Slant *       6       Forum
Home Home Home
The Place to Go for Slant Six Info!
Click here to help support the Slant Six Forum!
It is currently Wed Dec 11, 2024 10:48 am

Unanswered topics | Active topics


» » Tech Q & A » Engine

All times are UTC-08:00



Post new topic  Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
steponmebbbboom
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:20 pm 
Offline
Turbo EFI
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 5:45 pm
Posts: 1903
Location: Hamilton the STEEL CITY, ON
Car Model:
Shrouding relief?

_________________
I've been calling it as i see it for my entire life and that's not about to change. Take it or leave it.
Top
   
Reply with quote  
SlantSixDan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:45 pm 
Offline
Board Sponsor & Contributor

Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2002 5:39 pm
Posts: 24462
Location: North America
Car Model:
Quote:
Is this the original 62 engine that you are working on? The early ones could be bored out to .060, no more. The later blocks however used a thinwall casting that could only be bored out to .030.
Neither of these two points sounds correct to me at all. Where'd the info come from?
Quote:
At .090 I think you will probably break into a water jacket.
Doc and others have bored \6 engines 0.100".

The aluminum block can only be bored 0.040" in stock form -- I wonder if maybe that's what you were thinking of.

To determine the cubic inch displacement, use the following formula:

(½bore)² × π(stroke) × (number of cylinders)
Top
   
Reply with quote  
Dennis Weaver
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:34 pm 
Offline
Board Sponsor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 11:33 am
Posts: 2378
Location: Central GA
Car Model: Many & varied, including stock & hopped up /6's
Quote:
I believe there is an advantage to a larger bore when using large valves.
Good point.

The /6 in my Duster is bored .060, simply because the original owner insisted on an unnecessary rebuild and boring the block (.040") @ 90,000mi (car has almost 250,000mi now). I know this since I am friends with the machinist that did the work way-back-when. At .060", I have experienced no cooling problems whatsoever.

D/W

_________________
Image
If it ain't broke, fix it!
Top
   
Reply with quote  
steponmebbbboom
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:48 pm 
Offline
Turbo EFI
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 5:45 pm
Posts: 1903
Location: Hamilton the STEEL CITY, ON
Car Model:
Quote:
I believe the block was cast for aluminum and that it will usually withstand boring up to .100, or at least .090.
I think this was the comment that threw a couple people, including myself, into a loop. Can you sleeve an aluminum block?

Tiger, the slant was originally, in its earliest stages, planned as an aluminum block, as far as I know. It is this overbuilding to compensate for the expansion/contraction rates of aluminum, that is responsible for the durability this engine offers. As I understand it. But as pointed out, the production aluminum block differs greatly from the iron block.

_________________
I've been calling it as i see it for my entire life and that's not about to change. Take it or leave it.
Top
   
Reply with quote  
slantzilla
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:09 am 
Offline
Board Sponsor & Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 7:27 pm
Posts: 14498
Location: Park Forest, Illinoisy
Car Model: 68 Valiant
If you have not bought pistons yet, bore it as big as you can get pistons for. The larger bore will allow the head to flow better. The small bore of the Slant is a natural deterrent to good flow. :shock:

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.
Top
   
Reply with quote  
Jeb
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:14 am 
Offline
Turbo EFI
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:01 pm
Posts: 1937
Location: Rhine, GA
Car Model:
Quote:
Quote:
Is this the original 62 engine that you are working on? The early ones could be bored out to .060, no more. The later blocks however used a thinwall casting that could only be bored out to .030.
Neither of these two points sounds correct to me at all. Where'd the info come from?


A Mopar performance book on six cylinder engines and the info is on page 269.

_________________
82 D150-225/727
02 Dakota-3.9/5 speed
87 GMC C7000-8.2 Detroit Diesel/5+2
Top
   
Reply with quote  
slantzilla
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:52 am 
Offline
Board Sponsor & Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 7:27 pm
Posts: 14498
Location: Park Forest, Illinoisy
Car Model: 68 Valiant
Quote:
A Mopar performance book on six cylinder engines and the info is on page 269.
You will find quite a few things in the Mopar information that is not correct. Much of their information was designed to fit what they sold at the time, not what you could really do.

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.
Top
   
Reply with quote  
SlantSixDan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:02 am 
Offline
Board Sponsor & Contributor

Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2002 5:39 pm
Posts: 24462
Location: North America
Car Model:
Quote:
Quote:
A Mopar performance book on six cylinder engines.
That would explain the incorrect info, then.

Kesteb? Got your ears on?
Top
   
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

» » Tech Q & A » Engine

All times are UTC-08:00

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited