170ci to 210ci stroker

-
V

vntned

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
1,440
Location
Gibsonville NC
Over on the slant six forums, there is an interesting article by Doug Dutra on a stroker 170ci. Here is the link:

http://www.slantsix.org/articles/stroking/stroking.htm

I'm trying to get some opinions on this setup. I love the quick revving 170ci in my '64, but I'd like some more power. However I want it to be driveable, so a giant cam and carb isn't what I'm after. It is strictly a street car.

I'm also considering boost, as I've owned near a dozen Shelby/turbo Dodges in the past decade, and I have a lot of experience with modified turbo street cars. My last Omni GLH was running in the 13s with no Intercooler and 16psi!

At the same time, I love a good high revving NA motor. Mostly because of the all motor Dodge neons I've had. I've had 6 neons that all ran 14s or better with just bolt ons! So when I read the above article by Dutra, it opened up another option.

I'm very aware of the benefits of turbocharging and have a pretty good idea of what it could do, however I'd love some intelligent or experienced input on a NA 170ci for the street.
 
Hell, a single turbo would make more power than the stroker I'd imagine. Just curious about a bigger cube short stroke LG. Ultimately, I'll probably cave in and boost it. I just hate the idea of trying to tune a carb for boost.
 
67 prostreet gt said:
Interesting concept but what kind of power to money ratio is it versus going twin turbo ?
Click to expand...

It's building a slant six. The first requirement to build a slant is to toss power per dollar out the window :p

I've always thought it was a neat concept with quite a few qualities. The real place to talk about this at would be .org its self. Dutra resides there and could give you more insight.
 
Displacement doesn't directly build horsepower airflow does. While all slant 6 have the same bore size and head making them equal in flow capability giving them all the same potential/limit in power 300hp give or take. I don't see any real advantage in stroking 170/198 slant 6's since the 225 would fit that need.
 
273 makes a valid point.I was lucky to have a sit down with Jack Clifford before his passing.In our conversation I stated to him that I wanted to build a large bore 170 and rev it high. His answer was the Slant is a torque engine and to build for power down low.At the time he also stated that the head will not flow enough for high rpm.When Tom Hoover designed the Hyper-Pak (for the 170) it too was making the most power in the 4000 to 5000 rpm range.That intake was designed for those rpm levels.Mr. Hoover also stated that with shorter intake runners the engine made more horsepower but was proven that the longer runner made more grunt(torque).Torque is what moves the car.Now this is talking about engines that are N/A with no power boosters such as turbos,superchargers,nitrous,etc.
The head can be worked quite a bit and it will help with higher rpm but not that much.
Any way you choose to build your slant is up to you.Just have fun with that six-in-a-row !

For some reason I may be slighted.............
 
Isn't the only difference in the slant 6's the stroke? They all have the same bore...

So is it worth stroking a 170 slant 6 to 210 CID if you already can buy a 225 that has a little more stroke than the "stroker"????


Nice idea, but I'm not sure if it is worth pursuing especially cost wise....
 
to me there's something interesting about the slant. learning about an engine that never before was ever on my radar. I would love to see a bolt on, compact, affordable turbo.. seeing a toad run 10 flat in the quarter convinces me that it can run.
I've had all kinds of mopars with all the engines, over the decades.. I always found things I liked about all of them.
we all find fun where we find it????/
 
contact Charlie S he has & does race a 170 & will have real world knowledge on the it.
Lawrence
 
My personal opinion: To me stroking a 170 is not an option, unless you are racing where rules dictate you stay with the low deck engine. It is much cheaper to just use the 225 engine. Even though you lose RPM capability, you gain torque.

The main reason I use the 170 is, I had a few of them left over from my "stock eliminator" days, and no 225's. Just used what I had.
 
Well that's what I've got laying around too. That's why I wanna use them. I don't have any 225s. I've got two 170s, and might be picking up a low mile '70 198.
 
VNTNED, I am getting ready to build the same engine. Looking for a 170 block now close to Washington which wont cost an arm and a leg to ship. I am looking at purchasing a 69 Barracuda which will be the home of the 210 slant six I plan on building.

I have built power out of a NON Turbo'd 225 Slant Six when I worked at a engine machine shop. Ended up with a 13.9 second quarter mile behind a 3.90 gear ratio (jeep Cherokee gears) Chry 8.25 limited slip rear end and a manual 3sp.

The biggest reason for considering the 210 build is the slightly shorter stroke over the 225. While my 225 could rev higher than stock. A shorter stroke would allow for higher rev limit given you invest well in balancing.

