Hello everyone. New to the forum here. I traded my 65 Barracuda Commando 4 speed in 1974 (Ft. Walton Beach, FL) on a new pick up truck. One of the dumbest things I ever did in my life. I've looked for the car for the past thirty-some years without luck. I've even had many dreams over the years of finding it. Well after a great deal of talking and patience, I finally found a "gem in the rough." I want to go at it slow and easy, having first to decide to "clone or leave it original. Anyway, I'm looking forward to all the information I know that everyone here has to offer.
Thanks
Norm
Norm, welcome to the best source of information available online for your project!
No matter which route you take, in restoring or restifying your "new" Barracuda, this is the place to get ideas, information and parts.. it's awesome!
And, congratulations on finding the perfect car for your efforts! These things aren't getting any more plentiful, or easy to find.
My personal favorite is the second-generation A body cars (1963-1966) but I love all of them... I just find more to like in those years.
I realize that your original B'Cuda was probably a V8, and in your imagination, that configuration is likely what you'd like to re-create. That's very understandable, and makes all kinds of sense. The parts are easily obtainable to swap in a late-model 360 V8 or Magnum crate engine, for a considerable performance upgrade with a minimum of hassle. Even a stock 360 Magnum will give more-than-respectable performance in a +/- 3,000-pound A body, with little or no modifications.
But, I would ask that you read this, before making up your mind :
I have come to some inescapable (for me) conclusions. I dug up an old post that illustrates some of them. This is from a few years ago, and is pertinent to this thread, I think.
To wit:
"As I immersed myself in the postings about /6 performance, and videos on You Tube of various /6-powered cars, I began to realize some things about these slanted little devils that had escaped me for years. Here's are some things I had missed.
In a general way of looking at the /6 architecture, it says one thing in a big way: This cylinder head may be a perfect head for a 170 cubic inch engine, but trying to make a normally-aspirated 225 breathe through those same 170-sized ports is a job for Superman.
What I mean by that is, the ports and valves, as manufactured, are just too small for the amount of cylinder displacement they are asked to feed in a high-performance 225 environment.
The /6 has 225 cubic inches. If it had 8 cylinders it would be about 300 cubic inches with the same-size (37.5 cid) cylinders.
Just for comparison purposes to show what size these ports and valves are, the 1967 Chevy Z28 came with 302 cubic inches (virtually the same size cylinders as a 225 /6 engine,) and their intake valves were 2.02" in diameter (slant six "oversize racing valves" are 1.75", or fifteen percent smaller than the "stock" 302"-Chevy valves, and the 1.6" Chevy stock exhaust valves are still 6-percent larger than the "oversize racing" /6, 1.5" exhaust valves. To say nothing of the stock /6 valves...
The Z-28 Chevy ports in the head are commensurately larger, so that the flow numbers are a pretty good match for the valves, in their stock configuration.
The bottom line is, a mildly ported (302) Chevy intake port will flow close to 280cfm to feed the same size cylinder that the /6 is trying to fill with that 1.75" valve that is in a head, that after porting, will flow 220cfm, absolute max...
The slant's big, heavy, crankshaft doesn't help matters, especially when winding up 1st gear.
So, here's what I have learned:
I watched videos of the chopped, 2,350-pound "MadMax" 1st generation Valiant with a normally-aspirated /6 running 11.50s with NO power adder of any kind.
That car is incredibly fast and quick (watch how it hooks!!!)
I've never seen anything like it!
I didn't REALIZE that a normally-aspirated Valiant or Dart could run like that!
I happened onto two more videos on You Tube that opened my eyes even further.
There were two videos of turbocharged 225's that blew my mind. Tom Wolfe has a 3,300-pound '70 Dart that has run 11.02 with a new 225 motor (at 122 mph), into a 15-mph headwind, while another forced induction racer (turbo66Valiant) posted videos that showed his pristine '66 Valiant running some 10.70's, which is about a full second quicker than the already fast, but unblown, Mad Max car.
Not to belittle the Mad Max car, because it's stupid fast for its combination, but that '66 Valiant is I believe, 500 pounds heaver and a full second quicker. And, its running a 727 (heavy) transmission... probably about .2 and 3mph slower than it might have been with a 904.
So, what did I learn from all this???
Not so fast; I said I was a slow learner, and I surely am...
I did a lot of research about the /6 motor, and one thing stood out:
It's built like a brick pagoda. Its aluminum ancestry seems to have left it with an infrastructure that has no equal in the modern automotive world, when it comes to strength and rigidity.
Remember that big, heavy, crankshaft I was carping about awhile back?
Well, I found that the early models are forged, have internal balance, and bearings the same size as the 426 Hemi.
As close to an unbreakable stock crank as you can probably find; it's short and stout!
The block's cylinder walls can be bored over .100", the head can be milled that much if need be, (over .100") and the top of the block is pretty thick, but I have no reliable numbers for that. I think it's thicker than half-an-inch.
What all this means is, unlike the Buick GN turbo motors which (the stock stuff) don't seem to want to stay together if the boost goes much over 20-pounds, it's an open question as to just how much boost one of these /6 motors could stand, if someone really got serious, because K-1 is making some great-looking forged rods for a 225, and forged pistons are available from Wiseco in a .065"-overbore, creating a 234 cubic inch motor.
