170, 198, 225 how many of each?

-
G

GenLee1970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
53
Reaction score
10
Location
Rhode Island
Ok, so when people find out I've got a /6 in my car, they almost always say "ah, the ol 225" followed by "ya couldn't kill those things". I don't think the general public was aware of the 170 and198 slants. And yes, my car does have a 225.

I'm not looking for exact figures, but, in general, how many folks stuck with the base /6 vs. optioning up for the 225. and what was the price of admission for the bigger engine. I'm sure way more 225s were made simply because they were in production longer than either smaller one. Just curious.
 
One bourbon, one scotch, one beer....

Six of one, half a dozen of the other...
 
In the barracuda/valiant from 1965 up the 225 was the standard /6 and was the same cost as the 273-2bbl
Most (around 60%) 1964 barracuda's shipped with the 273-2bbl

And the 198 replaced the 170 /6. Which was cheaply upgraded with 225 parts

I have some figures at home that I can update later
 
Cool, thanks. Will be interesting to see.

And, Ok, I'll play along. :D 5 o'clock came and I didn't have the rent. Out the door I went!!!!
 
My 66 Valiant wagon came with a 170 slant with 3 on the tree....

Now being converted to 360 auto...
 
I always thought it was odd that they dropped 170 and replaced it with a 198. I see the reason for the 170 in the early 60's to compete for sales against the Corvair,Falcon etc as they were of about the same displacement. But a 198 ? Could it be it was insurance related ? I know that Ma Mopar started installing 3 speed trannys in the high performance cars to get around the higher insurance of a 4 speed car.I had a 198 in a 71 Duster,always thought it was a 225 till I removed it and installed a 340. Ma Mopar has thrown curve balls to get around pollution controls and fuel economy mandates. Like when the PT Cruiser came out and it is listed as a truck. I have a 07 PT, the registration and title says TRUCK.Somebody out there must know. It sure ain't me.....
 
cudajames said:
In the barracuda/valiant from 1965 up the 225 was the standard /6
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. The standard engine for the Barracuda was the 225 slant six. The standard engine for the other (Valiant, Dart, Lancer) "A" bodies from 1960 on, was the 170, untill it was discontinued after 1969 The 225 became available as an option in 1961.
 
"Gonna get drunk, wanna make it real clear!"

The 225 cost U an extra $47 in'64, $39 '65, and $38 in '67...deflation?
The 273 seemed to stay at $81 for some unmentionable reason :)
 
Darter6 said:
I always thought it was odd that they dropped 170 and replaced it with a 198.
Click to expand...

What's hard to understand? There were enough buyers who wanted a plain-Jane, no-options, no-upgrades, basic-transport car, and enough buyers who wanted maximum possible fuel economy even if it meant slow acceleration, to warrant a small base engine like the 170. By '70, the A-bodies had grown enough larger and heavier than the original '60 models that the 170 was struggling to keep up, especially with the larger tires and taller axle ratios compared to the early cars, so Marketing requested a base engine with better performance than the 170. At the same time, there was always pressure to cost-reduce the cars. So the 198 was devised by destroking the 225 with a different crankshaft and connecting rods. That gave a cost savings worth going after, because it meant no more LG blocks to produce and machine. Just RG blocks, which simplified (and therefore cost-reduced) engine production.

By 1975, the cars had grown heavy enough and the primitive emission controls were taking a big enough bite out of engine performance that the 198 — which was not very popular, because by the early '70s the El Strippomobile was losing favour as more buyers were opting for more equipment—couldn't keep up and was dropped.

It had nothing to do with insurance.

Ma Mopar has thrown curve balls to get around pollution controls and fuel economy mandates. Like when the PT Cruiser came out and it is listed as a truck.
Click to expand...

That's not really a curveball, it's Chrysler taking advantage of a giant loophole in the vehicle definitions in the Federal safety and emission standards. Subaru did the same thing with the Brat, and many other automakers have, too.
 
