In 1982, I went to work for the company that made all of Chrysler Corporation's air conditioning clutches, and got a brand new Dodge Aries company car, with the 2.6 liter Mitsubishi engine. More than 40 years later, I can't tell you how many times it left me stranded. Everytime it was towed to the dealer, it came back to me as defective as before. My regional manager asked me about it, and I told him. He apparently said something to the company president, because when I went to pick it up, the service manager at the Dodge dealer asked, "Who ARE YOU??!! Corporate called and told us to fix it or it's our ass!" Never had another problem.
My wife and I both liked the new 89-94 Continental sedan , we luckily wound up with a loaded Chevy Astro van with that really good V6, those Continentals were a problem and was very glad we didn't get one
@@CamaroSS-sy2ei Yep, agree with Camaro! You shouldn't need to be a VIP to get proper service! Every paying customer should get that. No wonder we're all driving Japanese cars now! Yes, the 80's were dark times for Detroit but much of it was brought on their own arrogant business practices!
I had one too. Saved my life in an accident where an idiot in a Camaro tried to make a left turn from the middle lane as I was passing him. Sent me into a curb and a guardrail. Broke the rear end, flung it into the gas tank. Pancaked the drivers side and bent the A-pillar. Crawled out of the driver side window NASCAR style. It was a strong car for what it was.
I recall reading at some point the reason I couldn't kill my mom's super (slant) six: Chrysler originally designed the Slant Six 170 to be an all-aluminum light weight engine. Metallurgy at the time was not sufficient to make that engine out of aluminum. So rather than scratch the design, Chryco engineers simply made it out of cast iron. The cast iron version built to aluminum specs meant the engine was over built and over engineered. Combine that with low compression tuning and viola, you had an extremely stout (heavy) and under stressed i.e. reliable engine, making hardly any power that would last forever. That used car (Volare 225 Super Six wagon 2bbl) outlasted me & my brother's wrath (140k) and went through two additional owners before I quit seeing it around town. I hated that slow, cream-colored turd, but also respected it. Now on that rare occasion that I see one, I view it through a different lense of appreciation.
Chrysler did build the Slant Six block out of aluminum, but only on the 225 version, and only for a few years (62-64 I think, could be wrong, tho). The block was die cast, similar to the Buick 215 V8, but it used an iron head. Results were predictable; head gasket problems and corrosion of the block, so there aren't many around. I think Steve Magnante featured one before he got sick Edit: I also think it was optional to get the aluminum block.
@@61rampy65 The vega engine was the same combination of aluminum block and cast iron head. I just don't get it, why didn't the use aluminum heads? Lighter, no mismatched metallurgy.
My dad had 62 Dodge Lancer GT with aluminum 225. It was very peppy, but in the winter you got back into a cold car if it was turned off for more than 30 minutes. I had a 65 Dart GT with a 170 that we swapped a 225 into. Something about gearing made the Dart pretty fast.
Inline 6s made after the US ended lead gas had lower compression ratios to be on the safe side because so many i6 got used in industrial applications or by rednecks and farmers where they had to err on the side of caution that the fuel would be shitty and detonation prone. Nowadays that translates to those i6 being able to run on anything even alcohol or crappy old green gas
@@61rampy65 I owned a 1962 Dodge Lancer which had the original aluminum block slant 6 According to what i was able to find, the aluminum engine was only used in 1962, and only in the Lancer.
My cousin knew someone who had a car with a 225 slant 6. He built a 440 for it, and they decided to give the 225 a riteous send off by draining the oil and coolant and putting a concrete block on the accelerator. They started the engine. It ran out of gas.
I've personally removed several 225 Slant Sixes with rod knocks. My opinion the 318 is tougher. 318s only ever lose oil pressure and eventually sieze, but it takes a long time. The 318 is also in my opinion superior to the 305 Chevy and 302 Ford if they were equipped similarly (2 bbl carb). A very easy starting and smooth engine.
I still have a Reliant Hemi K wagon. When the car was pretty new, it was recalled to have it's heads re-torqued. Because my dad was retired and didn't drive it much, we got that done in time.... Also it has a crazy carb that races the engine for the first 5 minutes, which a very wise mechanic advised us never to fix... In as much as no one ever wanted to wait for the car to warm up... it still lives on today and still makes for a very handy wagon. But what still amazes me is that this wagon gets around 45 mpg on the highway at slower speeds. No, it's not quick, nor fast... and it does take forever to be ready to drive... but I've never had anything that gets the kind of fuel economy as the MCA Jet silent shaft hemi engine.
You are right on about the Mitsubishi 2.6. I remember in the late 1980s seeing a bunch of those engines showing up in scrapyards, disproportionatly to other engines. It struck me at the time.
I have a 1980 Plymouth Volare four door sedan I purchased in 2007 with 8500 original miles. Now with about 33,000. Slant six and torqflite trans. Still running perfectly with only a couple of tuneups and a carburetor replacement a couple of years ago. I love it. Also in 1979 I purchased a Plymouth Arrow pickup with the 2.6 four cylinder. I put about 30,000 miles on it until the lure of a 1982 v-8 Mustang called me away.
Ewww. The 1982s had that abysmal 255 Ci v-8. They went back to the 302 for the 1983 model year. I have one of those 255 abominations in my shed, for the sheet metal components which fit the 302
@@donreinke5863 Mine was one of the HO(😹) 302s. The cars like the Fairmont and other intermediates had the little gutless 255. One of the things about the Mustang I had is how really low on power it was. 150 HP. My wife’s 2012 Kia Soul has more. And I come from the days of big cars and bigger engines so you know what I mean.
@@TheopolisQSmith 302s from that era didnt have a lot from the factory. You had to do considerable modifications to get power from them, much of which was porting the incredibly restricted cylinder heads. At that time aftermarket aluminum heads barely existed if at all. Now, Im getting aluminum heads with big ports and valves for a 302 thats replacing that 255 sitting in my shed....for about $1500 for both new.
@@donreinke5863 The first of the famous 80s Mustang GT 5.0/5 speed was in 1982 and I'll never forget the first commercial I saw on TV with "The Boss is back!"
Also, the 2.2 turbo New Yorkers. Geesh. Crazy torque-steer on turbo wind-up. Very unbalanced power curve but sorta fun to fight the steering wheel as it had a mind of its own when the turbo took over. At least I "Never forgot my keys" at the end of a road test since the car reminded me not to. The Mitsu MCA-Jet system worked great when it worked. The tiny rich mixture valve was about the size of a ball-point pen as I remember. It worked OK but as soon as a hack worked on that fuel system, it was over for that engine ever running well again. Fun times. Simpler systems then? No way. Simpler now.
My girlfriend at the time bought an 84 Daytona with the 2.2 turbo and 5 speed trans. I was disappointed that she bought a K-car. Then I drove it. Wow, when the turbo spooled up, that thing took off! I don't recall it having a lot of torque steer, but it was just so much fun to run it up thru the gears! And it could easily pass cars on the long, steep mountain roads we have out west.
Hehe, bad? 318 Fuel injected, of course. I was a young Chrysler tech way back then. I remember the transparent air cleaner cover(a service tool) used to observe what I'd call the 'dripping straw' fuel injection system. Was that tool useful? I guess for the curious. I did get to perform one of the carburetor upgrades on an Imperial. The pallet of parts in the kit must hold the record for the heaviest weight service bulletin kits of all time. Engine was OK enough but performing an abortion on an entire fuel system seemed so crazy. Glad I was around then. IMO, the 2.2 and 2.5 were OK...just due to the simplicity.
The Mitsubishi N/A and turbos blew head gaskets about every 15K - 20K miles after blowing the first head gasket. I had a 87 ES 600 turbo and a 90 Plymouth Voyager. Never again will I ever own a Stillantis
@@Doc1855 I had the great experience of attending Motech in Livonia...really it was a great experience. I'm not a mechanic anymore but do appreciate that era. Seriously, things are more sophisticated now but much less complicated than the '80s/ early '90s-era systems. I.e. Engine management systems-wise things are simpler/easier to deal with now than then. TBH, many of those older systems worked poorly then even when they were working as designed. Times have improved for sure.
@@Doc1855 Motech(a Chrysler auto-tech school) received several prototypes from Chrysler, Ford and GM. When the OEM was through with it, they'd donate it to the school. We had some weird vehicles there including a Dodge D100 with a 2.2 engine in it. Was so funny. Dodge never produced the thing but they did make a prototype. The thing had 4 foot long radiator hoses and ran very poorly....it was just a test I guess but damned interesting and comical thing to see. Fun times.
I've heard about those lids but have never seen one personally so I made one myself.....I took a 4 bbl air cleaner lid and cut a window in it and cut some plexiglass to fit the window.....Sealed it all up to make sure there are no "vacuum leaks" and it works like a charm.
The Slant Six, or "The Leaning Tower of Power", was always a favorite of mine. We had many of them in Air Force fleet vehicles and equipment, and seldom had to do more than scheduled maintenance on them. They will outlast a 300 inline Ford, and that's saying something.
I dunno, when I used to live out west, I had a roommate who worked for an oil company. I guess their pumps were powered by the Ford 300 I6 and they ran 2/7/365 and were only stopped once every other year for an oil change. Their timing is literally just two gears- no belt/chain. That's pretty damn impressive. I don't even see Toyota pulling that off. By the way, I'm not knocking the 225. That's still a great engine. Better than anything Chrysler has today in terms of durability.
I changed a LOT of choke pulloff mechanisms on those 2.6's back in the early '90's. And this was at an independent shop that worked on everything. Even then it was easiest to get the part from the local Hyundai dealer as one of their models used the same carb... Don't miss working on all those K-cars at all...
The dealer must have replaced the one on my family's Voyager 3 times before my grandfather decided to figure out what the hell was going on. Turns out the choke pull off was weak and the choke plate when shut would stick in the bore. 10 minutes later he had a safety wired limiter on the choke lever arm and the pull off never failed again in the 6 more years my parents owned it. Still started just fine in cold weather.
I had a 74' 318 wedge engine in my 66' Dodge Van. It was a screamer with a G.M. quadrajet 4 barrel carb on it with an adapter.. ran like a grape ape! Up Woodford mountain it'd do over 85mph! Up a mountain slope.. no problem..
I had an early 87 Caravan with the 2.6, I sold the van when it rolled over 200,000 miles. I did replace the cylinder head three times and it was ready for a fourth head when I got rid of it. I did pull the engine at about 140K and did a balance shaft delete and I never really missed them. Engine was a lot peppier after the shafts were gone. Only issue I had with the carb was icing during the winter. The heater motor on the air cleaner failed and would not put any heated exhaust manifold air to the carb and it would ice up. Dealer wanted me to buy a whole new air cleaner housing to fix it. I had several IHC Scout II Engines around at that time so I removed the motor from an IHC Air Cleaner housing and adapted it to the mitsu and never had any more icing problems. Some ways, I wish I still had that van. When they went to the Grand Caravan, I lost interest as they took up to much room in my garage.
My first car that I got when I was 17 in the early 1980's was a 1975 Plymouth Valiant with over 100,000 miles on it. I ended up putting 125,000 miles on it and the Slant Six engine had never been rebuilt. It ran like a top until I junked the car.
