Yea I read the article, you edited your post as I was typing so I had to edit mine as well.

Again though you are compairing an engine that was built by a professional engine builder with unlimited time and resources plus had a ton of money dumped in to avarage Joes rides. Apples to apples.

_________________

Whoa 223, saw the topic & assumed you were posting more Turbo info ??Looks like you have your Gens in a Bee's nest !!

Can't really comment on the other cars , but personally , I'd bet some coin your pile o' junk is putting down more WHP than almost any non-N2O combo I've seen posted (including the guy callin' you out) & believe me brutha' , Turbos are reeaalll Nitrous friendly !

Keep stirring the pot , maybe some common sense will float to the top !

Been wanting to buy a slant myself , but most of the buildups I've been seeing make me run away ... Seeing Tilley's was a Ballbreaker , man that car flys, but it's beyond my capabilities , but even I could throw together Junk like yours . Thanks for the inspiration

BTW , that 13.40 Slant is COOL ! 20 years back , as well as today , that's running !

Say there Ron, Let's say you and me get together for some good whiskey and some dancing girls? Sounds like more fun than pushstarting a tow dolly to me!
Your good not-so-racing buddy

-James

_________________

70val, It's not apples to apples? Big cams and big valved ported heads. I'm missing your point. One was 40 years ago and the other is current.

First off, lets keep this discussion civil.
Shaker The article you refer to is really interesting, "But". That is a full Boogie race motor, it would not be street driveable in any way shape or form. They said F/MP, I don't have the cu/lb brakes from that far back, but that would have been a suoer light car ( I had a 300 ford 6 in a Falcon, that was H/MP). Slantzilla's car weighs someware around 3200 lbs, and turns 12's. Most of the slantsix racers on this site are "hobby " racers, and could not afford to build anything like the engine in the article. The real hardcore racers are turning some fantistic times. How about 3 different doorslammers in the 9's in the 1/4 mile. A few in the 10's, more in the 12's without any real exotic pieces. Then there are guys like me, on a very limited budget, running 13's and 14's. This is not to take anything away from the people that are slower, and play within their budget, and have a lot of fun.

_________________
Charrlie_S
65 Valiant 100 2dr post 170 turbo
66 Valiant Signet 170 nitrous
64 Valiant Signet
64 Valiant 4dr 170
64 Valiant 4dr 225

If you don't like the buildups you are seeing, plan your own build and blow the others away. Be a leader, not a follower.

And yes, a 13 sec slant is kool. My Cuda with a 170 and a stock (and I mean BONE STOCK short block, and just a milled head) has gone 13.3's at 98 mph, and welghs 3250 on the starting line. Chassis dynoed last year at the Chrysler Classic ( with many witnesses) 358 ft/lbs at 2750 rpm, torque, and 204 hp at 4500 rpm. One hour later ran 13.5 under the same conditions as the dyno.

_________________
Charrlie_S
65 Valiant 100 2dr post 170 turbo
66 Valiant Signet 170 nitrous
64 Valiant Signet
64 Valiant 4dr 170
64 Valiant 4dr 225

pardon my chiming in, but 3 webbers and matching intake for 3 webbers are not throwing a pile of cash in the motor? your so called "progress going in wrong direction" has no coherence and your arguments are sofisms.

_________________
Juan Ignacio Caino

Please use e-mail button istead of PM'ing. I do log in sometimes but I'll be answering quicker thru e-mail.

Upfront , I'm too lazy , I'd rather let someone else do the work.....

Don't take this the wrong way , but I have no interest in Nitrous cars . However , Turbos are a different story . Think I've seen pics of your turbo on the 62-5 website . Are you still running the car?? Good #s for a 170 without intercooling , has plenty of potential !

With todays technology , a 10 second , 25 mpg , drive to work Slant , should be viable . Suprised people don't head in that direction ...

If you have been paying attention you would quickly see that a 10 sec slant w/out nitrous getting 25 mpg is not a vaible project unless you are spending way more money than brain power. you can't even do that with a vintage V8.
obviously you are watching way to much fast and furious.

_________________

A few specs from the Australian build:

Mickey Thompson forged pistons
13.76:1 compression
Three 40 mm Weber DCOE carburetors on a side-draft intake
332 degree duration, 0.505" lift cam
All sorts of things machined for 0.001" clearances or similar levels of precision

Not exactly a budget or a street build - as others have pointed out, people who put that kind of work into a slant these days are typically running in the 9s or 10s.

_________________
"Mad Scientist" Matt Cramer
'66 Dart - turbocharged 225
My blog - Mad Scientist Matt's Lair

I don't think KritiK is to far off. The OEMs are almost there (in the 10s) and they are meeting the CAFE/emmissions regulations at the same time.


I've given documented proof that a slant can run faster than what you deem as fast. I see no reason why the article's engine would not be street friendly especially since we have new cam profiles which are more efficient and a better understanding air flow when its related to head porting and valve grinds.

Looks like I'll just have to keep my opinions to myself since you guys can't seem to think out of the box. Sorry about trying to enlighten you to the potential.

I disagree . You do realize that people are running deep in the 7s with 2 litre powerplants , don't you ?? "Fast & Furious" would be a appropriate title....Certainly , in a world where nearly 1,000whp from a 4cyl is viable , 400 from a Slant is not so much to ask...There's even a FWD 2.2
Mopar running 8 flat & 180 !

Check out any DSM , Toyota or even Turbo Mopar website , it might change your way of thinking......

Very good point KritiK, and some of them drive to the drag stip getting 30+MPG

I would need to see documentation, on that. All the 10-11 sec oem cars, I know of, have to pay the gas gussler tax


What do YOU call fast. Fast means different things to different people, and cercomstances (sp). In the 70's my stocker was fast, turning 16's. Now I think my Cuda is fast, running 13's. My 66 Valint is slow running 13's.(bigger motor, less weight)it should be in the 12's. It is relative.
Mainly the compression ratio, it would require race gas. The Webbers could be made to work on the street, but impractical. As for the head, we are still dealing with a head that has many drawbacks from the get go. There is only so much that can be done with it. The newer OEM cars you refer to (10-11sec) Started with a clean sheet of paper for engine design. They did not modify 40 year old designs. Most are multiple valves per cyl. Variable cam timing, and electronic engine manigment.
Not necessary to keep your opinions to yourself. discussion is good. It just needs to be kept civil. I am not refering just to you but everyone.
AS for thinking out of the box, all of us do that, just because we have slants and not small block chevys. Looking forward to seeing your time slips, and I'm not saying that as a smart a**. Really want to see what it can do. I am a fan of most bang for the buck.

_________________
Charrlie_S
65 Valiant 100 2dr post 170 turbo
66 Valiant Signet 170 nitrous
64 Valiant Signet
64 Valiant 4dr 170
64 Valiant 4dr 225

Thanks Charrlie