What they don't understand scares them. We know better...
| Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| MoparMuscle Gibberish https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33000 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | 68barracuda [ Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | MoparMuscle Gibberish |
Just had a look through a copy of an older MoparMuscle Magazine......... Swapping your slant for Big block power - I quote "building a slant six with even the power of a mild V8 will forgo reliability" and "It was built with efficiency not power in mind" So they are saying - if I swap in a better cam, and get the engine to breathe - I am not a racer remember - my slant wont last as long - yes when racing and revving a engine tend to live a shorter lifespan - But since the slant has an inefficient head design - for the 225 at least-optimizing it ergo. improving its efficiency will improve power - the more efficient the engine the better its ability to turn the energy locked up in gas into horsepower..... Or am I barking up the wrong tree? - making a slant more efficient and powerful as to replacing it with a big block which has more power and torque due to more CID sound silly to me 230bhp 300lbft 225 slant nice light powerful reasonable fuel economy a 440 big block...............yeah right |
|
| Author: | Eric W [ Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What they don't understand scares them. We know better...
|
|
| Author: | Joshie225 [ Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's pretty easy to get about 1 ft/lb of torque or so for every cubic inch of displacement. The problem in making horsepower is filling the cylinders at higher speeds to keep the torque from falling off. A well ported /6 cylinder head will flow about 200-220 CFM at 28" Hg on the intake side. This is the choke point for our engine and limits the speed at which we can adequately fill the cylinders. If 215-250 ft/lbs of torque will work for you then a normally aspirated 225ci slant will do. If you want more torque then some form of supercharging is in order. If supercharging is not acceptable then more displacement is required. A stock 1bbl slant typically makes about 100-120hp because the torque falls off quickly as the engine speed increases. A good modern high performance 4 cylinder like the K24A2 Honda engine found in the Acura TSX makes 200-205hp, but only 166ft/lbs of torque which is about 1.15 ft/lbs per cubic inch. The specific torque isn't much better than a slant, but because the torque doesn't fall off until much higher RPM the K24A2 makes about 2.5 times the horsepower per unit of displacement. If we could fill the cylinders of a slant as effectively we'd have very streetable and clean running 300hp 225s. Keep in mind that this is a stock production 2.4 liter engine. Endyn will build you a 300hp 2.0 liter Honda engine that you can drive on the street without too much grief. Or if you're on a budget you can grab a 240hp 2.0 liter Honda F20C from an S2000. A 120hp/liter slant would be 444hp. |
|
| Author: | 68barracuda [ Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree Josh - Super charging, Ram tuning the induction and so on will be needed - what bugs me is the position these guys are taking |
|
| Author: | slantzilla [ Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I agree Josh - Super charging, Ram tuning the induction and so on will be needed - what bugs me is the position these guys are taking
That is why I don't read any of the Mopar rags anymore. No objectivity or imagination, just regurgitated puke. 
|
|
| Author: | Eric W [ Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: That is why I don't read any of the Mopar rags anymore. No objectivity or imagination, just regurgitated puke. 
|
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Magazines are generally full of poo. Their primary goal is to put advertisements in front of readers; the content is just there to get the readers to pick up the magazine and read the ads. It is often difficult to tell the difference between content and advertising, because often there is no such difference. If you're a manufacturer or vendor of a product, and you send the magazine guys some free stuff, they'll generally find something good to say about it. They even say something like "Go ahead and write whatever article you want us to run", then run the article under their byline. Double-score for the magazine editor; he gets free swag for his car and he has one less article to write for the next issue! I know this from direct firsthand experience as just such a vendor and ghost-writer. Sure, I benefitted by it, but it was the final blow to seeing anything in any of the rags as anything other than a big, fancy advertisement. Some of it's true, and some of it's false, and you get to guess which is which (or spend your money and find out for yourself). That "Build a V8 instead" piece was written because guess why? It's because so many of that magazine's advertisers sell parts usable in building and swapping in a V8...but not many of 'em make anything for the slant-6. Occasionally there's a solid tech article that's free (or almost free) of such advertising and contains relatively good quality factual information. They're easily noticeable because they're so rare. And then there's the tech Q&A sections, which are largely a mix of commercial spam (Oh, you gotta go buy an XYZ-123 from CompanyCo; it'll solve your problem completely!) and self-impressed but totally ignorant babble. True story: one of the