This was an excellent overview of the Mopar engines circa 1981. Our family was very much Mopar loyal at that time. I do have a few comments. In addition to the 318, the 360 was available in a few lines, especially 1980 model year and older, and commonly on trucks. The 360 was a pretty stout engine for the time, especially the E58 version used on police cars and famously on the 'Lil Red Trucks of 1978-79 model years. This engine was also used, although fairly rrarely, on earlier A-body cars; I had a 1975 Dart Sport with a factory-installed E58 360. This was a pretty quick car. The 318 was also offered in a four barrel version in 1981-82, using the Carter Thermo-Quad carburetor. The TQ was a great carb as long as it was not overheated. If overheated, the phenolic middle section of the carb would warp and cause all sorts of drivability issues. If intact qnd in good shape the carb would flow an honest 800 cfm, which IIRC was the biggest 4BBL carb that Chrysler used on any engine. It was used on all 340's from '71 on, all 360 4BBL engines, all 400 4 BBL engines, and all 440s from '73 on. The 318 4 BBL engine in 1981 used 360 heads, which had bigger ports and valves than tne 318 2 BBL engines. The 318 heads evolved considerably in the 1980s prior to the Magnum versions. We had a 1981 Cordoba with the 318 4 BBL. This car never ran very well until out of warrantee, when I scrapped the ESC (lean burn) system and rejetted the TQ carb. I also planed the heads to get some more compression, installed a conventional LA distributor with 36 degrees total timing, a 340 camshaft & valve springs, and a factory-style dual exhaust. This really woke up the 318, and the Cordoba ran much, much better, and felt like it had double the power. I also had a 1972 Duster for a time that had a 225 slant six. The mechanical valve lifters gave it a very distinctive sewing machine sort of sound. It was phenominally reliable. As some others have commented, the slant six was originally designed as a 170 ci engine with a 3.125" stroke, and the ports and valves were originally designed for an engine of that size. When the engine was stroked to 225 ci, the ports & valves were relatively undersize. This limits power on the 225, but the engine has higher velocity gas flow on the intake, which helps torque and smoothness of the engine at lower RPM. Except for some rare 4BBL "Hyper-Pack" engines in 1961-62 all slants had Carter 1BBL BBS carbs, until the "Super six" was introduced in 1975 or 1976 (can't remember which). This had a BBD 2BBL carb, similar to the 318, and I reckon was good for about 10 HP, a useful gain on a 100 HP engine. As far as I can recall, both 1 BBL and 2 BBL versions were available into the 80's. When the slant was converted from mechanical lifters to hydraulic in 1981, the engine also changed from a forged steel crankshaft to a much lighter cast iron crank and the balance of the engine was changed accordingly. Many bottom end parts are specific to the version of the engine and are not interchangeable. I have lots of good memories of the '80s, but the Mopars of those times were moving away from the 1960s and 1970s of ny childhood and I liked them less and less as time went on. I think now that Chrysler was hurt more than GM and Ford by the on-again, off-again high fuel prices and the relentless CAFE and emission standards of the time.
Apparently, Carter discontinued the Thermo Quad in the 80s and four barrel Mopars were afterward equipped with Rochester Quadrajet carburetors. Used to see them on Dodge pickups with 360s. The 1971 Ford 429 Cobra Jet also used a Rochester Quadrajet, while the Super Cobra Jet used a Holley.
@donreinke5863 That sounds right to me, although I have never seen a Mopar with a factory-installed Q-jet. I recall Carter going through reorganization/bankruptcy after the big three all moved to fuel injection, and I reckon that's when they sold the rights & tooling to Edelbrock. I do recall the 429 CJ with the Q-jet, a friend of mine bought a Torino Cobra with that engine and we were both surprised to see the typical GM carb on top of the Ford engine. We both assumed that it had been swapped on, but a little digging revealed that it came from Ford that way.
I get the reliability of the slant. It’s a very simple, low tech engine. But the head and intake design is terrible so gas mileage is nothing to write home about. I wish Chrysler had made a good, aluminum, closed chamber, maybe even cross flow head for the slant.
@@johnkelly8525 Aussies also made a crossflow head version of the Ford "small" 6 cylinder engines that we never got. I did however buy a pair of your closed chamber 351 Cleveland heads that I believe were used on the Australian 302. I used them on a 400M engine to boost compression.
I’ve only owned two Chrysler products in my life. 75 dodge dart se with 318 2bbl and 93 Chrysler lebaron with 3.0. I really like that car. To bad trans went out on me. But I’m pretty much a GM guy, I like Cadillacs.
The closest I ever came to owning a Chrysler vehicle was actually made by Mitsubishi, the 1983 Dodge Colt RS. It was red and had a twin stick, 4-speed with a 2-speed transfer case. The standard seat in the car was terrible, so I bought a Recaro for the driver’s side. It drove and felt like a rally car. Thinking about the slant six, imagine if they put two together to make a V-12? That would be something in a Duster. Kind of like what VW did with the Phaeton.
2.5 Turbo was a blast,no torque steer,super smooth and quick! 2.2 Turbo did have torque steer but easily get used to it,very reliable engines too..We had 240,000 miles on a 86 LeBaron GTS still ran like new!
I knew a kid who had one, it was quick and handled very well. Those cars if I'm correct came with Goodyear Eagle GT tires. Do remember the New Yorkers and others equipped with 2.2 turbo had serious turbo lag especially with automatics. You could floor it and wait several seconds then "boom" the power came on with the torque steer. I guess the turbo technology was still kind of new at that time. Still fun to drive.
My mother had a 1975 Valiant with the Slant 6, but one quirk it had was the Holly carburetor model #1945 (still remembering that because I changed it) that caused the car to stall on left turns due to the plastic float filling with gas and becoming "water logged". Other than that, is was a reliable car. BTW, my 1969 Slant Six Dart had 145HP and could smoke the tires, and my 1968 Barracuda (318 2BBL) had 230HP, built before the Oil Embargo and smog emissions.
Had a buddy in high school who owned a '72 Dart Swinger with the 225 slant 6. It was quick for a 6 as I remember. According to him, it would smoke his Dad's new v8 Cutlass Supreme in the acceleration department.
We had a 1974 Valiant also with a 225 and a Holley 1945 single barrel carb and it did the exact same thing, every time you made a left turn the engine would stall and you could smell gasoline. The car was still pretty new when it started happening but I guess the warranty period was up already because my dad and I had to fix it. The float was soaking up gas like a sponge and becoming too heavy, so although it would still float and appear to be working correctly the level was way off because of the extra weight. It was very obvious once we compared a new float to the bad one, but because it looked like the bad float was working it took a few tries to figure it out.
My grandfather bought a brand new 1982 fuel injected Chrysler Imperial.Every 2-3 months he would have to take it back to dealer to get it "tuned up".I don't know what their version of a tune up was,but they got it running good enough to where he could reliably drive for 3-4 more months until he would have to take it back to the dealer to get it "tuned up" again.....This went on for as long as he owned the car then he traded it in on a brand new 1990 front wheel drive Imperial.....Other than that is was a pretty good car...He took numerous trips all over the country in it.
Bought a new fully optioned ‘85 Plymouth Voyager with the 2.6 liter Mitsubishi engine. I was meticulous with maintenance, but alas, the engine blew at 70k miles. I replaced it with a rebuild at a shop which specialized on such replacements. Needless to say, that shop had a very steady business. 🤣
I remember back in the early 80’s I got a job at an LPGA golf tournament as a driver for the pro golfer ladies. We had a fleet of brand new Kcars and as a then owner of a 69 Pontiac Grand Prix I was NOT impressed. They were noisy, buzzy, rough and gutless. But a few days later I took one out and it had a way smoother engine and it was actually quick (by 82 standards of course). Curious I popped the hood and that’s when I learned about the 2.6 Mitsubishi in Kcars. Of course they were brand new so no issues but I did like that engine and I thrashed it for a week. Always making sure I got a car with the 2.6 instead of the 2.2.
The Mitsubishi balance shaft was actually two balance shafts. They turned in opposite directions at twice the speed of the crankshaft. Extremely effective.
If Mitsubishi was smart, they just would’ve used Scotch Yoke connecting rods. That way you could have an I4 with perfect primary & secondary balance, no need for a balancing shaft. There’s a company now about to put Scotch Yoke engines into production. They even have a F4 version that would be the smallest possible four cylinder, by using this mechanism.
The Mitsubishi carburetor’s were junk. My brother had a couple of the 2.6 L on his Mark Cross LaBaron Convertible. I had a 1984 Chrysler 5th Ave and I have no complaints of that 318 that was in it. Keep the car for 7 years!
@@Alex-di8ti I think so. Their 3.0L V6 was okay, but you had to change the oil religiously, especially if turbocharged. If the oil isn’t cleaned enough, the piston rings wear out, they start burning oil very fast, and they just scrape themselves to death.
Adam is spot on with this assessment. When I was in the used car business, I wouldn't buy anything at auction with a Mitsubishi engine. We provided a warranty and felt we couldn't stand behind the product. Therefore, we wouldn't sell it to our customers.
Putting together a 2.6 for my 83 Lebaron this sunday lol. Its gonna be balance shaft, jet valve delete. Strongly prefer 2.2 its just more sorted and breeze to work on
The slant six and the 318 were the engines in the family cars when I learned to drive. '63 Valiant 2-door for the slant six and '70 Valiant 4-door for the 318; both had a three-on-the-tree and power nothin'.
So many of us in our youth had slant 6 in our bargain cars. They had their quirks but they ran and ran. I had one in a Dodge van with over 200,000 miles that used a lot of oil. When driving the van I just moved the engine cover off whenever the engine started rapping and add a couple of quarts of oil I kept nearby without even turning the engine off. One day after many miles the engine won't stop rapping and that was that but it owed me nothing.
Concerning the diesel blip around 1980: I was working part time pumping gas at that time. It was just after 2 gas shortages in the 70s and at least in my state, there was a law passed to limit the profit to a certain number of cents per gallon of gas. Coupled with the bad economy at the time and rents, insurance, etc. increasing greatly, it was a tough time for station owners. My boss was once fined for raising the price of gas at the pump before the tanker had left the property. When the diesel cars were gaining popularity, stations that sold diesel fuel were few; almost creating a monopoly. With no regulations on diesel pricing, it was a chance to finally make some income.
Just something silly to put out here which is completely irrelevant today: I personally remember as far back as the late 80's that rumor had it Mitsubishi Japan was not at all thrilled with the Mopar implementation of their 2.xL engine which was not quite made to the same spec the Japanese version was (out of necessity).. You'd find the Mopar implementation in anything from K variants to Might Max/D-50 1/4 ton pickups to US Spec Mitsubishi vehicles which all had that American-Chryslerized version as part of the Chrysler Mitsubishi arrangement. By the end of production the best version of this motor was probably in the Japanese imported Starions which did exist here and there.. Not all US bound Starions had the Americanized engine, and that was one hell of a cheap thrill. Just a joy to drive and own. Much like the Eclipse that came after it. FWIW probably the absolute worst of the worst version is what came in the early Dodge Ram 50 (D-50)/Mitsubishi Mightymax pickups from about 82 to 86 which my family had a few of. Name a possible issue, it had all of them. Garbage engine no argument
The Astron 2.6 was used in the very popular Sigma and Magna sedan and wagon models here in Australia in the 80s. I never knew it as a bad engine but maybe with neglect it was, the cars were plagued more with auto transmission failures. Certainly, the old Valiants with the slant 6 were very dependable.
I had 1985 Dodge half ton. With the 318. Was a good little V8. The truck had the factory 4 speed manual. That was very weak. I got a 727 out of full chrysler. Had it rebuilt with a shift kit. Converted the truck over to an automatic. With a B&M Z gate shifter. Had dual exhaust installed. Other than that, it was stock. When I put my foot into it. Going into 2nd gear. It bang ur head against the window pretty if u weren't ready it. It was a lot of fun.
My parents had a 1985 mitsubishi magna (galant?) With the 2.6l Astron engine with the balance shaft and carb. It suffered from a stupid automatic choke that wouldnt shut off properly and the camchain rattle. At the time it was considered fast compared to other competitors from GMH and Ford. Had 110hp.
