Ultimate daily-driver Gen II A Body to build

[Bill Dedman]

no I understand but every comment of swap in a v8 is...

The formula for a 400hp turbo slant six is so simple...

225 forged crank motor, Pishta-design J-pipe, turbo-mount, one 500cfm Holley 2-bbl with "Hangar 18" blow-thru mods, a mild 210/210 @.050"-lift cam, stock cylinder head to which has been added 1.75"/1.5" valves (no porting,) a stock distributor with a modified curve, and vacuum-advance unit, and an MSD 6 or 7-AL box...

Snowperformnce Boost Cooler alcohol/water charge injector (Spearco Intercooler optional)...

Super Six intake manifold...

Waste Gate with 12 pounds of boost...

That's pretty much "it."

Expected longevity, a long, LONG time...:coffee2:

 

[DionR]

The whole idea of a 225/turbo is that it makes its power below 5,500 rpm... so, the valve train can exist with weak springs and last indefinitely in day-to-day driving. You lose that with a 170... and gain what?

Nothing that I can see... a few pounds.

Efficiency?

I was just sharing an observation I had made about the newer cars. They all seem to be going to smaller motors, spinning them to higher rpms, and making up for the loss in low end torque by gearing them up.

If you can get it to run clean at the lower rpm (and off boost), I could see it paying dividends in the mpg arena. Spin it to 6500 and make your 400 hp, and still have 32 mpg cruising down the highway in 6th gear at 2100 rpm.

Everything is a trade-off. Just tossing idea's out there, not knocking a 225.

 

[DionR]

one 500cfm Holley 2-bbl with "Hangar 18" blow-thru mods

How do you do fuel enrichment for boost conditions with a 2bbl? Or do you just run it rich when it is off boost?

I like the formula, I just don't see it being something I want to drive very far. I've been out of the blow-thru slant six area for a little while so maybe there are some improvements I'm not aware of, but when I was spending time looking into this I didn't think there was a way to make a 2bbl work both under boost and without it. It was either deadly lean under boost or pig rich when cruising. Not a recipe for a good DD in my book.

Now a small 4bbl, that makes more sense to me.

Not trying to start a fight, just asking.

 

[Bill Dedman]

Efficiency?

I was just sharing an observation I had made about the newer cars. They all seem to be going to smaller motors, spinning them to higher rpms, and making up for the loss in low end torque by gearing them up.

If you can get it to run clean at the lower rpm (and off boost), I could see it paying dividends in the mpg arena. Spin it to 6500 and make your 400 hp, and still have 32 mpg cruising down the highway in 6th gear at 2100 rpm.

Everything is a trade-off. Just tossing idea's out there, not knocking a 225.

Detroit is up against a very unreasonable government-mandated EPG/gas mileage beauracracy that we don't have to concern ourselves with. Sure, a 170 will definitely get batter gas mileage than a long-legged 225, but at what cost?

The valve train that works for a 5,500-rpm 225 will be bouncing valves off piston tops at 6,500 rpm in the 170, dictating changes in everything that moves... rockers, pushrods and valve springs, and the increased valve spring pressure necessary to control this will put the flat-tappet cam/lifter life in jeoparday. Roller lifters for a slant simply don't exist.

So, for a couple of miles-per-gallon, we're going to swap that valve train life for a few scheckels at the pump?

I, personally, don't think that's a very good trade-off, especially considering the driveability issues that it could create.

Again, all this is just MY opinion... nothing more!!!:happy1:

 

[Bill Dedman]

How do you do fuel enrichment for boost conditions with a 2bbl? Or do you just run it rich when it is off boost?

I like the formula, I just don't see it being something I want to drive very far. I've been out of the blow-thru slant six area for a little while so maybe there are some improvements I'm not aware of, but when I was spending time looking into this I didn't think there was a way to make a 2bbl work both under boost and without it. It was either deadly lean under boost or pig rich when cruising. Not a recipe for a good DD in my book.

Now a small 4bbl, that makes more sense to me.

Not trying to start a fight, just asking.

