The best straight six?
- Thread starter Straight Six
- Start date
Hi SS.Times 20.The more"features",the more things to crap out.Leo
Seattle Smitty":3i8zc2oz said:
I would agree, except that I love my modern pickup. Chevy 1500, 5.3L LS1. Stout engine that can hurtle a 5400# truck down the highway at 65MPH and still manage 20 MPG with the AC on. If I load the bed up to capacity, my mileage drops to 18MPG.
The new mini is a marketing gimmick. Wouldn't touch that car with someone else's 10 foot pool.
Did Oz ever offer a 4.0L Falcon I6 with the Ford 5 speed automatic that they started putting in the Mustang's?
IIRC the 5 speed auto's were Borg Warner and IIRC Borg Warner was really big in Oz.
IIRC the 5 speed auto's were Borg Warner and IIRC Borg Warner was really big in Oz.
Yes, it became the base transmission since 2008 to date on some versions, but as its a one piece case like all post 2001 5R55 transmissions, it has the later 1993- date bellhousing with the starter mounted high in the true left.
So its a Mustang/ Explorer trans, but with a specific case which prevents swapping in a proper US market item unless an adaptor is made.
Good thing is it still uses a 160 teeth flywheel (aka five bolt 1963-1965 221/260/289 V8) , so a neutral balance 157 teeth item from an earlier I6 Ford can be made to fit. The six bolt holes are metric, not 7/16".
So its a Mustang/ Explorer trans, but with a specific case which prevents swapping in a proper US market item unless an adaptor is made.
Good thing is it still uses a 160 teeth flywheel (aka five bolt 1963-1965 221/260/289 V8) , so a neutral balance 157 teeth item from an earlier I6 Ford can be made to fit. The six bolt holes are metric, not 7/16".
not a 6 yet
New member
what a complicated question...
tha answer really depends on the application...
for a work truck, easily the ford 300... cheaper than a cummins
for a modern car, probably the BMW N54 six... 300hp and 300 lb/ft of torque and more is just an ECU reflash away...
for a play vehicle, probably a toss up between the 2JZ-GTE and the RB26DETT... both have their strong points...
i'm still not sure which i want in my ranger though...
tha answer really depends on the application...
for a work truck, easily the ford 300... cheaper than a cummins
for a modern car, probably the BMW N54 six... 300hp and 300 lb/ft of torque and more is just an ECU reflash away...
for a play vehicle, probably a toss up between the 2JZ-GTE and the RB26DETT... both have their strong points...
i'm still not sure which i want in my ranger though...
On the Jag DOHC six. I really don't think that they are a contender for best over all, but as for best looking? In my opinion, nothing else even comes close. With polished aluminum castings these things are pure art. I'd have one sitting on the floor of my living room if my dear sweet wife would allow.
Best looking? To me, its a tie between the Raymond Mays headed, Ken Rudd prepared Ford Zephyr Six found in the penultimate Stage 5 tuned 1961-1963 AC Ace RS 2.6
(The majority of them were no where near as wild as the Stage 5 versions. This was the alloy headed triple DCOE 40 carbed 170 hp engine that did 6.2 second 0-60mphs, 15.3 sec quarter 135 mph top speed in the AC Ace convertable and Acea hardtop. Stage 3 versions did 16.3 second quarter miles, but the stage 5 was heaps quicker. Even stock Bristol engined Aces did 16.4 second quarter miles. The Ford Zephyr MK II six was kicked out in favour of Carroll Shelby's 260 and 289 engines, but the little Stage 5 2.6 six with Moss 4-speed plus Overdrive six almost eclisped the 271 hp gross of the K-code 4-bbl 289 AC Cobra (0-60 in 5.6 secs, 14.4 quarter, 138 mph top speed) as it was just 1917 pounds instead of the 2315 plus with the Dana 44 /4HU diff, Toploader and iron headed small block. Power started at Stage 1, 90 hp 2553 cc six, then it got twin carbs, then triples, then alloy head...120, 125, Triple SU Alloy headed 155, and finally 170 hp, almost double the power with just a head, cam and carb change. Sounds familiar doesn't it?). The net figures of the K code was likely to be 205 hp, as it was no where near 271 hp flywheel net, while the 170hp gross engine was likely to be 145 hp net. That a 2.6 could almsot match the 4.7 was an example of how much power a little six can yield. And there would have been more to come. In the Reliant Sabre, the Zephryr 2.6 continued on, but the small block v8 killed any further European I6 and V6 development until the Cosworth Capri RS 2600, RS 3100 and 3400. The 2.5/3.0 Essex and Cologne 2.6/2.8 engines were latent engines compared to the Ruddspeed six)
and the other was the 1967 to 1972 Aston Martin DBS 4.0.
from the last four eye beasts
Basic version was only 282 hp with 8.9:1 compression and just a set of triple SU HD8's. In the Vantage form, there was 325 hp and 9.4:1 compression. There was a Bico Injection version which was not a real sucess, but despite the lack of Jag XK fins and dihedarl bolts, it was Tadek Merak mastery of function over form all the way...
