Mopar's best engines. Your opinion and why.
Lets just discuss the different engines and why you think they are superior. tmm
That is a loaded question. LOL!
MY own personal favorite is very different from most of your popular responses.
I had a lifetime (and, I'm 74!!!) of 318's, 340's and 360's, all of which were really, really satisfying and exciting in their own way. I never had a big block, but I am sure I would have loved it, if I did.
My last performance engine was a 360-Magnum, with a Vortech supercharger, which the engine liked... a LOT! (Still have it...)
However, the one that really got my juices flowing, BIG TIME, was an early, 225 slant six in a Gen II A Body. A turbocharged slant 6 in a '64 Valiant...
The car is light... 2,700 pounds, and the engine is lighter than a V8, so the weight-distribution is about as good as you can get... and it drives very well.
But, the engine is the thing...
You might say, FOUL! ANY of the V8s mentioned will make TONS more power than this /6, with a turbo attached!
True... to a point. But, consider this:
Slant six motors are cheap to come-by... Ours was given to us...
They never seem to perform very well, normally-aspirated (regardless of the modifications done to them,) due, in no small part, to the poor-breathing of the OEM head, which was designed with the 170 in mind. There's just no room for big valves and ports.
It was an aluminum engine, so the block had to be designed with that in mind, and after 60,000 aluminum copies, Ma gave up the ghost, and all production was changed over to cast iron... no more aluminum.
BUT, when they changed the block's material, they didn't do anything, structurally, to weaken the block or forged crank. It was cheaper just to leave everything alone... so, they did.
That is probably where that motor got its reputation for longevity... They are legendary in that respect.
So, as it turns out, all that structural rigidity, block stiffness, (the head weighs 84 pounds!,) and the short. forged, 4-main-bearing crank (with bearings the same size as a 426 HEMI,) makes it a perfect candidate for forced induction.
In short, they can withstand boost-amounts that will blow the crank of my 360 Magnum right out onto the ground.
There are two FABO members who have built examples of what 25+ pounds of boost can do for a slant six. Tom Wolfe and Ryan Peterson both have slant six motors that arguably (I say "arguably," because they haven't had them on a dyno, yet,) make in excess of 500 horsepower, which was done without ANY hi-tech hardware at all, and both engines' red-line is about 5,500 rpm.
Turbos don't like camshaft--overlap, so both of these engines idle, pretty-much like a stocker, due to their mild camshaft specs.
The '66 Valiant (2,800-pounds) that Ryan has his engine in, has run 10.74-seconds, at 127mph, with a 727 transmission... might have gone 130 with a 904... dunno.
Tom Wolfe's car (3,300-pound '70 Dart,) ran 120mph, at 11-flat into a 15-mph headwind...
That's impressive performance from two cars that both use a 2.76:1 final gearing... WHY? They run better that way... Deep-gears and these engines don't mix.
THAT kind of performance is the reason I have changed my allegiance from any number of V8 cars to a slant six...
They are cheap to build... stock valve train... except for the very mild cam... and use NO hi-tech parts...
They will fit into anything from a '60 Valiant, up, and don't need an 8.75" rear (and, its high-numerical-ratios,) to run good... you can use a cheap, readily-available, 8.25"... with a 2.76... Turbo slant sixes are like a fuel motor; they like to be "held back"... makes the turbo spool, I guess.
Am I building one? YES! A clone of the two 500-HP engines I described. It's about ready to make its debut with 10-pounds of boost, for starters. More later...
Can't imagine a reason NOT to build one!!! :blob:
