Aluminum Head /6

-
Exactly! Think about how much a \6 block distorts and twists during operation. Then think about tooling up for an aluminum head with the casting venting, lost foam, vacuum casting, etc. etc. and how many trial and error runs it will take playing with the mold and casting design and outlay to come up with something that doesn’t drive such a fledgling operation out of business by the brute force of warranty claims. Doing this with the stock marginalized design and power limitations would amount to, as we say out in the hunting and fishing grounds, pissing in the wind...
 
But then again, Edelbrock has a 4.0 Jeep head for $1800-ish. They claim repeated requests sparked interest in producing it. Get to work, kids!
 
kowalski440 said:
But then again, Edelbrock has a 4.0 Jeep head for $1800-ish. They claim repeated requests sparked interest in producing it. Get to work, kids!
Click to expand...

There are probably 20 times more people building hopped-up and stroked Jeep/AMC 4.0L sixes than the Chrysler slant-6, partly because it was in production for much longer but it's also a superior design IMO especially the H.O. variant like I have in my Jeep. AMC didn't have the same strict engine length requirements like Chrysler did for the first Valiant so the bore/stroke ratio on the AMC L-6 is much better. I personally have a hard time being enthusiastic about the /6 when I have an AMC/Jeep 4.0L that makes more power, has more power potential, is stronger (in some ways), and IMO sounds much cooler. Almost like a miniature Cummins diesel if you put a loud muffler on it. I would love to someday build up an old Rambler with a built 4.0L pushing 250 HP backed by an AX-15 or T-5 5-speed manual, much rather do that than build up a slant-6 which has insufficient head flow from the factory and those teeny-tiny bores which restrict valve size. At least for me living at high altitude where all engines make roughly 20-25% less power than at sea level (unless boosted) slant-6 powered Mopars are downright gutless and can barely even keep up on the freeway at 80 mph.
 
MOPEkidD-3 said:
There are probably 20 times more people building hopped-up and stroked Jeep/AMC 4.0L sixes than the Chrysler slant-6, partly because it was in production for much longer but it's also a superior design IMO especially the H.O. variant like I have in my Jeep. AMC didn't have the same strict engine length requirements like Chrysler did for the first Valiant so the bore/stroke ratio on the AMC L-6 is much better. I personally have a hard time being enthusiastic about the /6 when I have an AMC/Jeep 4.0L that makes more power, has more power potential, is stronger (in some ways), and IMO sounds much cooler. Almost like a miniature Cummins diesel if you put a loud muffler on it. I would love to someday build up an old Rambler with a built 4.0L pushing 250 HP backed by an AX-15 or T-5 5-speed manual, much rather do that than build up a slant-6 which has insufficient head flow from the factory and those teeny-tiny bores which restrict valve size. At least for me living at high altitude where all engines make roughly 20-25% less power than at sea level (unless boosted) slant-6 powered Mopars are downright gutless and can barely even keep up on the freeway at 80 mph.
Click to expand...
There are so many things wrong there I can't begin, but suffice to say You are right about at least ONE thing, many more folks are screwing around with 4.0L Jeeps. That's because it's a Jeep, and they have a rabid/fanatic group who SPEND MONEY!!!, unlike half of the group driving slantys who balk at buying anything that doesn't simply keep their car running. All the pathetic & slow-*** reasons You gave are the very reason TO have a good aftermarket head for the slanty, lots of room for improvement, not as much with an HO 4.0L head so....................................
 
MOPEkidD-3 said:
There are probably 20 times more people building hopped-up and stroked Jeep/AMC 4.0L sixes than the Chrysler slant-6, partly because it was in production for much longer but it's also a superior design IMO especially the H.O. variant like I have in my Jeep. AMC didn't have the same strict engine length requirements like Chrysler did for the first Valiant so the bore/stroke ratio on the AMC L-6 is much better. I personally have a hard time being enthusiastic about the /6 when I have an AMC/Jeep 4.0L that makes more power, has more power potential, is stronger (in some ways), and IMO sounds much cooler. Almost like a miniature Cummins diesel if you put a loud muffler on it. I would love to someday build up an old Rambler with a built 4.0L pushing 250 HP backed by an AX-15 or T-5 5-speed manual, much rather do that than build up a slant-6 which has insufficient head flow from the factory and those teeny-tiny bores which restrict valve size. At least for me living at high altitude where all engines make roughly 20-25% less power than at sea level (unless boosted) slant-6 powered Mopars are downright gutless and can barely even keep up on the freeway at 80 mph.
Click to expand...