popular Mopar magazines ran an article on balancing brake systems to eliminate rear lockup. The article stated that the stock rear wheel cylinder bore on most Mopars with 10" or 11" brakes is 15/16". That's true. Then the article stated that the options for smaller-bore cylinders were 7/8" and 3/4", and what a shame there was no 13/16" cylinder, which would be perfect but it doesn't exist. That's wrong. I sent the very...outspoken...editor of that magazine an e-mail giving old and current factory Chrysler part numbers, old and recent factory applications, and four different current aftermarket part numbers for the 13/16" cylinder (which I have used to great effect in eliminating rear lockup without degrading rear brake performance). The editor said "oh, interesting, I'll run a correction in the next issue". D'you suppose any such a correction ever ran? Of course it did not. I don't care about credit; I would've been perfectly happy for Baron Von Knowitall to write the correction as though he himself had made a wonderful new discovery of useful new brake cylinders. But nope, all that ever got published was his original "complete" article-to-end-all-articles on available brake parts. No, magazines are dead. They're a one-way conduit for information of largely unverifiable quality. The only feedback is via letters to the editor, which if they get published generally garner responses along the lines of "Thanks for reading, now run along." This is why collecting dozens of magazine engine buildup articles, picking the bits and parts that sound appealing from each of them, and building up your engine accordingly does not result in 426 Hemi levels of power with 2.2 K-car levels of economy...or even in an engine that runs reasonably well. With internet forums like this one, on the other hand, you get a much better flow of information. The info's of mixed quality, but because of the interactive communication, it's much easier and faster to sort out the good information and clarify the questionable points...all you have to do is be openminded enough to listen to the consensus advice, even if it means having magazine-sourced, tasty-sounding ideas shredded as nonsense. |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: That is why I don't read any of the Mopar rags anymore. No objectivity or imagination, just regurgitated puke.
H'mm. You said it in two sentences. I took what, four or five paragraphs? Maybe I need to lay off the coffee! 
|
|
| Author: | 68barracuda [ Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Same edition of the mag- Q & A section - How much can I skim a slant six head with to increase compression Answer just whack .100 off it - but you will need shorter push rods No what is your current cr, no nothing  and do you really need shorter push rods? there is so much adjustment available
|
|
| Author: | slantzilla [ Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Quote: That is why I don't read any of the Mopar rags anymore. No objectivity or imagination, just regurgitated puke.
H'mm. You said it in two sentences. I took what, four or five paragraphs? Maybe I need to lay off the coffee!
|
|
| Author: | walpolla [ Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Quote: I agree Josh - Super charging, Ram tuning the induction and so on will be needed - what bugs me is the position these guys are taking
That is why I don't read any of the Mopar rags anymore. No objectivity or imagination, just regurgitated puke.  Slantzilla,you are spot on ! regards,Rod 
|
|
| Author: | daniel_depetro [ Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MoparMuscle Giberish |
Quote: Just had a look through a copy of an older MoparMuscle Magazine.........
I don't think they are so far off with that statement.Swapping your slant for Big block power - I quote "building a slant six with even the power of a mild V8 will forgo reliability" and "It was built with efficiency not power in mind" Nowdays a mild small block is making 325-380 horsepower and mild big blocks produce 380-435 horsepower easily along with ridiculous amounts of torque. I would think that by the time you build a slant to either level it would absolutely decrease its reliability/drivability. |
|
| Author: | Rug_Trucker [ Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So should we email a link to MM magazine to our disgust. Randy Bolig is a pretty nice guy. I did let him know of my displeasure of him removing the slant from his wife's Dart Sport. I met him and spoke with him at a couple of shows. |
|
| Author: | Aggressive Ted [ Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Fanie, My engine has over .100 removed for a 9.5 compression ratio. I reground the old cam to higher lift profile and the old push rods worked just fine. In fact the old push rods almost fit perfectly...... The 76 head was twisted one way (from another engine) and the 74 block was twisted the opposite way so they had to mill both to straighten them out. It worked out very nicely! Although I wish I had just went for a full 10 to 1 ratio for a little more torque. Next time I will go for the Engine Builder valves.....and a little more porting on the exhaust side. |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: So should we email a link to MM magazine
No way! Nothing good can come of it. See this thread. I'm sure whatzisname is a perfectly nice guy and all, but he has a magazine to run, and magazines are run to sell advertising, not to please a few guys who don't like seeing their favourite engine dissed.
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|