Harry Krause wrote:
On 10/15/2006 3:42 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...
Don White wrote:

That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.
Have you noticed you can now buy a brand new Chrysler Aspen? D-C has
revived the nameplate. That takes guts after the Aspen/Volare debacle(it
should have been a worthy successor to the Dart/Valiant except for the
careless way Chrysler designed/built/marketed cars in the mid 70's... I
mean who wanted an olive green Aspen w/ orange vinyl interior, that rusted
out in 2 years?).

Rob

Yep. Remember the top of the fenders over the front tires? They always
rusted through.

Eisboch




I had a Valiant slant-six station wagon for a while. Must have been,
this is a guess, 1961? Silver. Crummy seats, but a tough little car. I
really abused it. Got rid of it before it rusted through.

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke.... please answer, we'll
go from there, little guy. Also, you notice, please, that I never said
that one type (long stroke, small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was
WHERE in the power band that torque is prominent.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke....

Never said that. Did you miss the part where I said "Everything else being
equal (# cylinders, displacement)"
I even simplified my argument for you. Here it is again.

Engine #1- 250 ci straight 6 in a under square configuration (Stroke is
longer than the bore- long stroke)

Engine #2- 250 ci straight 6 engine in a over square configuration (Stroke
is smaller than the bore- short stroke)

Engine #1 will have more torque than engine #2 at a lower rpm.
Engine #2 will rev higher and achieve its max torque at a higher rpm than
Engine #1.
Engine #2 will also redline @ a higher rpm than Engine #1.

Anything here you disagree with?


Also, you notice, please, that I never said that one type (long stroke,
small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was WHERE
in the power band that torque is prominent.

And that's where you're wrong. You stated- "Inlines, because of the
relatively short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque"

Low end torque is not enhanced by having a relatively short stroke.

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke....

Never said that. Did you miss the part where I said "Everything else being
equal (# cylinders, displacement)"
I even simplified my argument for you. Here it is again.

Engine #1- 250 ci straight 6 in a under square configuration (Stroke is
longer than the bore- long stroke)

Engine #2- 250 ci straight 6 engine in a over square configuration (Stroke
is smaller than the bore- short stroke)

Engine #1 will have more torque than engine #2 at a lower rpm.
Engine #2 will rev higher and achieve its max torque at a higher rpm than
Engine #1.
Engine #2 will also redline @ a higher rpm than Engine #1.

Anything here you disagree with?

Yes.


Also, you notice, please, that I never said that one type (long stroke,
small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was WHERE
in the power band that torque is prominent.

And that's where you're wrong. You stated- "Inlines, because of the
relatively short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque"

Low end torque is not enhanced by having a relatively short stroke.

Low end torque is enhanced by having a larger bore. Which is what I
originally stated.

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a
brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke....

Never said that. Did you miss the part where I said "Everything else
being
equal (# cylinders, displacement)"
I even simplified my argument for you. Here it is again.

Engine #1- 250 ci straight 6 in a under square configuration (Stroke is
longer than the bore- long stroke)

Engine #2- 250 ci straight 6 engine in a over square configuration
(Stroke
is smaller than the bore- short stroke)

Engine #1 will have more torque than engine #2 at a lower rpm.
Engine #2 will rev higher and achieve its max torque at a higher rpm than
Engine #1.
Engine #2 will also redline @ a higher rpm than Engine #1.

Anything here you disagree with?

Yes.

LOL, what is incorrect in my example above?
I'd love for Gene to chime in here.




Also, you notice, please, that I never said that one type (long stroke,
small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was
WHERE
in the power band that torque is prominent.

And that's where you're wrong. You stated- "Inlines, because of the
relatively short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque"

Low end torque is not enhanced by having a relatively short stroke.

Low end torque is enhanced by having a larger bore. Which is what I
originally stated.

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.