Slant 6 turbocharging- yea or nay?

I have never had a turbocharged car before now. The downside of that is that although I have read a fair amount about it, I still don't know squat.

Here are some things I think I know, but am not sure are true. Please correct me if I am wrong. Before I start, let me say this: I blindly walked into supercharging my 360 Magnum with a Vortec V-1, S-trim blower and generally have had good experiences with it, so far. It's street/strip car and picked up 16-mph and the e.t. improved 1.8 seconds at 10 pounds of boost, compared with unblown (quarter-mile times).
That seeming success means NOTHING when it comes to building a turbocharged car, I realize.

My turbocharged car, which I am building with a partner, is a slant-6 car.

Why did I go from a V8 environment to a 6-cylinder???? Good question.

Here's what I THINK to be true: As I said, please correct me if I am wrong...

BECAUSE the /6 was originally designed to be an aluminum block engine, and because aluminum is not as strong as cast iron, the main bearing webs, the top deck of the block, and just about everything else relating to design parameters that affect block strength, ended up being manufactured of cast iron, (when the plans for an aluminum block went away) without changing the specs at all. In other words, this engine should be constructed UNGODLY strong (as cast) because of the foregoing. Add to that, a forged crank (early models,) and a cylinder head that is as robust as the block. It is one rigid s.o.b., at 84 pounds!!!

There are only 4 main bearings, but they are LARGE; virtually the same size as the bearings in a 426 Hemi.

The 198 connecting rods are 7 inches long, and K-1 makes them FORGED, while Wiseco makes pistons to use this rod in a 225 application, with a thin, low-drag ring set in an 88mm size (3.465").

Due to its slim profile, laterally, there's lots of room under the hood for supercharging, headers, or turbo plumbing.

There is one one guy running 127 mph and 10.70s in a 3,000 pound car with a fairly mild turbo /6 combination... lots left in the engine.

ARP custom-made us some heavy duty head studs for this engine; 220,000 psi (garden variety are 180,000 psi.)

Big valves for the /6 head are readily available.

Over 500 HP is available from a mildly modified turbo'd engine without ever seeing the far side of 6,000 rpm.

Downsides to the /6:

Long stroke; RPM limited.

No roller cams are avilable because NOBODY makes a "blank" for it. So, ZDDP is an issue.

No aluminum head is available. The stock iron head weighs 84 pounds! My back; my back.....


High-lift (1.6:1) rocker arms and/or roller-tip rockers are hard to find.
The cylinder head was designed for a 170 cubic inch motor, with ports and valves woefully undersize for a 225. Bigger valves can be added, and I am sure there is a LOT of room for porting, if you have the patience (this head is cast iron.) Still, a really hard-running 225 normally-aspirated engine would require a LOT of headwork. A LOT!!! But, there are some out there.

Enter the turbocharger: Boost and a /6 would seem to be a marriage made in heaven!
These engines look to me to be to be an ideal candidate for 30+ pounds of boost. Their seemingly indestructible characteristics would appear to make them an ideal choice for a 500+HP street car.

You can do a lot with 500 HP if you're careful about weight.

(Your ET / MPH computed from your vehicle weight of 2600 pounds and HP of 500 is 10.09 seconds and MPH of 132.77 MPH.) from Wallace racing calculators)

That's a bad street car, where I live...

The /6 is nearly a hundred pounds lighter than a small block V8 (again, correct me if I'm wrong.)

A variety of intake manifolds is available. The /6 will bolt into nearly anything MOPAR.

Our car is a long way from completion, but we have most of the tuff stuff done..... we're just two old guys having fun...:cheers:

That's what it's all about, right?

Our /6 car is a '64 Valiant 4-door sedan with a B-Body 8.75" rear, a 904 with 2.74:1 1st gears, and a new, Auburn, limited-slip 3.55:1.

It'll have a '73 Duster disk brake setup, and a 66mm Turbonetics turbo fed by a 750 double pumper Holley with blow-thru mods by Tom Wolfe. In fact, our whole engine is a near clone of his. If not for his help and advice, we'd be stuck in the dark ages!!!

Thanks, Tom!

If anyone has any disagreements with what I've written here, please post the CORRECT info; as I said, I don't know much about these engines....

Thanks for any comments!:read2:

Mo pix

I've never seen a 500 hp slant...

