Slant Six Forum :: Eileen will be stepping aside.

If it were me.....

I would keep the Dutra duals....but I would add a very skookum Y pipe with right sized primaries, muffler and pipe.

Get a Jeffries head on there.

Deck the block to match at 9.5cr

Get the right cam to go with it

Get a method for tuning. This could be Megasquirt or a good dyno tuner....or anyhing in between.

....and Id be happy with the results.

Please note that any hemi installation will also require a method of tuning....and a realistic expectation.

Please note that any hemi installation will also require a method of tuning....and a realistic expectation.

I don't think this is a Truck Motor (although I can see how that's a good line to try'n piss brennan off)

One thing just using some "comparison sence". A buddy of mine drove his '68 Chrylser 300 with a 440 to Tennessee and got 16mpg running a 2.76 gear. The car is heavier, knocks down more air and is feeding 84 more cubes. Ohh and I forgot to mention running the big twin A/C compressor. It seems fair to say that I should be able to at LEAST get to that kind of mileage.

Quote:

I don't think this is a Truck Motor (although I can see how that's a good line to try'n piss brennan off)

Not trying to annoy or please anyone here... but the fact of the matter is that 5.7 engine that Chrysler sells as a crate engine IS the truck block, not the car block. Not that it matters much, its mainly that the truck block casting has accessory mounting points that are more suitable to putting it in old muscle cars. The car block tucks everything down too low for an old Mopar with torsion bars, and they build a lot more truck blocks on top of that so its easier to divert a few away from the production line for the crate engines. Just like it was with the "Magnum 380" crate motor, which was based on the 5.9L Ram engine.

Quote:

I can believe the mileage for the 300, but cubes really don't matter as much as you might think much for mileage. What matters is the mass flow through the engine, and a 440 with the "350 horse" (big car) cam, which happens to be the same grind as the 383/400 2-barrel cam grind, can be VERY miserly about the mass flow when cruising with 2.76 gears. It also falls flat on its face at about 4200 RPM, which is why the dual-pattern "Magnum/Commando" cam that was in the Dodge R/T cars and the Plymouth GTX is around. That's the cam I've got in my 440 C-body, it does not fall on its face at 4200, but mileage is nowhere close to 16. Its just not as efficient as the 2-bbl cam. I run 2.93 gears, and that car's got some LONG legs and loves the highway, but it never has broken 15 mpg and the one time it came close was a downhill run from Albuquerque to Santa Rosa with a cold front blowing at my rear bumper (although it was probably grossing on the high side of 5200 pounds with family and luggage, too)

Its a very fun car to drive, but I've got no illusions about its ability to combine timeslips and mileage. Set up the way it is, its not outstanding at either. I'd guess it might run high 14s or low 15s, and mileage is generally 12-13 combined city/highway. 10-11 just in town. Its a compromise meant to be fun on the street without being exotic. The most expensive part of the engine was just the assembly work.

My point here is.... if I were to drop a 5.7 Hemi in that car with the same transmission (727) and same gearing, it would perform about the same both in terms of mileage and timeslips. I might pick up 10% better fuel economy from the fuel injection and MDS on the Hemi, but the REAL magic with cars like the LX series (or any similar vehicle- Cadillac CTS, Impala v8, etc.) that lets them run low 15s and get 25 MPG at the same time is the two extra gears in the transmission and the fact that the torque convertor locks up whenever it can instead of continually converting energy to heat in the fluid. Connecting the dots a little further... I don't think you're going to get close to your goals with the 5.7 either, UNLESS you give it more gears and a lockup convertor. Thermodynamics won't be denied her dues. And when it comes to all that, well hell, I'd be tempted to put a stout 5-speed O/D behind that slant, bump the rear end up to a 3.55, and have some real fun.

And a word about that "big vtwin compressor." It may be heavy, but having run both I'd bet that its a few percent more efficient than a modern axial piston compressor in terms of converting power from the belt into cold air. Its got full pressure lubrication and no swash-plate followers which are a big friction source in the modern ones. The modern ones trade a little bit more frictional loss for a lot lighter weight and smaller size. Yes, I've got a Sanden SD5 on my car now, but not because its better. Just because its more readily available- its almost impossible to get a good reliable Chrysler v twin anymore. I actually had a little bit colder air with the twin, especially in traffic at idle. My R/T has its original non-rebuilt V2 running R-134a, and it will freeze the nuts off a brass monkey. When it finally wears out, it will be a sad day.

I really doesn't matter except that people like to say I don't listen. I havn't counted, but I think this is the four time I explained this.

http://tinyurl.com/ypf596 Car block with car front cover.
http://tinyurl.com/2dxz7l Truck front cover I bought separately to convert to let me install this car motor in my old car.
I really doesn't matter except that people like to say I don't listen. I havn't counted, but I think this is the four time I explained this. Maybe I am misunderstanding.... Chrylser is putting "truck" motors in there cars?