"Hangar 18" mods concern themselves with enrichment under boost, and the procedure for a 4-bbl is the same as a 2-bbl, since a Holley 2bbl is just half of a Holley 4bbl.

For one thing, they use a boost-referenced power valve...

I am not knowledgeable about what all they recommend you do, but they seem to be well-though-of in the forced-induction arena.

You can read their website at:

http://www.hangar18fabrication.com/blowthru.html

The 4bbl idea is a good one, I think...

 

[Bill Dedman]

How do you do fuel enrichment for boost conditions with a 2bbl? Or do you just run it rich when it is off boost?

I like the formula, I just don't see it being something I want to drive very far. I've been out of the blow-thru slant six area for a little while so maybe there are some improvements I'm not aware of, but when I was spending time looking into this I didn't think there was a way to make a 2bbl work both under boost and without it. It was either deadly lean under boost or pig rich when cruising. Not a recipe for a good DD in my book.

Now a small 4bbl, that makes more sense to me.

Not trying to start a fight, just asking.

"Hangar 18" mods concern themselves with enrichment under boost, and the procedure for a 4-bbl is the same as a 2-bbl, since a Holley 2bbl is just half of a Holley 4bbl.

For one thing, they use a boost-referenced power valve...

I am not knowledgeable about what all they recommend you do, but they seem to be well-thought-of in the forced-induction arena.

You can read their website at:

http://www.hangar18fabrication.com/blowthru.html

The 4bbl idea is a good one, I think...

 

[DionR]

"Hangar 18" mods concern themselves with enrichment under boost, and the procedure for a 4-bbl is the same as a 2-bbl, since a Holley 2bbl is just half of a Holley 4bbl.

For one thing, they use a boost-referenced power valve...

Yep, I'm familiar with them and what they suggest. I just am not aware of any mods that will make a power valve work to enrich the mixture enough under boost and give a good mixture when not in boost. It's either too rich when cruising or too lean (BAD) under boost. Maybe a PV will work if the boost is limited, don't know. But it wasn't anything I saw work when I was looking into it. Not that 2bbl couldn't work, only that it didn't work well for all around (kind of important for a DD, let along an UDD).

The advantage of a 4bbl is you have 2 more barrels you can feed fuel in with when under boost and 2 barrels you can run lean on during cruise.

I toyed with the idea of a 2bbl nitrous plate, and only activating the fuel side of the plate to feed extra fuel in under boost. Kind of like the FWD guys do with the VW cold start injectors when they don't want to (or can't) change the tune in the ECU.

 

[Bill Dedman]

.

Im in the process on trying to get 400hp out of an N/A motor, and bill the "valve size" issue may no longer be an issue...

Don't tease me like that!!!

What gives???:violent1:

 

[Bill Dedman]

:burnout:

Yep, I'm familiar with them and what they suggest. I just am not aware of any mods that will make a power valve work to enrich the mixture enough under boost and give a good mixture when not in boost. It's either too rich when cruising or too lean (BAD) under boost. Maybe a PV will work if the boost is limited, don't know. But it wasn't anything I saw work when I was looking into it. Not that 2bbl couldn't work, only that it didn't work well for all around (kind of important for a DD, let along an UDD).

The advantage of a 4bbl is you have 2 more barrels you can feed fuel in with when under boost and 2 barrels you can run lean on during cruise.

I toyed with the idea of a 2bbl nitrous plate, and only activating the fuel side of the plate to feed extra fuel in under boost. Kind of like the FWD guys do with the VW cold start injectors when they don't want to (or can't) change the tune in the ECU.

I like your idea of the 4bbl...

I am assuming that the boost-referenced power valve has the capability of delivering whatever is needed, under boost; the two small holes behind the power valve are drilled tor more flow capacity... can't remember thir name...

 

[Bill Dedman]

I was in Spokane on a visit about 7 or 8 years ago and spied a white, '64 Valiant 2-door post that sounded like a 340... followed him and when he parked it, I got to look at the interior, which was red, had no back seat, but had an upholstered panel where the rear seat back should go (if it had a back seat) with a big "MOPAR" "M" in the middle of the panel, about halfway-up.

