Just scored a Super Six and matching trans

[wayneswirld2]

So, I just scored a 1966 Super Six and matching auto trans, now what? Came from a wrecked Baracuda with 55K on the odometer. My 65 Valiant currently has the original 225 in it with a 3 speed column shift. Was planning a 4 speed conversion, but am now thinking about installing the auto trans after going thru it. Going to go thru the engine as well, she's been sitting for a couple years.

So my BIG question, who is making go-fast goodies for these things?

Wayne
Austin, TX

 

[66aCUDA]

Ok the "Super" six is NOT a two bbl "super six" from the 70s. What you most likely have is a 1bbl with a Super decal on the air cleaner. The factory 2 bbl was not available until Much later. I stock all sorts of " GO Fast" Goodies for slant sixes visit Aussiespeedusa.com and then Order thru me. This will save you from 20-40%
Frank

 

[slantsixdan]

Frank's right. The Super Six was the marketing name (and air cleaner decal text) for the North American '76-'82 2bbl carburetion setup.

1963-'69 Plymouths with 225 engines -- all with 1bbl carbs -- had "Super 225" air cleaner decals; the same engines installed in Dodges had "Charger 225" decals. These were not special high-perf versions of the engine...just air cleaner decals. See here for rated horsepower info.

The '66 auto trans will not work in your '65 unless you also change the driveshaft and use the '66-'67 speedometer cable, and you'll also need shift linkage and a shifter.

As for slant-6 speed parts, you'll hear the name "Clifford" come up, but be very careful before you decide to spend any money with Clifford. They have a long and ugly reputation for being a bunch of clowns; see for example here, here, here, here, and here. Much of what they sell is inaccurately described, and a lot of it is not even slightly cost-effective. The good news is that you don't need to go to Clifford to get hot rod parts for slant-6s; there are lots of other, better options. See for example Dutra Duals and header options discussed in this thread and this one, Erson custom cams, HEI ignition upgrade, Mike Jeffreys windage trays, Hurricane intakes, other exotic intakes. Hi-perf engine buildup here, high-perf parts and build info here.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Dan.....I gotta say buddy, when I first joined I thought you were the biggest jerk I ever met. Pot callin the kettle black here. But man, when I step back and see all the info you pile all over people, you're ok in my book. You're always ready and willin to throw info out there. I think that's great. Merry Christmas.

Highjack over.

 

[iggys68dart]

i dig all of dans posts i believe he knows his stuff

 

[wayneswirld2]

Yep, I got all excited when I looked at the motor and trans, THEN I did some readin'....dufas move on my part to post that I'd found a SUPER SIX before I did the research. Thanks guys for pointin' me in the right direction.....

Wayne
Austin, TX

 

[slantsixdan]

Dan.....I gotta say buddy, when I first joined I thought you were the biggest jerk I ever met.

Oh, c'mon, I'm sure that's not true. I mean, yeah, I'm a little pudgy, got a bit of a potbelly, but I'm pretty average 5-foot-9 and a little under 200 pounds.

Srsly: I hear you. I know my mouth (keyboard) can get bigger and louder than it might should sometimes. I work on that. I fail and keep working on it.

you're ok in my book. You're always ready and willin to throw info out there. I think that's great. Merry Christmas.

Thanks, man — you too! (and you…and you…and you out in the shop with your head under the dash of your '62 Valiant…)

 

[cchrishefish]

You forgot the listens to ZZ Top part, lol

 

[Bill Dedman]

At the very real risk of being branded a wild-eyed fanatic with an axe to grind, I'm going to jump in here, and run my mouth (er, keyboard) for a bit and play the devil's advocate and beat the drum for something I thoroughly believe in: forced induction.

The reason I believe in forced induction as regards the almighty /6 is this:

The slant six was originally a 170 cubic inch motor, and had a cylinder head that reflected the breathing capabilities of an engine that size. When the engine was increased to 225 cubic inches, the powers that be/were didn't make any effort to increase the valve or port size in the cylinder head, which resulted in a mediocre, at best, cylinder-filling capability for the 225 (and,later, the one-ninety-eight motor(s).) The engine was a grocery-getter with no aspirations toward high-performance; after all,they had 340s and even 440's for the Testosterone set. There was a weak-kneed (try and find one) offering that put the Hyper Pack manifold,cam, and a few other parts on the 225, but VERY few ever saw the light of day,and the /6 remained a poor-breathing, station wagon motor throughout its life.

