Wow; that thing is awesome!!! Thanks for the video!!! Leaves hard... runs hard!
I LIKE it!!!:cheers:
Well, since nobody else responded, I have to say, after some research, I don't like it as much as I did.
Here's what I found out after reading some about that motor in Willem Weertman's book "Chrysler Engines 1922-1998"; he is one of the Mopar engineers who was there as it was being designed.
It is an outstanding 6-cylinder engine that has a lot going for it as a normally-aspirated powerplant. It's valves, at least in it's most OEM hi-po iteration, are really big, for an engine of its size! The intake valves in the 265 version, STOCK are 1.83" and the exhausts are 1.6".
It appears to be a good-breathing engine, with a lot of rpm potential.
In its most powerful version, it came with triple-sidedraft, Weber carburetion, dual exhausts, tubing headers, a long duration cam, and a 10-to-one compresssion ratio, stock.
I'm sure it was a killer on the street back in the day, and would make a formidible inline six engine, today, given its built-in advantage of a big bore (room for big valves.)
If I were trying to build a normally-aspirated, FAST, inline six, it would no doubt, be my engine of choice.
You could do a lot worse...
HOWEVER, if you're looking to build serious horsepower with an inline six, using a power-adder, like a turbo, for instance, I am looking at some design parameters that would seem to make the slant six a more workable engine, in the long run.
Its all about stiffness/rigidity.
To begin with the /6 was originally designed to be an aluminum engine, and when they decided to cast it in iron, instead, they left most of the original design parameters regarding block strength in place, because it was the cheapest and simplest thing to do. This resulted in a block that has a very thick deck, thick cylinder walls and a general overall construction that is probably one of the strongest blocks around. They used these motors in fork lifts and marine applications where longivity was the paramount consideration. The cylinder head weighs 84 pounds... and has a deck surface that is nearly half an inch thick. The block's deck is nearly that thick.
Can you say, "RIGID"????
It has a relatively short, forged (early versions, at least,) 4-main-bearing crankshaft that is torsionally a lot stiffer (according to Weertman's book) than the cast-iron crank in the Hemi 6, which is a 7-main-bearing unit that is said by the design engineers to flex more, under load. The /6 main bearings are 2.75"-diameter, the same size as the mains in a 426 Hemi/440 RB motor. Main bearings in the Hemi-6 are a quarter of an inch smaller, at 2.5"-dia.
While the /6 features thick, cast iron construction with no concessions to weight-saving, the Hemi-6 was designed to be a lightweight engine, and features thinwall castings, and it would follow that it would give up some block rigidity in that vein.
The slant six has rocker arm shafts; the Hemi six has rocker arms mounted on studs... You tell me which is the superior system...
I don't claim to know much about the Hemi-6 motor, but as a normally-aspiraated contender in the drag strip wars, I don't see how it could lose...
With 30+ pounds of boost, though, I don't think it's going to have a service life anything like as long as a slant six's...
Just my 2-cents...:homework:
