Things that should have been

-
6

64drtGt

Slant Six Lunatic
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
499
Reaction score
16
Location
Greeneville,Tn
Who all besides me would have loved to have seen dodge do like ford did with the 300 six and throw a 5 speed and fuelinjection on a /6 from the factory that would have been awsome....
 
64drtGt said:
Who all besides me would have loved to have seen dodge do like ford did with the 300 six and throw a 5 speed and fuelinjection on a /6 from the factory that would have been awsome....
Click to expand...

Never would have really performed with those small valves and ports, though.

The only way to get enough air through those ports to make a lot of horsepower is to install bigger valves and BLOW the air though with a supercharger or a turbocharger.

The small bores negate just about anything that can be done, short of a total (4-valve) head redesign. And, that's expensive. Ma had lots of big V8s for people who wanted to go fast; the slant was just an economy engine.

BUT, an economy engine with a difference: It is unusually robust (STRONG) and can take lots of boost without complaining. The 4-main crank is forged and has the same size bearings as a 426 Hemi, while the mating surfaces on the heads and block are unusually thick, as are the main bearing webs, which harken back to its original aluminum design paramenters. It's a HOSS!!!:blob:

So large amounts of boost have brought it to over 500 HP in "civilian" hands, and that will put an early A Body well into the tens.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QzUfV8iTpQ"]Turbo Slant Six 10.74 @ 127 mph 7-19-10 - YouTube[/ame]

Ma had a prototype turbo slant 6... THAT is what she should have built... but, the 340 guys woul't have liked getting outrun by a six... LOL!

So, she didn't build it...:angry3:

But, WE can!!!:cheers:
 
They could have fuel injected it. Redesigned the head with good flow. They could have made it crossflow. They could have changed the casting molds for the block so that it would have the same bellhousing as the LA trans. Same bore as a 2.2L and those things can put 400+ hp with 2 valve heads.

Look at the 4.0L jeep inline six. It stayed in production until around 2006 and was making about 200 hp while meeting emissions and giving good gas mileage and reliability.

I wish they had designed the dakota around the slant, updated it like my 1st paragraph and never made the 3.9L. The 3.9 wasn't a bad engine, it just doesn't have anywhere near the torque of the slant and torque is what you want in a truck.
 
mcnoople said:
They could have fuel injected it. Redesigned the head with good flow. They could have made it crossflow. They could have changed the casting molds for the block so that it would have the same bellhousing as the LA trans. Same bore as a 2.2L and those things can put 400+ hp with 2 valve heads.

Look at the 4.0L jeep inline six. It stayed in production until around 2006 and was making about 200 hp while meeting emissions and giving good gas mileage and reliability.

I wish they had designed the dakota around the slant, updated it like my 1st paragraph and never made the 3.9L. The 3.9 wasn't a bad engine, it just doesn't have anywhere near the torque of the slant and torque is what you want in a truck.
Click to expand...

A lot of could have's in there. That JEEP engine was a good one, but good mileage? LOL! I own a 3.9, there a band aid fix and not a very smooth running engine. It moves my 5000lbs. Dakota quad cab fairly well...for what it is. Would have been better with a 318.
 
The 4.0L was comparable to the 4.7 in the grand cherokee. It had 195 hp to the 4.7's 235. The 4.0L had a lower power band which is better for truck use.

Fuel economy stats for the 2003 jeep gr cherokee 2wd are

14 city 19 highway 16 combined for both the 4.0 and the 4.7, but the 4.7 came with a 5 speed auto and the 4.0 was a 4 speed auto.

Just think if they had used a 5 speed trans and some new fancy tech like cylinder shutdown on a slant. Cruising at 65 in 5th gear lockup with a 3 cylinder 112 ci engine now that would be fuel economy
 
But don't you read the guy here swear they allllready get 30+ MPG's with there /6 !?!?!

I get berated all the time about it.
 
I don't see why 30 mpg isn't possible under perfect circumstances, but I don't think I will ever see it. Most every car equipped with a slant has poor aerodynamics that will prevent truly great mpg numbers.

I wonder what you could get out of a lowered 64 dart 2dr with 170 efi tuned for max efficiency and 5 or 6 speed manual. You would want to strip all turbulence causing chrome, remove the bumpers and roof drip rail. Off course I would leave it stock and just be happy with 23 or so mpg.
 
An EFI over-driven 170? Yea, that would be cool and probably doable since the aftermarket is pretty decent with some things.
 
I know in town my dads 81 D100 225 4 Speed gets 15-16mpg and on the road we have never checked it but I do remember we made a 100 mile trip with speeds between 10-60 mph up over a mountain trail and back down the actual road and burnt less than 1/4 tank.
 
64drtGt said:
I know in town my dads 81 D100 225 4 Speed gets 15-16mpg and on the road we have never checked it but I do remember we made a 100 mile trip with speeds between 10-60 mph up over a mountain trail and back down the actual road and burnt less than 1/4 tank.
Click to expand...

I got that with my built up slant 6 on the highway @ 70mph !!
 
mcnoople said:
I wish they had designed the dakota around the slant, updated it like my 1st paragraph and never made the 3.9L.
Click to expand...
There is an interesting writeup on www.Allpar.com. They say Mopar chopped off 2 cyl from the LA to make the 3.9L since that was all that would fit in the Dakota's bay and they couldn't afford new tooling for a 60 deg V (later 3.8L?), which is better balanced for a 6 cyl. They later managed to squeeze the V-8 in, so the 3.9L was short lived. I think it lived on a few years in Ram Vans. No way a slant would fit.
 
mcnoople said:
Fuel economy stats for the 2003 jeep gr cherokee 2wd are
14 city 19 highway 16 combined for both the 4.0 and the 4.7, but the 4.7 came with a 5 speed auto and the 4.0 was a 4 speed auto.
Click to expand...
Hard to compare a truck with a car re mileage for the same engine. I expect one would get ~30 mpg hwy in a Dart with a modernized 3.7L engine. I got 22 mpg hwy regularly in my 69 Dart (Holley 1920, electronic ignition) and it wasn't very aerodynamic with the acute angles. I expect better in my lighter and more rounded 64 & 65 A's, since I plan more modern engine controls. The 64 is a slant, but convertible, so another kink.
 
I believe the 3.9 survived all the way until 2004 or 2005 when it was phased out and replaced by the 3.7 from the liberty.

The van 3.8 was a turd in the wrangler. It was a poor choice to replace the 4.0 litre.

I think the early 2dr darts (64-65) may have the most streamlined shape. At least they do in my opinion, they look much more aerodynamic than my 65 valiants.
 
Now I maybe out in left field on this but it has been said that the slant has such a beefy bottom end and the soup can pistons because it was going to be a DIESEL. I remember reading that there were some for marine use.Anybody else ever hear such a thing ?
 
1970Duster said:
They couldve also dropped in a 265 Hemi-6 in it.
Click to expand...

I think the Hemi 6 engine is too long. The Slant 6 was designed from the git-go on orders from Ma Mopar, herself, to be made short as was possible; that's why the engine has close (small) bore centers and small bores. The water pump is beside the engine (facilitated by leaning it over) instead of on the front end of it, making it even shorter. The Hemi 6 is a great engine, but I don't think it will fit an A body's engine compartment without butchering the firewall. Maybe one of our friends from OZ can confirm or deny that.:glasses7:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top