Slant Six Forum :: Upright slant? :D

Spend some time last night working on a interference problem on my spool mount k-frame and noticed that it seemed like the motor mounts are sloped at the same angle (side to side) as the motor (I know, big revelation, but follow along for a sec). Then, while looking at the Twiggy build, I got to pondering the fact that the bottom of the block is at 90 degrees to the cylinders, which puts it at an angle in the car (most motors have the oil pan flanges at the same level to reduce oil leaks). All of this got me to wondering if the original intent of the slant 6 was to be upright, and that it was revised to keep the hood low.

I would guess that making the pan rail 90* to the bores made it easier to cast, machine, and assemble the block.

The bottom of the block is orthogonal to the bores because... well.. how exactly would you cast it any differently? What would that do to the way the main bearing caps fit in, how would it affect assembly procedures? Would there be room to get at all the rod and main cap bolts?

I think the slant was slanted because Chrysler was thinking about making a v 12 at some point but never did.

I'm the one that made the toyota 3TC head for the slant. It's hard to bring myself to put a toyota head on a Mopar but I still may try it one of these days on a 170.

:shock::shock::shock::shock:

Wow, that's...wow!

Author:	DionR [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Upright slant? :D
Spend some time last night working on a interference problem on my spool mount k-frame and noticed that it seemed like the motor mounts are sloped at the same angle (side to side) as the motor (I know, big revelation, but follow along for a sec). Then, while looking at the Twiggy build, I got to pondering the fact that the bottom of the block is at 90 degrees to the cylinders, which puts it at an angle in the car (most motors have the oil pan flanges at the same level to reduce oil leaks). All of this got me to wondering if the original intent of the slant 6 was to be upright, and that it was revised to keep the hood low. So, I wondered, would it be any advantages to standing one up (I know that it would require a new oil pan and pickup, valve cover, and intake/exhaust)? This is purely "what if", I'm not looking to do this, I know it would be a bunch of work (for what I don't know). It's just a curiosity for me. I could see it helping with the crossflow aluminum head in the works (j/k). I do believe that one problem with the slant six is the fact that the intake and exhaust flow have to make a 120 degree (or more) bend to get into the cylinder, unlike a v8 that is more like 80 degrees or so. Standing it up wouldn't fix this, though, but a custom head could get it down to at least 90 degrees. It's just a thought, no throwing axes. It's kind of like pondering gravity, you can't change it, but it's fun to talk about.

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:
The slant-6 was conceptually slanted very early in its development; it was not an upright six hastily slanted after it had already been designed. If you turn it upright, you'll need custom oil pan & pickup, intake & exhaust manifold adaptors to keep 'em level, and a lot more underhood clearance, 'cause the overall engine height will be much taller. There would be no advantage. (Oh, and you could keep the stock valve cover, fwiw.)

Author:	slantzilla [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:50 pm ]
Post subject:
I would guess that making the pan rail 90* to the bores made it easier to cast, machine, and assemble the block.

Author:	440_Magnum [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Upright slant? :D
Quote: Spend some time last night working on a interference problem on my spool mount k-frame and noticed that it seemed like the motor mounts are sloped at the same angle (side to side) as the motor (I know, big revelation, but follow along for a sec). Then, while looking at the Twiggy build, I got to pondering the fact that the bottom of the block is at 90 degrees to the cylinders, which puts it at an angle in the car (most motors have the oil pan flanges at the same level to reduce oil leaks). All of this got me to wondering if the original intent of the slant 6 was to be upright, and that it was revised to keep the hood low. As Dan said, it was slanted REAL early on if not from day 1. I hear a rumor that there is a book headed to press that may tell the whole story (and others) from the horse's mouth, right Dan? The bottom of the block is orthogonal to the bores because... well.. how exactly would you cast it any differently? What would that do to the way the main bearing caps fit in, how would it affect assembly procedures? Would there be room to get at all the rod and main cap bolts? Its a lot easier just to make a funny oil pan, and if the sump is deep enough the "shallow" gasket surface will still be plenty far above the level of oil in the pan.