My '69 Valiant 100 2 door post had a 170 slant 6 originally and 13'' tires.
It had only 2 options, automatic trans and d/s remote mirror.
Radio delete and rubber floor mats.
This is the perfect example of a cheap economy car in 1969.
Dan is right on with his post, (As usual!)
 
Aluminum 170 block with a 225 crank, hyperpak intake, and take .125 off the head and call me in the morning.

:burnout::burnout::burnout:
 
Adam@Pachyderm said:
Aluminum 170 block with a 225 crank, hyperpak intake, and take .125 off the head and call me in the morning.

:burnout::burnout::burnout:
Click to expand...

Why? Aluminum 170 block was never produced. If it was, it would require either a special rod, or piston with a shorter compression distance with the 225 crank, and would still be 225 cubes. So use the stock 225 aluminum engine.
 
Not to mention a 198 crank barely fits from my understanding, so I doubt an extra half inch of crank would at all. And like Charlie said, rod ratio anyone?
 
And then there's the big "906" RG block and ACTC head Chrysler Argentina made. Lots of pics and specs here. 3.62" bore, so with a stock 225 crank that's a 255 Slant-6 engine...using all factory parts. I want one!
 
Lets hope some Goucho doesn't just have his horse tied to one...

One slant ain't enough jack,Ya better make it three!!,....oh wait, now that's four..****...
 
Clifford was using the picture of mine to sell their headers. Too bad I couldn't fit a Hyperpak intake in the A100.
 

Attachments

  • 2016-01-06 23.38.11.jpg
    33 KB · Views: 298
Charrlie_S said:
Why? Aluminum 170 block was never produced. If it was, it would require either a special rod, or piston with a shorter compression distance with the 225 crank, and would still be 225 cubes. So use the stock 225 aluminum engine.
Click to expand...


Details, details....pffft......they did make an aluminum 170 but, it never escaped the factory, Steve Magnate probably owns one. It was a sand cast block, just like the 225's. Dan has a time machine and has recorded everything there is about a slant six. I have been reading his and Doug's stuff for years. Great work btw.
I like the reliability of a slant six but, I am yanking mine out of the Duster in favor of a 3g Hemi....
 
Adam@Pachyderm said:
They did make an aluminum 170 but, it never escaped the factory
Click to expand...

Yes, one of the small handful of experimental aluminum LG engines did escape Chrysler...every day when engine engineer Bill Weertman drove home from work in his leased-from-the-factory 1960 (yes) Valiant. He writes about it in Volume I of his History of Chrysler Corporation's Slant-Six Engine.

Steve Magnate probably owns one.
Click to expand...

LOL, probably not. There are some things even he doesn't have.

It was a sand cast block, just like the 225's.
Click to expand...

The production aluminum RG (225) block was not sandcast, it was die-cast.
 
GenLee1970 said:
Ok, so when people find out I've got a /6 in my car, they almost always say "ah, the ol 225" followed by "ya couldn't kill those things". I don't think the general public was aware of the 170 and198 slants. And yes, my car does have a 225.

I'm not looking for exact figures, but, in general, how many folks stuck with the base /6 vs. optioning up for the 225. and what was the price of admission for the bigger engine. I'm sure way more 225's were made simply because they were in production longer than either smaller one. Just curious.
Click to expand...

I worked for a Chrysler-Plymouth dealer from 1964-1966. We were in a hilly part of Connecticut and they always ordered the 225 slant six in Valiants. I had a 63 Valiant with a 170 automatic and it had a lot less power than the 1967 Valiant that replaced it. I now have a 64 Dart 270 convertible with a slant six and Torquflite. It has plenty of soup for an old guy like me! I'm sure the 225 was by far the most popular slant six.
 
Thanks for the answer Dan, I didn't equate that it was cost/production reason.Now it makes sense.
 
Dartnut said:
My '69 Valiant 100 2 door post had a 170 slant 6 originally and 13'' tires.
It had only 2 options, automatic trans and d/s remote mirror.
Radio delete and rubber floor mats.
This is the perfect example of a cheap economy car in 1969.
Dan is right on with his post, (As usual!)
Click to expand...

Where is that car,and more importantly,engine at now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top