Motor Heads: Cars, Trucks, Tractors & Hvy Equip.

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a community supported watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Register a free account to join the discussions. When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including access to market data/charts and additional members only rooms (including one for trade/barter with the community).

^^^
The Slant Six was to solve a packaging problem...new styling/design-language expectations required lower hoods. New expectations, plus competition, required overhead valves...up to this time, Chrysler used a flathead six. The flathead lost a lot of power, and had cooling issues...that's all flathead engines; part of the design compromise. What it offered was a low height and simplicity.

So they tipped over their new six 30 degrees. There were actually some doubts that buyers might accept it - the idiot press wondered if pistons not straight-up-and-down might lead to wear issues (ignoring 30 years of V8s and the new Volkswagen engine with pistons horizontal). But it did gain acceptance, and then awards.

It had potential for racing...unusual for a six like that, a heavy engine - but what kept it in production until 1988, was...RELIABILITY. Long, long life. Designed for a compact car, it found its way into Dodge trucks, and became a mainstay.

And Chrysler lost a lot when they pulled production of it.

FWIW, the K-car engine made by Chrysler, was a Slant 4...not the same basic design, but they did tip it over to fit. By that time, priorities were a bit different at Chrysler, and that engine was not overly strong, nor renowned for long life (but far sturdier than the crap they make today). Chrysler learned a lot, back in the 1960s - unfortunately the lessons are lost, with the Daimler takeover and gutting, bankruptcy, the political gifting of Chrysler to Fiat, and now, Fiat's being merged into Peugeot, to make Stellantis. The Brussels management cares nothing for long life or value delivered. They're Woke - they want to make cars' operational lives SHORT, so that the Poor don't get them as used cars. Because poor people must not have cars - because, CLIMB BATE CHANGE!!


The 225 cu. in. slant 6 was a fantastic motor. You could abuse the crap out of them and they would still get you where you needed to go. They just didn't want to die. Ford had a straight 6 that they put in pickup trucks as well. Not sure how many cubic inches, but it was a reliable motor as well. Lots of torque.
 
The 225 cu. in. slant 6 was a fantastic motor. You could abuse the crap out of them and they would still get you where you needed to go. They just didn't want to die. Ford had a straight 6 that they put in pickup trucks as well. Not sure how many cubic inches, but it was a reliable motor as well. Lots of torque.
Oh, yeah. The Ford 240, later 300, six.

GREAT truck motor. Find one in an old truck...it's better than any V8, for reliability, and fully driveable.

Difference, though, is the Ford 240 was designed from the start to be a commercial/truck engine. It had a bunch of heavy-duty improvements in the valve train, and seven main bearings in a time when most sixes had only four sets of main bearings. Putting a bearing set alongside each crank throw was a new idea, and only AMC and Chevrolet were doing it. The Slant Six had four main bearings - right up to 1983, when it was upgraded at considerable cost. IIRC, the Ford Falcon engine had four main bearings. The Willys six, used up to 1965 in Jeep products, had, IIRC, three main bearings and a wobbly crankshaft.

The remarkable thing about the Slant Six was, designed for an economy compact, it was, right out the door, suitable for racing and industrial uses; and this with 1950s technologies - two crank throws for each bearing set, solid lifters that required adjusting, and of course, cast iron in block and head.
 
Back
Top Bottom