Shaker223 (Tom Wolfe) and and turbo66valiant (Ryan Peterson) are probably generating over 500 flywheel hp as we speak, but can 600 hp be far behind?
It's not necessary to build a 500hp motor to have fun with a turbocharged /6.
Three-hundred horsepower at the crank will move one of these early A bodies along, smartly
I was trying to point out the fact that, given the handicap of the original cylinder head, no amount of port or valve work, is going to make possible the kind of power-increases we seek in this 225 motor.
Ed Thomson (805moparkid on FABO) has a well-built '68 Dart that he has spent considerable time and money on in an effort to achieve impressive quarter-mile times. it has a minimal amount of "lightening" (a fiberlass hood, etc), and the usual hardware upgrades to its 225 slant six; I think it's bored, has a fully-ported head, with bigger valves, higher compression (I don't remember what the exact figure is,) headers, a 4-bbl carb and manifold, a re-curved spark-advance, a deep-geared 8.75" rear end, I believe, sub-frame connectors, a radical cam and some upgraded valve springs.
It is a well-built car, worked on by a guy who obviously knows what he is doing.
It has yet, to make a pass into the 13-second zone. Low-14's are "it," for now...
My friend Tom Wolfe (Shaker223 on FABO) took his bone stock 1970 Dart 225, added a 4bbl manifold, a 4bbl carb and a junkyard Buick Grand National turbo and went 12.98-seconds @ 102mph in the quarter.. No other changes; the stock head (with those tiny valves) had never been off the 100,000+-mile engine.
That's a full-second faster than Ed's car.... with a stock short block, and gearing!
I am not belittling Ed's efforts here; he's done a really nice job with that car and hasn't made any mistakes that I am aware of. What he's accomplished is what any competent mechanic/hot rodder could expect to accomplish with the same assortment of parts.
It's that ^%$#@&*%!!! cylinder head!
Even ported to the max, and with oversize valves, it is a bottle-neck that cannot be "fixed."
Unless...
A turbocharger makes an end-run around all those breathing problems.
Make no mistake; turbocharging one of these engines is not an easy task (but, it IS relatively cheap, compared to trying to get the same amount of power, naturally-aspirated.)
But, it's getting easier all the time, because of the burgeoning market in turbos and related equipment.
The fact is, you can make an easy 300 horsepower with about 12 pounds of boost on (good) pump gas, and still use your stock pistons and rods with good reliability. I would recommend two things; a water/alcohol spray unit for the intake charge, and a GOOD, wide-band, data-logging 0-2 sensor (such as sold by F.A.S.T.) for tuning the mixture.
That is the single most important piece of hardware needed, and to try this without it is.... just not something I would recommend.
A two-barrel carb on a Super Six manifold would be ideal for this cheap-out combo.
A PISHTA (FABO name) -designed J-pipe turbo-mount would make headers unnecessary.
I honestly believe that even with the learning curve involved, the time spent chasing parts, and the time spent designing the layout, an aspiring racer would still be money and time ahead with the hairdryer setup vs. a V8 swap.
The advantages are numerous' the engine will make more power than a stock 340 V8, it will have excellent drive-ability (smooth idle and a lot of low-end torque,) LIKES a 2.73:1 axle ratio, both for performance and the highway, (so an overdrive is not needed,) it's quiet... the turbo homoginizes the sound waves, so you probably won't even need a muffler, and your stock 8.25" rear end is fine for this. A stock torque converter is also perfect for this app.
Opting for a normally-aspirated (225) engine with THAT (170) cylinder head just seems counter-productive to me. You can easily spend $1,500.00 on porting and big valves in that head and still end up with less than 300 hp.... Ed Thompson had that setup maximized (as far as I could see,) and that was his case...
Albert Einstein couldn't figure out a way to put enough air through that head (naturally-aspirated) to make decent power...
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.. and that original 170-designed head IS a sows ear on a 225.
But, there's a way around it....
Forced induction...
The fact is, swapping in a bigger V8 to replace a slant six has several time and money-consuming issues that do not have to be addressed when using the original powertrain.
Obtaining a completely different transmission case (904.)
Changing to a generally-expensive 8.75" rear housing and pumpkin. A much cheaper and easier to find, 8.25"-unit will work well. Money saved...
No money need be spent on valvetrain components beyond some 340 springs and a flat tappet cam and lifters. If you don't want or need more than say, 275 horsepower, the stock valvetrain in its entirity, will suffice.
A stock torque converter will work nicely.
A PISHTA-designed turbo mount will eliminate the need for headers. More money saved...
The stock head will work nicely, up to about 275 hp...
IF you want 500 hp. it is available at under 5,500 rpm, but requires more boost (25+ pounds), so forged internals are required.
It's not as easy as just swapping in a V8, perhaps, but is in the same ballpark, I think.
And the interest it generates on the street, or at a show, in impressive! High-performance slant six-powered cars are not too plentiful... but V8 Barracudas are everywhere...
Food for thought.
Lots of information here...
I'd ask tthat you consider the performance of this '66 Valiant....
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QzUfV8iTpQ"]Turbo Slant Six 10.74 @ 127 mph 7-19-10 - YouTube[/ame]
Thanks for listening...:cheers:
