12 Second N/A Slant 6?

-
PowerWagon896 with your spec i got 291hp@6000 287ft-lb@4500

Looks like a 3200 RPM stal convertor would work pretty well.

Fairly nice TQ @ 3000 (250 ft #s?) & the TQ band builds fat from there & holds well in the upper RPMs..

Running 26" rubber on a 4.56 & shifting @ 6500 RPM...

1st to second shift @ 6500/45 MPH brings RPM down to 3900 to pull 2nd gear

2nd to 3rd shift @ 6500/76 MPH brings RPM down to 4500 RPM to pull out 3rd gear.

6300 RPM is 107 MPH. If the car can pull out 3rd to 6300 RPM, thats a solid high 12s pass.

Here's a handy gear ratio/MPH calculator that I have been using for several years.

http://www.f-body.org/gears/
 
Looks like a 3200 RPM stal convertor would work pretty well.

Fairly nice TQ @ 3000 (250 ft #s?) & the TQ band builds fat from there & holds well in the upper RPMs..

Running 26" rubber on a 4.56 & shifting @ 6500 RPM...

1st to second shift @ 6500/45 MPH brings RPM down to 3900 to pull 2nd gear

2nd to 3rd shift @ 6500/76 MPH brings RPM down to 4500 RPM to pull out 3rd gear.

6300 RPM is 107 MPH. If the car can pull out 3rd to 6300 RPM, thats a solid high 12s pass.

Here's a handy gear ratio/MPH calculator that I have been using for several years.

http://www.f-body.org/gears/

sounds like a fun little /6, makes me almost want swap a /6 into my Cuda
 
How about cooking up some HP/TQ numbers for this combo.

241 cu in, 3.505" X 4 175" B/S

12.5:1 Static CR

Same heads

Clifford 95-122 262° @ .050" .595" lift W/1.6 RAR 109° ICL, 109° LSA.

PowerWagon896 with your spec i got 291hp@6000 287ft-lb@4500

OK let's try a smaller grind & a bigger grind.

1st a milder grind:

Clifford 95-1201 256° @ .050" .566 lift W/1.6 RAR 109° ICL, 109° LSA


Now for something a bit bigger:

Clifford 95-1252 270° @ .050: .598 lift W/1.6 RAR 109° ICL, 109° LSA

This 2nd grind is the grind that Mopar Muscle made 300 HP with @ 13.25:1 CR. (320 HP W/EFI)

http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/mopp_0602_chrysler_slant_six_engine/viewall.html
 
I'm think about using 7mm stem metric valves.

I want to stay away from the long stems on the 318 valves & the rocker arm geometry changes involved.

If you are considering a cam with over about .525 valve lift, you just might "NEED" longer valves. The valve guides start to get pretty short, to maintain guide to retainer clearance. To say nothing of valve spring coil bind
 
If you are considering a cam with over about .525 valve lift, you just might "NEED" longer valves. The valve guides start to get pretty short, to maintain guide to retainer clearance. To say nothing of valve spring coil bind

That's the main reason I went with the 318 valves. Although I had to have some custom relocating spacers made, they were not that expensive and I got that problem solved now.
 
If you are considering a cam with over about .525 valve lift, you just might "NEED" longer valves. The valve guides start to get pretty short, to maintain guide to retainer clearance. To say nothing of valve spring coil bind

Valve retainer seats can be deepened on the head casting.

I want to keep as close as possible to the OEM rocker position @ .000" lift of praotical.
 
It seem head flow is limiting factor here the bigger cams make less power across the board except between 6000-7000, Yellow line 256 cam, Maroon line 262 cam, Red line 270, 256 cam 289HP@6000 292ft-lb@4500, 262 cam 291HP@6000 287ft-lb@4500, 270 cam 287HP@6000 275ft-lb@4500-5000
 

Attachments

  • PowerWagon896 Horsepower.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 163
  • PowerWagon896 Torque.jpg
    23.7 KB · Views: 154
I did a CR bump to 13.5 and bump the carb from 600 to an 800 and got 300hp out of both 256 and 262 but 270 went to 290hp, 256 cam would be my choice just has a way better torque curve with very little loss in top end 6000-7000rpm
 
Valve retainer seats can be deepened on the head casting.

I want to keep as close as possible to the OEM rocker position @ .000" lift of praotical.

You should go on slantsix.org and look. Doug Dutra....or maybe it was another member.....anyway somebody over there cut a slant head up and they are very thin in that area. It was advised NOT to cut the valve spring seat. But if you decide to, I wish you luck. ...and again keep us posted. I definitely think you're gonna cut a new path with your build.
 
I did a CR bump to 13.5 and bump the carb from 600 to an 800 and got 300hp out of both 256 and 262 but 270 went to 290hp, 256 cam would be my choice just has a way better torque curve with very little loss in top end 6000-7000rpm

I find it interesting that you are finding out what everybody has been saying all along. That the head is the cork. Regardless of how well you can get it to flow, the stock head just doesn't have it in it. Interesting to see your computer program backing that up. Thanks for doing all of this for us. I appreciate your time.
 
