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

170 vs 225
https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40464		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  nuttyprof [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:17 am ]
Post subject:  170 vs 225
witch engine would be better for a mpg build? Going in an early a body.
Author:  Charrlie_S [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:10 am ]
Post subject: 
I vote for 170. I have a 64 Valiant in my yard with a very mild built 170, 9.5 CR built like a race motor, but for economy. It gets around 27-28 mpg, with a 3 speed stick.
Author:  /6 Matt [ Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:51 am ]
Post subject: 
I've never owned a 170, but common sense says that 55 cubic inches less would be better on gas. My bone stock 225 in my dart gets around 18mpg, could be better if I could lay off the gas :twisted:
Author:  slantvaliant [ Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
... common sense says that 55 cubic inches less would be better on gas.
Maybe, maybe not. Some cars with smaller engines require more foot-in-the-throttle time to deal with traffic, hills, et cetera, killing fuel economy. Still, a little less rotating mass and a little less fuel at idle can't hurt.

Tuning, weight, and driving style will make more difference.
Author:  /6 Matt [ Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
That's very true. My Dad's 65' Falcon has a 170 and three speed on the tree, he always said that merging to the interstate was hell in rush hour.

I also remembered, Ted Shultz (hope I spelled his last name right) runs a 225 slant six with a one barrel holley, headers, street cam, and water methanol injection in his 74 swinger and gets 25+ mpg withouth overdrive. Of course, he only does that good on gas cause he runs high compression and 2.76 gears.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/