Actually my slant handles L.A traffic like a breeze but it's not stock with 3.55s though lol. It keeps up with the 200 horse kias honda and what ever new foreign junk. Tears up that payment in first and a baby Chrip in second. Key to hot rodding motors with less horsepower is gears they need more to rev up faster. I had a stock 273 with highway gears and my slant would pull harder.
 
Slantsix64 said:
Actually my slant handles L.A traffic like a breeze but it's not stock with 3.55s though lol. It keeps up with the 200 horse kias honda and what ever new foreign junk. Tears up that payment in first and a baby Chrip in second. Key to hot rodding motors with less horsepower is gears they need more to rev up faster. I had a stock 273 with highway gears and my slant would pull harder.
Click to expand...

Exactly, you're in Los Angeles which is basically sea level... have you tried driving up a 6% grade at 7000' above sea level in said slant-6 car? Or even try to pass someone at 75 mph on flat ground at 5000' above sea level?

Ask anyone who's moved to Colorado from another state they'll agree it felt like their car lost 2 cylinders.

@Killer6 go ahead and school me I'm all ears. Never bothered to mess with a slant because on paper they seem more like a stationary industrial or heavy-duty truck engine. I know they have 4-main-bearing cranks which are lighter than the Jeep 4.0s. I also know the 4.0 doesn't have the most rigid block, and the machining tolerances were pretty terrible from the badly worn-out manufacturing tooling. It just seems like you have to modify pretty much everything on a slant for it to make decent power, and by decent I mean over 200; not just "hey my slant feels pretty peppy compared to some other worn-out V8 car I had". Put a proper header on a 4.0 with the 1999-up ram-tuned intake manifold and a mild cam and it'll make 250+ HP no sweat. So seriously tell me where I'm wrong, might make me not dislike slant-6s so much which would be a good thing.

EDIT: sorry I'm hijacking the thread feel free to PM instead...
 
Last edited:
rustycowll69 said:
somebody maybe should have run spring shims between the bottom of the v. springs and the head. it kinda looks like someone cut the guide bosses down for triple springs and/or guide seals.
I've never seen another aluminum sl/6 head. It would be cool if someone could digitize the surface, so someone could recreate all of it except for the water jackets.
I have a CI sl/6 head that has "SPECIAL" cast into it. IIRC, I put 318 valves in it, & hogged the bowls out. I can't remember where it came from, it might have come with an aluminum sl/6 block I bought several decades ago.
Click to expand...
It did. I have a aluminum 225 complete with car and that's what the head says.
 
MOPEkidD-3 said:
Exactly, you're in Los Angeles which is basically sea level... have you tried driving up a 6% grade at 7000' above sea level in said slant-6 car? Or even try to pass someone at 75 mph on flat ground at 5000' above sea level?

Ask anyone who's moved to Colorado from another state they'll agree it felt like their car lost 2 cylinders.

@Killer6 go ahead and school me I'm all ears. Never bothered to mess with a slant because on paper they seem more like a stationary industrial or heavy-duty truck engine. I know they have 4-main-bearing cranks which are lighter than the Jeep 4.0s. I also know the 4.0 doesn't have the most rigid block, and the machining tolerances were pretty terrible from the badly worn-out manufacturing tooling. It just seems like you have to modify pretty much everything on a slant for it to make decent power, and by decent I mean over 200; not just "hey my slant feels pretty peppy compared to some other worn-out V8 car I had". Put a proper header on a 4.0 with the 1999-up ram-tuned intake manifold and a mild cam and it'll make 250+ HP no sweat. So seriously tell me where I'm wrong, might make me not dislike slant-6s so much which would be a good thing....
Click to expand...
Forget the small valves, poor head flow and terrible exhaust head pipe....just turbo it! All that chit goes out the window. :lol:
20190119_152142.jpg
 
Sorry- Just meant to point out that Edelbrock does respond to market requests. If a /6 market exists that will make them a profit, every enthusiast should ask about them and the features they'd want. I'd want a quench style CC, to allow zero deck, and retain the shaft - no bs chevy rockers (assuming no oddball OHC ideas).
Also, keep in mind if it ever happens, it will be similar in price to the 4.0 head. Not an Eddy employ, just pointing out it won't be $Gen pricing.
 