That's not to say that a normally-aspirated /6 cannot be made to perform in a spirited manner if enough money is spent for a big valve, ported head, high compression pistons, a more efficient intake manifold (lots of choices, here) sufficient carburetion, and all the other speed "tricks" that racers utilize to increase the breathing capability of high-performance engines. There ARE some impressive /6-powered cars out there.

But, no matter how they tweak these unblown engines, the small ports and smallish valves (even the bigger, aftermarket ones) make it a real uphill battle to get enough airflow through that head for specific output much over the 1.2 horsepower per cubic inch range. And, to get into that territory, you need an engine that is so radical that it's not very driveable on a daily basis.

How to deal with this problem?

One possibility is forced induction.

A slant six engine has an unbelieveably strong "constitution."

Forced induction requires an engine that is robust, has lots of strength in the reciprocating assembly, and basically, is built more like a Diesel, than a gasoline engine. Those engines are hard to find... Thinwall castings, cast iron cranks and that sort of thinking at the corporate level has given us a recent history of basically "flimsy" engines that won't live very long under boost.

Because the /6 was originally going to be produced as an Aluminum engine,and Aluminum is not as strong as cast iron (dimensionally,) the /6 block and heads were created with those factors in mind, and when the Aluminum idea didn't work out for Ma Mopar, the cast iron /6 was born with a lot of the "heavy-duty" characteristics that were designed into the Aluminum motor, including a forged steel crankshaft.

The fact that there are only 4 main bearings is offset by Ma having made them virtually the same size as the 426 Hemi bearings, so the bottom end is incredibly strong, too.

Unusually thick cylinder walls, and a really thick deck and cylinder head deck contribute to a REALLY stiff package; the cylinder head weighs 84 pounds...

The bottom line is this: A /6engine is a REALLY GOOD candidate for forced induction because it can swallow boost without damage to the basic structure of the engine, and produce horsepower and torque in prodigious amounts, in SPITE of the basically "too small" ports and valves that were designed into that 170 cylinder head.

My experience so far, is very limited but I read a lot on the /6 Forum and this Forum as well, and from what I have learned watching others, it seems to me that a racer wanting to increase the performance of a/6 would do well to consider the factors I have mentioned before he/she builds a high performace car around a /6.

One thing about forced induction; there are several types available, and they all have different attributes. But having said that, I would like to point out that they ALL make an end-run around the limitations posed by that 170 head.

Just my 2-cents....

 

[Gnome]

all that being said, just do all the research and find which build is right for you: from the mild build grocery getter with a little bit of power to the madmax stroked 440 stomper to the forced induction supercharged/turbo setup. theses engines aren't called the "Leaning tower of power for nothing"

my .02

 

[slantsixdan]

The slant six was originally a 170 cubic inch motor

Nope. The 170 and the 225 were designed side-by-side, from the very start. The engine size was not "increased" to 225. The valve sizes were considered ample for the 170 and adequate for the 225 in their intended applications. See if you can get hold of (many-decade Chrysler head engine engineer) Bill Weertman's 3-volume "History of Chrysler Corporation's Slant-Six Engine" from Chrysler Historical, or pick up Weertman's awesome Chrysler Engines 1922-1998 book.

There was a weak-kneed (try and find one) offering that put the Hyper Pack manifold,cam, and a few other parts on the 225, but VERY few ever saw the light of day

Er…that's wrong, too. There was nothing "weak-kneed" about the Hyper-Pak; go read any/every road test of cars so equipped, and the accounts of how eight Hyper-Pak Valiants came in 1st through 8th in the NASCAR compact car races of '60 and '61 (and there weren't any after that because it wasn't much of a competition with the Hyper-Pak Mopars so completely stomping all other comers). Moreover, the Hyper-Pak kit was a good bit more complete than you seem to understand (going by your "a few parts" comment).

Sure, the stock head isn't conducive to massive airflow, but it's hardly the can't-get-around-it obstacle you seem to think it is. Those NASCAR Hyper-Pak Valiants were wound up to over 7,000 RPM…y'don't (can't) do that if the head's so irretrievably in the way. A carefully-chosen slant-6 head has a lot of room for porting and bigger valves. There's pretty constant chatter about wouldn't-it-be-nice-to-have-a-new-slant-6-head, and maybe it'll happen sooner or later, but consensus so far amongst those with fast slant-6 cars is that the head is not in the way as much as you seem to think it is.

and the /6 remained a poor-breathing, station wagon motor throughout its life.

