| Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| Help please on building my slant. https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25099 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | moparfreak77 [ Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Help please on building my slant. |
I have been toying with the idea of building a 77 slant for my 68 Valiant. I have seen the good deals on the Erson cams and would love to get one. The motor is still in the Aspen right now. Question....If I get the "270" cam from Erson's, what should my motor be built to match it? I have been thinking of probably stock 2 bbl setup as I hear the 4 bbl is only for the highly modded slants. Shave the head and port/polish by me. "Maybe" bigger valves. Dutra Header setup. I am open to anything. I have rebuild motors before but not a slant. The car is 100% street. I drive it everyday from when the snow leaves to when it comes back. Must be "good" on fuel. Basically I want a nice peppy relaible slant that turns heads at shows. thanks guys. |
|
| Author: | DusterIdiot [ Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Need more specifics... |
Quote: I have been thinking of probably stock 2 bbl setup as I hear the 4 bbl is only for the highly modded slants. Shave the head and port/polish by me. "Maybe" bigger valves. Dutra Header setup. I am open to anything. I have rebuild motors before but not a slant. The car is 100% street. I drive it everyday from when the snow leaves to when it comes back. Must be "good" on fuel. Basically I want a nice peppy relaible slant that turns heads at shows.
Actually once you go to better exhaust, bigger valves, better than stock cam, and higher compression, you have a 'highly modded' slant...You must define 'good' on fuel, it will never get the '24/36' mpg a Feather Duster gets, but most people with modded slants can retain their 1 barrel mileage with these basic mods and still double HP with a bit more torque... (you just have to match all your components...) -D.idiot |
|
| Author: | moparfreak77 [ Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well I get about 23 mpg right now, stock slant, 1 bbl. So a around 20 mpg wouldnt be a big deal. So how do I match parts? I don't really care what I have as long as it works good and is reliable/streetable. thanks |
|
| Author: | DusterIdiot [ Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Tranny and rear gear ratio? |
What tranny and rear gear ratio do you have? I currently have built up a mill for my '67, it'll start out mild but will finish with plenty of umph... Recipe is like this: 79 Cast crank block (much like your 77) Shave head and deck block for 9:1 compression ratio Due to rust in the bores I had to overbore it to .060 1974 Head with stock valves and hardened seats, light porting to get rid of casting flash and sharp edges Short duration cam (just a bit over stock with higher lift) Rollmaster timing set (roller chain vs. silent chain) Will ultimately get an Offy intake, Holley 390, bigger single exhaust pipe (2.25"), manual 3 spd on floor and 2.94 rear gears...(good street manners). This should come in about 170 hp, or so...and come in about 21 mpg on the highway, or thereabouts.. With the ERson cam, you should shoot for 9.2:1 compression, either a 2 or small 4 barrel, better exhaust, Change to better ignition (like electronic ignition...and recurve it so it's better matched to your build/see old posts on this subject), if you are stuck with a set of 2.76 rear gears and an automatic, getting a set of 3.23 gears out back will help quite a bit in the 'pep' direction. That should get you going, -D.Idiot |
|
| Author: | moparfreak77 [ Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I just have the stock 3 spd auto. I don't want to change to a 4 spd. The gears are stock also, 2:??. The 77 slant already has electronic ignition so that is done. Yours sounds pretty close to what I want. thanks a lot. |
|
| Author: | Aggressive Ted [ Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Engine Build |
| Author: | moparfreak77 [ Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks a lot for posting your build. I do have some questions for you though. 1. What do you mean when you say your rods are setup for torque and mileage ? 2. You say you had your deck and head shaved, "both were twisted in opposite directions", what does this mean? |
|
| Author: | Aggressive Ted [ Sun Sep 30, 2007 10:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Engine Build |
1. The engine build was set up for more torque and mileage. Lots of guys just want more power. I wanted to get more low end torque because the car is 3420 pounds with a full tank. I just had Randy's Ring and Pinion build a 2.76 Posi for a custom made 8 3/4 rear end. So the torque was to compensate for the weight and tall gearing. I wanted the higher gear ratio for mileage since my commute is 120 miles a day. I needed the 8 3/4 rear end because I went through three 7 1/4 rears in five years. The road is very twisty on the way to work along the foot hills of the Cascade mountains. The pinions would go and start leaking and howling and the axle bearings would break on the sweeping corners. 2. My block is the original 1974 and it had the drool tube heads. I wanted to use a 1978 peanut plug head from a D100 truck. When we set them up on the mill we found they were not flat but twisted in opposite directions. The mating surfaces had to be corrected. The head had been milled before but we needed to take that much off to get it flat again. So the compression is a little higher than I wanted, but I can't get the engine to ping at all, so I am pretty happy. Hope that helps.... The main point is that with these minor changes to the engine it went from a pinging slug to quite a peppy machine. It has loads of power and torque and is allot more fun to drive. Plus I get four more miles to the gallon if I am good, if not (passing too many new Mustang GT's), I get about two more miles to the gallon. |
|
| Author: | moparfreak77 [ Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks for the info. When I get to the point of starting my build, I will definitely want the secrets to get the most torque out of it. |
|
| Author: | Doc [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think you have a good plan and two good examples of "street performance" SL6 engine build-ups. Take note that the engine builds discribed used less cam then the 270 profile. Based on your "100% street" application, you should also consider using a milder cam. The special 260 In / 254 (244 Ex) would be a good choice if you want to keep lots of low speed power and a smooth idle. DD |
|
| Author: | moparfreak77 [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What will I give up if I go with the 270 instead of the 260? I definetly want to "keep?" the low end power. A little rough idle I don't care about as I like the sounds of that. But if the 260 is a better choice, I'll go with that. thanks. |
|
| Author: | emsvitil [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
With an automatic transmission you're better off with the shorter duration cams unless you modify the shifting points of the transmission..... (i.e. the engine's power range is above the point at which the transmission shifts which doesn't do you any good) |
|
| Author: | moparfreak77 [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I didn't know that, thanks. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|