The whole car was pristine and that "M" really set it off...

I assumed it was a local car.

Ever see it? Impressive...

(My wife is from Spokane.)

 

[805moparkid]

Detroit is up against a very unreasonable government-mandated EPG/gas mileage beauracracy that we don't have to concern ourselves with. Sure, a 170 will definitely get batter gas mileage than a long-legged 225, but at what cost?

The valve train that works for a 5,500-rpm 225 will be bouncing valves off piston tops at 6,500 rpm in the 170, dictating changes in everything that moves... rockers, pushrods and valve springs, and the increased valve spring pressure necessary to control this will put the flat-tappet cam/lifter life in jeoparday. Roller lifters for a slant simply don't exist.

So, for a couple of miles-per-gallon, we're going to swap that valve train life for a few scheckels at the pump?

I, personally, don't think that's a very good trade-off, especially considering the driveability issues that it could create.

Again, all this is just MY opinion... nothing more!!!:happy1:

i call BS on this one bill... the rockers will work with any combo a slant guy can figure, pushrods are going to be dictated by valve spring pressure and length, but under 100 bucks. No on springs, we both know its going to take more spring for the same exact motor but PLUS boost. Im shifting at 6000 and i benefited from going to a 330 open spring from the 250 open. now add boost... my point being these 340 springs are not the best spring for the job.

Now a 170 motor bouncing valves at 6500 compared to the 225 at 5500 is NO comparison as its the same motor as far as the top end is concerned, even with push rods an inch shorter that are still long. if a 225 is bouncing at 5500 so is a 170 on the same setup, again VALVE SPRING pressures are key and a pushrod built for that pressure.

 

[273]

The 225 can theoretically get the same gas mileage as the 170 just got to gear it to be equal. 170 engine is 76% the size of a 225 so you just have the run the 225 24% lower rpm.

 

[HardVG]

6.1 Hemi, 425 HP Stock, pretty much plug and play these days, exhaust might be tight in the smaller A body but shouldn't be too hard. Add the Passon 5 speed if you want to avoid any tunnel mods except for the shifter hump. Don't forget to hook up the AC and consider it job done. Plenty of money in the budget for nice paint and interior.

 

[Bill Dedman]

i call BS on this one bill... the rockers will work with any combo a slant guy can figure, pushrods are going to be dictated by valve spring pressure and length, but under 100 bucks. No on springs, we both know its going to take more spring for the same exact motor but PLUS boost. Im shifting at 6000 and i benefited from going to a 330 open spring from the 250 open. now add boost... my point being these 340 springs are not the best spring for the job.

Now a 170 motor bouncing valves at 6500 compared to the 225 at 5500 is NO comparison as its the same motor as far as the top end is concerned, even with push rods an inch shorter that are still long. if a 225 is bouncing at 5500 so is a 170 on the same setup, again VALVE SPRING pressures are key and a pushrod built for that pressure.

The pushrods are not the problem. A cam that lasts at a redline of 5,500 rpm with 340 springs will have lobe (and, or lifter-face wear) to the point of flattening the cam at 6.500 rpm with the (necessarily) stronger springs that will control the valvetrain at that rpm.

I agree that 340 springs are not QUITE strong enough, but the Crane springs (you recommended to me, and I bought,) are. But, they wouldn't do for a 6.500 rpm 170, which would also be working against 12 pounds of boost.

In the interest of preserving the cam/lifter interface in this day of reduced ZDDP levels, I worry about the elevated rpm required with the 170.

There is NO good reason to do it... Putting the cam at risk for no benefit, the way I see it.

My 2-cents...:coffee2:

 

[Bill Dedman]

The 225 can theoretically get the same gas mileage as the 170 just got to gear it to be equal. 170 engine is 76% the size of a 225 so you just have the run the 225 24% lower rpm.

Good point, and another reason to run the bigger motor; increased cam/lifter life due to the lowered rpm.

