The Mighty Mopar Inline 6's History And Comparison - Flathead, Slant, Hemi Six, 4.0 And Hurricane
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Having our Jeep 4.0 torn down to the bare block gives us a great opportunity to make a direct comparison to the legendary Slant, as well as talk about the history of Chrysler corporations inline engines.
We look at the blocks, cranks, piston and rod assemblies and cylinder heads and how these engines relate to their flathead ancestors, Australian cousins and the brand new Hemi replacement, the Hurricane 6.
#history #classiccar #engines #Dodge #Plymouth
MERCHANDISE:
Get Your UTG T-Shirts Here: uncletonysgara...
Get Your UTG Stickers Here: uncletonysgara...
OUR STORE: uncletonysgara...
*SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook: / uncletonysgarage1
Hi Tony, Aussie here. We had a strong inline 6 culture here. GM (Holden) had their grey motor (1948-63) and the red motor from 64-85. The most potent iteration of that was the XU-1 with 202 cubes, triple CDs in a lightweight Torana body (about the size of a Vega). It made 190hp.in street tune. It won Bathurst in 1972.
Ford didn't focus on an all-out performance 6 but did offer an Aussie-only upgrade to the 250 with a cylinder head that did away with the cast-in log manifold and instead made a nicely shaped bolt-on alloy one that took a 2-barrel Stromberg or Motorcraft carb. Good for 170hp and a peppy upgrade to a family sedan when a V8 would be too much of everything else (mainly cost).
Then there's the legend... The Chrysler Hemi 6. You told of the origins but maybe it needs its own storto be told by you one day. The ultimate version sported triple Webers and headers, all the usual go-fast trucks (cam, compression, etc}, and this lump made 302hp. At the time, it was the most powerful production inline 6 in the world. They sound lovely too. The charger was good for low 14-seconf quarters. It doesn't matter if you're Ford, GM or Mopar folk, the Chrysler Hemi gets respect here.
On a side note, Ford Oz also developed their own evolution of the 250. In 1976, they made the crossflow 4.1 with a head based on Cleveland geometry and uses some components from that engine design too. In 1980, they went to an alloy head. This engine architecture carried on to its final glorious iteration: the famous Barra.
Back in the early 2000s I had Charger with a pretty solid 265 4 speed, my mate had an XC falcon with a decent 351 4 speed we both had 2.92 diff gears and in a race they were pretty even depending on who got the better launch would dictate who would win! I’ve still got the Charger but it’s running a CHI head and webers. They are a tough motor!
Like the Slants three versions (170, 198, 225), the Hemi6 also came in three versions, 215, 245, 265. However, where the Slant stuck with one bore size and changed stroke for capacity, the Hemi6 engines all had the same stroke and different bore diameters.
215 was the base spec economy or fleet buyer engine. 245 was the mid spec most of the time, but there were performance variants that would out-rev all but one version. the 265 was the "Big Six", bigger then the smallest Holden V8, and while most were fitted with the Carter 2bbl and basic exhaust, some, such as the E-38 spec and E-49, the latter of those with over 300hp and more then 320lb-ft of torque.
The E-34 variant wore a manifold inspired by the HyperPak Slant Six, while E-38 and E-49 had triple DCOE Webbers.
I m from Australia
My father ( he's 82 ) is probably the world's most one eyed ford fans
He was a mechanic and engine builder . He absolutely loved the 265 hemi was the only non ford motor he built . We even put one in a falcon 😲
yes, and please put another shrimp on the barbie . have a good day .
Yep, my ol'man was Fard too, but im Valiant all the way !! 265's any day.
That's ok, there are HEAPS of Barra turbos in Valiant's nowdays.
Understandable, but still abit ikky.@@kramrollin69
What about the barra
Hi Tony,
I own a 1971 e38 R/T Charger. It's pushing close to 400 horse at the crank. 265 with triple Weber carburettors. I can tell you, it's awesome to drive.
Tony, your knowledge of the Hemi 6 is more than most people have - including most Aussies. it's a shame you never got them, but it's understandable. As a general explanation of why: Europe wanted small, fuel-efficient 4-cylinder engines because petrol was expensive. America had cheap fuel and long distances, so a V8 made more sense. And Australia...well, we had long distances to cover, but at lower speeds than the US, as there weren't all that many good roads once you left the cities...fuel was fairly expensive, but we needed more power and especially more reliability than a 4 cylinder would usually offer...so we generally opted in favour of a smooth, torquey straight 6 as a compromise between longevity, efficiency and power.
Our roads are still pretty ordinary,
If you would send him one of those Hemis, you'll gain a friend for life. I'm imagining Tony sitting in front of one of those and staring at it for a couple hours 🤨
@aussiebloke609 : Besides fuel costs, taxes were a major cause of greater refinement in European engines. They were taxed on size, so they had to make less do more. That gave us the Alfa sixes and fours, Jaguar six, and all the 3 liter V-12’s, cross head engines, overhead cams, and a great deal of aluminum. All for greater power and lighter weight. Americans went for the bigger hammer, no replacement for displacement, partly because of different tax structures. And in your area of the globe, you folks adjusted to fit the situation there. Take care and hang in there.
The Chrysler "Hemi" 6 was designed in the USA at Detroit as the "D" code truck engine. It was meant to replace the Slant...obviously. For some reason they gave the idea away and with Great Ideas In Motion, they gave the design to Chrysler Australia to build and develop them.
Aussies have had some very nice cars and equipment. There are also people in Oz who build killer hot rods. The Aussies appreciate what they have, and they know how to have fun.
Inline 6's are my favorite auto engines. I am glad to see them returning.
Yeah shocking with 4 speed always changing gears
I have had 5 f150 300 everyone had over 300 thousand when I sold them still running all 5 the 5th I still have Dr every day
I restored the paint & body of 64 Jeep wagon, and it had a cool OHC six banger. It had a name, but I can’t remember it. I don’t know if you ever drove one, but the ride quality is absolutely unbelievable. The noise level is absolutely irritating, tho… PS the Ford 144/170 6s have 4 mains.
