Slant 6/ What's old is new again..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Al
Good in its day...its day has passed. Too bulky.

The original Slant was designed to be cast in either iron or aluminum--and to save a buck the same molds (or at least design) were to be used. Which meant the engine made of cast iron was cast with more metal than it needed to be. Which is probably a good thing as the engine only had 4 main bearings.

Seems odd to bring back an inline six but I'm guessing they know what they are doing--has to be a good reason for the packaging.

Might be a good thing. Could have a 6 in a FWD traverse setup--and no evil plugs facing the firewall. Then again--it's Fiat--they'll put all the plugs facing the firewall.
Trolling.gif


Seems hard to believe this would target a longitudinal setup. But maybe it's to hit NVH targets along with power? and a more simple engine? Maybe they can use simpler mounts, no balance shafts, and who knows what else. Heck maybe it's because in cylinder deactivation this engine runs more smoothly for all I know.
 
Originally Posted by supton
Could have a 6 in a FWD traverse setup

I6 engines are too long to be used in transverse FWD applications unless it has a very small displacement, that is one reason why I5 engines were used by some manufacturers.
 
I have experience working on FWD cars with inline 6 engines. (Volvo) I wish I didn't. There's only one place for them to put that tremendous intake manifold. Across the entire front of the engine. The alternator is under the intake manifold. The accessory drive looks like something engineered by that dude from Saw.
 
Originally Posted by hatt
I'd like to see Ford come out with an Ecoboast inline 6. 3 to 3.5L would be a beast.


Ford Australia did that 15 years ago with the 4.0 Barra turbo...
 
Originally Posted by hpb
Originally Posted by hatt
I'd like to see Ford come out with an Ecoboast inline 6. 3 to 3.5L would be a beast.


Ford Australia did that 15 years ago with the 4.0 Barra turbo...

Aluminum, 4 valve, turbo, direct injection?
 
Originally Posted by hatt
I'd like to see Ford come out with an Ecoboast inline 6. 3 to 3.5L would be a beast.


Buy an BMW 340. Twin scroll 3 liter I6 starts over 320 HP or the M3/4 (S55) which is also a 3 liter I6 making over 400hp.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Pelican
I think that the reason why carmakers are going with straight 6 is that it can be modular and save them money, you may see a straight 7 or 8 in the future. All they have to do is add another cylinder and check the balance


Although BMW has always had an I6 they went modular with the B-series engines. This modular series powers both gas and diesel for both the I4 and I6 variants.
 
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by hpb
Originally Posted by hatt
I'd like to see Ford come out with an Ecoboast inline 6. 3 to 3.5L would be a beast.


Ford Australia did that 15 years ago with the 4.0 Barra turbo...

Aluminum, 4 valve, turbo, direct injection?


Iron block, alloy twin cam 4 valve head, turbo.
 
on my slant i welded a 2 bbl plate to the 1 bbl manifold. . used a 318 carb. it was all most like adding an other engine to it. be for Chrysler put a 2 bbl on it.
 
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Having owned two vehicles with that engine, give me a Ford 300.

Agreed. The carbs on those engines(Slant 6) were terrible.
 
My first car was a '64 Plymouth Vomit (in faded mint green) and it had a slant 6 (225). I never checked the oil, didn't know any better back then, and the engine ran low on oil and seized up tighter than a drum while driving down the road one day...
 
I have had one in my 63 Valiant Signet, which I have owned since 1980. I replaced the 170 in 1988 with a rebuilt 225".

The original engine had gone at least 213,000 miles when I bought it and I drove it 8 years more before doing the exchange.

Smooth, simple. And a Pertronix electronic distributor gives instant start up and no points or condenser to mess with.

Still a pleasure to drive even with unboosted steering and three on the tree. It has to be driven with some deliberation. No texting or eating or yakking on the phone [which I have never done anyway] while driving.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by DweezilAZ
I have had one in my 63 Valiant Signet, which I have owned since 1980. I replaced the 170 in 1988 with a rebuilt 225".

The original engine had gone at least 213,000 miles when I bought it and I drove it 8 years more before doing the exchange.

Smooth, simple. And a Pertronix electronic distributor gives instant start up and no points or condenser to mess with.

Still a pleasure to drive even with unboosted steering and three on the tree. It has to be driven with some deliberation. No texting or eating or yakking on the phone [which I have never done anyway] while driving.



My Vomit had a 3 on the tree as well. One of my high school buddies actually had one with a push button automatic. I never knew there was such a thing...
 
Originally Posted by tig1
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Having owned two vehicles with that engine, give me a Ford 300.

Agreed. The carbs on those engines(Slant 6) were terrible.

For sure. Starting them in damp weather or on rainy days was another problem with some of them. I never understood the love affair for them to be honest. The Ford 300 was my favorite, I liked the Chevy 250, and the 292 I-6 too.
 
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by DweezilAZ
I have had one in my 63 Valiant Signet, which I have owned since 1980. I replaced the 170 in 1988 with a rebuilt 225".

The original engine had gone at least 213,000 miles when I bought it and I drove it 8 years more before doing the exchange.

Smooth, simple. And a Pertronix electronic distributor gives instant start up and no points or condenser to mess with.

Still a pleasure to drive even with unboosted steering and three on the tree. It has to be driven with some deliberation. No texting or eating or yakking on the phone [which I have never done anyway] while driving.



My Vomit had a 3 on the tree as well. One of my high school buddies actually had one with a push button automatic. I never knew there was such a thing...


Oh yeah. I love the push button trans. People are always surprised when they see the column shift in these. 'Push button trans ?' is always the first question.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by CT8
The slant 6 was also used successfully as industrial engines



Still is. Quite a few water management dams around here still have Slant 6 engines.


One of the most unusual vehicles I've ever seen with an industrial 225 Slant 6 was a mid-'70s Clark Cortez motorhome. Being front wheel drive was weird as well......Though GMC made a FWD RV also.
 
Originally Posted by grampi

My Vomit had a 3 on the tree as well. One of my high school buddies actually had one with a push button automatic. I never knew there was such a thing...


And those push button trannies were mechanical.

There was a TV show (no longer on the air) where a team in a large Arizona junkyard would rebuild one old car from the lot to be auctioned off as a reasonably priced daily driver. One of the cars was a 1960's Mopar with the push button tranny that didn't work. None of the mechanics had ever seen one, and it took them awhile of digging in behind the dash before they finally learned that it was not electrical, but rather mechanical. They were able to fix it then.
 
Kind of funny seeing this new concept being compared to the Slant-6. The only similarities will likely be the number of cylinders and their configuration.

It will probably be more comparable to a BMW turbo inline six.

I find it really annoying that FCA insists on using the same retired nameplates for new vehicles in an attempt to rest on their laurels. A few include the Dart, Charger, Renegade, Gladiator, Cherokee, Hemi, and now this "Tornado" engine concept which was an used in the old Willys Jeep pickups.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top