My father had a Sapporo with the 2.6 Mitsubishi 4 and a 4 speed manual. The car was a blast. It had lots of power and easily reved to 5000+ rpm. I guess he was lucky that there were no problems with it
Love your videos Adam.I always learn something new. I had a 1985 Dodge 600 2.2 literally turbo convertible .Great engine. The only problem I had was the fuel pump went out at 150,000 miles.It was in the fuel tank and cost 400 dollars to replace.I kept it another 3 years and sold it to my neighbor with 180,000 miles.He drove it another 2 problem free years.I lived on an island due to salt air the car rusted out,but the engine was still strong.
The /6 was pretty reliable stock. But with only 4 main bearings for the crankshaft, it’s not an engine that is built to be modified. The AMC 258 straight 6 has 7 main bearings in comparison.
A 225 seldom sees more than 3,000 rpm because the restrictive head doesn't flow well. The low speed nature of the 225 is the reason for its longevity. If Chrysler had the resources to build a lighter car - the size of a BMW E30 - the short stroke 170 might be more loved today.
@@timothykeith1367there is a guy here on Long Island whose life's code is the 170. Short stroke and rev-happy compared to the lumbering 225. He has them in almost every Valiant in his collection.
My ‘77 Cordoba had a 400 CID engine tormented by the Lean Burn system. What a disaster. Nearly every week something went wrong with the car. The worst vehicle I’ve ever owned and only Mopar. The best part of this sad story is I became close friends with the family who still owns the independent garage I frequented. I love your channel and style.
Adam, On your side of the border it has been an eat until you're tired, rest a little, eat some more Thanksgiving Day. On my side of the border, it has been a hard day's work. Either way, that Slant Six ain't no turkey.😉🤣
Speaking of that Mitsubishi 2.6 L, my father bought a 1987 Mitsubishi Montero which had that engine. The carburetor was definitely a problem. And later on the upper radiator hose seem to lose strength and fail internally. Causing a blockage. Causing a cooked engine. Not good. We did end up tearing down the old engine, and I remember how it was built. Using chains for the oil pump, the camshaft, and another one for the balance shafts. A good engine, when it worked
Funny, those 2.6l Mitsubishi engines had a pretty good reputation in Australia. They were found in the RWD sigma which was Australian assembled. I think AUS emission regulations were more lax in the 70s and the engine wasn’t covered in vac hoses and had a less complex carburettor. I won’t say they were faultless but they definitely weren’t maligned here.
Nothing bad to be said about the Mopar 225, 318, and 360s of the time, IMO, other then they used lots of fuel when looking at their mileage and acceleration. The 318 EFI is the exception, but that was an electronics issue. The Mitsu 2.6 was horrid, with everything this video said to be true. Getting a replacement head proved to be rather difficult in the 90s. I recall our shop being on a waiting list for months. And good luck if they couldn't pass an emissions test as all controls were vacuum electro mechanical, with miles of lines that would make an Olds 307 blush.. My big gripe here is how bad the early 2.2s were, and the turbo variants through late 85. Chrysler had a major recall on all 1.7-2.2 carb cars starting in late 83 and lasting until late 84 for 1.8 million vehicles for stalling and poor performance. The Holley carb was the issue, and they never did get that 1 fixed, just flung a new 1 on. The 86 and up got new larger headbolts for the new fast burn head, several different types of gaskets were used to fight leaks, new cams made of better material were employed, better oil pumps, new and more simple distributors ( I believe 87 and up) larger engine mounts, and simple low pressure Bosch single point TBI 86 and up which worked very well. What they never fixed was the mechanical timing belt tensioner. Belts stretch! Plus side, it was an non interference engine, so if the belt broke, no harm done. ( same for the later 2.5s) Minus was the belts did not last long, about 50-60k. On the short lived 2.2 turbo 3 series with the Lotus 24v head, this was an issue as that was an interference mill, and that was expensive to fix if the belt slipped or broke. The 2.5L was a better engine, with the balance shaft, and better connecting rods, as well as less head gasket failures. By the early 90s, Chrysler had nearly all issues with the 2.5s fixed, even in turbo cars.
I was a certified Chrysler/Plymouth tech in the early 90’s. I can definitely attest to the fact that the engines at that time were embarrassingly unreliable overall. The 2.6 most commonly had timing chain and carb issues. The 2.2 had wrist pin knock and ate head gaskets, (and even worse after being replaced once, because they need to be torqued and retorqued later after replacement, and Chrysler and indie shops never bothered to do it.) The updated 2.5 version of the 2.2 4cyl that came later was actually pretty decent (the balance shaft helped a lot too). The turbo versions of these vehicles were unspeakably horrible. That’s all I’ll say about that. The Mitsubishi 3.0 V6 had egg shaped cylinder wear issues, and thus nearly always burned oil past the rings by the time they had roughly 75,000 mi. on them. The 3.3 that came later was halfway decent, but was unfortunately backed up by a disastrous 4 speed electronic transmission that was lucky to make it off the lot as a brand new vehicle. The slant six was pretty much beyond reproach, with the 318 following close behind. The fuel delivery issues Adam described were spot on. If you buy an older Chrysler product with a ballast resister, always keep a spare. Though there were a few decent products in the 80s, on the whole, I found it to be a very embarrassing time to be a technician for Chrysler. One stand out vehicle that I remember from that time was the Dodge Omni with a German made 1.7 VW engine. Those little cars were definitely hard to kill, and Chrysler would have done well to stick with that partnership. Sadly, I can’t really name a vehicle from that time that I would have been proud to own, unless it was in the truck line. This was a great, accurate video Adam!
I always called the 318 the Slant Six of V8's! In fact, before the emissions strangulation in the mid '70s, they both made more power than they had any right to as well as being reliable... (I'm flabbergasted though, that the Six didn't have hydraulic lifters all those years. I don't ever recall one rattling badly, and I drove a Duster that was beat to death as a pharmacy delivery car...)
Back in the day, the 2.6L Mitsu was considered to be the better choice over the 2.2L Mopar engine. Those 2.6L Mitsu engines ran forever…I had cars with the 2.2L and that engine was JUNK.
1:16 as much as this hurts me to say, most of the cars from this era are or are close to being considered “Antiques” at least with most insurance companies and licensing offices.
Insurance is actually cheaper on the older vehicles, and we get 5 year "collector" plates for cheap money. Supposedly, there is a mileage limitation for cars with such plates, but no way for them to prove anything since those cars cant rat you out electronically like new vehicles.
The maintenance schedule for the solid lifter slant sixes called for the valve lash to be readjusted every oil change. Of course this was rarely done, but would usually wake them up quite a bit.
A friend of mine bought one of those J-bodies with a dead FI set-up in excellent shape for $300. Used the tank out of a Gran Fury, removed all the fuel injection, installed a Walker 40430 Y-pipe, 3" Catco catalytic converter, 2.5" exhaust & an NOS Magnaflow turbo muffler, put the electronic ignition with the GM ignition module (the one from under the cap), Edelbrock 4-bbl intake, TQ carb (he can build & tune them). That car still runs, better mileage than when new, and I'd challenge your opinion on the "Only get the dealer converted ones"- this friend is a phenomenal mechanic/tech/builder. This conversion far outperforms the dealer version
The 273/318 V8 was based on the original Plymouth and Dodge V8 from 1955 with polyspherical heads that also ended up being a 318 for years. It was lightened with wedge heads and precision casting in the new version. The poly version also had mechanical valves at least through the early sixties if not to the end.
My uncle had an 83 or 84 Rampage with quad headlamps. While a curious car that garnered a tremendous amount of attention, and it was actually a comfortable car to sit in that engine completely ruined the car. Also I in my youth was offered a west Texas 85 LeBaron convertible that someone had spent a huge amount of money on having professionally repainted black from the factory maroon and it had a gorgeous red leather interior. But again. That ****** engine. What a beautiful rust free car gleaming with attractive lines and chrome a pleasant dashboard and the thing chugged and smoked and shaked. I traded the thing for a triple blue 93 Coupe deVille with cash in the biggest rush I could and I have never with any seriousness looked back at any FWD 1980s Chrysler Corp product again. Don’t get me wrong I think a Town and Country convertible in a dark color would be an absolute beauty but I don’t want it. I’d rather have an iron duke base model celebrity before I’d have a New Yorker Turbo with a moonroof or Mark Cross Town and Country. That’s how badly I perceived my experience.
I ran a smog inspection back in the 90s. You could smell that (very bad word) 2.6 coming. They always failed and gave the inspector carbon monoxide poisoning. I'm not making this up. "I'm sorry, but the adapter I need for this engine is back-ordered from Taiwan."
I was a Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth salesman for a while in the late eighties. My new car sales manager instructed me to explain to (Unhappy) customers that it was the gasoline(?) in our area that was to blame for the Mitsubishi engine woes. Specifically to explain the early and exhorbitant oil consumption, beginning around 25,000 miles. They also had me manage the sale they made from the office, of an ex tow truck (Information not shared with me) pickup truck, which came back shortly for diagnosis of oil consumption, due to its hard previous use. That customer, was not a happy camper. The used car manager (Think Herb Tarlick from WKRP in Cincinnati kind of character) also told me a story of the time HE traded in a car with a rear axle so worn that he literally stuffed bananas into it to quieten it down. Like he was proud of what he had done. Interesting times.
A girl I went to high school with had a 83-84 FWD New Yorker. I remember hanging out with her and that 2.6 would randomly stall and ran like absolute garbage. Her mechanic could never get it right. She just lived with it. It was the worst engine ever, i even suggested pulling a complete cradle assembly from a k car with a 2.5 and swapping it out.
They should have used the fuel injection from Bosh. The in-house fi for the Imperial was costly for them. Cadillac used a Bosch system in the DeVille w halfway decent results.
Ironic...because Chrysler invented electronic fuel injection back in the late 1950s. They didnt work because the control units werent shielded, and driving near a magnetic field such as a large neon sign would cause them to stop running. Vehicles so equipped were subsequently converted to carburetion by dealers. Long story short...Chrysler sold the system and all intellectual property to Robert Bosch..the rest is history.
We had a mid 80's Dodge lancer with the Mitsubishi motor. The water pump was on the back of the engine and ran off a belt that was driven off the back end of the overhead cam. Also no automatic brake adjusters.
I have a 74 Dodge Charger with the 318 that runs smooth as silk 49 years later doesn't burn or leak oil, pretty impressive. I have a 1980 Volare with a 225 slant six, runs smooth, good torque in the small car, love the mechanical valve tick at idle, classic. Have a 89 Plymouth Reliant with the 2.5. Not a lot of power but excellent fuel economy 30+ mpg and pretty smooth as the 2.5 has balance shafts. At 122k miles has been very reliable. And have a 89 Daytona Shelby 2.2 turbo intercooled bought used in 1994. Now has almost 200k miles and has never broken down. My experience with Chrysler engines has been great.
As a life long Mopar man , I agree with your “ 80’s best Mopar engine choices. Mopar really didn’t have a huge selection of engines available by the time the 80’s rolled around, especially in their larger cars and trucks. The 360 LA was also a great choice for a little more torque. . I’ve owned several F bodies with 6 cylinders and 318’s. Also an 81 two door K car with a 4 speed and a 2.2! I pounded that thing for years and never had an engine problem.. broke a few clutches. That was the weakest part. Great video.
Chryslers choice to discontinue both the B and RB engines in 1978 cost them severely in Dodge truck sales, as Chevrolet/GMC continued to offer their 454 in 3/4 ton and heavier trucks. Also, Ford continued to offer the 460 in trucks up to the 1997 model year. Winnebago..apparently had a stock of RB engine equipped chassis and used them into the 1979 model year. 440s would easily hold their own against nearly all "7 liter" engines (427, 428 and 429) as well as 454s, 455s and 460s...and were more durable.
Lots of thumbs-up comments on the 170/225 Slant Six. I had a 225 in a 1963 Valiant and while the body on that car was an unmitigated rust bucket (I owned it in the mid-70s, so it wasn't that old), the engine was rock solid. I do recall reading, however, that the exhaust manifold on these engines tended to crack. Both the intake and exhaust manifolds are inlayed with each other which makes things exciting as well when it's time to remove them.
The guy delivering fuel to my local gas station once put Diesel in the wrong tank. Although I would not recommend it, I can attest to the fact a Slant 6 will run for some time with Diesel. 🤨
@@rightlanehog3151back in the days of the oil embargo, my dad tried a little fuel oil mixed with gasoline to help "stretch" the mileage on a tank of gas in our 66 273 Coronet. Needless to say, he had to make that thing run super rich to burn off the diluted gas in the tank. So much for fuel saving experiment.....😎
Slant 6 crank shaft was huge and super duty. We had a dodge van with 325,000 miles on that engine when we sold it. Very strong and reliable to the last day. Van was a giant rust bucket, but never stopped performing.
Agree with Adam's take on the Chrysler engines, though I have no experience with the 2.6 liter. The 318 was my favorite, I had one from an earlier era (pre lean burn) and loved the way it drove. The 225 slant six was an engineering marvel. I knew of several that went over 200k miles, knew of one that went 500k miles. They were not powerful but had sufficient torque to move the lightweight cars of the era very nicely. My dad had an '81 Dodge Aries with the 2.2, it was very reliable and ran well though the car was underpowered. I remember merging onto the freeway with four passengers was a white knuckle experience.
Agree 100% that the 318 is the unsung hero, very stout, cheap to build, and will embarrass a lot of naysayers. Buddy of mine built a 318 like a 340, stuffed it into a bone stock-appearing Volare, and had a lot of fun showing up the naysayers.
My dad said when the 2.5L engine came out and the 2.6L would blow under warranty his dealer would give them the 2.5LSlant 4 EFI engine upgrade free because the Mitsubishi Astron 2.6L engine was discontinuance by 1987 model year. The 2.6L was disconnected in all K cars by 1986 and the 2.5L Slant 4 engine bumped up the HP with EFI to 100 hp and 136 hp. The same people that made the Slant 6 worked on the K cars as the 2.2L and 2.5L were known as Chrysler Slant 4 engine. The only vehicle left with the 2.6L Mitsubishi Astron engine as an option for the 1987 Dodge Caravan LE/Voyager LE until 2/1987 as the 3.0L Mitsubishi engine based off the Galant V-6 was into the Minivan as well as the 2.2L N/A Slant 4 2.5L N/A|Slant 4 and they made a shorty Caravan only Carroll Shelby Model (1987-1990) very rare option not many were made. My dad had a garnet red 1988 turbo one and a 1989 Caravan LE Shelby Turbo model very rare as there were less than 350 produced. Looking back on it the 1989 we should have kept with it being numbered plack signed by Shelby. and also this engine was used on the C platform 1987-1993 Dodge Dynasty base as an option(base engine was the 2.5L Slant 4 and the Dynasty LE used the 3.0L V-6 as standard until 1990 when the Chrysler 3.3 engine was introduced which made the 3.0L Mitsubishi engine as standard on base and LE models and 3.3L V-6 Chrysler built which lasted from 1990-2012.By 1994 the 3.0L Mitsubishi engine was only available in the Minivans until 2004 I think. All Chrysler Town and Country Mini vans got the Chrysler built 3.8L V-6 which was a good engine as well those had a 3 speed Torque-flite as standard.Here is a little K car history. I have owned about 22 K cars and their variants none with the 2.6L these were just as bad as the Hook and Tow Cadillac 4100 V-8. The later models were turn key with EFI by 1986. The 2.2L and 2.5 did have some head gasket issues. Back in the day I could due head gaskets and timing belts on these in 4.5 hours. Parts were 200.00 labor 45.00 an hour back when these cars were a few years old. I did a lot of these at an AMOCO garage I worked at from when I was 14 from 1994-2003.it was 419.00 plus tax only on parts not labor in Illinois.
Had all of these engines in my family during the 60s - 90s. '72 Valiant 198 ci 3 on the tree, bulletproof. '79 D100 318, '84 Voyager 2.6, '86 Lebaron GTS 2.2 turbo, very fun, and '90 Omni 2.5 5spd, poor man's Golf GTI. Fond memories of all.
The Chrysler Engineers were kept busy during the 80's, trying to adapt to Emission Standards, while coming-up with something innovative in Mopar Engineering. Sometimes they got it right and sometimes they didn't, eh Adam🤔🤲
I had a 2.6L mitsubishi engine in an 82 Dodge 400. It was previously owned by my sister/brother in law and they ordered the car from Chrysler. Engine definitely had carburetor issues with the complicated Mikuni unit failing to do the job properly. I had to replace the choke pull-off on the carb in the early 1990's as it would allow the choke plate to stay closed and the engine would run really rich. The engine ran well and didnt burn any oil. I remember running slick-50 and the car having noticeably more get up and go. Not a great powerplant but not the worst in my case.
I remember those 2.6 Mits engines, they did run good. Had one customer (back in '84) who had on '81 K car with that engine, the ignition igniter (ND dist)failed lost all spark. We had to get the replacement unit from a dealer because at the time it wasn't serviced by the aftermarket yet. Remember the part cost was astronomical for the time, can't fully recall by it was around $200. After the repair the customer continued to drive that car until he traded it off in '87. If I recall they used that same engine with a turbo in the Chrysler Conquest back at that time.
My parents had an 84 Caravan with the 2.2/5 speed that they bought new and then traded in 1988 for an 85 Caravan with the 2.6/3 speed auto with the extremely rare front bench seat that was offered for a very short time. I don’t recall there being any issues with the engine, though I can still remember its labored huff in the early morning cold when my mom would start it to get the heat going… the Chrysler automatic was a different story, however, as it required two rebuilds in the time that we had the thing.
Chrysler and GM wouldve/did have a tough time competing in the Diesel passenger car market in the 70’s/80’s. Back in the 1980’s, Mercedes Diesels were superior to all others. With Peugeot as a close second, until they started using electronic fuel injection.
GM single handedly destroyed the adoption of passenger car Diesel in the US right up to this very day. Every time the 5.7 comes up, I swear there is like a bat signal that goes up and the 10 guys that like them come flooding in, but it really was a garbage engine and a misery to drive.
@@jamesmcgowen1769 That would’ve been an Isuzu Diesel, which were actually quite good, albeit underpowered. They’re extremely tough, and highly receptive to tuning with a turbocharger. Also analogue.
@@stoneylonesome4062 maybe receptive to tuning, but no one bothered with them. I was only around 10 yrs old at the time. They disappeared as soon as the sheet metal went to God, never to be seen again!
@@TheBrokenLifeIt wouldnt have been if GM would have done two things One--install a water separator on the fuel system. The Olds diesel commonly blew head gaskets and cracked heads because of steam pressure from water contaminated (tank condensation) fuel Two--installed a turbocharger along with the water separator. The 350 Oldsmobile gas engine the diesel was based on was arguably the best of the GM 350s.
Man, as a former Chrysler heavy line mechanic back in the 80's the pictures of those 2.6 engines brought back some bad memories. I can't believe I was paid to work on those pieces of junk. My stalls were 100 feet from the service drive entrance and if I close my eyes I can still hear one rattling in the door with broken timing chain guides. We called them Itchy Pu##ys, not Mitsubishi.
I just finished watching the rest of your episode. I find it interesting that you got it backwards. The major problems with the 2.6 where is cracking of the heads parrot and they almost always cracked in the same couple of places. How do I know that? We weld it many aluminum heads various manufacturer and engine sizes. If you knew what you were doing after a little bit of practice the air valve as you called it really came in handy. As far as the carburetor as long as you kept it clean it's like an Opels carburetor back in the 60s once it went South it was junk. The balance shaft had to be the number one problem. There was a bypass kit and you can use the same chain tensioners everything just had a gear and it had no shaft. Once you did that the engine ran so much better. Yes it was complicated behind that timing cover. I called a pinball machine. BECAUSE it look like a skeleton x-ray of a pinball machine. All the bumpers flippers and so forth. In this case on the engine we're talking about guides and so on. Not only did we work on these for other people but I drove these Mitsubishi 2.6 is and also the 2 L quite a bit during those days. As far as the fuel pump, can't remember a time we had to replace one. Back then we would run double filters and tell her customers we recommend the same. Of course when you have an aluminum head and a non-aluminum block that created problems especially back then. I really think overall they could have done better and they really really killed himself in long-term during the eighties. Any of the BIG 3. But then I'm also the nut that would like to have a second generation or 3rd generation 350 Oldsmobile diesel engine. I had great luck with them as well. I would literally drive one today and would love to have a 98 regency brougham preferably burgundy to maroon in color. As far as the slant six and the 318 yeah you nailed it. Some of the older slant six is had their quirks that they worked out. Did you know that Toyota had a hemi engine 4 cylinder about 73 or 74 is when the imported it. Only a couple of years. I really did appreciate and like your episode here.
My very first car was a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. It was fitted with the 1.7 liter Volkswagen engine. It also had Chrysler's Electronic Spark Control Computer system. It was at the height of emissions strangled engineering. The car wasn't to unreliable but a oil 🔥 burner. I had to use 20W50.
Pre malaise the slant 6, the 273 V8 were perfect for fuel economy. The 340 was a great performance engine. The 440 was a perfect torquer for the big cars.
Авто/Мото
In 1982, I went to work for the company that made all of Chrysler Corporation's air conditioning clutches, and got a brand new Dodge Aries company car, with the 2.6 liter Mitsubishi engine. More than 40 years later, I can't tell you how many times it left me stranded. Everytime it was towed to the dealer, it came back to me as defective as before. My regional manager asked me about it, and I told him. He apparently said something to the company president, because when I went to pick it up, the service manager at the Dodge dealer asked, "Who ARE YOU??!! Corporate called and told us to fix it or it's our ass!" Never had another problem.
Wow! Awesome story. 👍
Sadly, they shouldn’t have had to be threatened into doing a good job. That is a sad story, actually.
My wife and I both liked the new 89-94 Continental sedan , we luckily wound up with a loaded Chevy Astro van with that really good V6, those Continentals were a problem and was very glad we didn't get one
@@CamaroSS-sy2ei Yep, agree with Camaro! You shouldn't need to be a VIP to get proper service! Every paying customer should get that. No wonder we're all driving Japanese cars now! Yes, the 80's were dark times for Detroit but much of it was brought on their own arrogant business practices!
@@CamaroSS-sy2ei Right, you are. I couldn't believe he actually told me that.
I had a 1977 Volare with the Slant-6. That car had a few problems, but the engine wasn't one of them. That thing never failed me.
We had 3 cars with a Slant 6. Each time the engine easily outlasted everything else.
I had one too. Saved my life in an accident where an idiot in a Camaro tried to make a left turn from the middle lane as I was passing him. Sent me into a curb and a guardrail. Broke the rear end, flung it into the gas tank. Pancaked the drivers side and bent the A-pillar. Crawled out of the driver side window NASCAR style. It was a strong car for what it was.
I recall reading at some point the reason I couldn't kill my mom's super (slant) six: Chrysler originally designed the Slant Six 170 to be an all-aluminum light weight engine. Metallurgy at the time was not sufficient to make that engine out of aluminum. So rather than scratch the design, Chryco engineers simply made it out of cast iron. The cast iron version built to aluminum specs meant the engine was over built and over engineered. Combine that with low compression tuning and viola, you had an extremely stout (heavy) and under stressed i.e. reliable engine, making hardly any power that would last forever. That used car (Volare 225 Super Six wagon 2bbl) outlasted me & my brother's wrath (140k) and went through two additional owners before I quit seeing it around town. I hated that slow, cream-colored turd, but also respected it. Now on that rare occasion that I see one, I view it through a different lense of appreciation.
Chrysler did build the Slant Six block out of aluminum, but only on the 225 version, and only for a few years (62-64 I think, could be wrong, tho). The block was die cast, similar to the Buick 215 V8, but it used an iron head. Results were predictable; head gasket problems and corrosion of the block, so there aren't many around. I think Steve Magnante featured one before he got sick
Edit: I also think it was optional to get the aluminum block.
@@61rampy65 The vega engine was the same combination of aluminum block and cast iron head. I just don't get it, why didn't the use aluminum heads? Lighter, no mismatched metallurgy.
My dad had 62 Dodge Lancer GT with aluminum 225. It was very peppy, but in the winter you got back into a cold car if it was turned off for more than 30 minutes. I had a 65 Dart GT with a 170 that we swapped a 225 into. Something about gearing made the Dart pretty fast.
Inline 6s made after the US ended lead gas had lower compression ratios to be on the safe side because so many i6 got used in industrial applications or by rednecks and farmers where they had to err on the side of caution that the fuel would be shitty and detonation prone. Nowadays that translates to those i6 being able to run on anything even alcohol or crappy old green gas
@@61rampy65 I owned a 1962 Dodge Lancer which had the original aluminum block slant 6
According to what i was able to find, the aluminum engine was only used in 1962, and only in the Lancer.
My cousin knew someone who had a car with a 225 slant 6. He built a 440 for it, and they decided to give the 225 a riteous send off by draining the oil and coolant and putting a concrete block on the accelerator. They started the engine. It ran out of gas.
Had a 78 LeBaron with the 225, then a 79 Lebaron with the 318, then an 82 Cordoba with the 318. Drove the Cordoba to 189k miles! Loved that car!
I've personally removed several 225 Slant Sixes with rod knocks. My opinion the 318 is tougher. 318s only ever lose oil pressure and eventually sieze, but it takes a long time. The 318 is also in my opinion superior to the 305 Chevy and 302 Ford if they were equipped similarly (2 bbl carb). A very easy starting and smooth engine.
I still have a Reliant Hemi K wagon. When the car was pretty new, it was recalled to have it's heads re-torqued. Because my dad was retired and didn't drive it much, we got that done in time.... Also it has a crazy carb that races the engine for the first 5 minutes, which a very wise mechanic advised us never to fix... In as much as no one ever wanted to wait for the car to warm up... it still lives on today and still makes for a very handy wagon.
But what still amazes me is that this wagon gets around 45 mpg on the highway at slower speeds. No, it's not quick, nor fast... and it does take forever to be ready to drive... but I've never had anything that gets the kind of fuel economy as the MCA Jet silent shaft hemi engine.
You are right on about the Mitsubishi 2.6. I remember in the late 1980s seeing a bunch of those engines showing up in scrapyards, disproportionatly to other engines. It struck me at the time.
I have a 1980 Plymouth Volare four door sedan I purchased in 2007 with 8500 original miles. Now with about 33,000. Slant six and torqflite trans. Still running perfectly with only a couple of tuneups and a carburetor replacement a couple of years ago. I love it. Also in 1979 I purchased a Plymouth Arrow pickup with the 2.6 four cylinder. I put about 30,000 miles on it until the lure of a 1982 v-8 Mustang called me away.
Sounds like you dodged a bullet! 🤣
Ewww. The 1982s had that abysmal 255 Ci v-8. They went back to the 302 for the 1983 model year.
I have one of those 255 abominations in my shed, for the sheet metal components which fit the 302
@@donreinke5863 Mine was one of the HO(😹) 302s. The cars like the Fairmont and other intermediates had the little gutless 255. One of the things about the Mustang I had is how really low on power it was. 150 HP. My wife’s 2012 Kia Soul has more. And I come from the days of big cars and bigger engines so you know what I mean.
@@TheopolisQSmith 302s from that era didnt have a lot from the factory. You had to do considerable modifications to get power from them, much of which was porting the incredibly restricted cylinder heads.
At that time aftermarket aluminum heads barely existed if at all.
Now, Im getting aluminum heads with big ports and valves for a 302 thats replacing that 255 sitting in my shed....for about $1500 for both new.
@@donreinke5863 The first of the famous 80s Mustang GT 5.0/5 speed was in 1982 and I'll never forget the first commercial I saw on TV with "The Boss is back!"
Also, the 2.2 turbo New Yorkers. Geesh. Crazy torque-steer on turbo wind-up. Very unbalanced power curve but sorta fun to fight the steering wheel as it had a mind of its own when the turbo took over. At least I "Never forgot my keys" at the end of a road test since the car reminded me not to. The Mitsu MCA-Jet system worked great when it worked. The tiny rich mixture valve was about the size of a ball-point pen as I remember. It worked OK but as soon as a hack worked on that fuel system, it was over for that engine ever running well again. Fun times. Simpler systems then? No way. Simpler now.
My girlfriend at the time bought an 84 Daytona with the 2.2 turbo and 5 speed trans. I was disappointed that she bought a K-car. Then I drove it. Wow, when the turbo spooled up, that thing took off! I don't recall it having a lot of torque steer, but it was just so much fun to run it up thru the gears! And it could easily pass cars on the long, steep mountain roads we have out west.
Torque steer wasnt bad once you got used to it...The Mitsubishi 2.6 was a unreliable junker of an engine also the Mitsubishi 3.0 was even worse!
Hehe, bad? 318 Fuel injected, of course. I was a young Chrysler tech way back then. I remember the transparent air cleaner cover(a service tool) used to observe what I'd call the 'dripping straw' fuel injection system. Was that tool useful? I guess for the curious. I did get to perform one of the carburetor upgrades on an Imperial. The pallet of parts in the kit must hold the record for the heaviest weight service bulletin kits of all time. Engine was OK enough but performing an abortion on an entire fuel system seemed so crazy. Glad I was around then. IMO, the 2.2 and 2.5 were OK...just due to the simplicity.
The Mitsubishi N/A and turbos blew head gaskets about every 15K - 20K miles after blowing the first head gasket. I had a 87 ES 600 turbo and a 90 Plymouth Voyager.
Never again will I ever own a Stillantis
@@Doc1855 I had the great experience of attending Motech in Livonia...really it was a great experience. I'm not a mechanic anymore but do appreciate that era. Seriously, things are more sophisticated now but much less complicated than the '80s/ early '90s-era systems. I.e. Engine management systems-wise things are simpler/easier to deal with now than then. TBH, many of those older systems worked poorly then even when they were working as designed. Times have improved for sure.
@@Doc1855 Motech(a Chrysler auto-tech school) received several prototypes from Chrysler, Ford and GM. When the OEM was through with it, they'd donate it to the school. We had some weird vehicles there including a Dodge D100 with a 2.2 engine in it. Was so funny. Dodge never produced the thing but they did make a prototype. The thing had 4 foot long radiator hoses and ran very poorly....it was just a test I guess but damned interesting and comical thing to see. Fun times.
@@nhzxboi I’m not mechanically inclined at all, but give me a paranoid schizophrenic that needs help and I’m in my game
I've heard about those lids but have never seen one personally so I made one myself.....I took a 4 bbl air cleaner lid and cut a window in it and cut some plexiglass to fit the window.....Sealed it all up to make sure there are no "vacuum leaks" and it works like a charm.
The Slant Six, or "The Leaning Tower of Power", was always a favorite of mine. We had many of them in Air Force fleet vehicles and equipment, and seldom had to do more than scheduled maintenance on them. They will outlast a 300 inline Ford, and that's saying something.
I dunno, when I used to live out west, I had a roommate who worked for an oil company. I guess their pumps were powered by the Ford 300 I6 and they ran 2/7/365 and were only stopped once every other year for an oil change. Their timing is literally just two gears- no belt/chain. That's pretty damn impressive. I don't even see Toyota pulling that off.
By the way, I'm not knocking the 225. That's still a great engine. Better than anything Chrysler has today in terms of durability.
Yeah but can't get out of there own way
The forged crank 440 up until 1974 was the strongest, most well built regular production engine Chrysler made.
@@drippinglass that a boat anchor, and is shit for handling.
An E49 Charger will out run a 440 Charger on any circuit.
@@aussieausdeutschland4245 I have a 1970 440 Six Pack 4 speed Dana Charger R/T. I don’t care if anything is faster.
The slant six in my old Dodge truck would always start and run, it was pretty quick, although the truck body was 1/2 rust..... lol
I changed a LOT of choke pulloff mechanisms on those 2.6's back in the early '90's. And this was at an independent shop that worked on everything. Even then it was easiest to get the part from the local Hyundai dealer as one of their models used the same carb... Don't miss working on all those K-cars at all...
The dealer must have replaced the one on my family's Voyager 3 times before my grandfather decided to figure out what the hell was going on. Turns out the choke pull off was weak and the choke plate when shut would stick in the bore. 10 minutes later he had a safety wired limiter on the choke lever arm and the pull off never failed again in the 6 more years my parents owned it. Still started just fine in cold weather.
The 2.6L carb choke was operated by a water heated wax pellet and the 2.6L thermostats were famous for going cold and the choke never warmed up.
I had a 74' 318 wedge engine in my 66' Dodge Van. It was a screamer with a G.M. quadrajet 4 barrel carb on it with an adapter.. ran like a grape ape! Up Woodford mountain it'd do over 85mph! Up a mountain slope.. no problem..
Woodford vt? Thats a big hill for 85. Some 318v8s ran good
Hello from the small island across the Atlantic where we have Marmite and Yorkshire puddings 👋
When Porsche was developing the motor for the 944, they licensed the balance shaft from Mitsubishi.
I had an early 87 Caravan with the 2.6, I sold the van when it rolled over 200,000 miles. I did replace the cylinder head three times and it was ready for a fourth head when I got rid of it. I did pull the engine at about 140K and did a balance shaft delete and I never really missed them. Engine was a lot peppier after the shafts were gone. Only issue I had with the carb was icing during the winter. The heater motor on the air cleaner failed and would not put any heated exhaust manifold air to the carb and it would ice up. Dealer wanted me to buy a whole new air cleaner housing to fix it. I had several IHC Scout II Engines around at that time so I removed the motor from an IHC Air Cleaner housing and adapted it to the mitsu and never had any more icing problems. Some ways, I wish I still had that van. When they went to the Grand Caravan, I lost interest as they took up to much room in my garage.
The Australian Chrysler Hemi 6 cylinder series of engines were great. 🦘🇦🇺
'Ken Oath
My first car that I got when I was 17 in the early 1980's was a 1975 Plymouth Valiant with over 100,000 miles on it. I ended up putting 125,000 miles on it and the Slant Six engine had never been rebuilt. It ran like a top until I junked the car.
The slant six had a problem with the exhaust manifolds cracking near the carburetor.
This was an excellent overview of the Mopar engines circa 1981. Our family was very much Mopar loyal at that time. I do have a few comments. In addition to the 318, the 360 was available in a few lines, especially 1980 model year and older, and commonly on trucks. The 360 was a pretty stout engine for the time, especially the E58 version used on police cars and famously on the 'Lil Red Trucks of 1978-79 model years. This engine was also used, although fairly rrarely, on earlier A-body cars; I had a 1975 Dart Sport with a factory-installed E58 360. This was a pretty quick car.
The 318 was also offered in a four barrel version in 1981-82, using the Carter Thermo-Quad carburetor. The TQ was a great carb as long as it was not overheated. If overheated, the phenolic middle section of the carb would warp and cause all sorts of drivability issues. If intact qnd in good shape the carb would flow an honest 800 cfm, which IIRC was the biggest 4BBL carb that Chrysler used on any engine. It was used on all 340's from '71 on, all 360 4BBL engines, all 400 4 BBL engines, and all 440s from '73 on. The 318 4 BBL engine in 1981 used 360 heads, which had bigger ports and valves than tne 318 2 BBL engines. The 318 heads evolved considerably in the 1980s prior to the Magnum versions. We had a 1981 Cordoba with the 318 4 BBL. This car never ran very well until out of warrantee, when I scrapped the ESC (lean burn) system and rejetted the TQ carb. I also planed the heads to get some more compression, installed a conventional LA distributor with 36 degrees total timing, a 340 camshaft & valve springs, and a factory-style dual exhaust. This really woke up the 318, and the Cordoba ran much, much better, and felt like it had double the power.
I also had a 1972 Duster for a time that had a 225 slant six. The mechanical valve lifters gave it a very distinctive sewing machine sort of sound. It was phenominally reliable. As some others have commented, the slant six was originally designed as a 170 ci engine with a 3.125" stroke, and the ports and valves were originally designed for an engine of that size. When the engine was stroked to 225 ci, the ports & valves were relatively undersize. This limits power on the 225, but the engine has higher velocity gas flow on the intake, which helps torque and smoothness of the engine at lower RPM. Except for some rare 4BBL "Hyper-Pack" engines in 1961-62 all slants had Carter 1BBL BBS carbs, until the "Super six" was introduced in 1975 or 1976 (can't remember which). This had a BBD 2BBL carb, similar to the 318, and I reckon was good for about 10 HP, a useful gain on a 100 HP engine. As far as I can recall, both 1 BBL and 2 BBL versions were available into the 80's. When the slant was converted from mechanical lifters to hydraulic in 1981, the engine also changed from a forged steel crankshaft to a much lighter cast iron crank and the balance of the engine was changed accordingly. Many bottom end parts are specific to the version of the engine and are not interchangeable.
I have lots of good memories of the '80s, but the Mopars of those times were moving away from the 1960s and 1970s of ny childhood and I liked them less and less as time went on. I think now that Chrysler was hurt more than GM and Ford by the on-again, off-again high fuel prices and the relentless CAFE and emission standards of the time.
Apparently, Carter discontinued the Thermo Quad in the 80s and four barrel Mopars were afterward equipped with Rochester Quadrajet carburetors. Used to see them on Dodge pickups with 360s.
The 1971 Ford 429 Cobra Jet also used a Rochester Quadrajet, while the Super Cobra Jet used a Holley.
@donreinke5863 That sounds right to me, although I have never seen a Mopar with a factory-installed Q-jet. I recall Carter going through reorganization/bankruptcy after the big three all moved to fuel injection, and I reckon that's when they sold the rights & tooling to Edelbrock. I do recall the 429 CJ with the Q-jet, a friend of mine bought a Torino Cobra with that engine and we were both surprised to see the typical GM carb on top of the Ford engine. We both assumed that it had been swapped on, but a little digging revealed that it came from Ford that way.
I get the reliability of the slant. It’s a very simple, low tech engine. But the head and intake design is terrible so gas mileage is nothing to write home about. I wish Chrysler had made a good, aluminum, closed chamber, maybe even cross flow head for the slant.
I just wish Chrysler made a better motor . Oh they did in Australia mate
Australia thought the slant 6 so rubbish the first thing we did was put twin barrel carb on factory then arseholed them altogether
@@johnkelly8525 Aussies also made a crossflow head version of the Ford "small" 6 cylinder engines that we never got. I did however buy a pair of your closed chamber 351 Cleveland heads that I believe were used on the Australian 302.
I used them on a 400M engine to boost compression.
I’ve only owned two Chrysler products in my life. 75 dodge dart se with 318 2bbl and 93 Chrysler lebaron with 3.0. I really like that car. To bad trans went out on me. But I’m pretty much a GM guy, I like Cadillacs.
The closest I ever came to owning a Chrysler vehicle was actually made by Mitsubishi, the 1983 Dodge Colt RS. It was red and had a twin stick, 4-speed with a 2-speed transfer case. The standard seat in the car was terrible, so I bought a Recaro for the driver’s side. It drove and felt like a rally car. Thinking about the slant six, imagine if they put two together to make a V-12? That would be something in a Duster. Kind of like what VW did with the Phaeton.
2.5 Turbo was a blast,no torque steer,super smooth and quick!
2.2 Turbo did have torque steer but easily get used to it,very reliable engines too..We had 240,000 miles on a 86 LeBaron GTS still ran like new!
My mom had an '86 LeBaron GTS turbo when I was in high school. It was an incredibly reliable, peppy, and fun to drive car.
I knew a kid who had one, it was quick and handled very well. Those cars if I'm correct came with Goodyear Eagle GT tires. Do remember the New Yorkers and others equipped with 2.2 turbo had serious turbo lag especially with automatics. You could floor it and wait several seconds then "boom" the power came on with the torque steer. I guess the turbo technology was still kind of new at that time. Still fun to drive.
I have a 78 Volare with a 318. It still has the original ELB system. Runs like a top.
Yep, we had a Caravelle of the same vintage - that car went many many miles, for many many years it was great
My mother had a 1975 Valiant with the Slant 6, but one quirk it had was the Holly carburetor model #1945 (still remembering that because I changed it) that caused the car to stall on left turns due to the plastic float filling with gas and becoming "water logged". Other than that, is was a reliable car. BTW, my 1969 Slant Six Dart had 145HP and could smoke the tires, and my 1968 Barracuda (318 2BBL) had 230HP, built before the Oil Embargo and smog emissions.
Had a buddy in high school who owned a '72 Dart Swinger with the 225 slant 6. It was quick for a 6 as I remember. According to him, it would smoke his Dad's new v8 Cutlass Supreme in the acceleration department.
We had a 1974 Valiant also with a 225 and a Holley 1945 single barrel carb and it did the exact same thing, every time you made a left turn the engine would stall and you could smell gasoline. The car was still pretty new when it started happening but I guess the warranty period was up already because my dad and I had to fix it. The float was soaking up gas like a sponge and becoming too heavy, so although it would still float and appear to be working correctly the level was way off because of the extra weight. It was very obvious once we compared a new float to the bad one, but because it looked like the bad float was working it took a few tries to figure it out.
My grandfather bought a brand new 1982 fuel injected Chrysler Imperial.Every 2-3 months he would have to take it back to dealer to get it "tuned up".I don't know what their version of a tune up was,but they got it running good enough to where he could reliably drive for 3-4 more months until he would have to take it back to the dealer to get it "tuned up" again.....This went on for as long as he owned the car then he traded it in on a brand new 1990 front wheel drive Imperial.....Other than that is was a pretty good car...He took numerous trips all over the country in it.
Bought a new fully optioned ‘85 Plymouth Voyager with the 2.6 liter Mitsubishi engine. I was meticulous with maintenance, but alas, the engine blew at 70k miles. I replaced it with a rebuild at a shop which specialized on such replacements. Needless to say, that shop had a very steady business. 🤣
I remember back in the early 80’s I got a job at an LPGA golf tournament as a driver for the pro golfer ladies. We had a fleet of brand new Kcars and as a then owner of a 69 Pontiac Grand Prix I was NOT impressed. They were noisy, buzzy, rough and gutless. But a few days later I took one out and it had a way smoother engine and it was actually quick (by 82 standards of course). Curious I popped the hood and that’s when I learned about the 2.6 Mitsubishi in Kcars.
Of course they were brand new so no issues but I did like that engine and I thrashed it for a week. Always making sure I got a car with the 2.6 instead of the 2.2.
The Mitsubishi balance shaft was actually two balance shafts. They turned in opposite directions at twice the speed of the crankshaft. Extremely effective.
If Mitsubishi was smart, they just would’ve used Scotch Yoke connecting rods. That way you could have an I4 with perfect primary & secondary balance, no need for a balancing shaft. There’s a company now about to put Scotch Yoke engines into production. They even have a F4 version that would be the smallest possible four cylinder, by using this mechanism.
The Mitsubishi carburetor’s were junk. My brother had a couple of the 2.6 L on his Mark Cross LaBaron Convertible. I had a 1984 Chrysler 5th Ave and I have no complaints of that 318 that was in it. Keep the car for 7 years!
Is this their 4G54 engine like one would find in a Starion (or Dodge Conquest)
@@Alex-di8ti I think so. Their 3.0L V6 was okay, but you had to change the oil religiously, especially if turbocharged. If the oil isn’t cleaned enough, the piston rings wear out, they start burning oil very fast, and they just scrape themselves to death.
@@Alex-di8ti basically but that one was fuel injected. And was likely a little bit later design
I had a 1979 Dodge St Regis. I really liked the style of the car, but it's 318 would not pull your hat off.... nothing a 1970 340 wouldn't fix.
Adam is spot on with this assessment. When I was in the used car business, I wouldn't buy anything at auction with a Mitsubishi engine. We provided a warranty and felt we couldn't stand behind the product. Therefore, we wouldn't sell it to our customers.
Putting together a 2.6 for my 83 Lebaron this sunday lol. Its gonna be balance shaft, jet valve delete. Strongly prefer 2.2 its just more sorted and breeze to work on
The slant six and the 318 were the engines in the family cars when I learned to drive. '63 Valiant 2-door for the slant six and '70 Valiant 4-door for the 318; both had a three-on-the-tree and power nothin'.
So many of us in our youth had slant 6 in our bargain cars. They had their quirks but they ran and ran. I had one in a Dodge van with over 200,000 miles that used a lot of oil. When driving the van I just moved the engine cover off whenever the engine started rapping and add a couple of quarts of oil I kept nearby without even turning the engine off. One day after many miles the engine won't stop rapping and that was that but it owed me nothing.
Yo that has me cracking up! 😂😂😂 Original Road Warrior!
The slant 6 was a very long lasting engine
Concerning the diesel blip around 1980: I was working part time pumping gas at that time. It was just after 2 gas shortages in the 70s and at least in my state, there was a law passed to limit the profit to a certain number of cents per gallon of gas. Coupled with the bad economy at the time and rents, insurance, etc. increasing greatly, it was a tough time for station owners. My boss was once fined for raising the price of gas at the pump before the tanker had left the property. When the diesel cars were gaining popularity, stations that sold diesel fuel were few; almost creating a monopoly. With no regulations on diesel pricing, it was a chance to finally make some income.
Just something silly to put out here which is completely irrelevant today: I personally remember as far back as the late 80's that rumor had it Mitsubishi Japan was not at all thrilled with the Mopar implementation of their 2.xL engine which was not quite made to the same spec the Japanese version was (out of necessity).. You'd find the Mopar implementation in anything from K variants to Might Max/D-50 1/4 ton pickups to US Spec Mitsubishi vehicles which all had that American-Chryslerized version as part of the Chrysler Mitsubishi arrangement. By the end of production the best version of this motor was probably in the Japanese imported Starions which did exist here and there.. Not all US bound Starions had the Americanized engine, and that was one hell of a cheap thrill. Just a joy to drive and own. Much like the Eclipse that came after it.
FWIW probably the absolute worst of the worst version is what came in the early Dodge Ram 50 (D-50)/Mitsubishi Mightymax pickups from about 82 to 86 which my family had a few of. Name a possible issue, it had all of them. Garbage engine no argument
The Astron 2.6 was used in the very popular Sigma and Magna sedan and wagon models here in Australia in the 80s. I never knew it as a bad engine but maybe with neglect it was, the cars were plagued more with auto transmission failures. Certainly, the old Valiants with the slant 6 were very dependable.
I had 1985 Dodge half ton. With the 318. Was a good little V8. The truck had the factory 4 speed manual. That was very weak. I got a 727 out of full chrysler. Had it rebuilt with a shift kit. Converted the truck over to an automatic. With a B&M Z gate shifter. Had dual exhaust installed. Other than that, it was stock. When I put my foot into it. Going into 2nd gear. It bang ur head against the window pretty if u weren't ready it. It was a lot of fun.
My parents had a 1985 mitsubishi magna (galant?) With the 2.6l Astron engine with the balance shaft and carb.
It suffered from a stupid automatic choke that wouldnt shut off properly and the camchain rattle.
At the time it was considered fast compared to other competitors from GMH and Ford. Had 110hp.