If your open to suggestions, may want to consider the MegaSquirt option if you want to pull real power out of the slant six. Look at what Jeep does with the 4.0L (242). An that is BATCH fire fuel injection as late as 2000. If memory serves me correctly, MegaSquirt 2 an 3 can be setup sequential or batch fire.

Mopar Performance allows you to buy a Jeep 4.0 fuel injection controller with wiring harness for the H.O. era jeeps for about $500. An its meant to be used on any inline 6 which you plan on batch firing the fuel injection. Uses a Chevy MAP sensor. Pretty simple to trigger, just add crank trigger an the ECU controls the timing. Hardest part is getting the machine work done (to install the injector bungs) on the intake manifold if you don't just buy a custom one such as if you want to mod a hyper-6 manifold.

I look forward to watching what you end up going with.
 
JohnFM3 said:
VNTNED, I am getting ready to build the same engine. Looking for a 170 block now close to Washington which wont cost an arm and a leg to ship. I am looking at purchasing a 69 Barracuda which will be the home of the 210 slant six I plan on building.

I have built power out of a NON Turbo'd 225 Slant Six when I worked at a engine machine shop. Ended up with a 13.9 second quarter mile behind a 3.90 gear ratio (jeep Cherokee gears) Chry 8.25 limited slip rear end and a manual 3sp.

The biggest reason for considering the 210 build is the slightly shorter stroke over the 225. While my 225 could rev higher than stock. A shorter stroke would allow for higher rev limit given you invest well in balancing.

If your open to suggestions, may want to consider the MegaSquirt option if you want to pull real power out of the slant six. Look at what Jeep does with the 4.0L (242). An that is BATCH fire fuel injection as late as 2000. If memory serves me correctly, MegaSquirt 2 an 3 can be setup sequential or batch fire.

Mopar Performance allows you to buy a Jeep 4.0 fuel injection controller with wiring harness for the H.O. era jeeps for about $500. An its meant to be used on any inline 6 which you plan on batch firing the fuel injection. Uses a Chevy MAP sensor. Pretty simple to trigger, just add crank trigger an the ECU controls the timing. Hardest part is getting the machine work done (to install the injector bungs) on the intake manifold if you don't just buy a custom one such as if you want to mod a hyper-6 manifold.

I look forward to watching what you end up going with.
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't you just build 198/210 then the only advantage I can see building 170/210 is a lighter piston which I can't see being a overly heavy piston in the first place, if you want a revver just build the 170.
 
273 said:
Why wouldn't you just build 198/210 then the only advantage I can see building 170/210 is a lighter piston which I can't see being a overly heavy piston in the first place, if you want a revver just build the 170.
Click to expand...

Because there is still something to be said about having larger cubic inch displacement. Not that I want to hijack the thread, but for me personally I have a want to have something different than the rest. Not just follow the crowd cause its the easy thing to do. If I had not worked in the machine shop where my 225 was built (by me), I would have had $5k into that motor in parts an labor. An I could have built one hell of a V8 for that. But yet still don't regret it, the engine was sweet.

That may be a driving force for the OP. To have something that doesn't follow the crowd, but will draw a crowd. Don't know for sure.
 
273 said:
Why wouldn't you just build 198/210 then the only advantage I can see building 170/210 is a lighter piston which I can't see being a overly heavy piston in the first place, if you want a revver just build the 170.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Miss read your post.

The 198 is the same block as a 225 block. There is something said about de stroking on doug dutra's web site. I think along the lines of using the 198/225 block (raised block) an the 170 crank (low deck block). But its not really usefull unless your doing some form of forced induction as all 3 motors use the same 3.4 inch bore cyl. So you just end up with a 170 cid in a larger block. And depending on the rods, change the compression ratio. Which is where it could be useful for force induction (super charger).

The only stroked option is the small large block crank (the 198 cid) in the small 170 block giving you 210 cid.
 
A 210/low block and a 210/high block will have the same bore and stroke. The 210/high block will be a lot cheaper/easier to build. They will both use the 198 crank, they will both need a custom piston/rod combo. The 170 low block will require a lot of work to the block to fit the crank. This is my personal opinion. I have never built either combo. If I want the RPM, I use a 170. If I want the torque, I use a 225.
 
Ok, so now I know what the 210 high deck is.
Over bored .100 over 198/225 block an a 198 crank.

Learned something new. Have not seen this combo or heard of it till now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top