I would certainly like to :snakeman:

Here's what I THINK to be true: As I said, please correct me if I am wrong...

BECAUSE the /6 was originally designed to be an aluminum block engine, and because aluminum is not as strong as cast iron, the main bearing webs, the top deck of the block, and just about everything else relating to design parameters that affect block strength, ended up being manufactured of cast iron, (when the plans for an aluminum block went away) without changing the specs at all. In other words, this engine should be constructed UNGODLY strong (as cast) because of the foregoing. Add to that, a forged crank (early models,) and a cylinder head that is as robust as the block. It is one rigid s.o.b., at 84 pounds!!!


If anyone has any disagreements with what I've written here, please post the CORRECT info; as I said, I don't know much about these engines....

Thanks for any comments!:read2:

Bill, I'm really not into the design history of the slant, but (this is my opinion), I disagree with the statement (I have heard this before) that the slant six was designed as an aluminum engine, and therefore the cast iron version is much stronger. I have looked at both blocks.
If you compare the aluminum block to the cast Iron block, there are many differences. The aluminum block has main saddles that are iron/steel and bolt into the block. The deck on a aluminum engine is open (you can look down right into the water jacket), and has free standing cylinders. The side of the block is a different configuation. I would submit that if the cast iron block had been cast the same as the aluminum block, the current cast iron block would be stronger.

PS: I do believe in turbos on a slant. Go for it.

Bill, I'm really not into the design history of the slant, but (this is my opinion), I disagree with the statement (I have heard this before) that the slant six was designed as an aluminum engine, and therefore the cast iron version is much stronger. I have looked at both blocks.
If you compare the aluminum block to the cast Iron block, there are many differences. The aluminum block has main saddles that are iron/steel and bolt into the block. The deck on a aluminum engine is open (you can look down right into the water jacket), and has free standing cylinders. The side of the block is a different configuation. I would submit that if the cast iron block had been cast the same as the aluminum block, the current cast iron block would be stronger.

PS: I do believe in turbos on a slant. Go for it.

Thank you, Charle, for that good information. A appreciate the "education." See... even at 71, I'm never too old to learn!!!

What you say makes a lot of sense; I never knew that!

Thanks for posting that.

I've never seen a 500 hp slant...

I would certainly like to :snakeman:

Matt,
Shaker 223 chassis-dyno tested his car and it's on you tube. Maybe he'll post that video URL for us to watch??

I'm pretty sure it's over 500 HP....

Tom???

YouTube - Turbocharged Slant 6 Chassis Dyno

10 seconds on Goggle

YouTube - Turbocharged Slant 6 Chassis Dyno (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd6hFGzLJMc)



Here's a view of hos new motor; that was his old, almost stock motor....

YouTube - Turbo charged Slant 6 11.02 @ 120.56
Your ET / MPH computed from your vehicle weight of 3500 pounds and HP of 500 is 11.14 seconds and MPH of 120.24 MPH.


Is this close, Tom?

Here's one Bill........................YouTube - 11 second Slant Six Valiant Station Wagon - Mopars North of the Gate 2009

i also disagree with the aluminum block statement. it was made but only from 60-63, i had one for awhile. amazing peice!

as for roller cams Schneider ma in S.D., CAkes them and 440 rollers lifters drop in!

I disagree with the statement (I have heard this before) that the slant six was designed as an aluminum engine, and therefore the cast iron version is much stronger.

Okeh, so you disagree with what the actual, real chief engineer of the slant-6 has to say (in great detail and with strong documentary evidence) on the subject. That's a little strange of you, but whatever. Have you read Weertman's books?

I have looked at both blocks. If you compare the aluminum block to the cast Iron block, there are many differences.

Ah, I see your error. What is said (and supported) is that the slant-6 was originally designed to be an aluminum block, not that the slant-6 was originally designed to be the specific aluminum block as it was produced from '61-'63. What is meant by "designed to be an aluminum block" is that the basic geometry of the engine—the deep skirt, etc.—was conceived and specified so as to be compatible with an aluminum block material. That, in turn, means the iron block made with that geometry is exeptionally rigid and strong. That's all.

Okeh, so you disagree with what the actual, real chief engineer of the slant-6 has to say (in great detail and with strong documentary evidence) on the subject. That's a little strange of you, but whatever. Have you read Weertman's books?



