If they'd done it the other way, the triangle washers would be backward.
CJ
| Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| why are the ports arranged the way they are? https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47182 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | DadTruck [ Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | why are the ports arranged the way they are? |
This may be a theoretical question,, but ever wonder what Chrysler had in mind when they laid out the intake and exhaust port arrangement on the slant six cylinder head? why put the exhausts on the far outside and then two intakes in the middle? Why not IE IE IE IE IE IE from front to rear? swapping the ports certainly added manufacturing complexity,for example, one could not have a station finishing valve seats EI, EI , EI,then the rear three cylinders show up being IE, IE, IE so they had to dual station the machining line,, so why would you do that? even from a cylinder fill stand point, the air - fuel mix entering the front three cylinders is going to swirl different than the mix entering the back three. so why add that complexity? was that just how it was done then? |
|
| Author: | Valleyant [ Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Good question Dad! Definately good for asthetics, the way they did it....nicest looking inline 6 cylinder. Is there such a thing as thermally balancing an engine? |
|
| Author: | ceej [ Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If they'd done it the other way, the triangle washers would be backward. CJ |
|
| Author: | slantzilla [ Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My guess would be to make the intake/exhaust manifolds cheaper to make. 
|
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's a fair amount of manifold/port arrangement discussion in the Slant-6 engine patent, including an interesting look at an "inverted" arrangement such that the exhausts for #3 and #4 are adjacent, rather than their intakes. No arrangement such as you have in mind is contemplated, and I've never seen a non-crossflow inline-6 engine arranged as you describe. I don't agree that the machining production line operation would necessarily have been more complex, slower, or more costly by dint of the symmetry line at the midpoint of the cylinder head. And doing it the way they did simplified intake plenum and exhaust manifold design. |
|
| Author: | Greg Ondayko [ Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like Fig. 15 on Page 6 of the Drawings - Shows a 4 bbl Arrangement on the Manifold  Greg |
|
| Author: | ski [ Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wonder if it has something to do with keeping all the intake runners a uniform temperature where they empty into the head? |
|
| Author: | DadTruck [ Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
so it sounds like for non cross flow heads, for the symmetry of the manifold piping and to get uniform heating of the intake runners, the valve sequencing is reversed from the front three to the back three cylinders,, I can follow that logic. thanks |
|
| Author: | powerwagonpaul [ Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
the wedge head v8s were similar with two exhaust ports together on each side. |
|
| Author: | Tim Keith [ Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What Dan said. With 12 ports the cumulative length of the intake runners is a little shorter. To save costs the older Mopar sixes had siamesed ports as did the Chevy six. |
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The paired cylinders have the same length intake runners. 1 and 6 the same, etc. For what it is worth. This might have been a consideration. AT that time in Chrysler's evolution, durable, simple, reliable, and cheap were always in their sights. There was a real elegance to their simple but highly effective designs. They always knew when metal had to be case hardened, and when it did not. That was one reason they "Ran Forever". Yesterday in the hardware store another customer told me that the slant six engine is half a v-12 tank engine. That seems unlikely to me, but I did not debate him on this. Does anybody know if this is true. I have been told,and this I believe, that Chrysler built the engines for one of the WWII tanks. Any verification on any of this? Sam |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Yesterday in the hardware store another customer told me that the slant six engine is half a v-12 tank engine. That seems unlikely to me, but I did not debate him on this. Does anybody know if this is true.
Nope, not even a little bit. It's a mulched-up version of reality, which is that five flathead-6 engines were ganged together round a common geared crankshaft to power Sherman tanks.
|
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Did Chrysler make the Sherman tank engines? Another urban legend is that the Sherman tank engine was a Hemi v-8. If tMopar made the engine, what design was it? Sam |
|
| Author: | Dart270 [ Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sherman tank was 5X6, made by Chrysler (218 flatheads, IIRC). Anyone on this site who does not get Mopar Action, shame on you.  They did a killer article on that tank about 2 yrs ago.Lou |
|
| Author: | walpolla [ Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
See here Dan, they has a single output shaft, but seperate cranks for each engine, these were connected to the central output shaft at the "flywheel" end of the engine. regards,Rod  Edit:see here also In this article, it says "...put 5 Chrysler 6 cylinder engines onto a common crankshaft." As I said, that bit is not really correct - it was a common output shaft linked by a gear system at the back of the engine. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|