Mmmm...no, not so much. The Australians and South Africans who bought factory high-perf 2bbl and 4bbl versions of it starting in '67 might disagree with you. As might the Argentinians who put their local larger "906" slant-6 blocks to good use and devised such droolworthy items as this 24v head.

There ARE some impressive /6-powered cars out there.

We agree.

But, no matter how they tweak these unblown engines, the small ports and smallish valves (even the bigger, aftermarket ones) make it a real uphill battle to get enough airflow through that head for specific output much over the 1.2 horsepower per cubic inch range.

I dunno, maybe. I tend to think in E.T. numbers rather than horsepower numbers. There've been some pretty impressive E.T.s from slant-6 cars without forced induction, as it seems.

And, to get into that territory, you need an engine that is so radical that it's not very driveable on a daily basis.

True enough…

A slant six engine has an unbelieveably strong "constitution."

Yup.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Dan you make some great points.....one you left out though. because of the great success of the Hyper Packs in the 60-61 seasons, it was NASCAR's decision to shut down the compact car races. Yup. The slant shut um down. lol

 

[Raleigh Rocket]

...devised such droolworthy items as this 24v head.

I must have this.

 

[Bill Dedman]

Nope. The 170 and the 225 were designed side-by-side, from the very start. The engine size was not "increased" to 225. The valve sizes were considered ample for the 170 and adequate for the 225 in their intended applications. See if you can get hold of (many-decade Chrysler head engine engineer) Bill Weertman's 3-volume "History of Chrysler Corporation's Slant-Six Engine" from Chrysler Historical, or pick up Weertman's awesome Chrysler Engines 1922-1998 book.


You are correct, sir! I was referring to the fact that the only /6 you could get in an A body in the first year was a 170. There were no 225 Valiants 'till 1961, I think. I just said it wrong, and you are right.



Er…that's wrong, too. There was nothing "weak-kneed" about the Hyper-Pak; go read any/every road test of cars so equipped, and the accounts of how eight Hyper-Pak Valiants came in 1st through 8th in the NASCAR compact car races of '60 and '61 (and there weren't any after that because it wasn't much of a competition with the Hyper-Pak Mopars so completely stomping all other comers). Moreover, the Hyper-Pak kit was a good bit more complete than you seem to understand (going by your "a few parts" comment).

When I said "weak-kneed" I was referring to the marketing of that 225 Hyper Pack. I never saw one "in real life" did you? Scarce doesn't even do justice to the lack of those 197 HP engines in the real world.
They ran okay,but couldn't turn the rpm's that a 170 would, so that substandard head (for the displacement) kept them from being a stellar performer in class racing. I believe also, that the NASCAR Conpact race-prepared Valiant were 170... not 225s, because there WERE no 225=powered Valiants yet.
"Hyper-Pak kit was a good bit more complete than you seem to understand (going by your "a few parts" comment).
"
All I ever knew about was a carb/intake manifold, headers, 10.5:1 pistons and a cam and kit. Was there more? That's a "few parts" to me. What did I miss that was significant?

Sure, the stock head isn't conducive to massive airflow, but it's hardly the can't-get-around-it obstacle you seem to think it is. Those NASCAR Hyper-Pak Valiants were wound up to over 7,000 RPM…y'don't (can't) do that if the head's so irretrievably in the way. A carefully-chosen slant-6 head has a lot of room for porting and bigger valves. There's pretty constant chatter about wouldn't-it-be-nice-to-have-a-new-slant-6-head, and maybe it'll happen sooner or later, but consensus so far amongst those with fast slant-6 cars is that the head is not in the way as much as you seem to think it is.

They HAD to wind them up because they were only 170 cubic inches... and COULD. The 225 is a moot point because they didn't exist in Valiants, yet. I think the head IS in the way because these engines seem to pick up more than most, when a turbo is applied. Proof of the puddding, so to speak. Ported versions I have read about are lucky to flow 200 cfm, and given the displacement of a 225 cylinder, that's not enough.



Mmmm...no, not so much. The Australians and South Africans who bought factory high-perf 2bbl and 4bbl versions of it starting in '67 might disagree with you. As might the Argentinians who put their local larger "906" slant-6 blocks to good use and devised such droolworthy items as this 24v head.



We agree.



I dunno, maybe. I tend to think in E.T. numbers rather than horsepower numbers. There've been some pretty impressive E.T.s from slant-6 cars without forced induction, as it seems.

The only normally aspirated cars that have posted really impressive e.t.'s that I have seen are very light cars. There are turbo sedans running in the tens at 3000 pounds.



