Rarity (and desirability) of a slant six/ factory 4 speed?

-
All 64 and 65 MOPARs used Hurst shifters. They are my favorites. Nice short throws, when in good shape, and a bolt on handle.
Lucky dog. My 66 has a round handled Hurst but was retrofitted. Original Inland shifters were sloppy and often replaced. Brewer Performance has a adapter to bolt a Inland stick to a Hurst shifter. Obviously the reverse lockout doesn't work with the conversion.
 
All 64 and 65 MOPARs used Hurst shifters. They are my favorites. Nice short throws, when in good shape, and a bolt on handle.
Had no Idea the 4 speeds all had them thanks for the info!
 
I think the Slant-4 speed is really cool. I have been working on a slant for the last few years, and there are many advantages when working on the motor. It's so easy! Spark Plugs and Wires are great to replace. Intake and exhaust super easy to work on. If you restore it properly, it will be super cool no matter what.
 
Lucky dog. My 66 has a round handled Hurst but was retrofitted. Original Inland shifters were sloppy and often replaced. Brewer Performance has a adapter to bolt a Inland stick to a Hurst shifter. Obviously the reverse lockout doesn't work with the conversion.

Nice thing about starting with a 64 4 speed Barracuda. It came with a unGoobered A body Hurst shifter. Do you have a 64-65 Shifter with a bolt on handle?
 
By limited potential, I mean you'll never get a decent exhaust header on it unless you chop the car up.

I beg to differ.

20200125_121640.jpg


20180925_191337.jpg
 
As for keeping the slant six, back in the 90s I used to own a 65 Valiant 100, originally a 170/3-speed manual. Swapped in a 225 slant six and an early A body 4 speed with 3.09 low gear. Slant was pretty stock, but did have a four barrel carb, 220 @ .050 cam, head milled .100, and the stock exhaust manifold was hooked to a 2.25" exhaust system. One of the most fun drivers I've ever had. Not super fast, but I did outrun my brother's 64 Barracuda with 273 2-barrel motor slightly modified with four-barrel and dual exhaust. Also an early 289 V8 Mustang, stock Chevy 350 V8 pickups (back when they only had 170 hp) and assorted Grand Ams and Nissan 280Z's. With Addco front and rear sway bars and 14x6 slot mags, it also handled very well. Relatively speaking, it would be a lot slower today, but a Tork Storm supercharger could fix that.
 
Back a few decades ago I guess my interests were always sharpened by what was in the mags and who claimed whatever had the OHhhhhhhTEAaaaaaaa" factor. ThenI beganto see for myself the interesting details of all the old Mopars.
Sure I rather have a model with a metal grill than a piece of crap plastic one. Rather have a 426 Hemi than a 318. But I built cars that I found interest in and began to enjoy the hobby way more. And as I go older the need for seat the pants torque and speed deminished. Tooling down the road, chlling.. that can be cool no matter what motor propelles the Mopar.
 
wow, never thought the question would have generated 3 pages worth of good conversation.

Regardless the car was gone that day before I got off work to go look at it. If the seller was legit, then it was a 17k mile one owner survivor, though the amount of duct tape on that seat makes me think that because the title is original, there'd be no saying if the clock rolled over, and it was realistically a 117k car.

No matter though. I asked more because I wanted to get peoples opinions on slant sixes backed with a 4 speed, and that i got. :)

Personally, i yanked my 225 outta my 65 Dart gt and swapped in a 360 (dressed up like a 273) and never looked back, but if i ended up grabbing this little bugger, i might have kept it quirky and run the 225, just to open the hood and have people scratch heads at the idea that an engine/trans combo like that was even available.

Thanks all.
-C
 
wow, never thought the question would have generated 3 pages worth of good conversation.

Regardless the car was gone that day before I got off work to go look at it. If the seller was legit, then it was a 17k mile one owner survivor, though the amount of duct tape on that seat makes me think that because the title is original, there'd be no saying if the clock rolled over, and it was realistically a 117k car.

No matter though. I asked more because I wanted to get peoples opinions on slant sixes backed with a 4 speed, and that i got. :)

Personally, i yanked my 225 outta my 65 Dart gt and swapped in a 360 (dressed up like a 273) and never looked back, but if i ended up grabbing this little bugger, i might have kept it quirky and run the 225, just to open the hood and have people scratch heads at the idea that an engine/trans combo like that was even available.

Thanks all.
-C
Probably 2 or 317,000 looking at the seat.
 
It could have had three miles on it and sat out in the sun in the driveway forever and ended up with that much tape on it...
 
4 speeds cost more than automatics. It's false nomenclature when people refer to 4 speeds as "standards". There was never anything "standard" about a 4 speed and very few cars recieved them as default equipment.

