Anyone else like 1964 Chrysler longroofs too?

This came from the original owner , many moons ago . I big thanks to Mr. Harry Carlson.

 

Looks like the rear door handles have been shaved on this one.

 

Don't assume you can't get decent power out of the Slant Six, Arnie!

1. There was a larger version of the Slant Six - 225 cubic inches. I had one in a '65 Dodge Dart. And while it was no drag strip winner, I never felt when driving it that it NEEDED more power.
2. In 1960, with the advent of the big 3 all coming out with 'compact cars', N.A.S.C.A.R. decided to introduce a compact car race series. Mopar (Valiant), Chevy (Corvair) and Ford (Falcon) all jumped in. While Chevy and Ford just did a bit of tuning to make their engines produce more power for the series, Mopar had already been working on a high-performance version of the 170 Slant Six. It had some stronger internals, and a long-ram intake manifold with a 4-barrel carb on it. They called it the 'Hyper-Pac'. The Valiant won the first race. They won ever race after that, too. Ford and Chevy quit the series after the first year, and shortly after that the series was abandoned.

https://www.curbsideclassic.com/aut...-mph-valiants-cream-the-corvairs-and-falcons/

 

Oh, it's already been going for quite a while.

http://www.stationwagonforums.com/forums/threads/travels-of-the-fury.46361/

 

Isn't that 170 the one with the aluminum block also? I've seen a build using that block in either Car Craft or Hot Rod magazine many years ago.

 

Yeah. Neglected to mention that part......

 

I was impressed any of the big four looked to do aluminum blocks (save for the Corvair) back in the '60s. I'm sure the expense of the metallurgy and the foundry operations made the engine infeasible for standard cars.

 

Actually, the 170 isn't inherently an aluminum block. From 1961 to 1962 there were about 50,000 aluminum blocks made - both for the race and extra cost-optioned Hyper-Pack slant six cars - but the overwhelming vast majority of them were cast iron.

Chrysler's original plan was to make the slant six as an all-aluminum engine with an aluminum block and head, but they were more expensive to produce due to their added material, casting, machining and re-tooling costs, so the production of aluminum blocks was eventually ditched.

The aluminum head never made it to production though. There were a couple prototypes made, but other than the weight savings, there was no real performance advantage between the two materials for production cars, so they decided to go with a cast iron head to keep costs down. Not to mention that they would've had to raise the compression ratio of production engines to prevent detonation (because of aluminum's faster rate of heat transfer, thus affecting combustion chamber temperature), so it just made sense at the time to produce an iron head, regardless of block.

Well, in the case of Mopar, it wasn't just the cost that caused them to stop making the aluminum block, it was also the fact that they used virtually the same block thickness as the moulds for the cast iron blocks, which was a mistake. When cast as an iron block the slant six block is very stout, but since they used virtually the same casting thickness as the cast iron blocks, the aluminum blocks weren't strong enough. Because, as we know, aluminum needs to be thicker to give the same torsional and tensile strength as iron. So, being that the aluminum blocks were cast too thin, they were relatively brittle because they just weren't thick enough for the material they're made of.

In addition to that, the aluminum block has cast-in iron cylinder bore liners, which caused Galvanic corrosion from the inside out, due to the use of dissimilar metals, which also caused cylinder head gasket sealing issues. Especially given that the aluminum blocks were an open deck design, which only made matters worse. But the Galvanic effect also exacerbated the issue of them being too thin-cast to begin with. The aluminum they were cast with was/is a solid alloy, but where they went wrong was with the use of dissimilar metals.

You have to remember though, in the late 50s when Chrysler engineers were designing the slant six, aluminum was still somewhat of an "exotic" material in the use of engines. Particularly in the use of aluminum as a block material, and particularly in U.S. manufacturing at the time. Also, the production techniques we know of today hadn't even been conceived of back then, so those early years of aluminum blocks involved a lot of unknowns, and trial and error. If only they knew then what we know now, that aluminum slant six would have been a pretty awesome little engine.

