My '64 Valiant has a 170. I think I'll keep it and see what kind of fuel economy I can get. Here in the south Texas coastal plains the 170 won't struggle with many hills. No doubt the extra 55 inches of the 225 makes a big difference. I think the 170 needs at least a four speed, all my slant six driving has been with the 225. I'm one who has 300,000 miles with a Geo Metro, which does fine on the freeway with not much power on hills, but a freshly built G10 with 210 PSI cranking compression and 9.8:1 CR is pretty spunky for its size, I'd say that a 9.5:1 CR 170 would respond well to higher compression.

The difference between the 170 and the 225 is the almost total displacement of the Suzuki G10 1.0 liter. Whether you like the 170 depends upon what you want to do. In a small town I think the stock 170 would be okay as a daily driver. Since most toss the 170 I want to give it a chance. The 170 is the same displacement as the L28 in the Datsun 280Z - very similar bore and stoke, small valves etc. The last versions of the NA L28 made almost 180 horsepower at the flywheel with about the same torque as the 170 slant six. The Z people say getting more than 220 hp from a NA L28 on the street is pushing it for a daily driver, but 350 to 400+ is possible with a turbo charger. I think the same would be true of a 170 slant six. But what is true for the 170, is more so for the 225

BTW, the earlier trans has the pump in the rear, as opposed to up front. Because of this, you can actually push (or pull) start the earlier cars with the push button auto transmission.

Mike in FL (formerly OR)[/quote]

No, the earlier trannys had a rear pump in addition to the front pump, not
opposed to. How would the car move idling in gear otherwise................lol.