Ah, I see your error. What is said (and supported) is that the slant-6 was originally designed to be an aluminum block, not that the slant-6 was originally designed to be the specific aluminum block as it was produced from '61-'63. What is meant by "designed to be an aluminum block" is that the basic geometry of the engine—the deep skirt, etc.—was conceived and specified so as to be compatible with an aluminum block material. That, in turn, means the iron block made with that geometry is exeptionally rigid and strong. That's all.

well the cast block did come out first... very shortly followed by the aluminum... didn't they have casting problems with the aluminum or was it just the longevity of the aluminum that discouraged them from continuing??? cant remember

well the cast block did come out first

Correct. In early stages of development they had aluminum in mind, and so specified the block geometry to be adequately rigid and strong in aluminum. It became apparent they wouldn't be able to finish the R&D on design and production methods for an aluminum block in time to launch the new Valiant and the '60 Dart and Plymouth, so development of iron and aluminum versions proceeded simultaneously with the iron one released in late '59 for the '60 model year and the aluminum midway through the '61 model year.

Correct. In early stages of development they had aluminum in mind, and so specified the block geometry to be adequately rigid and strong in aluminum. It became apparent they wouldn't be able to finish the R&D on design and production methods for an aluminum block in time to launch the new Valiant and the '60 Dart and Plymouth, so development of iron and aluminum versions proceeded simultaneously with the iron one released in late '59 for the '60 model year and the aluminum midway through the '61 model year.

cool cool! yea i had one! amazing piece! so many cool thing about, design wise...

"as for roller cams Schneider ma in S.D., CAkes them and 440 rollers lifters drop in"

Can you translate this into something I can actually read, please?

What is "Schneider ma" and do they have anything to do with the long established Schneider cam company that uses a Maltese Cross as a trademark?
What 440 roller lifters are you talking about? Are there OEM roller 440 lifters, and are they different from the 318/360 Magnum roller lifters?

Any contact information for the Schneider roller cam company?

Thanks loads for any information!!!

"as for roller cams Schneider ma in S.D., CAkes them and 440 rollers lifters drop in"

Can you translate this into something I can actually read, please?

What is "Schneider ma" and do they have anything to do with the long established Schneider cam company that uses a Maltese Cross as a trademark?
What 440 roller lifters are you talking about? Are there OEM roller 440 lifters, and are they different from the 318/360 Magnum roller lifters?

Any contact information for the Schneider roller cam company?

Thanks loads for any information!!!

i type to fast and im dyslexic... ok sorry

Schneider cams in San Diego CA, can make u a custom roller cam for the slant

and no, 440's did not come with factory rollers, but plenty of aftermarket stuff, and they are the same diameter as slants...

cool cool! yea i had one! amazing piece! so many cool thing about, design wise...

Yup. When I lived in Denver I had five of them—two in cars and three in storage. Could've had four more, too, had I been a little more active and less slow. All except one were found within a 50-mile radius! My favourite trick with these was to call up the machine shop and say "I'm bringing in a Dodge 225", then walk in through the front door carrying the bare block with my two arms and say "Here's that Dodge 225 I called about; where do you want me to put it?". :-D

Had to sell one of the equipped cars and two of the spare engines when I left Denver. :-(

Yup. When I lived in Denver I had five of them—two in cars and three in storage. Could've had four more, too, had I been a little more active and less slow. All except one were found within a 50-mile radius! My favourite trick with these was to call up the machine shop and say "I'm bringing in a Dodge 225", then walk in through the front door carrying the bare block with my two arms and say "Here's that Dodge 225 I called about; where do you want me to put it?". :-D

Had to sell one of the equipped cars and two of the spare engines when I left Denver. :-(

haha yea they are light!!

i type to fast and im dyslexic... ok sorry

Schneider cams in San Diego CA, can make u a custom roller cam for the slant

and no, 440's did not come with factory rollers, but plenty of aftermarket stuff, and they are the same diameter as slants...

Thanks very much for the information!!!! Have you seen this tried? How are the rolllers aligned? :read2:

Thanks very much for the information!!!! Have you seen this tried? How are the rolllers aligned? :read2:

cross bar i would assume. and never seen anybody with a slant yet with it, heard people have done it tho

"Slant 6 turbocharging- yea or nay?"

