FORD 200 VS SLANT SIX 225

M

MandarinaRacing

Famous Member
Hi guys!
I've been obsessed with this article ever since I read it in HOT ROD mag....especially this...13.57 @ 99.23 mph....Is this possible :shock: ?????? I mean this is a 3100 lb car (driver and fuel) ....how different is the slant six from our own little six??? Are 25 cubic inches that much difference??? Is it the intake??? or maybe the cool Demon carb???? which BTW is way too big for that engine..isn't it???...please bare with my ramblings, this article has always puzzled me, and if a Slant six can do it....why can't I (we). :unsure:

Alex
 
8) mid 13's with a six, yes it can be done even with ours. the basic slant six is tuned for low end grunt, but with the right parts can put out good top end as well. ask our friends from oz and argentina.
 
I remember someone on the forum once telling me that if the 221 was so good, they would have made it in the US. ;)

Alex: The slant six has some benefits - as you mentioned, the intake design, serious carburetion, and some physics thingy I can't exactly recall, but to do with the slant. :unsure: Plus you can hook it up to a 'Flite. :) Closest equivalent I can think of would be the Oz 245 Hemi six, with 2 or 4 barrels. Or triple Webers.

I'd like to see a 188TC motor with NOS. :eek:

Regards, Adam.
 
In HS, around 1977, I took my 383 Dart to get tires put on it. (E-70 14 was the biggest tire I could get on the back) The owner of the tire place looks at my Dart and says to come out back with him. He had a 67 Dart with a 225. It was stripped bare, fiberglass body panels and bumpers. The 225 had 6 side draft carbs on it, open headers, 13in front wheels, 15in slicks on the rear with cut fenders. He told me he ran it in Denver and it would run 12s in the quarter. I had the mighty 383 so I was unimpressed with a slant. I wonder if the car was really that fast, from what I remember it looked fast. Slants are mighty motors, but there doesnt seem to be alot of lightweight Mopars around to put them in. Ford used the 240 for the full size base engine, Mopar used the 170/198/225 in everything from Darts to 3/4 ton trucks.
 
The thing with the slant is you could grab one of the pre 1969 225 numbers and do nothing but hook a set of tripple carbs and a cam, and end up with a 220 horse screamer. You can't do that to a US 200 or 250 without getting into the bottom end. Rod bolts are plasticine, and the 2v heads are thin on ground. It's all down to being able to bolt on performance. The Mopar guys did there homework, while Ford pinched some pennies. The 2V headed Argie and Oz 221 and 250's made up all the lost ground, but you just can't get 'em at the drop of a hat like you can Mopar gear.

However, the Slant is, in it's 225 form, a lo-rev slugger like the 250 I6. Unlike the 250, it has a four bearing crank that can spit even a forged steel unit straight out the bottom at 5000 rpm or more. Over the 280 flywheel hp mark, they are unreliable. Aussie Bill Shaw at Hemi performance will vauch for that. Other engines like the Aussie Chrylser Hemi I6 have a willingness to rev out to over 6000 rpm with total reliability..215,245, 265 or bored out with 4 inch 308 Holden/327 Chev pistons, and 277 cubes.

As for the Ford I6's, they are handy-capped by the rod length being small on every engine except the 144,170 and 188. But the cranks are super strong, much better than the Chrysler donk, especially after they went to nodular iron in the 70's. And Falcons and Mustangs (except the 1971 to 1974 'Stangs) are lighter than Plymouths, Dodge and Aussie Chrysler compacts, and thats a factor in there favour.

US 200 and pre 1970 Aussie 200, all 221, and all 250's are potential 200+ hp engines on when you fix the integral manifold. Rod length is a secondary issue, and the strength of the rods is suspect on these engines. Fix just the rods, and the head and carburation, and a 200 will cane a 198, a 221 will cane a 225, and a 250 will take out an Aussie 245.

The only engine I worry about when tucked up in my bed at night is the 265 Hemi 6. I'm a percentage beat layer, and I'd never like to go heads up with a engine with 13% more piston area, larger ports, valves and a shorter stroke with longer rods. The 225 is just a slow reving joke in comparison. And I've got about 20 Moari gang members just around the corner who know that for hot six bangers, the Hemi is unassailable!!!!!

As Adam said a while back... Fear This!!!!!
 