My stock slant with an OD 5 speed got 25 to 29 MPG highway with a two barrel. It is a brick of a car, but not too heavy. It seems you should be able to do better than 15 with almost any motor if that is your goal.

Maybe I could pass off a piece of advice to you. Don't take comments on the internet personaly.

Sam

Author:	argentina-slantsixer [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:10 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: If it were me..... I would keep the Dutra duals....but I would add a very skookum Y pipe with right sized primaries, muffler and pipe. Get a Jeffries head on there. Deck the block to match at 9.5cr Get the right cam to go with it Get a method for tuning. This could be Megasquirt or a good dyno tuner....or anyhing in between. ....and Id be happy with the results. Please note that any hemi installation will also require a method of tuning....and a realistic expectation. yes, and I'd say that realistic expectation is really what it's needed here!

Author:	Bren67Cuda904 [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Please note that any hemi installation will also require a method of tuning....and a realistic expectation. Tuning wasn't the problem with the slant. The problem was not enough cubes to support the desired drivability that I wanted. I don't think that pushing a 3400 lb car to the 13s (13.0-13.99) is unreasonable with a 360hp. Fuel mileage: I am still gathering info and calculating. Does anyone know the coefichency of drag for my car?

Author:	argentina-slantsixer [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:
cx 0.40 tops I'd guesstimate more like .37 to .39

Author:	Shaker223 [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:16 pm ]
Post subject:
360hp and 3400 pounds should put that car way into the 12's. If everything is perfect it could click off a high 11.

Author:	Bren67Cuda904 [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:36 pm ]
Post subject:
I am having trouble finding the overdrive multiplyer for the 5 speed(545RFE). Thats the one that in the 300C. I would be running the 904 or 727 and maybe, depending on my finances and need, the Gear Vendors. I have no intention of running slicks with the 8 1/4 rear. If I can't hold traction with the wide street tires I am running, then a lower gear (High#) really does make sence to me. One thing just using some "comparison sence". A buddy of mine drove his '68 Chrylser 300 with a 440 to Tennessee and got 16mpg running a 2.76 gear. The car is heavier, knocks down more air and is feeding 84 more cubes. Ohh and I forgot to mention running the big twin A/C compressor. It seems fair to say that I should be able to at LEAST get to that kind of mileage.

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

Eileen will be stepping aside. https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26236	Page 7 of 9

Author:	440_Magnum [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I don't think this is a Truck Motor (although I can see how that's a good line to try'n piss brennan off) Not trying to annoy or please anyone here... but the fact of the matter is that 5.7 engine that Chrysler sells as a crate engine IS the truck block, not the car block. Not that it matters much, its mainly that the truck block casting has accessory mounting points that are more suitable to putting it in old muscle cars. The car block tucks everything down too low for an old Mopar with torsion bars, and they build a lot more truck blocks on top of that so its easier to divert a few away from the production line for the crate engines. Just like it was with the "Magnum 380" crate motor, which was based on the 5.9L Ram engine.

Author:	440_Magnum [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: One thing just using some "comparison sence". A buddy of mine drove his '68 Chrylser 300 with a 440 to Tennessee and got 16mpg running a 2.76 gear. The car is heavier, knocks down more air and is feeding 84 more cubes. Ohh and I forgot to mention running the big twin A/C compressor. It seems fair to say that I should be able to at LEAST get to that kind of mileage. I can believe the mileage for the 300, but cubes really don't matter as much as you might think much for mileage. What matters is the mass flow through the engine, and a 440 with the "350 horse" (big car) cam, which happens to be the same grind as the 383/400 2-barrel cam grind, can be VERY miserly about the mass flow when cruising with 2.76 gears. It also falls flat on its face at about 4200 RPM, which is why the dual-pattern "Magnum/Commando" cam that was in the Dodge R/T cars and the Plymouth GTX is around. That's the cam I've got in my 440 C-body, it does not fall on its face at 4200, but mileage is nowhere close to 16. Its just not as efficient as the 2-bbl cam. I run 2.93 gears, and that car's got some LONG legs and loves the highway, but it never has broken 15 mpg and the one time it came close was a downhill run from Albuquerque to Santa Rosa with a cold front blowing at my rear bumper (although it was probably grossing on the high side of 5200 pounds with family and luggage, too) Its a very fun car to drive, but I've got no illusions about its ability to combine timeslips and mileage. Set up the way it is, its not outstanding at either. I'd guess it might run high 14s or low 15s, and mileage is generally 12-13 combined city/highway. 10-11 just in town. Its a compromise meant to be fun on the street without being exotic. The most expensive part of the engine was just the assembly work. My point here is.... if I were to drop a 5.7 Hemi in that car with the same transmission (727) and same gearing, it would perform about the same both in terms of mileage and timeslips. I might pick up 10% better fuel economy from the fuel injection and MDS on the Hemi, but the REAL magic with cars like the LX series (or any similar vehicle- Cadillac CTS, Impala v8, etc.) that lets them run low 15s and get 25 MPG at the same time is the two extra gears in the transmission and the fact that the torque convertor locks up whenever it can instead of continually converting energy to heat in the fluid. Connecting the dots a little further... I don't think you're going to get close to your goals with the 5.7 either, UNLESS you give it more gears and a lockup convertor. Thermodynamics won't be denied her dues. And when it comes to all that, well hell, I'd be tempted to put a stout 5-speed O/D behind that slant, bump the rear end up to a 3.55, and have some real fun. And a word about that "big vtwin compressor." It may be heavy, but having run both I'd bet that its a few percent more efficient than a modern axial piston compressor in terms of converting power from the belt into cold air. Its got full pressure lubrication and no swash-plate followers which are a big friction source in the modern ones. The modern ones trade a little bit more frictional loss for a lot lighter weight and smaller size. Yes, I've got a Sanden SD5 on my car now, but not because its better. Just because its more readily available- its almost impossible to get a good reliable Chrysler v twin anymore. I actually had a little bit colder air with the twin, especially in traffic at idle. My R/T has its original non-rebuilt V2 running R-134a, and it will freeze the nuts off a brass monkey. When it finally wears out, it will be a sad day.