I say YEA!! Seems 500 HP is doable also.

Later

No dyno or trap times to show 500hp...not there yet...this is what Wallace calculates from my best ET (11.02) and best mph (121.84) @ 3300lbs.

Your HP computed from your vehicle ET is 438.63 rear wheel HP and 487.37 flywheel HP.
Your HP computed from your vehicle MPH is 430.19 rear wheel HP and 477.99 flywheel HP.

This was at 24psi & launching at 8psi. Turning up the wick a little should do it..

Here is mine computed on the Wallace.

Your HP computed from your vehicle ET is 430.76 rear wheel HP and 478.63 flywheel HP.
Your HP computed from your vehicle MPH is 445.74 rear wheel HP and 495.26 flywheel HP.

Here it is with my 1/8th mile time in really good air. (6.65 @ 107.80)

Your HP computed from your vehicle ET is 462.30 rear wheel HP and 513.67 flywheel HP.
Your HP computed from your vehicle MPH is 514.33 rear wheel HP and 571.48 flywheel HP.

I also have the HP sucking 727 trans. Later
Ryan

Okeh, so you disagree with what the actual, real chief engineer of the slant-6 has to say (in great detail and with strong documentary evidence) on the subject. That's a little strange of you, but whatever. Have you read Weertman's books?



Ah, I see your error. What is said (and supported) is that the slant-6 was originally designed to be an aluminum block, not that the slant-6 was originally designed to be the specific aluminum block as it was produced from '61-'63. What is meant by "designed to be an aluminum block" is that the basic geometry of the engine—the deep skirt, etc.—was conceived and specified so as to be compatible with an aluminum block material. That, in turn, means the iron block made with that geometry is exeptionally rigid and strong. That's all.

Dan, I have not read that book but would really like to. Can you point me to it? As for my comment, I stated that I was not up on the design history, but "in my opinion" they were not the same. Key words, were "in my opinion". I was stressing I did not know for sure.

as for roller cams Schneider ma in S.D., CAkes them and 440 rollers lifters drop in!

I called Schneider today and asked about roller cams for the slant six.

He told me what everyone else tells me: "NOBODY makes a blank for a roller tappet /6 cam." He also said that since he doesn't know how far apart the lifter bores are, he has NO IDEA whether 440 roller lifters would work.

So much for the roller idea....:angry7:

not my post

i just had a custom cam made from lunati and they told me they could do a roller but it was going to be about 1,000 bucks.


My question, why a roller cam for a slant six? For less friction or faster lift rates? If for faster lift rates, why not consider a "mushroom" tappet cam. Almost any cam grinder can do those, for about the same price as a regular cam (uses the same blank). Mushroom tappets are readily available (might/probably have to bush the lifter bore). I have a V-dub mushroom lifter right in front of me. Has a base of 1.120 diameter, body dia .742, lenght 2.065, push rod depth about .950 . It does look like the radius for the pushrod ball is smaller then the slant six dia, but this would require custom PR, anyway. The VW is not the only mushroom lifter available, either.

If for lower friction, is that worth $1,000 plus?

not my post


My question, why a roller cam for a slant six? For less friction or faster lift rates? If for faster lift rates, why not consider a "mushroom" tappet cam. Almost any cam grinder can do those, for about the same price as a regular cam (uses the same blank). Mushroom tappets are readily available (might/probably have to bush the lifter bore). I have a V-dub mushroom lifter right in front of me. Has a base of 1.120 diameter, body dia .742, lenght 2.065, push rod depth about .950 . It does look like the radius for the pushrod ball is smaller then the slant six dia, but this would require custom PR, anyway. The VW is not the only mushroom lifter available, either.

If for lower friction, is that worth $1,000 plus?

Charlie,


Personally, I am apprehensive about the possibility of a flat tappet's life expectancy in this world of ZDDP-free oil. Add too much of it, and it's almost as bad as not having enough. A flat cam makes a hell of a mess inside an engine, and this is generally a problem that you generally don't have with rollers.

No, I simply can't afford a thousand dollar cam...

But, I wish I could.

Bill

440 roller lifters would work as they are the same diameter as a slant six however the lifter spacing is probably different and would need a custom type of link bar.

