| Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| 225 industrial https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48859 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | hank [ Mon May 21, 2012 6:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | 225 industrial |
Hi. my name is Hank. Im new...any of you play with an industrial 6? The crank looks massive and rods as well. Ive been thinking that if i can get a turbo hooked up to this thing with a well matched cam for the job... it will be slow to wind up but unstopable when its spinning in its power range. what do you all think? |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Mon May 21, 2012 11:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nothing the matter with an industrial slant-6, but the industrial engines were generally not heavier-duty than car/truck engines. |
|
| Author: | hank [ Mon May 21, 2012 4:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 225 industrial |
Oh...Ok..then im not sure what ive got. It has a steal crank. The throws are about twice as thick and the jurnals are wider. The rods are same length but thicker. Bore and stroke are the same. #s on the deck are TT 22 4 03 if any one wants to look up what i got from a old Massy Combine. Im sure its Crysler but dont know for sure what erra. |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Mon May 21, 2012 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 225 industrial |
Quote: Oh...Ok..then im not sure what ive got. It has a steal crank. The throws are about twice as thick and the jurnals are wider. The rods are same length but thicker.
Thicker/wider/thicker than what? Sounds like you might be comparing a forged-crank engine (all slant-6s through mid-1976 production) with a cast-crank engine (all slant-6s after mid-1976).Quote: #s on the deck are TT 22 4 03
That'll be a T-code (1963) 225 engine made on April 3, 1963. The other "T" could mean this engine was made at Trenton Engine Plant, or that it was originally installed in a Dodge truck rather than a passenger car.
|
|
| Author: | hank [ Mon May 21, 2012 7:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | industrial 6 |
Ahhh...Thankyou for the info. As i said im new. I had no idea the older 225s where differant and appoligise for my ignorance. where the 170s built heavier back then too? |
|
| Author: | Doctor Dodge [ Mon May 21, 2012 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Both the 170 and the 225 started production with a super heavy frorged crankshaft that got lighter later-on. The 225 parts got lighter still, when it went to a cast crank. (the 170 never had a cast crank, production ended in 1970) The 225's cast crank got even lighter in the final years of production. From start to finish, a 225 crank lost over 25 pounds.  DD 
|
|
| Author: | Guido [ Mon May 21, 2012 8:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The 170, 198 and 225 had forged cranks up until 1977. The 170 was produced up to 1970, when the 198 became the small engine. The 198 was built from 1970 to 1974. All 170's and 198's are forged crank engines. The cast crank has it's place. Since it's lighter, and most slants don't spin real fast, they will spool up quicker, and hold up just fine in all but the most radical builds. They seem to tolerate even nitrous builds, and moderate boost. I don't know the years when the shot peaned forged cranks were offered. The '63 may well be a shot peaned part if it came out of a truck. Take a photo of the crank. It may actually be a pretty cool part if it is one. If not, it's still a great part.  Nothing wrong with one of the old forged cranks. They are plenty tough. That's where the mystique came from. Keep fresh oil in them, don't overheat, and they'll do a 1/4 million miles with little other than routine tuneups.Guido |
|
| Author: | Fopar [ Mon May 21, 2012 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Early motors have smaller convertor registration holes ! Richard |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|