Last post on Dec 09, 2013 at 3:52 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
#28810 of 30869 Re: Maverick [andre1969]
Mar 24, 2013 (8:04 am)
sounds like your dart had a distributor or wire issue? Something in the electrics that was not completely moisture sealed. Not that I know what I am talking about!
#28811 of 30869 Re: Maverick [andre1969]
Mar 24, 2013 (8:29 am)
I knew two people who owned Chrysler products with the slant 6 motor and they liked it a lot. One was a high school friend who had one in a Valiant and the car seemed almost as strong as a V-8. When I see the posted horsepower figures, they seem too low. That Valiant seemed to be almost as fast as a standard Studebaker Lark 259 ci. in V-8.
The other person was my father, who inherited his father's 1963 Studebaker Skybolt 6-cylinder Lark and hated it. He traded it in for a 1967 Plymouth station wagon. at Freeman-Spicer, the official Studebaker factory that switched to Plymouth after Studebaker went out of the auto business.
My dad was very impressed with the slant 6 and said that if Studebaker built a 6-cylinder motor like that, they would still be in the auto business. I am not saying that his statement is true, but he was very impressed with the slant 6 it and kept that car longer than any other he owned.
Mar 24, 2013 (8:57 am)
The Slant 6 was a good motor. They had a few problems, like manifold cracking (pretty common) and wet-weather stalling (you had to put on weatherproof cap and wires), ballast resistor failure, and sometimes timing chain stretching, but generally speaking, pound for pound, they put out better power than similar Ford, Chevy, or AMC or Studebaker units.
One reason was an efficient manifold system.
They weren't hi-revving motors. They produced their best HP at lower rpm. This is probably why they made such good industrial engines.
#28813 of 30869 Re: Maverick [Mr_Shiftright]
Mar 24, 2013 (9:39 am)
I always thought it was a shame that they didn't offer the slant six 2-bbl in the US, like they did for export markets in the 1960's. It put out 160 hp gross (120 net) which was a nice little bump from the 145 gross/110 net the 1-bbl put out.
But, for the most part, there wasn't a lot of interest in stronger 6-cyl engines in those days. Most buyers were more interested in a V-8.
For comparison though, the 273-2bbl V-8 from 1964 only put out 180 hp. The Chevy 283 started at 195 hp. The Ford 260 had 164 hp, although the newly-released 289 started at 195.
For one or two years, they even put the hot 4-bbl "Hyper-pak" on the 225, and that got it up to 197 hp.
I imagine that, if GM and Ford put their minds to it, they could have gotten some guts out of their 6-cyl engines as well. GM did try, somewhat, with the Pontiac OHC-6cyl, but I think buyers still preferred the V-8 options.
#28814 of 30869 Re: Maverick [Mr_Shiftright]
Mar 24, 2013 (10:22 am)
"They produced their best HP at lower rpm. This is probably why they made such good industrial engines. "
Now that you mention it, I worked at a sheet metal shop that had a Hobart welder/generator to make power for welding metal roof deck on the construction site and it had a Slant 6. It was very reliable, had tons of power, started in the coldest weather and was quite light for an engine that size. I think it had an aluminium engine block.
I am modifying my post to say that although I am not a big fan of the Studebaker 6 cylinder motor, in its defense it was originally developed as a small motor for the 1939 Champion while Studebaker had a larger six cylinder motor at that time for the Commander and trucks. After WW II Studebaker decided to build a small displacement V-8 rather than a new big six motor.
Therefore, it always was an economy engine that worked quite well in the Lark 20 years later, except for cold weather starting. It started with only 70 HP and eventually reached 101 hp before being cut back to 90 hp for the Lark, which was the same as the 1960 Ford Falcon. I don't attempt to defend the later Skybolt six ohv modification.
#28815 of 30869 Re: Maverick [jljac]
Mar 24, 2013 (9:55 am)
The slant six was offered as an aluminum block for a few years, but they stopped production because they had a high scrappage rate on the assembly line.
They were pretty lightweight by the standards of the time when they came out for 1960. Something like 475 lb for the iron block. I'm not sure what Ford's standard car 6-cyl weighed at the time, but probably more. Chevy's old stovebolt/"Blue flame" 6 was over 600 lb! Ford's little Falcon 6 was lighter, but was also a smaller engine, starting off at just 144 CID. I think Chevy's newer 6-cyl, the one that started off as a 194.5, but grew to a 230 and finally 250, was around 450 lb.
#28816 of 30869 Re: Maverick [andre1969]
Mar 24, 2013 (11:05 am)
Studebaker's OHV six, which came out for the '61 model year, I've heard had a tendency towards cracked heads, although I've heard more than a couple guys say they had significantly-improved power over the flathead six. But because of the head issue, I don't think I'd consider one even if I thought the rest of the car was in terrific original/authentic condition.
#28817 of 30869 a yellow Vega wagon...
Mar 24, 2013 (1:40 pm)
in my rear view mirror. It was sitting low, so the springs were probably worn out.
#28818 of 30869 '66 Chevelle
Mar 24, 2013 (3:39 pm)
It's still snowy and a bit salty up here in Nova Scotia and certainly quite cold - spring conditions have yet to arrive here and it's been a long, bad winter - but yesterday while out running errands I saw a '66 Chevelle 4-door out running around. It was either Marina or Mist Blue metallic, and someone had put a set of mag wheels on it. Probably was some old fella's car up to 5 or 10 years ago. Nothing special but it was in pretty good condition. A nice early sign of springtime at least.
Mar 24, 2013 (4:38 pm)
Nice dry relatively warm day here - but not much on the road. Oldest and oddest thing I saw was a Chevy Luv.