 

[Bill Dedman]

6.1 Hemi, 425 HP Stock, pretty much plug and play these days, exhaust might be tight in the smaller A body but shouldn't be too hard. Add the Passon 5 speed if you want to avoid any tunnel mods except for the shifter hump. Don't forget to hook up the AC and consider it job done. Plenty of money in the budget for nice paint and interior.

That would make for one sweet driver, for sure!!!

 

[805moparkid]

The pushrods are not the problem. A cam that lasts at a redline of 5,500 rpm with 340 springs will have lobe (and, or lifter-face wear) to the point of flattening the cam at 6.500 rpm with the (necessarily) stronger springs that will control the valvetrain at that rpm.

I agree that 340 springs are not QUITE strong enough, but the Crane springs (you recommended to me, and I bought,) are. But, they wouldn't do for a 6.500 rpm 170, which would also be working against 12 pounds of boost.

In the interest of preserving the cam/lifter interface in this day of reduced ZDDP levels, I worry about the elevated rpm required with the 170.

There is NO good reason to do it... Putting the cam at risk for no benefit, the way I see it.

My 2-cents...:coffee2:

So instead of running a proper oil and using the correct spring you'll just use whatever oil and a weak spring? makes no sense. i run VR1 and have almost 300 passes on my motor + a probably almost 10 thousand street miles. Your cam isnt going to wear at all with the proper oil...

 

[Bill Dedman]

So instead of running a proper oil and using the correct spring you'll just use whatever oil and a weak spring? makes no sense. i run VR1 and have almost 300 passes on my motor + a probably almost 10 thousand street miles. Your cam isnt going to wear at all with the proper oil...

Not at all; I'm just trying to err on the side of caution... no sense tempting fate.

I'm glad to hear that your cam/life experience is that good! I tend to over-react to horror stories, I guess.

Have a HappyThanksiving!!!

 

[805moparkid]

Not at all; I'm just trying to err on the side of caution... no sense tempting fate.

I'm glad to hear that your cam/life experience is that good! I tend to over-react to horror stories, I guess.

Have a HappyThanksiving!!!

and thats all ive ever heard EXCEPT for people running synthetic (hands on experience). Bill other than the cam gear the lifter dosn't touch the cam unless your oil isn't doing its job...

 

[DionR]

:burnout:

I like your idea of the 4bbl...

I am assuming that the boost-referenced power valve has the capability of delivering whatever is needed, under boost; the two small holes behind the power valve are drilled tor more flow capacity... can't remember thir name...

I could be wrong, again it's been years, but I'm pretty certain the PV doesn't have the capacity to do the job. I think you have to run rich under vacuum in order to be rich enough under boost to make it live.

I was in Spokane on a visit about 7 or 8 years ago and spied a white, '64 Valiant 2-door post that sounded like a 340... followed him and when he parked it, I got to look at the interior, which was red, had no back seat, but had an upholstered panel where the rear seat back should go (if it had a back seat) with a big "MOPAR" "M" in the middle of the panel, about halfway-up.

The whole car was pristine and that "M" really set it off...

I assumed it was a local car.

Ever see it? Impressive...

(My wife is from Spokane.)

I've saw an early Valiant up in the Hillyard area years ago, just parked on a side street. Never got close enough to say if it was the same one you are talking about, but I'm pretty sure it was a v8 car so it could have been. Never saw one (that I can remember) at a show that matches, though. Sounds like a neat car!

How long did she live here?

 

[DionR]

The 225 can theoretically get the same gas mileage as the 170 just got to gear it to be equal. 170 engine is 76% the size of a 225 so you just have the run the 225 24% lower rpm.

Don't think it is that easy. The 225 has a 4.125 stroke while the 170 has a 3.125 stroke. 1.32 times the distance to travel, creating additional friction. Might be able to make that up with gearing, just don't think it is as easy as running it at 3/4's the rpm. Don't know, just saying.