Bill, there are plenty of oils (ZDDP included) out there that will satisfy your needs. Ryan and I both run Amsoil synthetic.

440 roller lifters would work as they are the same diameter as a slant six however the lifter spacing is probably different and would need a custom type of link bar.

Bill, there are plenty of oils (ZDDP included) out there that will satisfy your needs. Ryan and I both run Amsoil synthetic.


Thanks, Tom.

Well, slant 6's do have several things going for them as regards flat tappets.

1. Light valves, because they are (compared to V8's) small diameter.

2. the rockers are only (stock) 1.5:1, which is easy on the cam, compared to hi-lifts.

3. In the case of a 225, low rpm limits, because of the long stroke. We'll only run ours 6,000, tops. This doesn't require much valve spring pressure.

Add all that up, and only conservative valve spring pressures are necessary. Of course, if you build a 170, the sky's the limit on rpm's, so all bets are off in regards to valve spring pressure.

I can live with it...8)

Bill

Thanks, Tom.

2. the rockers are only (stock) 1.5:1, which is easy on the cam, compared to hi-lifts.



When I checked my stock ones, they were in the neighborhood of 1.39:1.

Tom

Bill, why run the thing to 6,000? I shift at 5200 and don't plan to spin it any higher. I also have Comp Cams dual springs rated for a .650 lift. I thought I needed some seat pressure to prevent the intake valve from opening under boost. 3 seasons so far and no cam issue. Later

Yea or nay?

I say hell yeah!
Slants are amazing as they are, add a turbo and the cool factor goes up 10 fold

Bill, why run the thing to 6,000? I shift at 5200 and don't plan to spin it any higher. I also have Comp Cams dual springs rated for a .650 lift. I thought I needed some seat pressure to prevent the intake valve from opening under boost. 3 seasons so far and no cam issue. Later

Ryan, I am in no position to argue with you... I haven't even started my engine up yet, and you're already running mid-tens! With a 727, yet....

To my way of thinking, if you haven't experimented at the strip, by winding yours all the way up to 6 grand, how can you be sure it won't be quicker than "short-shifting" it at 5,200???

That is, unless you "sit up in the seat" after 5,200. I'm hoping ours won't give up that early, but we have a bigger exhaust turbine wheel and a bigger carb (750) along with a Hurricane intake, so maybe it will like the higher rpm better??? Dunno, yet, but it's possible.

We'll see... early next year.

Bill

why not add a Ron's flying toilet injected on Alcohol? Should help to add a few ponies and help keep your engine temp down.

just a thought

Okeh, so you disagree with what the actual, real chief engineer of the slant-6 has to say (in great detail and with strong documentary evidence) on the subject. That's a little strange of you, but whatever. Have you read Weertman's books?And just like that, another person gobbled up by SSD's beard after making incorrect statements.:toothy10:

YouTube - Turbocharged Slant 6 Chassis Dyno (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd6hFGzLJMc)

10 seconds on Goggle

Here's a view of hos new motor; that was his old, almost stock motor....

YouTube - Turbo charged Slant 6 11.02 @ 120.56 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAxRmoDgsdY)
Your ET / MPH computed from your vehicle weight of 3500 pounds and HP of 500 is 11.14 seconds and MPH of 120.24 MPH.


Is this close, Tom?

Here's one Bill........................YouTube - 11 second Slant Six Valiant Station Wagon - Mopars North of the Gate 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrAqCYhAI5I)Correction, I have seen 500 h.p. slants. I just didn't know it. But to my credit, the dyno video, didn't seem as lively as some 500 h.p. engines I've seen before.

Correction, I have seen 500 h.p. slants. I just didn't know it. But to my credit, the dyno video, didn't seem as lively as some 500 h.p. engines I've seen before.


That dyno test was from a few years ago with the old engine. I was still experimenting at that time. As a guess, it was making close to 450hp but had more boost going into it than the new engine.

Also, the weight on the 11.14 pass was closer to 3,300lbs & not 3,500. I had skinny tires on the car last year and added ballest to get the car to hook. It has been long since removed.

Mine will see 6,000 (rarely) in the burn out box but never on the track. Won't rev over 5400 under load. Probably to do with the small cam. My quickest runs were made driving through the converter and 5400 basically the whole way down. Felt like a snowmobile!! New converter this winter!! Later