Looks like someone playing a bad joke. Aluminum paint on an iron head, just look at the overspray on the manifold studs...
 
my68barracuda said:
Simply having an aluminum slant six head gets you 0% closer to having additional aluminum heads cast.
Any 3D modeling-scanning that could be done with the aluminum head could be done with an iron head.
Seriously, if one was going to produce a slant head in aluminum, why replicate what exists today. Seems that a clean sheet of paper: cross flow, four valves per cylinder,,,
Click to expand...

Then, we have to have new manifolds cast, valve cover and on and on. At least following the original design only gives one part to be made. It'll never happen anyway, so..........
 
MOPEkidD-3 said:
Exactly, you're in Los Angeles which is basically sea level... have you tried driving up a 6% grade at 7000' above sea level in said slant-6 car? Or even try to pass someone at 75 mph on flat ground at 5000' above sea level?

Ask anyone who's moved to Colorado from another state they'll agree it felt like their car lost 2 cylinders.

@Killer6 go ahead and school me I'm all ears. Never bothered to mess with a slant because on paper they seem more like a stationary industrial or heavy-duty truck engine. I know they have 4-main-bearing cranks which are lighter than the Jeep 4.0s. I also know the 4.0 doesn't have the most rigid block, and the machining tolerances were pretty terrible from the badly worn-out manufacturing tooling. It just seems like you have to modify pretty much everything on a slant for it to make decent power, and by decent I mean over 200; not just "hey my slant feels pretty peppy compared to some other worn-out V8 car I had". Put a proper header on a 4.0 with the 1999-up ram-tuned intake manifold and a mild cam and it'll make 250+ HP no sweat. So seriously tell me where I'm wrong, might make me not dislike slant-6s so much which would be a good thing.

EDIT: sorry I'm hijacking the thread feel free to PM instead...
Click to expand...
Exactly, I don't want to hijack this thread, not sure what part of My post is ambiguous. Many modern engines have small bores in relation to the stroke, but the heads are up to the task. The slanty head needs larger valves & good port work to run like one would expect a modern 3.7-8 liter 6cyl to run. Even the 3.8 in a late '90's Grand Caravan or T&C runs well with only 2 valves inline and w/o variable cam timing, active intakes, etc.and those things curb at 4000#+.
A poor factory head is an argument FOR an aftermarket head, not against, so.....
The subject of this thread does not represent what would be desired particularly, but it is a piece of history, that is all.
 
This should be some masters thesis design for a CNC student. Make it in 2 parts, an upper and a lower so you could route out the water jackets and bolt them together. No $$ casting involved, just 3 hours on a CNC and 2 blocks of 6061. you could go bananas if you changed the intake port direction to be more vertical.
 
rustycowll69 said:
so what do you think was "special" about those heads?
Click to expand...
The first heads for the aluminum blocks had closer tolerances on the chamber location to support the open head surface. We have been told by "experts" that Chrysler slant six heads along the way to have all the improvements. So a "Special", Star, or number plate casting head is not required to run the aluminum block engine.
IMG_3516.JPG

Head_Star.JPG
Plate Casting.JPG
 
pishta said:
This should be some masters thesis design for a CNC student. Make it in 2 parts, an upper and a lower so you could route out the water jackets and bolt them together. No $$ casting involved, just 3 hours on a CNC and 2 blocks of 6061. you could go bananas if you changed the intake port direction to be more vertical.
Click to expand...

Oooh. I like the idea of two chunks of aluminum in a modular design.
With some key dimensions I could model that in Creo/Pro Engineer. (If I was allowed to work on private junk)

And since we're dreaming...4 valves, belt driven cam in head using some off the shelf modern rocker arms from some little Nissan, Honda, Fiat, whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top