No problem, the /6 also seems to like wider LSA, i let the program pick best cam specs for peak HP and got 301hp@6000 and basically same torque curve as the 256 cam, the specs it gave was 255/263 @ .050 .595 lift 113 LSA 114.5 ICL (the lift I had to pick and the 262 was used as the base cam) but the other specs the program went through 9000 variations
 
No problem, the /6 also seems to like wider LSA, i let the program pick best cam specs for peak HP and got 301hp@6000 and basically same torque curve as the 256 cam, the specs it gave was 255/263 @ .050 .595 lift 113 LSA 114.5 ICL (the lift I had to pick and the 262 was used as the base cam) but the other specs the program went through 9000 variations

First a little disclaimer. "I have never personally used a cam much over .500 lift in a slant six".
BUT, From what I have read and found from talking with other slant six racers, most have found that a N/A slant likes more intake intake duration, then exhaust. Also it likes more cam advance then most would think (as compared to that 114.5 ICL).
 
It seem head flow is limiting factor here the bigger cams make less power across the board except between 6000-7000, Yellow line 256 cam, Maroon line 262 cam, Red line 270, 256 cam 289HP@6000 292ft-lb@4500, 262 cam 291HP@6000 287ft-lb@4500, 270 cam 287HP@6000 275ft-lb@4500-5000

273,

This is very interesting to me. Thanks for posting the graphs. I've never seen such an in-depth analysis before.

I was curious about our engine, whther your program's capabilities extended to boosted engines as well.

Our engine is a stock stroke 1964 225, slant-six with a .065" overbore. It has a true 9:1 compression ratio with a mildly-ported head that has 1.75"/1.5" valves installed with a 3-angle valve job. The cam has 210/210 degrees of duration @ .050"-lift and is ground with 115-degrees of lobe separation. Rockers are nominally 1.5:1. Gross lift at the valve is .484". Head is un-milled as is the block, using a .022" steel shim head gasket.

Induction is blow-thru Holley 650 double-pumper on an Aussie long-runner manifold, un-ported.

Turbocharger is a generic Turbonetics 67 mm unit with an individual-runner header with 1.625" runners of varying lengths. Waste gate will be set to deliver 20 pounds of boost eventually, though we are running 10 pounds at the present time. I'd appreciate knowing the output using both boost levels, if you can do that.

Ignition is locked in at 18 degrees with no curve of any kind, just 18 degrees, static. Maximum rpm is 5,500. Maximum boost is achieved by 3,000 rpm.

Connecting rods are K-1 (198 units, nominally, 7"-long.)

A Spearco 550 hp (limit) air-to-air intercooler is run, along with a Snowperformance Boost Cooler alcohol spray injector using 100% methanol, set to come on at 8 pounds of boost.

Mixture under boost is an A/F ratio of 11.5:1.

I hope this is enough information for your program to be able to generate some ballpark figures.

I would sure appreciate if you could run these numbers through your excellent program, as I have NO IDEA what this engine should make in terms of horsepower and torque.

If it can't be done, of if you don't have the time to do it, I understand.

Thanks for listening!
 
You should go on slantsix.org and look. Doug Dutra....or maybe it was another member.....anyway somebody over there cut a slant head up and they are very thin in that area. It was advised NOT to cut the valve spring seat. But if you decide to, I wish you luck. ...and again keep us posted. I definitely think you're gonna cut a new path with your build.

OK, that's good information,

What did you do to accommodate the longer valve stems on your head? Be specific & post dimensional comparisons for the 318 valve Vs the \6 valves & how much you raised/shifted the rocker shaft. (if you don't mind)

Raising/shifting the rocker shaft might help pushrod clearance for the 1.6 rockers.

I will be taking a LOT from the head deck & quite a bit from the block deck to get my quench distance.

Raising the rocker shaft might bring pushrod angles back into a resonable spec.
 
I did a CR bump to 13.5 and bump the carb from 600 to an 800 and got 300hp out of both 256 and 262 but 270 went to 290hp, 256 cam would be my choice just has a way better torque curve with very little loss in top end 6000-7000rpm

CR might well be in the 13.5:1 range if I squeeze down the quench to .040".

I agree on the 256.

What was the TQ for the various cams @ 3000, 3500 & 4000 RPM?

I want max HP @ 6000 RPM W/a flat HP curve to 6500 so I can wind the gears for maximum TQ/HP @ the recovery RPM after the shift.

I also like to go about 200-300 RPM past peak HP in the traps. Get the HP on the track ASAP W/O running out of breath @ the end.

Maximum TQ @ 4500 RPM & the best comparative TQ values @ 3500 & 4000 RPM.
 
Bill Dedman, I'll plug your Spec's in when get home from work in the morning, the program does come with a couple dozen turbos but most are Garrett, the intercooler % of cooling has a big effect on power numbers I think go in steps 25% up to 200%, I usually use 100%
 
Ugh. I cannot give you specific numbers......but I can get you some good pictures. The guy asked for ONE specific measurement and I gave it to him. That measurement will be different for each individual setup depending on valve job depth, which valve is used, minute differences in casting regarding rocker shaft pedestal placement....blah blah blah.