Author:	Bren67Cuda904 [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Quote: I don't think this is a Truck Motor (although I can see how that's a good line to try'n piss brennan off) Not trying to annoy or please anyone here... but the fact of the matter is that 5.7 engine that Chrysler sells as a crate engine IS the truck block, not the car block. Not that it matters much, its mainly that the truck block casting has accessory mounting points that are more suitable to putting it in old muscle cars. The car block tucks everything down too low for an old Mopar with torsion bars, and they build a lot more truck blocks on top of that so its easier to divert a few away from the production line for the crate engines. Just like it was with the "Magnum 380" crate motor, which was based on the 5.9L Ram engine. http://tinyurl.com/ypf596 Car block with car front cover. http://tinyurl.com/2dxz7l Truck front cover I bought separately to convert to let me install this car motor in my old car. I really doesn't matter except that people like to say I don't listen. I havn't counted, but I think this is the four time I explained this. Maybe I am misunderstanding.... Chrylser is putting "truck" motors in there cars?

Author:	Bren67Cuda904 [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Quote: One thing just using some "comparison sence". A buddy of mine drove his '68 Chrylser 300 with a 440 to Tennessee and got 16mpg running a 2.76 gear. The car is heavier, knocks down more air and is feeding 84 more cubes. Ohh and I forgot to mention running the big twin A/C compressor. It seems fair to say that I should be able to at LEAST get to that kind of mileage. I can believe the mileage for the 300, but cubes really don't matter as much as you might think much for mileage. What matters is the mass flow through the engine, and a 440 with the "350 horse" (big car) cam, which happens to be the same grind as the 383/400 2-barrel cam grind, can be VERY miserly about the mass flow when cruising with 2.76 gears. It also falls flat on its face at about 4200 RPM, which is why the dual-pattern "Magnum/Commando" cam that was in the Dodge R/T cars and the Plymouth GTX is around. That's the cam I've got in my 440 C-body, it does not fall on its face at 4200, but mileage is nowhere close to 16. Its just not as efficient as the 2-bbl cam. I run 2.93 gears, and that car's got some LONG legs and loves the highway, but it never has broken 15 mpg and the one time it came close was a downhill run from Albuquerque to Santa Rosa with a cold front blowing at my rear bumper (although it was probably grossing on the high side of 5200 pounds with family and luggage, too) Its a very fun car to drive, but I've got no illusions about its ability to combine timeslips and mileage. Set up the way it is, its not outstanding at either. I'd guess it might run high 14s or low 15s, and mileage is generally 12-13 combined city/highway. 10-11 just in town. Its a compromise meant to be fun on the street without being exotic. The most expensive part of the engine was just the assembly work. My point here is.... if I were to drop a 5.7 Hemi in that car with the same transmission (727) and same gearing, it would perform about the same both in terms of mileage and timeslips. I might pick up 10% better fuel economy from the fuel injection and MDS on the Hemi, but the REAL magic with cars like the LX series (or any similar vehicle- Cadillac CTS, Impala v8, etc.) that lets them run low 15s and get 25 MPG at the same time is the two extra gears in the transmission and the fact that the torque convertor locks up whenever it can instead of continually converting energy to heat in the fluid. Connecting the dots a little further... I don't think you're going to get close to your goals with the 5.7 either, UNLESS you give it more gears and a lockup convertor. Thermodynamics won't be denied her dues. And when it comes to all that, well hell, I'd be tempted to put a stout 5-speed O/D behind that slant, bump the rear end up to a 3.55, and have some real fun. And a word about that "big vtwin compressor." It may be heavy, but having run both I'd bet that its a few percent more efficient than a modern axial piston compressor in terms of converting power from the belt into cold air. Its got full pressure lubrication and no swash-plate followers which are a big friction source in the modern ones. The modern ones trade a little bit more frictional loss for a lot lighter weight and smaller size. Yes, I've got a Sanden SD5 on my car now, but not because its better. Just because its more readily available- its almost impossible to get a good reliable Chrysler v twin anymore. I actually had a little bit colder air with the twin, especially in traffic at idle. My R/T has its original non-rebuilt V2 running R-134a, and it will freeze the nuts off a brass monkey. When it finally wears out, it will be a sad day. If what you say is true and it maybe..... How are some Slanters running in the 15's and 14s and still getting 20mpg running 904 and 3 something gears? Maybe they forgot to change the transmissions speedo drive gear?