The three speed has always been the "standard" from the around the 80s to back when cars first came into existence. Most people then preferred column back then because usually Junior was riding between mom and dad.

I have seen a lot of 3.23 with manual transmission. Remember the torque convertor of an auto has a torque multiplier property that direct drive manuals do not have. So a lower gear is needed for a manual transmission to take off stronger. However I have heard of 2.76 gears with a manual but they don't take off very confidently.
A slant six with a 4 spd like that could have a 3.09 first gear. I have the internals in my 68 RR 440. I should have gone with 3.73s because the car just rips through 1st with 4.10s....
 
It wouldn't have a 3.09 if it was the original gearbox
 
I know I've got a 3.09 gear set and I was told it was sourced out of a 4 spd slant A body. I'm just telling you what I have. Makes sense to me . You dont have the power so gearing is the way to go.
 
I thought 64-66 had a 3.09 1st

I'm not so sure about a 66, but 64 and 65 A bodies had the 3.09 low gear, whether six or V8 powered. Great low gear for 3.23 gears; gives you a 9.98 overall low gear ratio. You'd need 3.73 rear gears to get the same overall low gear ratio with a 2.66 low gear. (And 4.56 rear gears to get that overall low gear ratio with the famous close ratio GM 4 speed with its 2.20 low gear.)

I know from experience that going from 3.09 low gear to 2.66 will absolutely kill a 340's off-the-line performance when running 3.23 gears.

Some early seventies 318's also used a 3.09 low gear non-overdrive 4 speed. (Not talking here about the overdrive 4 speed, which also had a 3.09 low gear.)
 
I could be wrong, lol.

The big problem with 3.09 first gears is....you pay for it when you hit 2nd gear, or some other gear, as the drop is big.

My 2015 Challenger SRT had a 6 speed with wide ratios and a 3.92 axle. You could drive anywhere with just gears 1-3-5. And 6th gear was .50 which was really snoozing.

My 2018 Challenger Hellcat has the same 6 speed, but with a close ratio set of gears and 3.70 axle. It's harder to take off from a stop light, and you need every bit of 6th gear on the highway...it's even a little steep. But, the drop between gears is very tight and it's a better driving car as a result.
 
Yeah, the drop is bigger, but if you rev the motor to six grand, you're talking about a drop to just under four grand - right at peak torque for a mildly modded 340 (and actually, I've always shifted my 340 out of low gear at 6500). A slant six that revs to, say 4500, will drop to just under three grand on the 1-2 shift. Again, solidly in such a mild six's torque curve.

Both your Challenger's rear axle ratios are significantly lower (higher numerically) than 3.23. So a low first gear is less necessary. Plus, the supercharged Hellcat has scads of torque to help it off the line. Comparing to old school stuff, a 440 gets off the line well with 2.66 or even 2.47 low gears, especially with the factory Dana 3.54 rear gears. but it will handle even 3.23 gears quite well. In the late seventies, my Dad had a 62 Dodge with a 440 and 4-speed with 2.66 low gear and 3.23 rear gears and it had so much more torque than my 340 that it was all I could do to stay with him off the line even with my 3.09 low gear. But even with the "big" drop when I hit second gear, I could run even with him from there on up.

So, whether or not a 3.09 low gear would be desirable depends on your motor, your car's weight, and the rear gears. All I'm saying is that if you're limited to four speeds, have a small block or slant six, and have a street rear gear, then a 3.09 low gear is much preferable to a 2.66, and I base that on my own experience.
 
Last edited:
I'm not disagreeing, just saying there's no free lunch. Except....more gears lol

The Challengers have pretty tall tires so that helps make the rear gear less severe.
 
Keep it and run it. Diod you know there are "perfomance oriented" /6 folks around? Ive seen holley 4 barrels on slants. I knew a feller who would swear that he can lay rubber for a city block with a 71 slant 6 valiant.
 
Keep it and run it. Diod you know there are "perfomance oriented" /6 folks around? Ive seen holley 4 barrels on slants. I knew a feller who would swear that he can lay rubber for a city block with a 71 slant 6 valiant.

See post #59. Car was already gone before he had a chance to see it in person.
 
My 66 is a Slant/4gear. I know that combo wasn’t offered in 66 but it makes it fun to drive and it draws crowds at cruises. I put 3.55’s in it and the dual-pot... I would actually call it “zippy”.

DECAC4C6-117F-42CC-B01C-ED455B84D3BA.jpeg


866807B7-0911-49C6-954B-1CE16952AD96.jpeg


C5BAF97D-3F80-4863-8790-8802DACC2568.jpeg
 
-
Back
Top