Slant Six Forum :: Hey Shaker223-Engine specs just for you!

70valiant, thanks for reading the article. You've just proved my point. BTW the car was in the United States and built here as well. The article was done for the Austrailian magazine. And yes, I have a ton of old magazines that I use for reference. You never know what you might learn from them.

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 !

Quote:

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.

Here is a link to the 40 year old article. As an example, SS/AA ran 10.80s in 1968 and now they go 8.40s and the Slant seem to have gone in the wrong direction. Slantzilla's build is almost identicle to this.
http://markcowie.com/valiant/slant6/

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.

Quote:

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......

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.

Author:	70valiant [ Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:29 pm ]
Post subject:
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.

Author:	KRiTiK [ Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:35 pm ]
Post subject:
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 !

Author:	james longhurst [ Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Ron Parker, Where are you?
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

Author:	Shaker223 [ Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:
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.

Author:	Charrlie_S [ Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:55 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: 70valiant, thanks for reading the article. You've just proved my point. BTW the car was in the United States and built here as well. The article was done for the Austrailian magazine. And yes, I have a ton of old magazines that I use for reference. You never know what you might learn from them. 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.

Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/

Hey Shaker223-Engine specs just for you! https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24655	Page 2 of 3

Author:	Charrlie_S [ Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:12 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: 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 ! 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.

Author:	argentina-slantsixer [ Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:
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.

Author:	KRiTiK [ Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Quote: 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 ! 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. 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 ...

Author:	70valiant [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:14 am ]
Post subject:
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.

Author:	Matt Cramer [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:38 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Here is a link to the 40 year old article. As an example, SS/AA ran 10.80s in 1968 and now they go 8.40s and the Slant seem to have gone in the wrong direction. Slantzilla's build is almost identicle to this. http://markcowie.com/valiant/slant6/ 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.

Author:	Shaker223 [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:41 am ]
Post subject:
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.

Author:	KRiTiK [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:17 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: 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. 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......

Author:	Shaker223 [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:40 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Quote: 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. 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

Author:	Charrlie_S [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:40 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: 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 would need to see documentation, on that. All the 10-11 sec oem cars, I know of, have to pay the gas gussler tax Quote: I've given documented proof that a slant can run faster than what you deem as fast. 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. Quote: 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. 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. Quote: 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. 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.

Page 2 of 3	All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Shaker223 [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:47 am ]
Post subject:
Thanks Charrlie