Does this guy know what he's talking about?

Is he right?

  • Total voters
    41
-
Steve 225

Steve 225

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Messages
112
Reaction score
209
Location
Ohio


I saw this video on YouTube, it sounded like a very simple straightforward explanation of the slant 6 and its benefits and limitations, unfortunately I don't know enough about the slant 6 to know if he knows what he's talking about
What do the slant 6 gurus say, spot on or BS?
 
That's Tony Defeo. He knows his stuff. He's also a member here.
 
...and even though I'm building a 225 with the 198 rod, I don't disagree with what he said. He's right. I'm not building a race car though and I want more compression. So in my case, the long rod was the way to go.......plus I already had the rods pistons left over from before so........
 
I don't disagree with anything he said even though my build includes an original long runner hyper pak intake with a close ratio 4 speed

uncle Tony's garage is the best YouTube channel in existence.
 
Thanks for the info, I remember reading his stuff when he was in the car magazine business. I didn't know that’s who that was before Rusty’s post, though.
 
Steve 225 said:


I saw this video on YouTube, it sounded like a very simple straightforward explanation of the slant 6 and its benefits and limitations, unfortunately I don't know enough about the slant 6 to know if he knows what he's talking about
What do the slant 6 gurus say, spot on or BS?
Click to expand...

Hey Steve. As mentioned, you can find him here. He (Tony) has been around the block for many years. I like that he was honest and humble about being caught out there with the /6. It is indeed a weird engine. Very unique.

I cannot verify a few minor things he speaks about, but I’d follow what he was saying. I’m not a /6 fan for performance chasing. For a people mover and mild hop ups, it’s fine. No doubt!

Much of the hot rod or race parts in the world can be used on the engine but you have to be careful in there application on this engine. Not only is the in line engine leaning, but it has to be addressed as so, not like a V8. The principal is the same but practicing the application of the principle is different.

If your going to build one of these engines outside of stock parameters, speaking with Tony would be a good start. Also contact (IIRC, the screen name is) slantsixdan. He LOVES these engines. You can also visit slantsix.org/com for a bunch of /6 flag wavers.

I hope this helps.
 
RustyRatRod said:
...and even though I'm building a 225 with the 198 rod, I don't disagree with what he said. He's right. I'm not building a race car though and I want more compression. So in my case, the long rod was the way to go.......plus I already had the rods pistons left over from before so........
Click to expand...
Hello, was just wanting to say great job you and Kitty did on the \6 cam bearing installation article, keep it coming!
 
I watched that video yesterday, confirmed my reservations about messing with the slant-6... head ports/valves too small, severely undersquare/tiny bore, heavy rotating assembly. I liked what he said regarding the 170ci version, if I did own a slant-6 car at some point it would be an early A with a 170 and 4-speed manual with some minor upgrades.

Or if one landed in my lap I would cut my teeth building my first home-fabbed turbo setup. Only real "straightforward" way to make decent power with those engines; going N/A basically takes re-engineering the whole thing IMO.

I really wish Mopar did the same with the slant that they did with the AMC/Jeep 4.0L, that engine got a high-flow head and was oversquare from the factory and can be stroked up to 4.6L+ with a 4.2/258 crank. Not that I would try putting one in an A-body but I love the one in my Cherokee and will be doing a full performance rebuild at some point. Would also be neat to build a hot one to drop in an old Rambler.
 
I've got a 74 duster with a slant 6 in it, have thought a lot about building the 6 just for the uniqueness of it, too old to go racing, and not too worried about speed, just want it to sound like a beast. Something like this


But that's down the road a bit, but it has me thinking if I should keep an eye out for a 170 or a newer 225 to build instead of the one I currently have

I'm not anyways near a race car engine builder, and what he said made a lot of sense, but when he said to put the pistons in backwards to change the connecting rod geometry, while making sense, also freaked me out a bit
40 years ago(when I cared about racing and speed) an old man in the neighborhood used to swear by them, built them, and consistently won at the local strip(and had a garage full of parts) but he's long gone now unfortunatly
Looking forward to seeing what Tony does with his
 
Last edited:
Steve 225 said:
but when he said to put the pistons in backwards to change the connecting rod geometry, while making sense, also freaked me out a bit
Click to expand...
That is not why you put the pistons in backwards. Stock type pistons have the pin offset slightly. This is to "push" the piston against the cyl wall, to quiet piston slap untill the pistons heat up and expand. This creates drag on the wall. By putting the piston on backwards, the cyl wall drag is reduced. Of course there is more piston slap, when the pistons are cold, but that does not hurt anything.
Race pistons have the pin centered.
 
Charrlie_S said:
That is not why you put the pistons in backwards. Stock type pistons have the pin offset slightly. This is to "push" the piston against the cyl wall, to quiet piston slap untill the pistons heat up and expand. This creates drag on the wall. By putting the piston on backwards, the cyl wall drag is reduced. Of course there is more piston slap, when the pistons are cold, but that does not hurt anything.
Race pistons have the pin centered.
Click to expand...

I think in the video Tony explains the reason actually is to change the geometry; with the pin offset the other way the piston has slightly less dwell time at TDC which helps torque and responsiveness at lower RPMs, according to him anyway I've never tried it myself.