I have a 73 yr old 230 flat head fluid drive that sat for 12yrs and runs beautiful still.
That's a De Soto. '46, or '47?
Love the Jeep 4.0 and Slant Six. I swapped in a Jeep 4.0 into my 62 ford falcon 2 dr coupe. That thing runs AMAZING! Has a good amount of torque and power!
Thanks Uncle Tony , inline six's compared. What I do like about the three types of Chrysler I 6's is all three have been around for a very long time and everything that can be done to them performance wise has been done.
The good and the bad of these engine's has been exposed because of this.
What benefits anyone wanting to rebuild one of these engine's is no shortage of OEM and aftermarket parts.
My experience with the slant six has been a rebuild, apart from the.030 oversize , all standard internals . However I tried various intake/carb combo's. No real significant performance gain , apart from under-bonnet(hood) visual appeal.
In Australia the 265 Hemi inline six engine is Legendary.
There is plenty of online info concerning this engine.
Two points of difference and this is only two of the many. . .
In the 1972 E49 spec Charger , sold to the general public. . .off the dealers (showroom) floor produced close to 304hp (aspirated)at the crank. . .that's more than 1hp per cubic inch . In the world of production inline six engine's for car's it was the most powerful.
Sold with Chrysler Australia's version of the Sixpack (triple Webber's) , no vac secondaries like it's U.S cousin. . . Yet , a completely street drivable production
Car . . anyone with a Driver's licence could drive it .
Quite an achievement here in Australia for the Chrysler engineers for its time 😎👍😁
I've only had 1 inline 6. It was a 250 Chevy in a 78 Camaro. And when I first got it I was thinking, okay I'll pull out the 250 straight 6 and put in a 350 V8. But after I drove it, I changed my mind. It wasn't a powerhouse or anything. But the way that car handled with the lighter 250 straight 6 was just amazing. I was used to heavy nosed V8 cars. But the 6 was a blast through the bends
Well, actually, the 250 IL6, is actually heavier than a 350 SBC... 😮 Don't take my word on it, look it up... I was surprised myself. (I have a 72 Nova with a 250 in it) I was trying to figure out if I would need to get heavier springs, if I went 350...
A friend of mine has a Australian Charger here in the United States along with two others in the Fox Valley Mopar club up here in Northern Illinois. He has it registered with the Charger Registry. People at car shows thought it was a tractor engine. Alls I can tell you about the Australian Charger is that it is really a Valent and it had three gas caps. One on each side of the quarter panels and one directly on the back like a '65+ Mustang. They did this so when you pulled into the pits for a refuel. You can have two sometimes three guys with refueling tanks all pouring fuel at the same time make for a quick refuel. Also, the exhaust tips were pointed upwards so the exhaust didn't stir up dust.
Well its a faker then. Genuine "Track Pack" big tank Six Packs only have the fillers up on the read quarters. The standard centre cap in the rear panel is deleted and not stamped. And it is "Valiant" as in Prince Valiant and his great stead....Valiant is a USA name Chrysler used for the new Small Plymouth in 1959.
The 245 and 265 hemis were legendary in Australia.
The e49 spec in our RT chargers made 220+ kW with triple Webber carbs.
They were pretty special..
Hell yeah , Iconic \\m//
And never worked better, than when between the Chassis-rails, of a Toyota Crown, mate. (Only Aussie-sold car with a full chassis, apart from HQ-WB utes and panel-vans.)
Just to clarify, the 256 Valiant Charger with the E49 spec engine was the most powerful of these, but was not the only factory triple Weber version. The E37 & E38 were both triple Weber engines in street & track versions respectively with three speed trans. The following year, the spec was raised & a four speed was now standard. The E48 & E49 were now the street & race versions with the top spec E49 producing 302hp Forget this kilowatt BS, that's just what I read off my electricity meter.
I have driven an E48 version [the so called 'street' version] & it was frightening quick, ....... & fast.
Saw a Chrysler Valint Pacer sedan a few years ago in PA. Hemi 265 and a three speed. The owner was originally from Austrailia and brought it with him when he immigrated. Interesting car.
My first cars were slant 6’s. They were old police cars beat to hell. We didn’t care--they were wheels and we were kids! I now drive a 4.0 in-line 6 and love it!!! Love your videos……. Thank you Tony!!! 👍🚓
Great to see the Aussie Hemi, 215, 245 and 265 mentioned. I never seen a AMC 6 in person, and explains why i thought they looked suspiciously like our Hemi engines. Great information.
Even Chrysler Australia admitted the 215 was a mistake, by going for economy, they created the only gutless Valiant ever.
@@jasonrivers7518 but, as gutless as they were, the perfect choice for Demolition Derby drivers, the smaller pistons ment a thicker Bore sleeve, they can really handle the heat once the cooling system emptied out. I still have my old 215 out the back, it's done about 6 derbies? Was still running great, just really noisy tappets. I'll drag it out of the weeds and fire it up 1 day. hasnt started in 20 years lol
Don't see how that helps, as in demo derbys everyone aims for the ball joints, mate?
Also, my old Dodge ute had no radiator, as my boss sold it, without telling me- 300km later, I noticed it overheating, and realised what had happened. After a half-hour wait, it started again...
@@jasonrivers7518 ball joint hits don't necessarily stop a car,, as for no radiator, (ur boss was an a-hole ) for not telling you. lOl but just goes to show how much punishment the old Vals could take.
Absolutely un-killable, the 245, which was always my favourite, especially with 283 pistons, a mechanical cam, and triple SU:s, you had such a torque monster, my Charger had no traction whatsoever in 1st or 2nd, in the wet- and it had a sure-grip.
I eventually re-designed the entire rear suspension, using XF Falcon & LC Torana parts. (Watt's link, and springs).
My car is Valiant 1962. Slant six 170 cubic inch. Is wanderful this engine !!!
I'm a Pontiac OHC6 guy! I have a standard 1bbl 250 in a '68 Tempest sedan. Wonderful engine, and peppy even in standard tune. But they do like to rev some and the Hydramatic Super Turbine 300 2-speed auto (NOT Powerglide) absolutely stifled them, and mine has the 2.56 axle to boot. LOL! But a 200R4 and 3.90 makes them very happy. And the Sprint 4bbl is a remarkable engine. The Chevy 292 crank makes for a stroker, with an overbore gives you 301 CID.
The were some people working on a 24 valve DOHC head for the Poncho SOHC based on DOHC heads from the LQ-1 V-6
@@mpetersen6 , I remember something like that but never saw what became of it.
@@jeffbranch8072
Personally I suspect that the reason the project died was either the cams and cam drives. Or the oiling system.
But I can think of three pushrod inlines that have been converted to DOHC 24V heads. The Chevy, a Ford (1) and the 4.0. Used in the TC racing series in Argentina. They all share a very similiar head design.
@@mpetersen6 , a Ford Falcon 6? Australia continued developing the Falcon 6 right to the end. It ended up a DOHC 4.0L that made up to 436hp in production. It was the first Ford engine to have VVT.
@@jeffbranch8072
I'm not sure which Ford 6 cylinder block was used. The 140 or the 240 family.
Bill Weertman has a discussion about the choice of 4 vs 7 main bearings in his “Chrysler Engines” book. The tradeoff was between better support of a crank (7 main) vs a significantly less flexible crank (4 main.) in fact he refers to 7 main cranks being too “whippy” referring to torsional flex. Fewer mains could be offset by making the mains big (compare them to the Jeep mains). Since the 4 main crank was stronger AND shorter, it was chosen as a win/win. The Jeep motor is a great engine, but historically It did have some issues with crank and block flex, which is why that spine or girdle was added to the main caps by Chrysler when they introduced the “reduced NVH” version in the 90s.
Another thing from Weertman’s book: although he designed the slant and the Chrysler 2.2/2.5 turbo engines, had been at Chrysler his whole career, and was head of engineering at Chrysler in the 80s, he writes glowingly about the Jeep 4.0 and 2.5. In fact he pointed out that the naturally aspirated Jeep 2.5 had a higher output than the NA Chrysler 2.5, and was totally in agreement with the fact his successors picked the Jeep engine over the Chrysler engine to continue to power Dakotas and Jeeps.
Also- that nice Jeep exhaust manifold was dropped in the 2000 model year ans replaced with a split cast iron manifold.
AMC Typhoon released in 1964, they sold 2000 in the Classic line, all 2 doors, all yellow. Great run down!
Thanks uncle Tony for talking a bit about the 265 hemi I know it's pretty hard to talk about something you've never seen. all of my family had 265 hemi chargers and see them still racing in the muscle car masters they still give G.M and Ford V8s of that era a run for their money and Chrysler were only using a 6 with triple Webber carburettors
They also made smaller variants 215, 245 all exceptional engines
Not any more, there hasn't been a Hemi 6 Charger race in that class for years. The last Hemi 6 was Tilley's, but he has a V8 now. There may be a few who run in the more standard type series though.
The flathead Dodge 6 was kept in American vehicle production in the rather military looking civilian and Forest Service WM300 Power wagon until 1968. It may have been kept on in the Israeli version until 1978 or so, although I've read that Israel switched to the slant 6 at some point. At any rate, a long and solid history for the Dodge flathead!
I just got a Flathead 6 with my 52 Dodge so this was really helpful, thank you!
The Aussie 265 is a great engine. Even today it still punches well above it's weight when well built.
The 4.0 is my favorite 6. I do have a 225 slant 6. But that 4.0 was a beast. I agree with you on the Hurricane. I think they will have head gasket issues with all that boost all the time.
Never appreciated Inline 6's until a buddy of mine bought a Pontiac Firebird with a four barrel Sprint 6 in high school. Then a number of years ago I bought a 2.9 liter 179 ci Inline 6, 24 valve over head cam, 181 hp, Volvo 960. Since owning Volvo turbo Inline fours since 1981 it was real change going to the N/A I6 in winter of1996. Since owning this I6 car I have become a huge fan of the inline sixes. At 26 years with 139K miles, it still runs like a champ as they say.
Another 1996 960 owner here with 293k miles. Still going strong. Coupled with the toyota automatics these things literally are industractable. The 960 body too, very well made and overengineered IMO. Maybe apart from the rear suspension even then the problem with that is not the design but mostly parts availability.
Tony I think you sell the original mopar flathead short: it had full pressure lubrication, insert bearings, a forged crank, aluminum pistons and a fully jacketed pumped cooling system when others in the low priced field were peddling splash, babbit bearings, thermosyphons gravity fuel systems, etc. it was indeed high tech in 1931 and didnt need replacing until the late 50’s. It continued to be used in marine and industrial applications into the 1980’s
American in-line six are stagnated and remained fundamentally unchanged until their discontinuation. The only major changes are adding EFI with modest performance gain. Australian had gone a little further with Chrysler inline HEMI six, the high end model produced 300 HP. These engines are well received in Australia being more powerful than Ford or Holden counterparts.
Well yes, up until 1980 when it all finished! 😄
Even at that, the only classic American inline sixes that ever got EFI in US production were the Jeep 4.0 and the Ford 300/4.9. The Slant, the Chevy motors, the Pontiac OHC, and the small Ford never made it that far (in the US). V6s took over the US market for "basic midsize/large car engine" in the late '70s because they were applicable to both RWD and FWD.
So glad so see someone talk about the old L Head 6 cylinders. Not powerheads but pretty solid and very reliable and long lived. The Dodge used in the Power Wagon until 1968 in the US and even longer as a stationary powerplant.
Still use old Chrysler flathead daily a WWII Clark aircraft tug moving boats at a marina.
UT, your videos make me smile. We take the road less traveled by just to be different, be challenged, beat the challenge, and feel alive.
Really enjoyed this video Tony. In regards to the Hurricane being overtaxed I think that's the case with the majority of modern engines. When automakers are putting small 1.3L turbo 4s into 3500-4000 pound family SUVs I find it hard to believe they'll last all that long. Another example of sacrificing vehicle longevity to maximize MPG...
a company chooses to build a 500hp 3.0 turbocharged engine, size doesn’t dictate its longevity. the designer material choices and accountants analysis decide longevity. Engines will be build to last as long as the board of directors at gm or ford deem.
Check out a Nick's Garage from a few years ago when he rebuilds and dynos a 241 HEMI out of a 1954 Dodge Royle Indy Pace Car. Nick had to engineer a way to mount the floating mount set up on his dyno as well as adapting a flywheel to register power. Great video. That old HEMI sounds amazing.
A buddy and I found a really cool flathead 6 in a junkyard a few years back. We noticed it because it had this really cool twin carb intake manifold. After a lot of google work, we eventually learned it was a Chrysler build engine for big trucks in the navy. It was knows as the big 6 and had a displacement of 410ci(ish? Don't remember exactly). And made torque similar to a modern 5.9 cummins engine but was only like 180hp. Apparently they were loved, but had to be driven carefully because they were known for breaking cam shafts due to the torque or something.
I knew those Jeep six cylinder engines were old school tough. Now I know why. Thank you for the great video.
I had a Rambler with a little 199cid straight six with a single barrel carb. It got pretty good fuel mileage. A friend liked it better than their newer Mercury Comet. Wish I still had that car. We had a 4 door, but I saw a 2 door at a car show some years back. It had a Chevy V8; the owner had to make his own headers, and did a great job. He made a custom dash, I think it was stainless, with the type of finish Warther Cutlery puts on their knife blades. Can't think of the name of it right now.
I always so enjoy these lecture/history videos. You’re a captivating presenter, tony, and your knowledge and passion really shows through in videos like this. Thanks so much for recording and passing on what you’ve learned to all of us.
I've read a few of the comments and watched Tony's presentation and haven't heard or seen that the rod and bearing sizes in the Slant Six are the same as the 426 Hemi. I believe this is one reason for the longevity of the Slant Sixes. My dad had a Slant Six back in the 60's which burned a valve just short of 100k miles. I never thought about it but in one comment there was mention about valves burning due to lack of adjusting them. My dad never did much to his cars until something broke. I doubt they were ever adjusted.
The downside of using a bigger diameter main bearing is the increase in feet per minute. Similiar to running a 1/2 drill at the speed you should run a 3/8ths. The upside is a thicker cross section.
You can not put a value on the unbelievable amount of Mopar information in Tony's head. I can't think of anyone better. Love the channel, I wish I had all that info carved in my brain.
Great video, Tony. If you ever get an opportunity to see the footage of the Bathurst race of 1972 you will get an idea of just what the 265 E49 motors were capable of. That year an Aussie Charger was leading until it had to pit for a tyre change. Unfortunately they were unable to change tyres because the wheelnuts were seized on by the heat. The car went back in the race but it was a lap down because of the lost pit time. With dirty weather and tyres down to their steel belts the car still managed 3rd. Unfortunately that was the time of the"Killer Cars" scare in Aus. so all the manufacturers were much less involved with racing here and Chrysler never really got another opportunity to prove their ability in Production Racing. Just to enlighten you there is still floating around a picture of a weber equipped 265 on a testbed in Europe running flat out with the headers glowing Cherry red. Pity you never got that motor in the U.S.
When I was younger all I wanted was V8 cars and often times in between building those I was "stuck" with a slant 6 or straight-6 vehicle. I did manage to build some pretty fast V8 cars but they were not the majority of what I owned.
Now over the years I realized I had the good engines all along and if I were to get my hands on some classics now all I would want would be inline sixes.
The Aussie Hemi 6 had a 245ci heavy duty version used in our smaller D5n pickup trucks and similar vehicles. I've got one in my mid 70s Dodge D5n 300. Had a few minor differences to the car spec Hemi 6's.
IIRC, similar changes that the AT2 Slant had over the regular engine - things like thicker casting, factory shot-peened forged cranks. Stuff to make a work-horse engine last longer.
So jeep tidbit- When Chryco bought the XJ from AMC, AMC's inline six at the time was the 4.2L Carbed 258. The XJ's in AMC trim had the GM V6s, and the lead designer for AMC specifically designed the engine bay NOT to take an inline. MOPAR cut and recessed almost 4 inches in the center of the firewall, which forced a redesign of the interior AC/Heater box to fit the 4.0. The XJ's actually got EFI with the RENIX system before the Wranglers (YJ) which still had the carb'd 4.2 up until 91, when they got the 4.0 HO package. As far as the AMC derived I6's go, you can swap parts in them all the way back until the late 1960's with almost any AMC derived straight six. Oddly enough, until the redesign and switch to OBD2 in 96, most of the electrical systems in the cherokees was actually GM electrical components, including the steering column and ignition system. Just some random AMC/Jeep knowledge for ya Uncle Tony from the Jeep master of useless knowledge.
The XJs got the 4.0 before Chysler bought AMC. And after the 4.0 came out AMC was already playing around with what today is called the stroker. In fact the original stroker was the 282 built in Mexico by VAM. Basically a 258 with 3.875 bores.
I just have to say that I really like the 4.0 6 great engines it was a tragedy when Chrysler discontinued the engine and went to the for lack of better words minivan V6
I've gone back to inlines. I still have and enjoy my V8s but inlines are so much easier to work on (especially in trucks). Adding turbos is near half the work and parts. The old stock Ford 300s and GM 292s can take quite a bit of boost with little more than adding ring gap.
Spme of the old Ford 300's only had a 7.something compression ratio. I know the 1967 ones did, and with just a bit of gap on good quality rings and a bearing set love a turbo.
@@BloodRaven1969 search ford 300 turbo on here.
What beasts they are ,if you consider that head like breathing thru a straw.
Seems like they usually put out around 220-250hp and like 440+ foot pounds, that's diesel like torque.
The 265 hemi 6 in Australia was also fitted with triple Webber carbs and stock put out over 300 bhp. You should be able to order a basic 265 fairly cheaply. Also the top inline 6 for turbocharging is the Australian ford Barra 6. People are getting way over 2000 hp out of them.
The Aussie Hemi 6 had the same 1/4 mile time as the Ford Falcon phase 3. They both did 14.4. The Aussie Hemi Charger cars outran the Falcon to 100 mph. They couldn't outrun the Falcons on the higher speed racetracks like Bathurst. Great to see the Hemi 6 get a mention though 👍.
its an aussie thing, they dont get it over there, we built the best inline 6's around between valiant and holden and then ford with the barra,
Great to see you talking about the inline 6's. Currently building a 292 chevy for my firewood truck. Forged .060 overbore,, high compression pistons, howards hy-torq cam, motorcraft 2100 carb, headers, clifford intake, Harland sharp roller rockers and gm HEI. Should be a nice simple, easy to work on, torque-laden work engine.
I like all the inline 6's and have owned almost all of them.
That was really interesting -- thanks Uncle Tony! I admit I haven't owned a slant six since the '67 D100 I drove in high school. Maybe it's time to change that.
Great Video UT. Learnt so much yet again. You know, you dont even have to be into mopars and still really enjoyable to watch. That truly falls upon Tonys presentation skills.
Bit of trivia : In 1971 Chrysler Australia, sent an Australian Valiant 'Ute' (basically a Dodge Dart, cept a ute version), to the Weber factory in Italy, so they could develop a triple 45mm DCOE Weber carb system, for use on production 265 engines, which could be used for production car racing (road racing). Cars had to use 100% stock engines, exept for safety items, the cars were 95% stock.
The production Australian Valiant Charger 'Hemi 6' ran 14.4 second 1/4 mile, with a 3.55 diff . The 'Track Pack' option, included a 35 British gallon fuel tank (42 US gallons), just what you need for a 500 mile race.
Most of the 350 or so 340 V8 engines that Chrysler Australia imported, were built in 1969, and were already here in 1969. They were suppose to go into the VG Pacer. The Hemi 6 was Only used because of political reasons....not to win Bathurst. They had no chance with a 245 2 barrel and 3 speed manual. In the mid 70s Chrysler dumped the New Process 4 speeds and 340 heads etc in the gulf (sea) in front of Adelaide.
@@kramrollin69 it may surprise you, but, in 73 Moffat took a phase 3 to NZ to compete in their championship. Expecting a white wash, but the Kiwi's had their 6 pack Chargers sorted, and gave him a very hard time. Moffat won, but it was tight.
And this coming from a Holden nut.
Only the engine went to Italy. Two R/T utes were built here . The last one hasn't been seen since the early '80s' cheers.
@@bodgiesteve8849 No surprise to me, I knew that 40 years ago. Leo Leonard's Chargers were the king of NZ prod racing. Because he ignored the factory settings and did his own. Actually, I believe the Charger won, then Moff packed up and went home.
@@clutchkicker392ison5 No, they sent the complete VG ute. John Ellis has talked about this.
The 265 here in Australia used to beat the Ford 351 Shacker, I had a VJ Charger went real well, my cousin had a 215 Hemi he couldn't blow it up even though it was rattling like crazy, he ended up changing it to a 265 in the end didn't kill the 215 though, all the best to yous and your loved ones
No they didn't!😆 But the 340 Chargers were just as quick.
They rattled due to wear on the timing chain and sprockets, which had no tensioner and no way to control camshaft endfloat. Under warranty, we sometimes fitted timing covers with a steel ball held in them to control camshaft walk. The other issue was piston slap. Due to slack machining tolerances from factory, there were a number of different oversize pistons, marked as A, B, C, D etc, and we had to hand select individual pistons for each bore to minimise skirt slap. 215's and 245's were the worst offenders, not so much the 265. I ran a 265 with SU carbs, 3 of them, E49 cam and head work for 320HP at 6700rpm, but only for the day as the head gaskets would not hold.
I have driven the Ford 300, the Chevy 250, the Plymouth 170 and 225 and even for a short time an AMC 258. The 225 was the best of the bunch overall. perfect mix of power, MPG and needless to say unreal reliability.
Certainly wasn't my experience.
Thanks Tony, it was fun, and informative. I know you love the slants, can't wait to see the plan Z in action. Maybe this year?.
The 4.0 with an Edelbrock aluminum head is a great starting point for a performance build. Clifford makes dual carb manifolds and long tube headers for it too.
The Hemi 6 actually started life as a 245, and the US engineers were doubtful when the Aus guys bored it to 265. We also had an 'economy' 215. Difference between capacities was only through bore size, they shared the same crank and rods. It is a brilliant (but rattly) engine. There is at least one example in the US, in a Hot Mustard VG Valiant Pacer. Not sure what state he's in.
(Edit) Incidentally, we never got to see the smaller slants down here, our first Valiant sold in 1962 with the 225 as the only engine. Kept it right through to the Hemi's introduction.
Hardtop or sedan (if you know)?
My first car was a VG pacer hardtop, with the original yellow-over-red engine. Originally a white car with factory black bonnet and black interior (with front buckets and 3-on-the-floor), but someone before me painted it red, except for the roof, which was left white. I'm in the US now, and every now and then I consider getting myself a '68 Dart and importing front fenders, grille and bumpers so I can make it look "right." But then I see the prices of Valiant sheet metal and decide it's something to stop thinking about. 😛
PS - little known factoid: there was also a 250 cube hemi 6 - only the VG Pacer E34 4 bbl. Basically a 60 thou bore job and oversized pistons to get the engine as close to the class limit as possible for Bathurst. :-)
@@aussiebloke609 Mustard sedan.
@@aussiebloke609 E31 & 34 were actually .040" oversize being the factory tolerance, making the 250 ci.
One of mine is .060" over, making it 253ci.
@@Grumpy-sy7wr Whoops, my goof - it's been a long time. I sold my hardtop on back in '86, so I've been out of the loop for a while now. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow! 👍
The original "stroker" motor for the 4.0 was simply the 258 with the cyliner bores opened up to 3.880 or 3.875. These engines along with 252 version of the 232 were built in Mexico. The main difference in the casting was the water jackets around the cylinders walls.
absolutely loves this episode. Loved hearing your take on the hurricane too
I am a fan of the old iron inline 6 cylinders. Mercedes made a few great ones too
The 1970 engine that came out in the Australian VG valiant was 245CI or 4.0L the 265CI came out in 1972 there was also a 215CI variant. They stayed around until Mitsubishi took over and they were phased out by 1982. I have always wondered if you could fit Jeep injection on the Australian engines! Thanks for the video UT!
I agree, I am quite interested in what this new six is gonna do. I see all day people installing these new hemi's in everything...To be truly honest, if I had the funding, I would love to install the pentastar in a "C" body...I mean think about it, the numbers are there...300 hp pulling around a 5,000 lb chrysler 300, surely it could perform well in a 5,000 lb fury...and if it does get 25-30 mpg in the 300, why not...can't know until it's done. Holley is doing an amazing job at making things like this possible with their ECM's and fuel injection, and adapters as well...They make motor mount adapters and bell housings now I hear, crazy. But for the sake of science, I would love to see it...I can't wait to see hurricane swaps as well.
Great comparison! That jeep 4.0 exhaust header is an aftermarket header. The 1987-1990 non HO/Renix 4.0 had a tubular manifold and the 1991-1999 HO cherokee (91-98 grand cherokee) 4.0s also had tubular manifolds that more closely resembles true headers. The 99 to 2006 (00-01 cherokees) 4.0s had dual exhaust cast manifolds with bolted on y-downpipes.
VW got better and better with those too.
By the mid 2000s it looked like a little cast header for the 4 cylinders.
Swap it out from the low flow turd on your 80s mk1/2 vw and it's guaranteed 10hp, the aftermarket has you covered with downpipes to use a Mk4 manifold in any other chassis they made.
Super interesting and very cool, as are all your videos. A few notes on the flatheads.. The 23" engine, as most old Mopar nuts call it, actually dates back a bit further than the fist six cylinder Plymouth with "floating power" It was Chrysler Corp's DeSoto that first used this exact engine family, introduced during 1928 at slightly under 200 cubic inches and was offered in several oddball displacements thru the 1930's and '40s, but most common was the 230.
Pretty cool that it was built from 1928-1959 in cars, and all the way to 1978 by Chrysler industrial.
Also, all the Chrysler Corp (not Dodge Brothers) Flathead sixes built from 1924 up to 1928 were 7 main bearings !!
Very nice engines.
Great video, I have always been a fan of the Rambler 6 cylinder engines. They were very smooth and quiet, I still run the jeep 4.0.
We also had the 245 Hemi 6 down here in New Zealand too. Outstanding motors and if you want to see a guy build the first 320cid hemi 6 then check out Mirabito performance on yt.
Mirabito is the man
Chris Mirabito's TF3 engine won the aspirated Six Class at Summernats Horsepower heroes oddly enough the car owners name is Tony go to about 3:30 in this video here's a link ruclips.net/video/b6zi3H4wzNw/видео.html
@@aussieboganbloke2244 Hell yes!
Chris builds some great engines aye. The whole TFR series of engines have been hard hitters aye.
@@terrenceseymour them intake boxes he makes are next level cool
225 slant 6 is one of the most reliable engines out there...IMO
Ever heard of Volvos 3.0 liter inline six?
That's established fact, not really your opinion.
I’d say Ford 300 is the most reliable 6 ever made along with the 4.0
@@throttlewatch4614 then look up the 3.0 liter (183cui) volvo inline six.
My 1979 Aspen had a slant six.
I had to replace valves on two of the cylinders, when it had 90,000 miles approx.
I took the Cylinder head off & had the Head fixed.
I did not realize that it had solid lifters & needed periodic adjustment or maybe it was cheap gas or the switch to unleaded gas?
Like someone else commented:
I had a 4.9L/300 Ford straight six in my F150 that was a good engine, but the oil pans would rust out.
I drove that F150 for 25 years.
The 4.0 motor has always been interesting to me, I've never had one but I sure am tempted to stick a hotted up version with a 5spd in a 30's Mopar coupe or 2dr sedan. One of my alltime HotRod heroes, Barney Navarro, built a turbo American Motors inliner for Indy when that engine was new. Maybe some of that Navarro genius and cool would rub off on me if I had a snotty Jeep 6 to prowl around in
The raised intake ports of the 4.0 enable the ports to be shaped better than a slant six. The valves of the GM 5.3 are relatively small, there are more perforance issues than mere size. The classic Jaguar 3.8 XK6 is the same length as a slant six and has the same 3.40-inch bores as the slant six, yet managed to have 7 main bearings. Other than the weight of the block the XK6 is a pretty cool motor for a 1948 design. The XK6 grew to as large as 3.66-inch bore in the 4.2 version, but there were block cracking issues due to casting design - moreso in the U.S.A. than in the UK due to warmer summers.. Two years ago jaguar released a new XK6 block that is supposed to not have the cracking issue. It almost looks as if Chrysler designd the slant six as a budget XK6 - both motors are limited at high rpm to about the same limits - both are more about torque than rpm. The 3.8 E-type produced 215 hp or so, the factory published rating was 265 hp, but they don't make that much unless they are built with different camshafts than stock. Because the xK6 had better carburation than a slant six, jaguar had to strengthen the block because they tended to crack the block in racing - a very heavy block compared to a slant six.
There were 2 common series of Mopar flathead sixes, both introduced at about the same time: 1934-ish. The Dodge/Plymouth 201/218/230 version was a very compact motor with offset connecting rods, the chrysler/Desoto 236/251/265 is about 2 inches longer. The 265 can be overbored to 282 cubic inches and makes good torque. Externally the two flathead series appear to be the same design. Most of the vintage hot rod parts are available for the dodge/plymouth version, but it was common to swap the bigger motor to a Plymouth coupe. All of the Canadian flathead sixes are the larger version, they made destroked versions for Plymouth. The original 7 bearing six from 1924 was also used for decades, it became a commerical truck motor and grew to as large as 413 cubic inches - very heavy, with dual carbs during the first years of the 331/354 hemi v8, weighing in at about like a Cummins 12-valve. There was also a straight 8, which is somewhat like a plymouth six in bore - also very heavy, last used in 1950.
Maybe a hot rod 4.0 in one of your cars is in order, seeing how you named off all those good aspects about the 4.0 in potential for performance. Never seen a jeep 4.0 in a dart, I don't even know if it would fit but I'm daring you to try.
Lol...I'm an Aussie. Back in the day ( mid 80's ); I had a VJ Charger ( aussie version )with a 265 and a 4 speed top loader with a real heavy duty twin clutch, long pipe headers, 2 and 3 quarter straight pipe, holley and the rest. Loved revving it to 3500 to 4000 rpm and dropping that clutch at the lights. That car was so light ( about 1350kg's ) that the arse end would step out 😆 🤣 😂. They were so light in the rear that highway patrol poured cement in the rear wheel wells to get more weight over the rear wheels, hahahaha.
If I was dragging a 350, I'd lose. But against everything else I'd win. Even beat a Kawasaki 750 and a rx2 Capella that was off its nut. Absolutely loved that car. Wish I still had it 😆 🤣 😂
You do realise that 2750 Kgs is about 6000lbs? And No, our Chargers weighed around 3200lbs or so, with you in it.
@@kramrollin69 Bro, you're right. I checked the weight online. The Aussie Chargers weighed 1352 kg's. Ima diqk. Gotta be that stroke I had 😆 🤣 😂
4.0 build and swap into an old dart or old Mopar car would be an interesting build I'd love to see.
I have a tornado 6 in my 62 willys wagon. I was always impressed with how modern it seems for a 62. I believe it is the successor to the AMC 6.
Here in Argentina was very popular the Tornado 6. I don't see it in EEUU videos. I guess why?
any 4.0l will have a solid engine even at high mileage there ticking away but awesome work uncle Tony 👏 👍
Tony.. Being a Jeep TJ owner and fan... I wish you would do your version of Stroker Jeep six. Using your knowledge and a working man price. Thank you
I'm with you on that one uncle T, the candle that shines twice as bright only burns for half as long, that's a lot of stress on that little 6 cylinder.
Jeep 4.0 HO had cast iron manifolds from around 2000 to 2006. I have a 2006 Jeep TJ (last year for the TJ), it has cast manifolds.
Just came back from a big trip in my 76 cl valiant ute with a 245 and 4 speed, went like rat up a drain pipe fully loaded with a 84 yamaha xt250. Can get hemi 6s easily here and if you wanted to play with one Tony could do a swap for a small block or something hahahah theyre hard come by here and pricy. Love your work mate
Love my flathead 6 in my 54 Dodge C-1. Gonna do a full rebuild someday, but it runs great today being 70 yrs old.
Haha. I feel relatively the same. Yep, lots of stronger 6 cylinder engines out there. But for some reason, they will never hold a candlestick to the love I have for my slant sixes.
The 4.0 is practically indestructible. I know because I put one to the test for a few years. On your comment about not wanting to build a Hellcat, Dude, It would be interesting to see if you can beat one. It's a tall order, I know but it would be epic to build something on the cheap and call it the Alley-cat or something and beat a Hellcat. Just a thought. But that would definitely get some views.
The 4.0 is FANTASTIC but extremely power limited. I do not even think you will be able to build one thats a stock block that will get you the power needed to even beat a typical v8. I have had multiple jeeps and can vouch the engines last forever.
@@ufarkingicehole Oh yeah, I wouldn't put that against a Hellcat. Cherokees are pretty light if they had some horsepower.
@@sunnyray7819 lol. Jeeps are light and geared really low which makes them quick. Ive watched a few attempts to build a 4.0 as I thought it would be cool to build one but its ridiculously expensive for the power you get.
I really hate to be that guy but if I was going to do it, I would probably do an LS swap. It would be cheaper, it would lower the center of gravity, and the cost to power ratio is untouchable.
@@ufarkingicehole I was looking at a Chevy truck motor from the early 2000's. Seemed to have the accessories in the right spot for the swap at least. But the width might be a problem.
@@sunnyray7819 it should work. You can buy a kit or piece one together. Things like motor mounts / drive shaft conversions are pretty easy to find.
I think it would be worth it
I note that the mission impossible build seems to be taking a "different direction," namely, the use of non-stock parts.
Great video I think you're right these little engines with twin turbo ' s can't last long...maybe 80,000 miles if you baby them and who will
The 4 liter was an AMC design though. It was underway before Chrysler entered the picture, the 2.5 liter AMC 4 cylinder existed a couple years or so prior, and it's a 4 liter with a cylinder missing from each end. It's also worth pointing out that the exhaust manifold you have is not an original part, it's an aftermarket manifold. Depending on the source sold as "revised design" or just header.
Great video tony. I saw under the assumption that amc designed the 4.0 as an embiggening of the 2.5, which they designed "from scratch" so they wouldnt have to buy iron dukes for their economy cars any more, and they just made it fit the same bore spacing as the 258 so they could reuse old tooling. I have swapped a lot of parts between 258s and 4.0s, but I gotta say at least in the head design, the 4.0 looks way closer to the 2.5 than the 258.
The 2.5 actually never got put into Concords or Spirits. The 2.5 was developed for the XJ.
Check out the 320 cube hemi six that won naturally aspirated dyno shoot out at Summernats 35
G'day Tony great to see you had some knowledge of the Hemi 6 I think a lot of the engineering for this engine was done in the US and Australia at the same time. The first Hemi 6 I had heard of was in 69 in a Chrysler Valiant designated VFX it was a 4.0 liter. In 70 was the replacement for the slant 6 in the VG Valiant and it was available as a 1 bbl ,2 bbl and a 4 bbl , in 71 with the introduction of the VH you got the Hemi in 3 flavors and numerous versions the low compression 215 , the 245 ( which was the regular run of the mill engine fitted with the Carter rbs 1 bbl carb ). Finally the 265 which was standard with the Carter bbd then there was a hotter version of that engine. Then came the Weber carb versions the E37 ,E48 ,E38 and E49 versions of the 265 . I believe Chrysler Australia developed a 4 &5 cylinder version of The inline Hemi but never went into production. Hope this helps
The D engine six has the same bore center as the Chevy OHV and Pontiac OHC 6's. 4.400. That opens up some interesting possibilities.