Gimmie a little bit and I'll get you some good pics of what I have so far. I think I can hunt around for the pics the guy sent me on the measurement he wanted too. It will take me a bit so hang on.


OK, that's good information,

What did you do to accommodate the longer valve stems on your head? Be specific & post dimensional comparisons for the 318 valve Vs the \6 valves & how much you raised/shifted the rocker shaft. (if you don't mind)

Raising/shifting the rocker shaft might help pushrod clearance for the 1.6 rockers.

I will be taking a LOT from the head deck & quite a bit from the block deck to get my quench distance.

Raising the rocker shaft might bring pushrod angles back into a resonable spec.
 
Bill Dedman, I'll plug your Spec's in when get home from work in the morning, the program does come with a couple dozen turbos but most are Garrett, the intercooler % of cooling has a big effect on power numbers I think go in steps 25% up to 200%, I usually use 100%

Thanks; that's all I could ask!!!
 
I found it quicker than I thought. Here is what he needed along with the picture explaining the measurement to take. Lemmie tell you, I found this guy SLAM by accident when I was lookin for some hold downs for my 383. He is super to deal with and the quality is outstanding. I'm still gonna get you pics of my head mocked up.

Here's what he said:

"I need:
1. Intake and Exhaust valve lift, minus any lash.
2. Confirmation that your rocker shaft diameter is .875
3. The accurately measured distance between the valve tip and the combination square using the attached photo as a reference. You can hold the square against the valve spring instead of the valve stem. As long as the square is on the same angle as the valve and is resting on the top of the rocker shaft, it will be accurate.
4. The underhead length of your shaft hold down bolts, so I can include the correct length in your kit.

If you have any questions or have trouble properly viewing the photo, let me know and I will respond promptly.
Thanks,


- bbmope65"



 

Attachments

  • GEOMETRY MEASURE.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 150
Sorry about picture clarity. But you can see the measurement you need is between the valve tip and the square. Oh and bbmope65 is his ebay name. Great guy to deal with.
 
I found it quicker than I thought. Here is what he needed along with the picture explaining the measurement to take. Lemmie tell you, I found this guy SLAM by accident when I was lookin for some hold downs for my 383. He is super to deal with and the quality is outstanding. I'm still gonna get you pics of my head mocked up.

Here's what he said:

"I need:
1. Intake and Exhaust valve lift, minus any lash.
2. Confirmation that your rocker shaft diameter is .875
3. The accurately measured distance between the valve tip and the combination square using the attached photo as a reference. You can hold the square against the valve spring instead of the valve stem. As long as the square is on the same angle as the valve and is resting on the top of the rocker shaft, it will be accurate.
4. The underhead length of your shaft hold down bolts, so I can include the correct length in your kit.

If you have any questions or have trouble properly viewing the photo, let me know and I will respond promptly.
Thanks,


- bbmope65"






I can't remember whether you raised the rocker shaft or shifted it sideways.

Without specific dimensions can you detail what was done?

I'm still leaning towards "metric" valves W/7mm stems, but longer stem length for more lift capabilities seems like a good idea.
 
no turbo 193hp@4500 266ft-lb@3000
10PSI 343hp@4500 506ft-lb@3000
20PSI 517hp@4000 788ft-lb@3000
I used a garrett GT3071R don't know how close it is to your turbo but there was no 67mm, haven't played with to many turbos with this program so don't know how close this is.

WOW!

I TOTALLY appreciate the effort you went to to come up with these numbers!

I understand that they are necessarily "ballpark" figures because of my incomplete turbocharger information, and other considerations, but they are probably within ten-percent of what that engine really should do.

That is all I was looking for and I REALLY appreciate it!!

I plugged those numbers into an online calculator that I use that I have found to be reasonably accurate and learned that the 10-pound boost configuration should produce real-world acceleration numbers in the high 11's at about 113 mph, while the 20-pound-boost motor might go close to 10.30 @ 129 mph! Our car weighs 2,840 with a 170-pound driver on board, and according to your figures, should go 14.4 @ 93mph with no boost all.

It "feels" about like that (with no boost, that is.)

You have given us information that gives us something to shoot for and we thoroughly appreciate it!!!

We'll be going to the strip to do some test-n-tune in a few weeks, and will update our information at that time.

In the meantime, I have one more question but I don't want you to spend a lot of time on this; it's no big deal, but if you still have all the tech data in your program relative to our motor, it may be a relatively quick and easy thing to do:

I have altered a set of rocker arms to yield a 1.6:1 ratio (rather then the nominal 1.5:1) and was curious as to whether the different valve lift afforded by these rockers would actually affect the total hp numbers, once installed. They would increase gross valve lift from .484" to .516."

No other changes.

If you don't have time to mess with this, I understand. You have done a LOT for us...

But, if it's just a matter of changing that one parameter in your program, it might not take long to do.

Again, thanks so very much for those figures!!! You da man...:cheers:
 
-
Back
Top