hello sages- had an interesting discussion over coffee the otherday with a couple of older working "class A "automechanics(definition- can handle any car problem that comes in the door).these guys had gm,mopar, ford and vw experience. they agreed with my thesis that the sl6 was historically and remains an unbeatable combinationof reliability economy ease of repair and durability,particularly in the a bodies.to my surprise none of them could recommend a single car make or model today which performs as well in this variety of categories which they agreed most typical consumers still want. they did point outsome examples of todays cars whichare superior in certain of the categories. for example they agreed that the toyota camry 4 cyl. engine had sl6 durability and reliability but it was not easy to repair and its parts and repair costs were high. one said the basic jeep cherokee(now a chryslercar)with a 6 and stick approached some characteristics of a sl6 car but that it sucked way too much gas and could be difficult to repair($$$). i found these conclusions disappointing especially coming from working sages in the trade who should know,but their observations on the sl6seemed very appropos and something that we in the hobby have known since ike was president(better be careful about dating myself). nevertheless, i and others inthe forum i think,would be very interested to hear sage viewson which new cars today meet or come the closest to the characteristics above mentioned which we have come to value in the sl6 vehicles and why. i know this is a tough question but i put it on the table. thanks. <A HREF="mailto:callpaladin@aol.com">callpaladin@aol.com</A>

callpaladin@aol.com

...the SL6 was historically and remains an unbeatable combination of reliability, economy, ease of repair and durability,...

Well, I agree that we have a pretty good "combo" with our SL6 A-Body cars but times have changed, and so have the "rules" of the car making game.

We have it "hands-down" with the durability / reliability piece of this puzzle, today's auto makers would never "design-in" the level of "overkill" built into the SL6, it would simply be wasted money for no real percieved gain. (let's face it, cars today are designed to last 5-10 years so who needs an engine which will last longer?)

I will also say that ease of repair on any pre 73 SL6 is great but do we "factor-in" the ever shrinking parts supply and disappearing "know-how" about the cars, which a "non-handy" owner would face?

As for economy, overall the "total cost of ownership" is pretty good but somewhat mis-leading, base on the fact that many owners can and will do their own repairs, also the cost of the cars are still pretty low. (still somewhat "undiscovered"??)
If we base this on MPG alone, a SL6 is "lagging behind" most of the new stuff. (that's why EFI is so important for us)

For me, I have had pretty good luck with some of the newer Mopars but once you "ware these out", I junk 'em, I will put my resto time into a car that is easer to work on!
DD

There is one flaw in comparing the /6 and it's ease of repair with today's cars. When our /6's were built there was little or no pollution control stuff, sensors, sniffers, solenoids, computer chips, etc. Today they have all that junk crammed under the hood which makes shade tree mechanic-ing virtually impossible. Strip today's 4's and V6's down to the bare essentials then they would be just as easy to repair as that trusted /6. In other words comparing a 1974 /6 to a 1994 what ever is like comparing apples and oranges. When cared for these new engines will go 200,000 so I don't think durability with the engine itself is an issue. The engine itself is not the issue with repairs it's the way it's stuffed under the hood and the other junk that's crammed in there that makes repairs hard.

I have owned several of the 6's that AMC produced (these are the same as the 4.0 6 used in the Jeep), as well as the predecessors to that engine. Having also owned several /6's I can say that in my experience the AMC got more power for the size and was just about as durable and just as easy to repair.

So in my opinion the /6 is the top runner for durability with the AMC/Jeep 6 running a very close second. I've also had one or two Ford 6's but give me the /6 or AMC any time. Since starting in 1972 AMC used Chry's trannies there's noting to compare there.

The Jeep sucking more gas than a /6 is not a fare comparison either. The aerodynamics of the body, the overall weight of the vechicle, and the gearing of the rear end comes into play on this. My AMC cars (not Jeep) get as good or better mileage as the /6 cars I've had/have. After all they have the same carb. Both the 1 bbl. and the BBD were the same on AMC and /6.

