is the hood length. Can't see a Viper with a slant/straight six for nostalgic purposes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
I don't know where the appropriate place to ask this is, but... What was the advantage of tilting the inline 6 30 degrees? Pardon my ignorance... I wasn't alive during the slant six era. I do enjoy a good inline 6 though... the Jeep 4.0L is a fantastic motor.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
36,907 Posts
From what I've read the primary benefit was to allow a lower hood profile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
valiant67 said:
From what I've read the primary benefit was to allow a lower hood profile.
Hmm... Makes sense. Thanks!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
31,978 Posts
It also gave room for a slightly longer intake manifold, producing more torque at lower RPMs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
Slanting was primarily for the low hood height needed for the Valian/Lancer body. Howver, they were able to move the carb out away from the head and more equalize the intake lengths which also gave a slight ram effect. (see sonoramic engine http://www.allpar.com/mopar/sonoramic.html ) The torque really came from the long stroke that the /6 had. (170 cu. in = 3-1/8") (198 cu. in = 3-5/8") (225 cu.in = 4-1/8") Nothing like gaining a pry bar to turn the crank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
Was not the last straight 6 engine used in CC vehicles in the Jeeps? An AMC engine that came with the purchase of what old timers remember as Nash Motor Co. of Kenosha Wisconsin.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
Right, the slant six and the Jeep six were two completely different animals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
Aren't all Straight-6 engine slanted in cars for packaging but not in SUV & trucks?
I know Bimmer's are slanted..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
Most of the straight sixes were straight up and down. BMW and Dodge/Plymouth did the angle for the reasons stated.
 

·
Unusually Geeky
Joined
·
906 Posts
Always been a fan of inline sixes. Especially the ones tuned for low end grunt, like the Slant Six, AMC's 199/232/258 (and maybe the 4.0L Jeep), Ford's big 300 six for trucks, Chevy's 292, etc.

Yeah, the current V6s have oodles more power and get better fuel economy to boot...but it always feels to me like they are working their guts out to move the heavyweight vehicles like the Jeep Wrangler and the minivans...

The 3.3L/3.8L V6s were good torquers as well. So was GM's 3800 V6.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
This does make one wonder, given the mileage they can get out of a V6, what a slant six would do with higher compression and all the EFI stuff. Now that would be a good experiment to do, see what kind of improvements could actually be accomplished and not that difficult to do, either.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
31,978 Posts
I have heard of EFi conversions being done. As for compression, I once misadjusted the valve lash (first time ever), such that the gap was too large, and effectively the valves were seating tighter and opening less, or for a shorter duration. The car started up and ROARED to 3,000 RPM with almost no throttle input. It felt like it had twice as much power. But it wouldn't idle below 1500 RPM without compensation of some kind. Nevertheless, I measured compression, and instead of 125 psi, it was 180. Probably would have blown a head gasket if I hadn't fixed the lash. But I'll always wonder what kind of middle ground I could have reached with this...
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top