I don't consider anything a *serious* performance engine unless it can be easily upgraded to support at least 600 or so HP without breaking. Especially a 6-cyl or V8. Why would you spend a ton of money on an engine just to have it break on you later, when there are better options out there? That'd be kind of like spending $2000 to fix up a 7.25" rear, knowing it's going to break, and then launching it on a transbrake with slicks and nitrous.

I know I keep coming back to it, but the Ford 2.3 (4 cyl) turbo engine will support 300HP out of the box on stock everything, and that's on a cast crank and rods. Replace the rods and it's good to around 500HP. It's considered normal for your typical 2.3T guy to be running 20-24 pounds of boost on their daily driver, with no problems. The serious racers have good enough airflow that they don't need to run much more boost, but some people have run over 30psi on these engines without problems. Furthermore, pulling the heads on a 150K mile stocker typically reveals clean cylinder bores, with no wear ridge, and a crosshatch!

See, I think the slant has all the makings of a good strong motor. Nice, thick iron cylinder walls, a good design, and plenty of parts availability. I can see this engine supporting a lot of airflow and power. But if people are breaking cranks... I mean, there's no options there. There's no way to upgrade to a better crank, so you've hit a wall. Dead end. So, the best thing to do is build a good 350 or so RWHP, use it as a good strong street motor, and call it a day. Unless we can find solutions to the crank problem.

Good googly moogly? Nice

Theres a difference between "supporting" 2000 hp and and actually getting it stock, out of the box, ready to go in a driveable car.

Whatever, man. Remember, you're talking about an engine displacing 225 cubic inches, basically. One that was designed to dependably get grandma back and forth to the store, and now it's running in the NINES. I find that pretty damn serious. The fact that it was not designed as a performance motor in the first place, yet can pull off such a feat makes it beyond cool to me.

"DW"

_________________

If it ain't broke, fix it!

Stay tuned....we have quotes going on a special billet steel crank as we speak, 500 to 600 HP Slants my be closer then you think.
DD

Again, I'm not saying it's not a cool motor. It's a great motor and I'm proud to have one. I'll be even prouder when I hit 400HP with it. What I'm trying to say is that we need more options regarding stronger internals before we can really say we've got a true performance motor on our hands. If we can get that billet crank like Doc is talking about, we'll really be in business.

Is 9.93 seconds not fast enough? Why do you need more power then that?

Any stock block engine that can put out 2 ponies per cube can be considered a high performance engine. I think somebody has be blinded by 440s, which by the way, 600hp is only about 1.5 ponies per cube. So which is the more effecient engine, a 450hp slant or a 600hp 440?

I can't remeber to whom the quote was attributed but I always liked this one when I saw it.

"...enough power? I'll have enough power when I can smoke the tires at the end of the straight away!..."

_________________
It is easier to REACT,
than it is to THINK!

Middy.

It's not just about power output. For your average rodder, it's also about reliability. So which is the more reliable engine, the 600HP 440 or the 450HP slant?

Pierre, it doesn't really take a lot of effort or money to run a nine. Any redneck can build a junkyard 350 with ported head, intake/exhaust and carb, bolt it into a stripped-to-the-bone Nova with some slicks and run high 9s all day long with good driving. While it's not as dead-nuts simple to get the required power from a slant, the concept is still the same. What's *really* tricky is driving to the track, clicking off a nine in your full-weight, 100% complete street car with cold AC and full interior (with slicks, of couse), and then driving home. That takes real power, because of all the extra weight, and with the extra power comes issues of streetability that can be tricky to solve. Thus, a rodder who can build a car like that deserves full respect.

As I've said before, I'm not knocking the slant. It's a great engine. But what people have to realize is that just because a few people have managed to extract good amounts of power from this motor, that doesn't automatically make it a performance engine. There are design limitations that need to be worked out, such as the oil pump drive mechanism, crank breakage, etc. Once these problems are solved the real power can be made and you can start talking about it being a performance engine. While 400HP is impressive from only 225cid, HP per CI does not win races. HP per POUND *does*. It doesn't matter how unique or cool your engine is, when you lose to a guy who has 100 horses more then you've still lost. The ricer boys are the ones who bitch and moan about HP/CI when they lose a race. The real racers just come back next time better prepared, and if it takes a different engine to get the job done, so be it.

In conclusion, as I've already said, the slant in its present form can make an awesome machine that tears up the street and whoops ass on the track. That's the direction I'm headed with mine. But if you decide to start running with the big dogs, you need to get a different engine (for now). If we get a billet crank, all that will change!

I'm sorry, shiftless, but I find this to be total BS. Are you talking quarter or eighth?? You must have some super breed of rednecks over there in 'bama.

"DW"

P. S. - I personally don't call my slant 6 anything other than "a slant 6". I could really care less whether someone considers it a "serious performance engine" or not. It is what it is. I have always let my machines do my speaking for me.

"DW"

_________________

If it ain't broke, fix it!