 

I actually love the 63-64 Dodge 880 wagons. Like the 63-64 Chrysler wagons, they are mostly carry overs from earlier, Virgil Exner, years. I think the Dodge wagon carries off the look better than the Chrysler. The Chrysler wagon rear quarters look a bit too plain and shapeless to me. As for the sedans, hardtops and convertibles, I think I like the 63 better. The 64 Chrysler was likely the only mid 60's car that re-introduced tail fins after they had been eliminated. Elwood Engle revived the small fins to give the 64 Chrysler sedans a more conventional side view. The steeply sloped rear deck of the 63 Chrysler was deemed to be a bit too unconventional in side view.

 

Oops! I forgot to comment on this...

Yep! Absolutely! Some people have built 600HP+ slant six "door slammer" cars that get down into the mid-9s in the 1/4 mile. However, the stock heads are dogs for performance. There's too much to get into here about them, but due to their air flow layout and the way they're cast, they have relatively little power off the line and their power band virtually dies above 5,000 to 5,500 RPM. The stock heads can be improved for performance, but they need lots of port work and certain aspects of their design architecture taken into consideration to make decent power with them.

However, no matter what mods are done to a slant six, they tend to be slower off the line and will almost never spin the tires in the first 60 feet, which is actually somewhat of a benefit for drag racing because they hook off the line every time. They're all about midband power, but they can certainly be made to go fast.

Here's a naturally aspirated one going 11.00 @ 117.65 mph in the 1/4. There's nothing like a buzzin' half dozen!

Yep. Like you said, in stock form, they're not rockets by any means, but for real world everyday driving they're actually pretty good little engines.

Yeah, NASCAR created that Compact Sedan Class in 1960, which coincided with the release of the slant six cars. It was both a banked oval and road course series, and it was actually a nationally televised series on CBS. It was said that over 17 million people watched the first race, but the compact series wound up being a flop, and a big part of the reason for that was due to the utter dominance of the slant six cars. It was dull for many fans because, especially in the first race, lap after lap, Lee Petty took and maintained the lead throughout the entire race. But what was made even "worse" was that the Plymouth Valiant cars finished in the first 7 positions. And so it went, pretty much with every race until NASCAR deep-sixed (pun intended) the Compact Sedan Series a couple years later.

Those slant six cars were no joke though. In that first race, Lee Petty averaged 122.282 mph and it was said those cars could hit top speeds of just over 130 mph. Given that they were essentially factory cars from that era, that was pretty damn impressive.

 

Anywayyyyyy, back to 1964 Chryslers. ...

Well, styling certainly is subjective, but as far as the fin look, Cadillac had bigger fins in '64 and they kept the shallow/mini fin look as a design queue all the way through to the 1992 Cadillac Brougham! Also, plenty of GM and Ford cars still had similar fins in '64 as well with various Buick, Oldsmobile and Mercury models, and Oldsmobile even had them on the front fenders of the 1964 Eighty-Eight, Ninety-Eight and Jetstar cars! But yes, I actually feel the fins of the '64 aids the overall look, which is why I prefer it over the '63.

 

Not saying it was a bad idea to add the fins, and not saying it was the only 64 with fins either. The difference was that Chrysler had completely eliminated tail fins for 62 and 63, but revived them for 64. Compare the side view of the 63 with the 64. The addition of the tail fins hid the steeply sloped rear deck in side view. Perhaps the mistake was leaving the fins off of the 63.

 

Oh, I totally agree. I always thought the back end of the '63 looked odd with the way it tapered. But the addition of those fins framed it nicely and certainly improved its profile for sure. I'm a bit of a sucker for fins anyway, so maybe that's partly why I prefer it. I also think the blocky diamond-shaped tail lights of '64 are more distinctive as well. Although, overall, I think the wagon fared better than the sedan and coupe in '63.

 

Here's something a lil' different. Just check out the bass boat silver flake on the roof!...

 

Surf's up!