 

[DionR]

I know a 170 would need additional work to run higher RPM, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that you can turn one to 8000 RPM without a huge amount of work (urban legend?). But, really it is pointless if you can't make it run clean (and efficient) at lower RPM's. But if you could, I still think it could be a killer deal, even if it only made 300-350 hp, but got 28-30 mpg.

Oh well, I'm not going to build one as that is really the only way to truly answer the question (can't afford what I have now without starting down a different road), but it's fun to dream.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I was just turning over some ideas in my so-called brain and was thinking about the new 2014 Mopar offerings, and wondering if there is an alternative to dropping $30,000.00 on a new car using a 1965 Valiant sedan and spending a lot less... How much would be up for discussion, to get a car that would perform in most instances, as well as a new Challenger in most important respects.

This would not be a cheap car to build, but would have a lot of gee-whiz, aftermarket hardware that could be included in its attempt to equal, or better, what is available in a new car these days.

I would welcome any and all comments and sugestions, keeping in mind that we have (in this dream-vehicle) $30,000.00 to spend... less, if we can get it done for that.

I am going to suggest a 1965 Valiant V-whatever, as a starting point. This has to be a pump-gas motor, with 400 flywheel horsepower as its goal.

That doesn't sound like much, but this car will only weigh 2,900 pounds, probably, and that's a whole lot less than the 4,200-pounds of a new Challeger. To equal that horsepower-per-pound, the Challenger would need 580 horsepower... a lot, on pump gas.

My personal choice for a power-plant for this project would be a turbocharged slant six, since it is readily obtainable, cheap to build, will easily make 400-horsepower on pump gas, and is lighter than any of the V-8 options, although, a 360 with aluminum heads and an aluminum intake would be close...

This engine should live forever on 12-pounds of boost, with a Snowperformance alcohol-water injector and a Spearco intercooler.

DO any of the FAST (or similar) plug-and-play EFI systems work with boost?

The transmission would be a 2.74:1 low gear Mopar, A-500 4-speed overdrive automatic transmission and a 3.23:1 rear axle ratio (giving a 2.58:1 final drive cruise ratio for the highway.)

Considering the early A-body's very-short tires...I wonder if a 2.94 might work better.

The 8.25" unit is lighter and has less parasitic drag (and, is cheaper) than the 8.75" rear. The drop-out feature is not needed here, since the turbo'd slant six actually performs better with rear axle ratios in the 2's... go figure.

Another reason for the 2.94: as I recall, find any 80's M-body police car, and you have a 2.94 Sure-Grip rear end.

A 3,000-rpm Hughes converter and a carbon-fiber driveshaft would be nice...

That sounds awful loose unless it's a lockup converter...

We'll talk about the engine in the next installment. This is gonna be fun!!!!

Sounds good.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You don't need any of that. If I had all the money in the world, I still wouldn't put one of those in my car. Though the torsion bar front end is an older design, it works pretty damn well. Plus, there was years and years of empirical, fact-based research and development done by the factory to achieve a decent handling car in a variety of situations. And that was prior to putting those parts into service which actually lasted for decades. Why re-invent the wheel, even if it is a 'dream car'?

If you think about it, the RMS stuff is probably best suited for drag cars that have been converted to coil overs. There is no proven benefit to it on the street over a quality front end rebuild.

Talk to guys that know their way around a road course type car, they'll tell you that you don't need an AlterKtion type deal and that the OE stuff works well, albeit with some upgraded parts.



Awesome! Yeah, lets put giant, ugly, late-model Mustang wheels on the car and while we're at it, somehow install a crappy GM slushbox in the car. And all in one sentence! Just curious, what actual benefit would that particular GM trans have over any Mopar passenger car transmission from the last 50 years?

No mention of how to make all that Brand X crap work in a '65 A body either.

Have fun with that.

Offhand: thirty-plus years of race experience and a vastly larger supply of parts and knowledge than the A500. (Also note: you will need an adapter to run ANY overdrive automatic trans-GM or Chrysler-behind a slant six.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

I cant imagine getting modern vehicle handling, braking, performance, dependability, etc... from a classic. The aftermarket vendors love to see us try.

Then you have not driven some of the better-built cars!