Don't fool yourself, chief. You absolutely CAN do basically what he said. I've seen it time and time again. There's a guy here in Montgomery named Ashley Pouncey (yes, the guy who raced in EZ street for a short time a few years ago) who would take stock block, stock steel crank and rod 350's, bolt a good set of heads and a bunch of nitrous on them with a good-sized solid roller cam, and stick them in a Mustang. I say "them" because so many of them eventually came apart. I've personally witnessed MANY passes in the 5.80 range with those 350's in that mustang. I don't know exactly what 5.80's translates to in the 1/4, but you can be fairly sure it's faster than high 9's. 9.0's to 8.80's would probably be a good guess. The car was NOT totally stripped out either. Some weight was cut out in inobvious places, but stuff like the full dashboard and door panels was still there. It wasn't a real street car, but the guy who was talking about running high 9's on the street never said anything about that. I'll be the first to admit that Ashley Pouncey is not the average redneck Shiftless was talking about-he's considerably better at this stuff than that. So, let's say that the "average redneck" takes on the same project. We'll spot him ALMOST A FULL SECOND for being merely average. Where does that put him? High 9's, maybe faster. Remember also that he is allowed to strip his car out somewhat more than that mustang was. I assume you're not gonna try to holler foul on me because of the nitrous-anybody, "redneck" or otherwise has easy access to that, slant sixers included. That and the fact that the car was a mustang instead of a nova like the example is the only material difference I can think of.

Ashley Pouncey is not the only guy I've seen do this-I see it most times I go to the local track. The car and specific times run vary, but high 9's is a pretty common theme. Doing it that way, the longevity isn't there, but nobody said anything about that. Better rods and cranks for 350's are cheap, cheaper than they were when Pouncey started doing it.

Now, before someone gets themself completely turned around and accuses me of promoting 350 chevys as being the mecca of internal combustion, let me go ahead and smack that one down right now. I don't particularly like the engines, and would much rather own/work on mopars, which is why I have 6 of them. But, the original statement that any redneck can take a halfway decently built 350, slap it in a car and run 9's is quite true. Will every one of those run 9's? No. Some people can mess up a one child Easter egg hunt, and others might just not build it enough. But, from a technical standpoint, there's nothing hard about it, and the parts aren't that expensive.

What's even funnier is that it's only a coincidence that I'm from AL. I take no offense to any of the redneck comments, and I'm not trying to defend AL from a perceived attack. It just happens that I live here and I've seen these things firsthand.

_________________
Everyone driving slower than me is a moron. Everyone driving faster than me is an idiot. With all these morons and idiots on the road, I can't get anywhere!

Whatever. If it were so easy and cheap, everybody would be running nines. Doesn't happen at the tracks I go to. Ya'll must be Alabama Dreamin'"......

"DW"

P. S. - Your neighbor shiftless brought rednecks into this discussion, not me. Hell, I'M a redneck. And although it's fun for bench racing, what some car runs in the eighth with some super low gear can't necesssarily be directly translated into the quarter. It will be wrung out by half-track, so they will have to run different gears which changes the equation.

_________________

If it ain't broke, fix it!

I hope you're joking, because otherwise you're calling me a liar.

_________________
Everyone driving slower than me is a moron. Everyone driving faster than me is an idiot. With all these morons and idiots on the road, I can't get anywhere!

I guess it depends on what you consider "easy". I think repeatability would factor into the equation, too. I could probably go nines on a Snapper if I dumped enough nitrous on it, but if the motor is goo after one or two runs, what has that proven? I go to quarter mile tracks all the time, and only a very small percentage of the cars consistently go nines. I stand by my comments.

"DW"

_________________

If it ain't broke, fix it!

Mr. Weaver,

If you're gonna basically tell me I'm full of it, you need to come with more than "I go to quarter mile tracks all the time, and only a very small percentage of the cars go nines."

When you see it done several times, and you know the people doing it well enough to know what's really in their motors, and that's mostly stock internals (except for head/cam/valvetrain), you can safely say you know it can be done. Just to clarify, by "it" I mean take a 350-powered vehicle and put it in the 9's with a minimum amount of fuss and money spent. I suspect the reason you don't see very many people do it is that most people don't like blowing motors up. Doing it REALLY cheap requires you to sweep the rods off the track occasionally. The individual I know with the mustang didn't care. He'd just go get another cheap-ass 350 and do it again. Again, I reiterate: The average person looking to go that fast can't/won't stomach guaranteed occasional engine destruction. I don't blame them-I'd want it to hang together if it were me.

To not have to build motors frequently while running that fast requires a fair amount more money. Not a terrific amount more these days, as aftermarket rods/cranks/blocks continue to get cheaper, but somewhat more. Remember, a few years ago, it was more expensive to build it bulletproof because the aftermarket stuff was more expensive.

So, let's summarize what I'm saying: 9's can be achieved relatively easily and cheaply with 350-powered vehicles. It can't be done with reliability for long, but it can be done. Furthermore, the average person who runs 9's doesn't choose this route to doing it, as it involves breakage and carnage. The average person running 9's chooses to spend more money to have it hang together. This weeds out everyone who wants to run 9's, can't spend the money to make it last, and is afraid of repeated breakage. This leaves the people who are willing to blow it up. This is a relatively small number of people, so this is why you say this: "I go to quarter mile tracks all the time, and only a very small percentage of the cars go nines."
You're saying the fact that you don't see it done much means that it must therefore be technically hard to do.


So, I guess what I'm really saying is the fact that you don't see it done much is because most people can't stomach sweeping the track often, NOT because it can't be done. See the difference?


There are really 3 concepts at work here: Money, reliability, and speed. Reducing any one of them will also reduce at least one of the other two. If you reduce money, you will also reduce either speed or reliability. This individual, and several others I know, chose to reduce money and let reliability suffer instead of letting speed suffer. Most people would choose to let speed suffer. Just because most other people would choose to go slower doesn't mean EVERYONE makes that choice, or that it's somehow "harder" to make that choice. It all comes down to this: are you willing to sweep broken parts up? If you are, stock blocks, cranks, and rods will suffice.

_________________
Everyone driving slower than me is a moron. Everyone driving faster than me is an idiot. With all these morons and idiots on the road, I can't get anywhere!