Love these videos. Thank you for not forgetting about the cars of the 1980s though most have.
My father had a Sapporo with the 2.6 Mitsubishi 4 and a 4 speed manual. The car was a blast. It had lots of power and easily reved to 5000+ rpm. I guess he was lucky that there were no problems with it
Very good information, Adam. Thank you for sharing.
Love your videos Adam.I always learn something new. I had a 1985 Dodge 600 2.2 literally turbo convertible .Great engine. The only problem I had was the fuel pump went out at 150,000 miles.It was in the fuel tank and cost 400 dollars to replace.I kept it another 3 years and sold it to my neighbor with 180,000 miles.He drove it another 2 problem free years.I lived on an island due to salt air the car rusted out,but the engine was still strong.
The /6 was pretty reliable stock. But with only 4 main bearings for the crankshaft, it’s not an engine that is built to be modified. The AMC 258 straight 6 has 7 main bearings in comparison.
A 225 seldom sees more than 3,000 rpm because the restrictive head doesn't flow well. The low speed nature of the 225 is the reason for its longevity. If Chrysler had the resources to build a lighter car - the size of a BMW E30 - the short stroke 170 might be more loved today.
@@timothykeith1367there is a guy here on Long Island whose life's code is the 170. Short stroke and rev-happy compared to the lumbering 225. He has them in almost every Valiant in his collection.
Ah, the venerable leaning tower of power.
My ‘77 Cordoba had a 400 CID engine tormented by the Lean Burn system. What a disaster. Nearly every week something went wrong with the car. The worst vehicle I’ve ever owned and only Mopar. The best part of this sad story is I became close friends with the family who still owns the independent garage I frequented. I love your channel and style.
Adam, On your side of the border it has been an eat until you're tired, rest a little, eat some more Thanksgiving Day. On my side of the border, it has been a hard day's work. Either way, that Slant Six ain't no turkey.😉🤣
Speaking of that Mitsubishi 2.6 L, my father bought a 1987 Mitsubishi Montero which had that engine. The carburetor was definitely a problem. And later on the upper radiator hose seem to lose strength and fail internally. Causing a blockage. Causing a cooked engine. Not good. We did end up tearing down the old engine, and I remember how it was built. Using chains for the oil pump, the camshaft, and another one for the balance shafts. A good engine, when it worked
Funny, those 2.6l Mitsubishi engines had a pretty good reputation in Australia. They were found in the RWD sigma which was Australian assembled. I think AUS emission regulations were more lax in the 70s and the engine wasn’t covered in vac hoses and had a less complex carburettor. I won’t say they were faultless but they definitely weren’t maligned here.
Nothing bad to be said about the Mopar 225, 318, and 360s of the time, IMO, other then they used lots of fuel when looking at their mileage and acceleration. The 318 EFI is the exception, but that was an electronics issue. The Mitsu 2.6 was horrid, with everything this video said to be true. Getting a replacement head proved to be rather difficult in the 90s. I recall our shop being on a waiting list for months. And good luck if they couldn't pass an emissions test as all controls were vacuum electro mechanical, with miles of lines that would make an Olds 307 blush.. My big gripe here is how bad the early 2.2s were, and the turbo variants through late 85. Chrysler had a major recall on all 1.7-2.2 carb cars starting in late 83 and lasting until late 84 for 1.8 million vehicles for stalling and poor performance. The Holley carb was the issue, and they never did get that 1 fixed, just flung a new 1 on. The 86 and up got new larger headbolts for the new fast burn head, several different types of gaskets were used to fight leaks, new cams made of better material were employed, better oil pumps, new and more simple distributors ( I believe 87 and up) larger engine mounts, and simple low pressure Bosch single point TBI 86 and up which worked very well. What they never fixed was the mechanical timing belt tensioner. Belts stretch! Plus side, it was an non interference engine, so if the belt broke, no harm done. ( same for the later 2.5s) Minus was the belts did not last long, about 50-60k. On the short lived 2.2 turbo 3 series with the Lotus 24v head, this was an issue as that was an interference mill, and that was expensive to fix if the belt slipped or broke. The 2.5L was a better engine, with the balance shaft, and better connecting rods, as well as less head gasket failures. By the early 90s, Chrysler had nearly all issues with the 2.5s fixed, even in turbo cars.
I was a certified Chrysler/Plymouth tech in the early 90’s. I can definitely attest to the fact that the engines at that time were embarrassingly unreliable overall.
The 2.6 most commonly had timing chain and carb issues. The 2.2 had wrist pin knock and ate head gaskets, (and even worse after being replaced once, because they need to be torqued and retorqued later after replacement, and Chrysler and indie shops never bothered to do it.) The updated 2.5 version of the 2.2 4cyl that came later was actually pretty decent (the balance shaft helped a lot too). The turbo versions of these vehicles were unspeakably horrible. That’s all I’ll say about that.
The Mitsubishi 3.0 V6 had egg shaped cylinder wear issues, and thus nearly always burned oil past the rings by the time they had roughly 75,000 mi. on them. The 3.3 that came later was halfway decent, but was unfortunately backed up by a disastrous 4 speed electronic transmission that was lucky to make it off the lot as a brand new vehicle.
The slant six was pretty much beyond reproach, with the 318 following close behind. The fuel delivery issues Adam described were spot on. If you buy an older Chrysler product with a ballast resister, always keep a spare. Though there were a few decent products in the 80s, on the whole, I found it to be a very embarrassing time to be a technician for Chrysler. One stand out vehicle that I remember from that time was the Dodge Omni with a German made 1.7 VW engine. Those little cars were definitely hard to kill, and Chrysler would have done well to stick with that partnership. Sadly, I can’t really name a vehicle from that time that I would have been proud to own, unless it was in the truck line.
This was a great, accurate video Adam!
I always called the 318 the Slant Six of V8's! In fact, before the emissions strangulation in the mid '70s, they both made more power than they had any right to as well as being reliable...
(I'm flabbergasted though, that the Six didn't have hydraulic lifters all those years. I don't ever recall one rattling badly, and I drove a Duster that was beat to death as a pharmacy delivery car...)
Back in the day, the 2.6L Mitsu was considered to be the better choice over the 2.2L Mopar engine. Those 2.6L Mitsu engines ran forever…I had cars with the 2.2L and that engine was JUNK.
The mitsu 2.6 engine was 2 valve inoz, ended up with efi and was excellent. Fitted to the Magna
1:16 as much as this hurts me to say, most of the cars from this era are or are close to being considered “Antiques” at least with most insurance companies and licensing offices.
Insurance is actually cheaper on the older vehicles, and we get 5 year "collector" plates for cheap money.
Supposedly, there is a mileage limitation for cars with such plates, but no way for them to prove anything since those cars cant rat you out electronically like new vehicles.
My 87 M Body Dodge with 318 was epic legendary reliable.
The maintenance schedule for the solid lifter slant sixes called for the valve lash to be readjusted every oil change. Of course this was rarely done, but would usually wake them up quite a bit.
Getting into bed with mitzushity was the worst decision chrysler ever did
A friend of mine bought one of those J-bodies with a dead FI set-up in excellent shape for $300. Used the tank out of a Gran Fury, removed all the fuel injection, installed a Walker 40430 Y-pipe, 3" Catco catalytic converter, 2.5" exhaust & an NOS Magnaflow turbo muffler, put the electronic ignition with the GM ignition module (the one from under the cap), Edelbrock 4-bbl intake, TQ carb (he can build & tune them). That car still runs, better mileage than when new, and I'd challenge your opinion on the "Only get the dealer converted ones"- this friend is a phenomenal mechanic/tech/builder. This conversion far outperforms the dealer version
The 273/318 V8 was based on the original Plymouth and Dodge V8 from 1955 with polyspherical heads that also ended up being a 318 for years. It was lightened with wedge heads and precision casting in the new version. The poly version also had mechanical valves at least through the early sixties if not to the end.
Thoroughly enjoyed the video
My uncle had an 83 or 84 Rampage with quad headlamps. While a curious car that garnered a tremendous amount of attention, and it was actually a comfortable car to sit in that engine completely ruined the car. Also I in my youth was offered a west Texas 85 LeBaron convertible that someone had spent a huge amount of money on having professionally repainted black from the factory maroon and it had a gorgeous red leather interior. But again. That ****** engine. What a beautiful rust free car gleaming with attractive lines and chrome a pleasant dashboard and the thing chugged and smoked and shaked. I traded the thing for a triple blue 93 Coupe deVille with cash in the biggest rush I could and I have never with any seriousness looked back at any FWD 1980s Chrysler Corp product again. Don’t get me wrong I think a Town and Country convertible in a dark color would be an absolute beauty but I don’t want it. I’d rather have an iron duke base model celebrity before I’d have a New Yorker Turbo with a moonroof or Mark Cross Town and Country. That’s how badly I perceived my experience.
I ran a smog inspection back in the 90s. You could smell that (very bad word) 2.6 coming. They always failed and gave the inspector carbon monoxide poisoning. I'm not making this up.
"I'm sorry, but the adapter I need for this engine is back-ordered from Taiwan."
I was a Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth salesman for a while in the late eighties. My new car sales manager instructed me to explain to (Unhappy) customers that it was the gasoline(?) in our area that was to blame for the Mitsubishi engine woes. Specifically to explain the early and exhorbitant oil consumption, beginning around 25,000 miles. They also had me manage the sale they made from the office, of an ex tow truck (Information not shared with me) pickup truck, which came back shortly for diagnosis of oil consumption, due to its hard previous use. That customer, was not a happy camper.
The used car manager (Think Herb Tarlick from WKRP in Cincinnati kind of character) also told me a story of the time HE traded in a car with a rear axle so worn that he literally stuffed bananas into it to quieten it down. Like he was proud of what he had done. Interesting times.
love your channel 👍
A girl I went to high school with had a 83-84 FWD New Yorker. I remember hanging out with her and that 2.6 would randomly stall and ran like absolute garbage. Her mechanic could never get it right. She just lived with it. It was the worst engine ever, i even suggested pulling a complete cradle assembly from a k car with a 2.5 and swapping it out.
They should have used the fuel injection from Bosh. The in-house fi for the Imperial was costly for them. Cadillac used a Bosch system in the DeVille w halfway decent results.
Ironic...because Chrysler invented electronic fuel injection back in the late 1950s. They didnt work because the control units werent shielded, and driving near a magnetic field such as a large neon sign would cause them to stop running. Vehicles so equipped were subsequently converted to carburetion by dealers.
Long story short...Chrysler sold the system and all intellectual property to Robert Bosch..the rest is history.
We had a mid 80's Dodge lancer with the Mitsubishi motor. The water pump was on the back of the engine and ran off a belt that was driven off the back end of the overhead cam. Also no automatic brake adjusters.
Happy Thanksgiving Adam. Many blessings to you and your friends and family. 🇺🇸🇨🇦
In regards to the 318 V8 LA, do you check for spark knock when you've adjusted the Carburetor or even when it is left to operate to specifications?
Yes
@@RareClassicCars Thanks for responding Adam, but do you mean yes to both situations or only when the carburetor has been adjusted to run rich?
I have a 74 Dodge Charger with the 318 that runs smooth as silk 49 years later doesn't burn or leak oil, pretty impressive. I have a 1980 Volare with a 225 slant six, runs smooth, good torque in the small car, love the mechanical valve tick at idle, classic. Have a 89 Plymouth Reliant with the 2.5. Not a lot of power but excellent fuel economy 30+ mpg and pretty smooth as the 2.5 has balance shafts. At 122k miles has been very reliable. And have a 89 Daytona Shelby 2.2 turbo intercooled bought used in 1994. Now has almost 200k miles and has never broken down. My experience with Chrysler engines has been great.