What all this has me thinking about a lot is the Ford Modular engines. They are all pretty undersquare but don't seem to have the same issues as the slant-6. I'm sure the 3- and 4-valves per cylinder help and they probably have shorter connecting rods...?? IDK, I've driven a few trucks with the 5.4L and they were just kind of mediocre overall. Power and economy are OK but not as good as they should be IMO with all that technology. I got my Duster towed by a friend (flat-bed trailer) with a 4.6L-powered F-150 and it was totally gutless, him and I were both glad there were no hills to drive up.
 
cchrishefish said:
I watched this video and I would like to hear other members opinions. My take on the video is number one, I should use a short runner intake manifold. Number two, since I am considering a turbo street car, I should stick with the original exhaust manifold with a turbo flange, and use a 3 inch exhaust pipe. Link:
Click to expand...


does this answer your question?
 
RustyRatRod said:
...and even though I'm building a 225 with the 198 rod, I don't disagree with what he said. He's right. I'm not building a race car though and I want more compression. So in my case, the long rod was the way to go.......plus I already had the rods pistons left over from before so........
Click to expand...

no need to apologize for using 198 or K1 rods. What is said in the video is true about the long rod affecting crank to pin angles, but that is a small price to pay to be able to use better lighter pistons that have thin metric rings for less friction and improved sealing. The K1 also gives a nice reduction in rod weight. The long rod concept with 2.2 L pistons also has a built in compression bump, less block and head decking is required. So there is some savings there. There are advantages to the long rod set up.
The long rod discussion was much like everything else in the video, he only gave half the story, and maybe that is as much as he knew.
 
Knowing how well alcohol injected \6s run because of the longer combustion time, can’t help but to wonder what could be done with a solid aluminum billet head and some nitro... I wish I had the money to match my crazy.
 
my68barracuda said:
no need to apologize for using 198 or K1 rods. What is said in the video is true about the long rod affecting crank to pin angles, but that is a small price to pay to be able to use better lighter pistons that have thin metric rings for less friction and improved sealing. The K1 also gives a nice reduction in rod weight. The long rod concept with 2.2 L pistons also has a built in compression bump, less block and head decking is required. So there is some savings there. There are advantages to the long rod set up.
The long rod discussion was much like everything else in the video, he only gave half the story, and maybe that is as much as he knew.
Click to expand...

Exactly, plus enter the the camshaft and everything else in the equation and it's certainly possible the long rod engine could be an improvement. It all depends on how it's built. Rest assured, had K1 thought the short rod was the way to go, they would have made that combination instead. I don't think their decision to make the long rod instead of the short was for marketing only.
 
my68barracuda said:
no need to apologize for using 198 or K1 rods. What is said in the video is true about the long rod affecting crank to pin angles, but that is a small price to pay to be able to use better lighter pistons that have thin metric rings for less friction and improved sealing. The K1 also gives a nice reduction in rod weight. The long rod concept with 2.2 L pistons also has a built in compression bump, less block and head decking is required. So there is some savings there. There are advantages to the long rod set up.
The long rod discussion was much like everything else in the video, he only gave half the story, and maybe that is as much as he knew.
Click to expand...
I am. Sry sure he knows a lot more than a short video can tell. To seriously get into such discussions added into the video already made, you could talk for an hour on it. I find I amazing you choose to rip Tony.

The lease do so make a video explaining everything he didn’t as well as reschool him and us.

I await the link.....
 
rumblefish360 said:
I am. Sry sure he knows a lot more than a short video can tell. To seriously get into such discussions added into the video already made, you could talk for an hour on it. I find I amazing you choose to rip Tony.

The lease do so make a video explaining everything he didn’t as well as reschool him and us.

I await the link.....
Click to expand...

He has years of experience with all kinds of drag racing. I for one enjoy his input. I'm still gonna use the long rods though, cause they're what I have. lol
 
MopaR&D said:
Or if one landed in my lap I would cut my teeth building my first home-fabbed turbo setup. Only real "straightforward" way to make decent power with those engines; going N/A basically takes re-engineering the whole thing IMO.
Click to expand...

Bingo....worked for me! That's exactly what I did. Carb'd version was a hit, EFI now...hopefully done soon. Pulled like a V8 under boost and I'm sure it was well out of tune with a 'Hanger 18' Autolite (Holley) 350 2bbl. The head just wasn't made to hop up for N/A flow.
 
pishta said:
Bingo....worked for me! That's exactly what I did. Carb'd version was a hit, EFI now...hopefully done soon. Pulled like a V8 under boost and I'm sure it was well out of tune with a 'Hanger 18' Autolite (Holley) 350 2bbl. The head just wasn't made to hop up for N/A flow.
Click to expand...

Well, mine isn't going to be boosted. Although I will admit it crossed my mind. The pistons I have are non turbo so the compression ratio will be too high. I think someone who knows what they're doing can work wonders with a slant head. I guess I'm gonna find out.
 
Check out Mark's (Madmax) Slant. Record holder N/A class. Has the Lotus train of thought: Performance through weight reduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top