:D nobody can aruge with a six like that when ur cranking out that kinda power and timeslips for us it is acheiveable except like everybody says the main thing that kills us is the damn head and manifold

to me our motors will keep up if not beat anybody from the line with all our torque its just when the rpm's start going up we run out of breath because of the head/manifold

ok say with all the mods my motor makes i crank out roughly 200hp if i throw a 100 shot of nos on like they did i could be runnin the same time slips pretty much

my car still isn't roadworthy but im very close i cant wait to get it on the road cause everybody including me wants to see how she runs
someone on 1 of the other topics was sayin that edelbrock or nos would probally make a 1 barrel plate so if ur running triple weber carbs like i am u put a plate under each with the wot switch and u should crank out the power u need to whop some v8's

just rambling on sorry
 
what issue of Hot Rod was this article in. I would be very interested in reading it, as I have 67 Valiant with a slant 225. It will be my next project after the turbo 200 in my 62 Falcon.
 
XECUTE":q9kuy553 said:
The thing with the slant is you could grab one of the pre 1969 225 numbers and do nothing but hook a set of tripple carbs and a cam, and end up with a 220 horse screamer. You can't do that to a US 200 or 250 without getting into the bottom end. Rod bolts are plasticine, and the 2v heads are thin on ground. It's all down to being able to bolt on performance. The Mopar guys did there homework, while Ford pinched some pennies. The 2V headed Argie and Oz 221 and 250's made up all the lost ground, but you just can't get 'em at the drop of a hat like you can Mopar gear.

However, the Slant is, in it's 225 form, a lo-rev slugger like the 250 I6. Unlike the 250, it has a four bearing crank that can spit even a forged steel unit straight out the bottom at 5000 rpm or more. Over the 280 flywheel hp mark, they are unreliable. Aussie Bill Shaw at Hemi performance will vauch for that. Other engines like the Aussie Chrylser Hemi I6 have a willingness to rev out to over 6000 rpm with total reliability..215,245, 265 or bored out with 4 inch 308 Holden/327 Chev pistons, and 277 cubes.

As for the Ford I6's, they are handy-capped by the rod length being small on every engine except the 144,170 and 188. But the cranks are super strong, much better than the Chrysler donk, especially after they went to nodular iron in the 70's. And Falcons and Mustangs (except the 1971 to 1974 'Stangs) are lighter than Plymouths, Dodge and Aussie Chrysler compacts, and thats a factor in there favour.

US 200 and pre 1970 Aussie 200, all 221, and all 250's are potential 200+ hp engines on when you fix the integral manifold. Rod length is a secondary issue, and the strength of the rods is suspect on these engines. Fix just the rods, and the head and carburation, and a 200 will cane a 198, a 221 will cane a 225, and a 250 will take out an Aussie 245.

The only engine I worry about when tucked up in my bed at night is the 265 Hemi 6. I'm a percentage beat layer, and I'd never like to go heads up with a engine with 13% more piston area, larger ports, valves and a shorter stroke with longer rods. The 225 is just a slow reving joke in comparison. And I've got about 20 Moari gang members just around the corner who know that for hot six bangers, the Hemi is unassailable!!!!!

As Adam said a while back... Fear This!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'm still confused on all this rod ratio stuff. Comes as a bit of a shock when it seems like all you hear is "there is no substitute for cubic inches."

Is there anywhere where I could learn more about why longer rods are better?
 
Doug Dutra and I have been talking for several years. In fact, it was this forum that convinced the Slant guys to switch formats at slantsix.org.

Anyway, the slant is not naturally superior to the falcon six. Each has several things that you have to overcome in order to make it run.

The slant is saddled with only 4 mains, a tiny bore, a long stroke and weird combustion chambers that are hard to gain quench on.

The Ford has the lousy log head, no way to stroke the US 200, and poor rod ratios.

But I'd rather change points on a Falcon than a Valiant any day.

13's with a 100 shot of nitrous? Hmm.....wonder how fast my Mustang would run with a 100hp shot?
 
I'm totally lost. Why is the long rod better. Is it because the is more "room" for air/fuel without needind a taller deck (like 347 strokers) ????

Hopefully I'm shooting for a goal like this 225 slant six. The buildup in the article isn't too far fetched, it's good, simple, clean and cheap!!!! Besides if you're careful you CAN get away with nitrous and cast pistons.

Alex
 
hmmm, the "fast" 221 crowd runs on the mid 12's to high 13's range...on the motor. A 188 TC engine makes around 335 dynoed horses, with 9:1 compression and limited carburetion, but they use some serious racing hardware to keep them in one piece at 9000 rpms.
I asked a local nitrous manufacturer about how much power I can extract to a 221, without going all out on engine internals. The answer was around 450 horses with the fast gas on. Rather interesting...
 
