And that means its time to do stupid stuff in the garage. I've got a really fun idea of a slant six "goal" for 2012. Been bench racing this for some time now, what do you guys think of this?



Intent would be 3 smallish 1bbls on a 198 (preferred) or a 225. Engine will need to be near WOT for 5 or so miles....(hint hint)

Sounds like fun, but I'd probably spend my time on EFI or a turbo setup. Runner lengths should be somewhere around 12-15" for WOT at 5000 RPM. That's just a guess and would need to calculate...

I get your hint. Wouldn't it be cool to have TWO Slant 6 cars at that Spectre 341 deal??

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines since 1988

Looks like a neat set up! Definitely eye candy!

We missed our opportunity at Maxton Lou...

_________________
Rob

I’m Mater
The Kentucky Poser

Simplify your set up, one carb for 1&2 one for 3&4 one for 5&6.
I agree on 15" runner length.


Richard

_________________
Part of Tyrde-Browne Racing

I would dread a Slant without a blower for 341. I would warn that you need at least a 9 to 1 Lbs/hp rating (corrected) if you really want to give the hill a go. My plan for this car/motor will be a lot flatter....and saltier.....yeah.....
My only concern with that was for even intake pulses and smoother operation. Am I wrong on this?

With either set up you go from one carb to another, no such thing as even pulses.

Richard

_________________
Part of Tyrde-Browne Racing

Here's the way I see it. With my plumbing the carbs would see this...

Carb 1:pull........pull........pull........
Carb 2:....pull........pull........pull....
Carb 3:........pull........pull........pull

Where yours would be:

Carb 1:pull............pull....pull............
Carb 2:........pull........pull........pull....
Carb 3:....pull....pull............pull........

see what I mean about funky signals?

Huh, I looked it up, and the firing order is 1 5 3 6 2 4. By the looks of it, each carb "sees" a pulse, then dead for one crank revolution, then it sees a pulse on the other runner. I guess if the runners are long enough then it'll iron out.

Interesting idea.

"Huh, I looked it up, and the firing order is 1 5 3 6 2 4. By the looks of it, each carb "sees" a pulse, then dead for one crank revolution, then it sees a pulse on the other runner. I guess if the runners are long enough then it'll iron out"


Correct!

Richard

_________________
Part of Tyrde-Browne Racing

Looks like a BMW intake...........


Each carb would need to be sized as if it was feeding all 6 cylinders.

_________________
Ed
64 Valiant 225 / 904 / 42:1 manual steering / 9" drum brakes

Looks like something the Ramchargers might have come up with. Don't have a clue if it would work but it sure looks like fun!

_________________
66 Lil' Red Piggie Valiant (Mater Crusher) - Thanks Zilla!!!!! 72 Demon (Number 1 Son's)

See here.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

***************************************************

Care to clarify, EMS? From the OP's drawing, it appears that there is no interconnection between carb plenums or runners. My thinking is that the carbs would be sized for only the two cylinders each, and tuned for a two cylinder engine of 75 c.i.
The hard part would be tuning the carbs for equal vacuum across the board, as it would act as if it's three seperate engines, but running on a common crankshaft.

Roger

What are you suggesting Dan?

A carb sized for only 2 cylinders wouldn't flow enough air.



Because the flow is pulsed, you need to take into consideration peak flow.

The pic shows the airflow requirements for each cylinder(about 240 degrees for every 720 degrees (2 crank rotations)), with max flow at intake valve fully open, less flow proportional to valve opening.

The peak flow (intake valve fully open) is just about the same as the average flow for all 6 cylinders.

_________________
Ed
64 Valiant 225 / 904 / 42:1 manual steering / 9" drum brakes