Author:	hemi62valiant [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:37 am ]
Post subject:
And when it comes to all that, well hell, I'd be tempted to put a stout 5-speed O/D behind that slant, bump the rear end up to a 3.55, and have some real fun. What 5 spd could you put behind a slant

Author:	Sam Powell [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:10 am ]
Post subject:
My Corvette would get a minimum of 25 MPG on the highway with a 350. It did have a lock up converter, and a sweet engine management system.And the aerodynamics were the best. However, the car was pretty junkie. Everything rattled and squeeked, and the body flex was annoying. My stock slant with an OD 5 speed got 25 to 29 MPG highway with a two barrel. It is a brick of a car, but not too heavy. It seems you should be able to do better than 15 with almost any motor if that is your goal. Maybe I could pass off a piece of advice to you. Don't take comments on the internet personaly. Everyone is doing the best they can. They may not know all the facts, which may or may not be their fault, and this can be annoying. But don;t react defensively. That is like throwing gas on the grill. At the very worst, it is not about you, even when it appears to be. It never is. It is almost always about them, and who they are. So, just let them be who they are, and don't get into a thing about it. This is just a bit of friendly advice that has served me well over the years. Sam

Author:	argentina-slantsixer [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:58 am ]
Post subject:
on the 5 speed OD IIRC there was a group buy for bellhousings that would take the tremek and bolt it behind a slant. Some of them (at least one) ended up on ebay. I'd go this route too, as 440_magnum says. And I second Sam's comment... I wouldn't be so harsh (or care $#!+, for that matter) if I wouldn't be really responding to my previous history of mistakes and long log as a hard head myself.

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I really doesn't matter except that people like to say I don't listen. I havn't counted, but I think this is the four time I explained this. Instant karma's gonna getchya.

Author:	440_Magnum [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: http://tinyurl.com/ypf596 Car block with car front cover. http://tinyurl.com/2dxz7l Truck front cover I bought separately to convert to let me install this car motor in my old car. I really doesn't matter except that people like to say I don't listen. I havn't counted, but I think this is the four time I explained this. Maybe I am misunderstanding.... Chrylser is putting "truck" motors in there cars? So you took a factory replacement engine and turned it into what Chrysler sells as a crate engine. Same thing. The innards of the car and truck engines are the same, so that's the end of the story, really. Now as time goes by, we may see a bigger divergence but I doubt it. With MDS, engine management, and variable valve timing the difference between a "car" and "truck" engine pretty much disappears.

Page 7 of 9	All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	440_Magnum [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: My stock slant with an OD 5 speed got 25 to 29 MPG highway with a two barrel. It is a brick of a car, but not too heavy. It seems you should be able to do better than 15 with almost any motor if that is your goal. Exactly- IF you take all the necessary steps and make the appropriate sacrifices. Like an efficient cam, overdrive, etc. You cannot (trust me!) just bolt a 440 Magnum in front of some tall gears with a non-lockup 727 in a 4000-lb brick and get 20 MPG. You can have a boatload of FUN, have Honda-crushing astounding reliability, and spend very little up front with no risk at all of an undriveable combination... but not while getting better than 15. IMO, doing all the "fun stuff" is easy, getting modern-car-like efficiency WHILE retaining all the other goodies is the much harder part. Quote: Maybe I could pass off a piece of advice to you. Don't take comments on the internet personaly. Sam I agree, collate advice and look for the common components of advice. I just don't want to see you fall into the same trap of setting your goals at an impossible level, and IMO that's a risk with your current plan, just as it was with your last plan.