A rod ratio of less than 1.8:1 increases side thrust and hp loss at high-rpm when comared to ratios over 1.8:1.
A rod ratio of more than 1.8:1 decreases side thrust and hp loss at hi-rpm, when compared to ratios below 1.8:1

Long rod engines have longer, heavier blocks or shallower, more expensive pistons. The added weight, or extra cost, crosses out the benefits. One the street, rod length ratios of 1.48 to 1.56:1 work well...its only in racing situations when you'd consider a change.

Fords are often in at the lower, 1.48-1.56:1 ratio because of the cost of tooling different block heights. Chrysler tends to optimise rod length for each of its engine families, Ford don't. 225 Slants are at 1.6:1 with there long-stroke six. You seldom see 1.56:1 ratios on their engines. Only exception is the 215/245265 Aussie Hemi i6's.

Poor rod ratio engines can still perform well, its just that high-rpm power will be less than if a longer rod goes into the engine. This has nothing to do with bore:stroke ratio. Increasing the piston area raises top end power.

NB: The ratio is rod centre to centre length divided by stroke.

Here are some common ones for Aussie, Argie, and Americans to ponder.



400 has rod ratio of 1.65:1, bore to stoke ratio 1:1 (square) Very tall block
351 M has rod ratio of 1.88:1, b:s ratio of 1.14:1 (oversquare), very tall
351 W/K has rod ratio of 1.70:1, b:s ratio of 1.14:1 (oversquare), tall block
351 C has rod ratio of 1.65:1, b:s ratio of 1.14:1 (oversquare), shallow
302 C (Aussie 351C, destroked) has rod ratio of 2.01:1, b:s ratio of 2.01:1 (oversquare), shallow
302 W has rod ratio of 1.70:1, b:s ratio of 1.33:1 (oversquare), v. shallow
302 Boss has rod ratio of 1.72:1, b:s ratio of 1.33:1,(very oversquare and short block)
300 I6 has 1.56:1 rod ratio, b:s ratio of 1.01:1 (square), very tall block
289 W has rod ratio of 1.80:1, b:s ratio of 1.39:1,(very oversquare and short block)
260 W has rod ratio of 1.80:1, b:s ratio of 1.39:1,(very oversquare and short block)
255 W has rod ratio of 1.70:1, b:s ratio of 1.23:1 (oversquare), v. shallow
250 I6 has rod ratio 1.51:1, b:s = 0.94:1, (undersquare, tall block)
4.0 Intech SOHC/DOHC I6, rod ratio 1.53:1, b:s = 0.93:1 (undersquare, tall block)
3.9 SOHC I6, rod ratio 1.51:1, b:s = 0.92:1, (undersquare, tall block)
240 I6 has 1.95:1 rod ratio, b:s ratio of 1.25:1 (oversquare), very tall block
221 I6 has 1.49:1 rod ratio, b:s ratio of 1.06:1 (oversquare), medium block
221 W has rod ratio of 1.80:1, b:s ratio of 1.22:1,(very oversquare and short block)
200 Geelong I6 (Aussie 250 destroked) has 2.01:1 rod ratio and 1.178:1 b:s ratio (oversquare), tall block
200 (All US and pre 1970 Aussie) has rod ratio of 1.53:1, and 1.178:1 b:s ratio (oversquare), shallow block
188 I6 has rod ratio of 1.83:1, b:s ratio of 1.25:1, (very oversquare and medium block)
170 I6 has rod ratio of 1.60:1, b:s ratio of 1.19:1, ( oversquare and short block)
144 I6 has rod ratio of 1.88:1 ( I think), b:s ratio of 1.40:1, (very, very oversquare and shallow block)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bubba22349
All Small Six 1965 Ford Mustang 200 Six Clutch Linkage Parts I.D. Help Needed!
Replies
13
Views
2K
powerband
powerband
xctasy
Historical Rod ratio L/R improvement information links
Replies
3
Views
2K
Firepower354
F
bubba22349
  • Locked
All Small Six 1960 to 1967 Ford 144, 170, & 200 Six'es With a LOM, How to Install a better Distribitor
Replies
0
Views
10K
bubba22349
bubba22349
62Ranchero200
Optimum carburetion for small six with aluminum head (3 2-Vs) ?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
xctasy
xctasy
M
FAST EFI Installation on 200 Inline 6
Replies
11
Views
20K
thesameguy
T
Back
Top