(Edited 10/12/2012 as the old DBS 4 Liter links had dropped out
)
(The majority of them were no where near as wild as the Stage 5 versions. This was the alloy headed triple DCOE 40 carbed 170 hp engine that did 6.2 second 0-60mphs, 15.3 sec quarter 135 mph top speed in the AC Ace convertable and Acea hardtop. Stage 3 versions did 16.3 second quarter miles, but the stage 5 was heaps quicker. Even stock Bristol engined Aces did 16.4 second quarter miles. The Ford Zephyr MK II six was kicked out in favour of Carroll Shelby's 260 and 289 engines, but the little Stage 5 2.6 six with Moss 4-speed plus Overdrive six almost eclisped the 271 hp gross of the K-code 4-bbl 289 AC Cobra (0-60 in 5.6 secs, 14.4 quarter, 138 mph top speed) as it was just 1917 pounds instead of the 2315 plus with the Dana 44 /4HU diff, Toploader and iron headed small block. Power started at Stage 1, 90 hp 2553 cc six, then it got twin carbs, then triples, then alloy head...120, 125, Triple SU Alloy headed 155, and finally 170 hp, almost double the power with just a head, cam and carb change. Sounds familiar doesn't it?). The net figures of the K code was likely to be 205 hp, as it was no where near 271 hp flywheel net, while the 170hp gross engine was likely to be 145 hp net. That a 2.6 could almsot match the 4.7 was an example of how much power a little six can yield. And there would have been more to come. In the Reliant Sabre, the Zephryr 2.6 continued on, but the small block v8 killed any further European I6 and V6 development until the Cosworth Capri RS 2600, RS 3100 and 3400. The 2.5/3.0 Essex and Cologne 2.6/2.8 engines were latent engines compared to the Ruddspeed six)
and the other was the 1967 to 1972 Aston Martin DBS 4.0.
from the last four eye beasts
Basic version was only 282 hp with 8.9:1 compression and just a set of triple SU HD8's. In the Vantage form, there was 325 hp and 9.4:1 compression. There was a Bico Injection version which was not a real sucess, but despite the lack of Jag XK fins and dihedarl bolts, it was Tadek Merak mastery of function over form all the way...
(Edited 10/12/2012 as the old DBS 4 Liter links had dropped out
)
Hi all.Just reread this whole thread again.Love it.To 60`sRefugee.Yes the 300 did come with a c6 behind it.I have a 1984 F150 with that setup.
From what I understand it was an option.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo
Sav63comet
Active member
I really miss my Triumph GT6.
2.0 liter, pushrods, dual carbs... Such a tractor engine..... Had no trouble punching up well over a hundred. Hardest I ever pushed that beastie was up to 8000 rpm (160mph?) while playing with a twin turbo Z on the interstate.
It's having had Brit sports cars that got me loving the roar of a wound out six.
2.0 liter, pushrods, dual carbs... Such a tractor engine..... Had no trouble punching up well over a hundred. Hardest I ever pushed that beastie was up to 8000 rpm (160mph?) while playing with a twin turbo Z on the interstate.
It's having had Brit sports cars that got me loving the roar of a wound out six.
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
Top Poster
VIP
Subscriber
Supporter 2023
Supporter 2022
Supporter 2021
Supporter 2020
REDLINE 10K
Supporter 2018
Nashtooth":17e1ll01 said:
Whats a 6 x 6 Econoline?
Guys:
I don't know if it is the "best" inline six but the "Big" and "Little" sixes built by Offenhauser between 1937 and the very early '40s would be the one(s) I'd actually like to own. The "Big" six was a supercharged twin-cam two-valve jewel displacing 337ci. The "Small" six was essentially a six cylinder version of the Offy 4-banger with twin-cams and 4-valve configuration displacing 260ci. If I could lay my hands on one of these engineering masterpieces, that would be my choice, hands down.
I don't know if it is the "best" inline six but the "Big" and "Little" sixes built by Offenhauser between 1937 and the very early '40s would be the one(s) I'd actually like to own. The "Big" six was a supercharged twin-cam two-valve jewel displacing 337ci. The "Small" six was essentially a six cylinder version of the Offy 4-banger with twin-cams and 4-valve configuration displacing 260ci. If I could lay my hands on one of these engineering masterpieces, that would be my choice, hands down.
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
Top Poster
VIP
Subscriber
Supporter 2023
Supporter 2022
Supporter 2021
Supporter 2020
REDLINE 10K
Supporter 2018
russk":vbnigicd said:
I'm trying to recapture that era with my disguised Ford crossflow champ car project
Firepower354
Famous Member
Norwood/Batten DOHC inline was swell.
Firepower354":19d08u5z said:
Ah, this....http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0202t ... r_integra/
No ones added two cylinders to it yet to turn a 4.8 four into a 7.2 liter six....
chessterd5
Famous Member
WOW,wow,wow!
Xctasy, I just read the article & I am not even gonna pretend that I understood everything. But, I gotta ask a stupid Question: The article said that gasoline as more energy potential than nitro-methane & made a comparison of a pound of air will burn an ounze of gasoline but the same pound of air will burn over a half a pound of nitro. It also said they were running 55 psi of boost. My question is (and I'm not sure if I'm asking it right) how much air would you need to make the same amount of power with gas as opposed to nitro & do we have anyway of delivering that realisticly? AND YAH! I'd like to see it in a SIX!
Xctasy, I just read the article & I am not even gonna pretend that I understood everything. But, I gotta ask a stupid Question: The article said that gasoline as more energy potential than nitro-methane & made a comparison of a pound of air will burn an ounze of gasoline but the same pound of air will burn over a half a pound of nitro. It also said they were running 55 psi of boost. My question is (and I'm not sure if I'm asking it right) how much air would you need to make the same amount of power with gas as opposed to nitro & do we have anyway of delivering that realisticly? AND YAH! I'd like to see it in a SIX!
Similar threads