Pontiac’s ohc six showed promise, and was the first engine used in this Trans Am cars. Not used in Trans Am, but the early Firebird had a TA badged variant. The problem with the OHC was that the cam was mounted in the valve cover, and there was no way to fix a warped cover. It had to be replaced with every overhaul.
Also the Jeep/AMC 4.0 variant has a much bigger bore, which can be bored out to 3.91. When stroked out using a 258 crank, with a stroke of 3.895”, it matched the VAM’s largest engine size. VAM was AMzC sold in Mexico. But the 4.0 has advantages over the VAM engines. But, if magic was real, it take a HEMI siddha out of my hat and put that in a Gremlin. Now if your willing to run a Turbocharged and can afford it, Newcomer Racing specializes in stroked 4.0s, his first write up was in Hot or Csr craft and that engine made 664 hp. Refinement and an edelbrock head made just under 1,000 hp, and it holds together!
Even though I am not into Chrysler products I love watching Uncle Tony's videos! Also the British always used a 4 bearing bottom end on their straight sixes.
Not into Chryslers
WHAT!
Name a reliable british vehicle lol
@@P.R.Shriram triumph street triple
The Aussie Hemi 6 started in 1970, with a 245 c.i., (3.76 bore, 3.68 stroke.)which came in three flavours- 1-bbl, with 165 bhp, 2-bbl high comp, with 185 bhp,
and Track Pack 4-bbl high comp, with a mechanical cam, for 195 bhp.
In1971, we got the first of the 265's, same 3.68 stroke, but it used a 3.91 bore, like the LA 318.
It also had three flavours, low comp 2-bbl, at 190 bhp, or so, Premium high comp 2-bbl, at 218 bhp, or the legend itself, the R/T 6-pack which, with three 40mm DCOE Weber carbs, made 302 bhp.
These engines were fitted to all Australian Valiant full-size cars, ( what you guys call a compact), from 1970, until Chrysler Australias' demise, in 1981. Please don't hesitate to get in touch, if you want more info-I'm a retired Automotive Engineer, as well as a Mopar man.
My concern with many of the new, smaller displacement engines in full size trucks and SUVs is the torque curve. Not all, but many of these vehicles will be used for towing trailers. The smaller displacement automatically reduces torque all around but, especially at low rpm. Turbo charging does increase torque but, does it bring back enough off idle torque to get them rolling under load without over stressing the engine?
NO.
Love this vid Tony! Almost no one does six vids.
OK Tony, I know I'm late to the party, but I need to throw in a few corrections.
The 'Floating Power' system was a ground breaking technology that allowed Chrysler Corp to leapfrog everybody in the industry. It used a rectangular pad engine mount high up, under the water pump at the front, & two side mounts low on the side of the bellhousing at the rear of the engine. An imaginary line drawn from the front to the rear of these mounts put the weight of the engine about the same both above & below that line. An additional long thin pad mount under the bellhousing controlled the rocking motion & prevented clutch shudder.
As far as I can tell, it was introduced to the 1932 Plymouth PB [four cylinder] & 1932 Dodge DK [8 cylinder ], DL [6] & export only, DM [4]. [A thinly disguised Plymouth PB]. I do not know about the Chrysler & DeSoto models, but presume it to be the same.
The "NEW" corporate design six cylinder engine was introduced in the 1933 Plymouth PC & included in the 1933 Plymouth PD that quickly replaced the PC when it was obvious that the PC was not doing well in the showrooms. Also in the whole range of Dodge cars & trucks including the 1933 Dodge DP & the Dodge Commercial Car HC. [I have owned most of these]
Dodge introduced the Red Ram Hemi for the 1953 model year, & yes, the floating power engine mount system was used with the same front mount just under the water pump design with two mounts low on the side of the bellhousing. This lasted for the Red Ram 241 & the Super Red Ram 270 from 1953 to 1955. The 315 Hemi & Poly got side lugs like Chryslers for the 1956 models & of course for the 325 Hemi/Poly in '57.
Conversions are available that mount the 241 & 270 engines in a more or less conventional way.
Development of the Truck six was abandoned in the US, but the Australian engineers thought that the basic design had potential, so they took it home to see what they could do with it.
It eventually appeared as a 215 low compression engine for Fleet models, Utilities & Taxi cabs, the 245 for general passenger car use & the optional 265 as an even stronger six.
The 273, 318, 340 & 360 engines were also available through the years in Valiant models up until 1981 as well as the six cylinder engines.
PS, greetings from Australia.
I own a 51 Hudson with the 232 flathead 6. It runs so smooth. I use to be a V8 guy, but when I got my Hudson I fell for the straight 6.
A lot of knowledge, brother. Great video.
If I ever move to Tennessee near you I will definitely be hanging out in your shop even if just to sweep the floors! Love your videos! worrying about your smoking. God Bless 50 years of wrenching and fabrication retired and missing the smells of a real shop and the give and take of guys hanging out and working together, hands are looking soft and clean😢
I've owned 3 Cherokee with 4.0 probably now need another after watching this ! Current inline 6 is my 91 f150 4.9 I like it.
Thanks for including the Hemi-6 used down under UTG. It isn't well known around the world.
Love Valiants 💪 My uncle had a 265 and it took off like a v8 from stand still it kept blowing transmissions but never had engine problems... He showed me how you could lower the front of his Valiant by screwing in or out these bolts to adjust the front suspension
This is a naturally aspirated 265 hemi in a 1969 valiant sedan at bathurst, giving other Aussie v8 and us v8 s a hard time. Really worth a watch.
Has a 360 now.
Yes v8 now but I heard it's 318 cubes ,
@@davidgriffin2918 Would be a Mopar Block 340 based engine, just like Jimmy Richards old AMC Javelin, he no longer seems to race.
I drive both 265 hemi, and barra both best of there era