True enough…



Yup.

We need a canted-valve,big port, ALUMINUM head for these engines.
Doug??? :cheers:

 

[wayneswirld2]

Since I've just purchased a 1966 225 /6 engine and trans with low, 55K, mileage I now have something to play with while still having a great running engine IN the car. I've been giving alot of thought to forced induction; turbos initially, but also thinking about a blower of some sort. I've seen pix of blown slants, even seen a few videos...but haven't seen much written about 'em.

How much fun would it be to pull up to a stop light in a blown slant Valiant and blow the doors off of some jackleg in a new SS Camaro? LOTSA fun, that's how much!

Wayne

 

[JR]

...

 

[slantsixdan]

When I said "weak-kneed" I was referring to the marketing of that 225 Hyper Pack. I never saw one "in real life" did you?

Well, remember it wasn't a factory option…it was a parts package sold over the parts counter. And the only reason they sold it there was to be able to call it "stock equipment" as defined by the NASCAR rules so they could run Hyper Pak-equipped Valiants in the compact races. They didn't have to sell a lot of them to comply with the rules, so they didn't put much effort into it. Probably wouldn't have been much return on the investment; in the early '60s gas was 20¢ a gallon and V8s (and the cars they were going in) were getting bigger and bigger.

They ran okay,but couldn't turn the rpm's that a 170 would, so that substandard head (for the displacement) kept them from being a stellar performer in class racing.

Was it the head, d'you figure? I'm thinking it was probably more down to the super-long stroke.

I believe also, that the NASCAR Conpact race-prepared Valiant were 170... not 225s, because there WERE no 225=powered Valiants yet

Yup, all 170s. And as StrokerScamp notes, the Valiants so thoroughly trounced all other "competitors" that NASCAR held the series only 2 years, '60 and '61.

All I ever knew about was a carb/intake manifold, headers, 10.5:1 pistons and a cam and kit. Was there more?

They seem to have played fast and loose with the scope of the kit. Here's the BOM from the '61 Lancer Hyper Pak kit:

Hyper Pack Field Installation Instructions 2205 573 (1ea)
Camshaft 2205 620 (1ea)
Assy. - Valve spring. & Damper 1944 554 (12ea)
Pushrod 2129 619 (12ea)
Manifold, intake 2129 898 (1ea)
Support - Intake & Exh. Manifold - Front 2205 833 (1ea)
Support - Intake & Exh. Manifold - Rear 2205 834 (1ea)
Spacer - Intake to exhaust manifold 2202 567 (1ea)
Manifold, exhaust - Front 2129 899 (1ea)
Manifold, exhaust - Rear 2129 900 (1ea)
Carburetor 2129 881 (1ea)
Assy. - Air Cleaner 2129 992 (1ea)
Assy. - clutch cover & pressure plate 2201 223 (1ea)
Assy. - clutch drive disc 2201 219 (1ea)


The air cleaner, despite being a low-profile pancake design borrowed from the long-crossram V8 setup, would not fit under the hood of a '60-'62 A-body w/225 engine. It was either live without an air cleaner (engine doesn't live long) or cut a hole in the hood as shown here.

So what else? Well, there was the big-diameter Y-pipe connecting to the two header outlets and leading into the big muffler (latter borrowed from big V8 Mopars...take a look also at the P/Ns of the double-coil valve springs and you'll see they came into existence long before the first slant-6 engine in the world started and ran). Then there was the choke pull and plate assembly, made in at least two versions ('60 Valiant, '61 Lancer), replacing the plain blockoff plate on the left side of the instrument cluster of these cars where the pushbuttons would be on an automatic car. Choke knob with "C" moulded into it, in same style as headlight and wiper knobs, different on '60 Valiant, '61 Valiant, and '61 Lancer. Brakes, too; those NASCAR Valiants had decidedly nonstandard brakes. How much of that equipment could be had over the dealer parts counter? Good question, I wasn't there. Presumably all of it had to be at least offered, because of the "stock equipment" requirement. Photos in road tests of the day do show the Y-and-headpipe and other equipment beyond that listed above. (UPDATE Thanks, JR, that's one of the photos I had in mind)

We need a canted-valve,big port, ALUMINUM head for these engines.
Doug???

With Doug all things are possible!

 

[JR]

Some pics my dad took a few years ago...