As a life long Mopar man , I agree with your “ 80’s best Mopar engine choices. Mopar really didn’t have a huge selection of engines available by the time the 80’s rolled around, especially in their larger cars and trucks. The 360 LA was also a great choice for a little more torque. . I’ve owned several F bodies with 6 cylinders and 318’s. Also an 81 two door K car with a 4 speed and a 2.2! I pounded that thing for years and never had an engine problem.. broke a few clutches. That was the weakest part. Great video.
Chryslers choice to discontinue both the B and RB engines in 1978 cost them severely in Dodge truck sales, as Chevrolet/GMC continued to offer their 454 in 3/4 ton and heavier trucks.
Also, Ford continued to offer the 460 in trucks up to the 1997 model year.
Winnebago..apparently had a stock of RB engine equipped chassis and used them into the 1979 model year.
440s would easily hold their own against nearly all "7 liter" engines (427, 428 and 429) as well as 454s, 455s and 460s...and were more durable.
Lots of thumbs-up comments on the 170/225 Slant Six. I had a 225 in a 1963 Valiant and while the body on that car was an unmitigated rust bucket (I owned it in the mid-70s, so it wasn't that old), the engine was rock solid. I do recall reading, however, that the exhaust manifold on these engines tended to crack. Both the intake and exhaust manifolds are inlayed with each other which makes things exciting as well when it's time to remove them.
A diesel Slant-6 would have been very interesting.
The guy delivering fuel to my local gas station once put Diesel in the wrong tank. Although I would not recommend it, I can attest to the fact a Slant 6 will run for some time
with Diesel. 🤨
With only 4 main bearings… the only interesting thing would be the oil slick it left after the crankshaft exploded.
@@rightlanehog3151back in the days of the oil embargo, my dad tried a little fuel oil mixed with gasoline to help "stretch" the mileage on a tank of gas in our 66 273 Coronet. Needless to say, he had to make that thing run super rich to burn off the diluted gas in the tank. So much for fuel saving experiment.....😎
Honda had a similar design to the Mitsubishi 3valve head. Honda had the CVCC head w/ a fancy sticker proudly displaying "Stratified Charge Engine"
The 80s were a nightmare for cars!
In America, yes, however Japan and Europe were doing quite well.
Slant 6 crank shaft was huge and super duty. We had a dodge van with 325,000 miles on that engine when we sold it. Very strong and reliable to the last day. Van was a giant rust bucket, but never stopped performing.
Agree with Adam's take on the Chrysler engines, though I have no experience with the 2.6 liter. The 318 was my favorite, I had one from an earlier era (pre lean burn) and loved the way it drove. The 225 slant six was an engineering marvel. I knew of several that went over 200k miles, knew of one that went 500k miles. They were not powerful but had sufficient torque to move the lightweight cars of the era very nicely. My dad had an '81 Dodge Aries with the 2.2, it was very reliable and ran well though the car was underpowered. I remember merging onto the freeway with four passengers was a white knuckle experience.
I HAD mid 60’s 383, AND A HEMI,LOVED THEM ,THEY HAD A ROAR THAT I LOVED! PREMIUM GAS KIND OF STRETCHED THE BUDGET,BUT WAS WORTH EVERY PENNY!
The 318 was the unsung hero of the Mopar V8s. Would have easily been a more popular motor had it not been overshadowed by the 426 and 440.
It’s a turd. 😂
With aftermarket heads and camshaft the 318 is a totally different motor, but most go with the 360
Agree 100% that the 318 is the unsung hero, very stout, cheap to build, and will embarrass a lot of naysayers. Buddy of mine built a 318 like a 340, stuffed it into a bone stock-appearing Volare, and had a lot of fun showing up the naysayers.
My dad said when the 2.5L engine came out and the 2.6L would blow under warranty his dealer would give them the 2.5LSlant 4 EFI engine upgrade free because the Mitsubishi Astron 2.6L engine was discontinuance by 1987 model year. The 2.6L was disconnected in all K cars by 1986 and the 2.5L Slant 4 engine bumped up the HP with EFI to 100 hp and 136 hp. The same people that made the Slant 6 worked on the K cars as the 2.2L and 2.5L were known as Chrysler Slant 4 engine. The only vehicle left with the 2.6L Mitsubishi Astron engine as an option for the 1987 Dodge Caravan LE/Voyager LE until 2/1987 as the 3.0L Mitsubishi engine based off the Galant V-6 was into the Minivan as well as the 2.2L N/A Slant 4 2.5L N/A|Slant 4 and they made a shorty Caravan only Carroll Shelby Model (1987-1990) very rare option not many were made. My dad had a garnet red 1988 turbo one and a 1989 Caravan LE Shelby Turbo model very rare as there were less than 350 produced. Looking back on it the 1989 we should have kept with it being numbered plack signed by Shelby. and also this engine was used on the C platform 1987-1993 Dodge Dynasty base as an option(base engine was the 2.5L Slant 4 and the Dynasty LE used the 3.0L V-6 as standard until 1990 when the Chrysler 3.3 engine was introduced which made the 3.0L Mitsubishi engine as standard on base and LE models and 3.3L V-6 Chrysler built which lasted from 1990-2012.By 1994 the 3.0L Mitsubishi engine was only available in the Minivans until 2004 I think. All Chrysler Town and Country Mini vans got the Chrysler built 3.8L V-6 which was a good engine as well those had a 3 speed Torque-flite as standard.Here is a little K car history. I have owned about 22 K cars and their variants none with the 2.6L these were just as bad as the Hook and Tow Cadillac 4100 V-8. The later models were turn key with EFI by 1986. The 2.2L and 2.5 did have some head gasket issues. Back in the day I could due head gaskets and timing belts on these in 4.5 hours. Parts were 200.00 labor 45.00 an hour back when these cars were a few years old. I did a lot of these at an AMOCO garage I worked at from when I was 14 from 1994-2003.it was 419.00 plus tax only on parts not labor in Illinois.
Had all of these engines in my family during the 60s - 90s.
'72 Valiant 198 ci 3 on the tree, bulletproof. '79 D100 318, '84 Voyager 2.6, '86 Lebaron GTS 2.2 turbo, very fun, and '90 Omni 2.5 5spd, poor man's Golf GTI. Fond memories of all.
The Chrysler Engineers were kept busy during the 80's, trying to adapt to Emission Standards, while coming-up with something innovative in Mopar Engineering. Sometimes they got it right and sometimes they didn't, eh Adam🤔🤲
Great video
I had a 2.6L mitsubishi engine in an 82 Dodge 400. It was previously owned by my sister/brother in law and they ordered the car from Chrysler. Engine definitely had carburetor issues with the complicated Mikuni unit failing to do the job properly. I had to replace the choke pull-off on the carb in the early 1990's as it would allow the choke plate to stay closed and the engine would run really rich. The engine ran well and didnt burn any oil. I remember running slick-50 and the car having noticeably more get up and go. Not a great powerplant but not the worst in my case.
I remember those 2.6 Mits engines, they did run good. Had one customer (back in '84) who had on '81 K car with that engine, the ignition igniter (ND dist)failed lost all spark. We had to get the replacement unit from a dealer because at the time it wasn't serviced by the aftermarket yet. Remember the part cost was astronomical for the time, can't fully recall by it was around $200. After the repair the customer continued to drive that car until he traded it off in '87. If I recall they used that same engine with a turbo in the Chrysler Conquest back at that time.
I had an '81 Cordoba LS with the 318 lean burn and Carter TQ 4bbl. Was one of the best 318's I've ever had! High 20s mpg and would move out!
My parents had an 84 Caravan with the 2.2/5 speed that they bought new and then traded in 1988 for an 85 Caravan with the 2.6/3 speed auto with the extremely rare front bench seat that was offered for a very short time. I don’t recall there being any issues with the engine, though I can still remember its labored huff in the early morning cold when my mom would start it to get the heat going… the Chrysler automatic was a different story, however, as it required two rebuilds in the time that we had the thing.
Chrysler and GM wouldve/did have a tough time competing in the Diesel passenger car market in the 70’s/80’s. Back in the 1980’s, Mercedes Diesels were superior to all others. With Peugeot as a close second, until they started using electronic fuel injection.
GM single handedly destroyed the adoption of passenger car Diesel in the US right up to this very day. Every time the 5.7 comes up, I swear there is like a bat signal that goes up and the 10 guys that like them come flooding in, but it really was a garbage engine and a misery to drive.
Yes I agree with you, I’m recalling a diesel Holden Gemini in the 70’s which apparently was a gutless wonder.
@@jamesmcgowen1769 That would’ve been an Isuzu Diesel, which were actually quite good, albeit underpowered. They’re extremely tough, and highly receptive to tuning with a turbocharger. Also analogue.
@@stoneylonesome4062 maybe receptive to tuning, but no one bothered with them.
I was only around 10 yrs old at the time.
They disappeared as soon as the sheet metal went to God, never to be seen again!
@@TheBrokenLifeIt wouldnt have been if GM would have done two things
One--install a water separator on the fuel system. The Olds diesel commonly blew head gaskets and cracked heads because of steam pressure from water contaminated (tank condensation) fuel
Two--installed a turbocharger along with the water separator.
The 350 Oldsmobile gas engine the diesel was based on was arguably the best of the GM 350s.
One reason the Slant Six was so durable was because the main and rod bearings were huge. The 426 Hemi used the same bearings.
Man, as a former Chrysler heavy line mechanic back in the 80's the pictures of those 2.6 engines brought back some bad memories. I can't believe I was paid to work on those pieces of junk. My stalls were 100 feet from the service drive entrance and if I close my eyes I can still hear one rattling in the door with broken timing chain guides. We called them Itchy Pu##ys, not Mitsubishi.
I just finished watching the rest of your episode. I find it interesting that you got it backwards. The major problems with the 2.6 where is cracking of the heads parrot and they almost always cracked in the same couple of places. How do I know that? We weld it many aluminum heads various manufacturer and engine sizes. If you knew what you were doing after a little bit of practice the air valve as you called it really came in handy. As far as the carburetor as long as you kept it clean it's like an Opels carburetor back in the 60s once it went South it was junk. The balance shaft had to be the number one problem. There was a bypass kit and you can use the same chain tensioners everything just had a gear and it had no shaft. Once you did that the engine ran so much better. Yes it was complicated behind that timing cover. I called a pinball machine. BECAUSE it look like a skeleton x-ray of a pinball machine. All the bumpers flippers and so forth. In this case on the engine we're talking about guides and so on. Not only did we work on these for other people but I drove these Mitsubishi 2.6 is and also the 2 L quite a bit during those days. As far as the fuel pump, can't remember a time we had to replace one. Back then we would run double filters and tell her customers we recommend the same. Of course when you have an aluminum head and a non-aluminum block that created problems especially back then. I really think overall they could have done better and they really really killed himself in long-term during the eighties. Any of the BIG 3. But then I'm also the nut that would like to have a second generation or 3rd generation 350 Oldsmobile diesel engine. I had great luck with them as well. I would literally drive one today and would love to have a 98 regency brougham preferably burgundy to maroon in color. As far as the slant six and the 318 yeah you nailed it. Some of the older slant six is had their quirks that they worked out. Did you know that Toyota had a hemi engine 4 cylinder about 73 or 74 is when the imported it. Only a couple of years. I really did appreciate and like your episode here.
My Dad's '77 Aspen slant 6 would stumble if you took a corner too sharply.
My very first car was a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. It was fitted with the 1.7 liter Volkswagen engine. It also had Chrysler's Electronic Spark Control Computer system. It was at the height of emissions strangled engineering. The car wasn't to unreliable but a oil 🔥 burner. I had to use 20W50.
Pre malaise the slant 6, the 273 V8 were perfect for fuel economy. The 340 was a great performance engine. The 440 was a perfect torquer for the big cars.
Popular legend has it that Chevrolet went to 350 from 327 because 340 Mopars were blowing the 327 into the weeds.
I had a 318 in an '82 pickup for a long time. The was never a problem.