Author:	DionR [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I would guess that making the pan rail 90* to the bores made it easier to cast, machine, and assemble the block. Quote: The bottom of the block is orthogonal to the bores because... well.. how exactly would you cast it any differently? What would that do to the way the main bearing caps fit in, how would it affect assembly procedures? Would there be room to get at all the rod and main cap bolts? Why? It's not like a smallblock where the oilpan rails and the main caps are all at the same level. I agree it would require an additional machining process to tip the block, though. And again, it was just something I thought would be fun to ponder.

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

Upright slant? :D https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24190	Page 1 of 3

Author:	DionR [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:
BTW, there are some pictures of an upright slant in this thread.

Author:	64drtGt [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:
I think the slant was slanted because Chrysler was thinking about making a v 12 at some point but never did.

Author:	TRYSIX* [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Another reason
I can't tell you where or when but somewhere I read that the slant was developed so that Crysler could design a straight six car with lower hood lines. I related this to a friend once and he said they did it because the engine didn't have enough power to defeat gravity.....he was just kidding of course. David

Author:	quarter mile heartbeat [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:40 pm ]
Post subject:
if you access "wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and look up "chrysler slant-6 engine" it will give you a complete run down of how the engine was developed and made. The one in my van makes it very easy to work on (changing spark plugs, ect) and prompts my dad to offer to trade his van (a 1979 chev with a 400 cu. in) for mine virtually every time he sees it. Anyone who has worked on a van with a v8 knows how hard they are to work on.

Author:	440_Magnum [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:53 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: I think the slant was slanted because Chrysler was thinking about making a v 12 at some point but never did. Don't MAKE me smack you around.....

Author:	DionR [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:06 am ]
Post subject:
I wasn't bringing this up to debate the why's and when's of the motor. I just thought it was a curiosity that the motor could be stood up, and that the motor mounts and oilpan rails actually made this more of a possibility. Maybe I should have put this in the "Other" section as I wasn't looking for any real input. I'm not thinking of doing this, I'm not suggesting it to anybody, it was a random idea that I thought maybe somebody else would get a kick out of. For example, in the aluminum head thread, someone (Keith?) pointed out that some kind of Toyota hemi head could be made to work (with a lot of work), and even had pictures of one in progress. I pointed out that the head was a crossflow head and exhaust would be a real issue. Combine his idea with this one, drop it in a car with a taller hood (pickup, streetrod, etc.) and you would have everybody confused as to what motor you had. Or, drop the Toyota head on a 170 block to save what room you could, and set the motor back in an A-Body chassis and see if you could make the hood work. Then put a turbo on one side and an EFI intake on the other and tell everybody that it was an experimental project to beat Toyota to the Supra craze. And the trani isn't the issue you might think it is as both the T5 and R154 need an adapter plate, so the trani could be spun at that point. Put a hydraulic throw out bearing in it and your golden. Don't think an auto would work, but who would want one anyway? Those were the kind of things I thought with would generate.

Author:	heckshemi [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm the one that made the toyota 3TC head for the slant. It's hard to bring myself to put a toyota head on a Mopar but I still may try it one of these days on a 170. A ported 3TC flows about the same as a ported slant head but only weighs 28lb. It's the intake that may be a problem, exhaust will exit same side as slant head. I was going to un-slant the engine about 15 deg. instead of 30.

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:
:shock::shock::shock::shock: Wow, that's...wow!

Author:	DionR [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I'm the one that made the toyota 3TC head for the slant. It's hard to bring myself to put a toyota head on a Mopar but I still may try it one of these days on a 170. Build a custom valve cover for it and don't tell anybody. I'm going to tell people my Valiant has an Aisin trans, because that's who made it. No reason I have to tell them it came out of a Supra. If you give up, let me know. I'm just stupid enough to try this. I think if the motor were dry-sumped, it might even work.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC-07:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	sick6 [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:03 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: :shock::shock::shock::shock: Wow, that's...wow! seconded! as a CNC machinist, I must say that must have taken a sh@tload of time and effort. very impressive!