 

[slantsixdan]

SaWEET! :shock:

 

[Bill Dedman]

Insofar as ever seeing one in "real life," I take it that's a "no." (RE the 225 Hyperpack 197 HP motor.) That's what I meant about "weak-kneed"marketing. Mopar made practically NO EFFORT to get this package "out there."

"Was it the head, d'you figure? I'm thinking it was probably more down to the super-long stroke."

Well, lets look at a couple of things here RE the /6 head.

NHRA 500 cubic inch Pro stock motors turn 10,000rpm as a matter of course, and have a stroke that's well over 4". I realize that they have all kinds of engineering that enables them to do that, and make 2.4 horsepower per cubic inch (over 1,200) doing it, but that is a good indicator that long stroke motors CAN make HP at elevated RPMs. But, they need a suitable head to do it.

The 225 /6 has six individual cylinders the size of the cylinders in a a 300 cubic inch V8. Said differently, a 300 cubic inch V8 has 37.5 cubic inches per cylinder, just like a /6 does.

The "good-flowing" heads on the contemporary, 300+ cubic inch G.M. V8s that run well, all have intake flow capabilities in the 300 cubic feet-per minute range. Even the Cadillac Escalade LS heads "in the box" flow over 300 cfm. Lots of racers use these heads on their LS motor race cars, and run like crazy! 300 CFM seems to be a reliable number for a competitive engine in the 300 cubic inch range, if you want to go fast with a G.M. LS V8, normally-aspirated.

Slant six engines that have ported, "big valve" cylinder heads on 225's (same size cylinders as a 300 CID V8, remember) are limited to about 200 cfm intake flow, because of the original, small dimensions of the ports and valves. Our "big" 1.74" intake valves are the same size as an original 265 cid Chevy intake valve, which is an antique (1955) engine. The 1967 302 Chevy V8 (Z-28) came from the factory with 2.02" intake valves, and ports to match, but feeds the same displacement per cylinder as a /6 (225.)

Now, tell me again, Dan, about how "adequate" these /6 heads are for high performance.... Sounds like they need to flow about 50-percent more to equal the flow of these V8 heads. That's a bunch.

But, with enough boost, that all goes away, and the /6 can tolerate a LOT of boost, reliably!

That's why I feel that forced induction and the /6 is a marriage made in heaven!


Just my 2-cents,and probably overpriced at that...

 

[Bill Dedman]

My point with all that diatribe, is that the /6 is kind of unique among gasoline engines because of its incredibly rigid construction and heavy-duty crank/bearing construction. I don't think even the tip of the iceberg has been uncovered as regards just how much boost this ol'engine can withstand before incurring damage.

I have some friends who all race the V6 Turbocharged Buick Grand National engines, and it seems that whenever they attempt to increase boost levels beyond 25 psi, they start coming apart,in one way or another. There are some high-priced aftermarket blocks and heads for these engines (caled "STAGE MOTORS") that will allow more boost with some degree of reliability, but from what I have seen, the /6 has it all over this G.M. engine for robust construction and reliability when it comes to handling high boost (over 30 pounds).

I have seen some pictures online of /6 bottom ends that have main bearing cap girdles that would seem to strengthen the crank support; maybe somebody will post here to let us know if somebody has already built a 40 psi-boost /6.

This is all pure speculation on my part based on what I have read, but it makes me wonder just HOW MUCH boost you could throw at a well-built /6 with a main bearing girdle and an O-Ringed block, forged pistons and rods, before it came apart, and what would fail first.

Generally speaking, horsepower and torque climb commensurately as boost goes up. That is, if you can control detonation... so, alcohol might be a possible fuel...

Because of its incredibly strong constitution, the possibilities would seem to be virtually endless with the right kind of setup for forced induction on a /6.

 

[slantsixdan]

I certainly don't disagree with you; slant-6s and boost go well together for all the reasons you say. But I regard the naturally-aspirated \6 as…I donno, call it "less hopeless" than it sounds like you do for high-perf applications.

 

[RustyRatRod]

It is what it is. It can make 250 HP naturally aspirated with some smart parts choices. In a light car with plenty of gear, that's a lot of fun no matter who you are. I for one appreciate the hell out of this conversation from all angles. It's actually got me to thinking about a Paxton or Vortec.

 

[RustyRatRod]

I certainly don't disagree with you; slant-6s and boost go well together for all the reasons you say. But I regard the naturally-aspirated \6 as…I donno, call it "less hopeless" than it sounds like you do for high-perf applications.

Evidently, Chrysler thought the same. They spanked *** with the 170, didn't they?

 

[JR]

....