Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I owned two Slant 6's in my life, and hated both. I heard they were great engines, both of mine sucked. LOL Weak engines was putting it nicely. Obviously opinions varied a lot on them. I've read comments of them being one of the best engines ever made.
I have only ever driven 2 slant 6 vehicles in my lifetime,and both only for a short while.One was a 1981 B150 shorty Cargo van with manual transmission,and the other a 1984 B150 cargo shorty van with automatic.The automatic van was a serious joke.60mph top speed,and nauseating fumes of rotten egg/catalytic converter.The manual van,which was only for a 1-2 mile drive,was a real peppy rig.It ate at least 2 rear u joints per year I heard,but was a solid soldier.I believe the way the vehicle was optioned made a lot of difference.They were ok with automatics,but it took a lighter car (Dart/Duster/Valiant) to make it work.A 225 in a larger van or pickup required a manual tranny and/or decent rear gearing.As the engine was a pretty long stroke affair,it didn't like to rev though.So you had a conflict there between RPMs and actual performance. The main reason the slant 6 got its durability reputation though,was because of its over-engineering.The engine was designed as a thick block ALUMINUM engine.When Chrysler couldn't reliably,or economically make the Slant 6 in aluminum for mass production,the thick castings stayed but in iron.With 145 gross hp,down to 85 net hp to work with,that overweight/overcast engine was far from stressed.Yes,the rods were,and those should have been forged (race) items,but for the engine's meager existence as an economy,base engine,not considered worth the extra expense. I believe a mild,318 V8 could have met the 225s goals of cost and MPGs,especially with manual overdrive.Had the 318 undergone more research and development in the emissions-riddled 70s....Chrysler could have dropped the 6 altogether and been the only carmaker starting off with only V8s...