For ease of locating parts between the two, I think it all depends on what your looking for. The AMC 6 used the same starter as the Ford 289 so you can get one just about any place. Water pumps and tune up stuff is just as easy to come by. Oil filters may be a different story. The one for the AMC seems to come and go as far as ease to find. And, just try to find a back axle for an AMC when the pressed on hub spins off of the axle.

One thing the /6 has going for it is that there was a bagillion of them made, with many still on the road today. This will make both new and used parts easy to come by for many years. However, I do recognize the dwindling parts supplies for these engines.

Oh, and I wouldn't classify changing points on a /6 as easy. Many of the mechanics of the past would pull the distributor to do this. It's many times simpler on non-slated 6.

Just my opinions after getting close to 30 years of car ownership.

Ernie


ejones@seanet.com

Dang, you beat me to the punch Ernie!
Another thing to look at is the 4.0L Jeep6
has about the same power curve as the Hyper-Pak
slant. (i.e. 190 hp @ 5200 rpm). The disadvantage is the Hyper-Pak can't really be daily driven, or
have the electronics to keep that 20 mpg (anyone want to tell us what a 200 hp slant gets on the highway with no turbo, and Mopar Electronic Ignition, and 2000 lbs of cargo in the car).

apples and oranges...

-DusterIdiot



res0aus2@verizon.net

I have one of those 4.0 Jeep/AMC engines in my 2K Grand Cherokee. It is very interesting what Daimler/Chrysler has done with this engine - it has split manifolds, like the Dutra Duals on my Valiant. By today's standards, the engine really isn't hard to work on as far as basic maintenance goes. This engine is rated at 195 hp, but the GC weighs 4000 lbs and has a very high center of gravity. My 63 Valiant with 225/dual exhaust/4bbl carb/9:1 compression/ mild MP cam will easily outrun the Jeep (yes, my wife and like to have an innocent stoplight drag race from time to time!) Of course, it weighs less than 3000 lbs, and has a much lower center of gravity. With all my modifications, I'm not sure of the hp my slant six puts out - maybe 180 would be a conservative guesstimate.

As far as oil changes are concerned, the Jeep is easier - don't need to jack it up.

As far as the durability of these engines, they are both proven by test of time. I have owned almost a dozen slant six cars and a few Mopar V-8's - some with very high mileage. I have never had one break or burn excessive oil. Back in the seventies when I worked professionally as a mechanic, I found the AMC's to be pretty good too.

Given the choice, I'll take an old Mopar anyday. There's just something about a Mopar!

Pete Vanderlaan
Va Beach, VA

pmvdlaan@picusnet.com

Reviews on the new Dodge Ram say that the sophistated and expensive to manufacture overhead cam 3.7 V6 is not a practical choice in the heaviest Ram pickup yet. The 3.7 may not be a smart choice for any application.

The new motor is short on torque and lacks smoothness - it has a bad case of the shakes. The Jeep 4.0 would probably have been a better choice, the 4.0 would have fit the application. 3.7 is the same displacement as the 225 slant, it might be wise for Dodge to get working on a new inline six - the most practical base motor for a truck - so smooth, great low end torque.

The reviews say more of the same about the 4.7, upon which the 3.7 is based, except the V8 version is very smooth, yet may only be practical for a truck used as a lightly loaded passenger vehicle - which is how most pickups are used today.

The new 353 Hemi will replace the 5.9 next year, that new motor will be to watch. A practical inline six design could be the better overall choice over the 4.7. They should have used the 4.0 in the Ram.

I talked to my parts guy at a local dealership a month back about the demise of the LA engine family. He said his two main gripes were, the fact that the new engine series has to wind up before it gets any power and response. Secondly, the overhead cam design shares a common timing belt from the crank to the idler sprocket before "y"ing off to each bank. If timing chain/main chain stretch occurs, catastrophe would be on the way.



res0aus2@verizon.net