Why is the Ford-Edsel 390 so weak?

[Iron Woode]

Most folks won't do that.....I was just giving the Mustang fans the option that gives them the best of both worlds....their favorite car, and the best engine ever made.

so, you are going to drop a slant 6 in it then?

 

[Perknose]

You're right....what makes it the greatest engine is that it's won more than any other engine, across more forms of racing.

And because, a full 55 YEARS after the fact, that basic block is still at the core of engines powering some of the sweetest, fastest, non-exotic production cars in the world.

That fact is truly amazing, imho.

 

[TehMac]

so, you are going to drop a slant 6 in it then?

BMWs don't make Slant 6's. You mean inline 6, right?

 

[Iron Woode]

BMWs don't make Slant 6's. You mean inline 6, right?

humor and engine fail.

Slant 6: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Slant-6_engine

 

[TehMac]

humor and engine fail.

Slant 6: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Slant-6_engine

So why do you think these are so amazing?

 

[Iron Woode]

So why do you think these are so amazing?

/face palm

they are the most reliable and indestructible engines ever made.

 

[EightySix Four]

So why do you think these are so amazing?

Really TehMac?

I've seen one that was filled to the brim with water (by an owner who got a bit confused about the difference between radiator cap and oil filler cap) and then driven for a week that way

-Jalopnik

 

[Pacfanweb]

/face palm

they are the most reliable and indestructible engines ever made.

I disagree.

Sincerely,

The AMC 6-cylinder family

 

[Iron Woode]

I disagree.

Sincerely,

The AMC 6-cylinder family

you can disagree all you want.

/6 pwns. everyone knows this.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

The slant sixes never did anything fast, especially die.

 

[TehMac]

I have never followed slant six engines...mainly because they weren't known for performance back in the day, except some Jag engines maybe...

I was thinking you liked them in terms of power output or something. That's how my mind works.

 

[Iron Woode]

I have never followed slant six engines...mainly because they weren't known for performance back in the day, except some Jag engines maybe...

I was thinking you liked them in terms of power output or something. That's how my mind works.

loads of power isn't everything when it comes to engines.

small engines like the slant 6 (a Mopar engine) earn their reputation not from massive power, but from being a workhorse engine that stands up to abuse and neglect.

My first car was a 1977 Plymouth Volare station wagon with a slant 6 and automatic trans. That engine always worked. It got decent mileage, too. It wasn't fast, but it was tough as nails and was a great winter car.

I ran the engine dry of oil twice and I drove it for a week like that before I noticed it. Filled it up with oil and it was as good as new. The drive-train still had lots of life left in it when I got rid of the car. The body was completely shot.

 

[Perknose]

I have never followed slant six engines...mainly because they weren't known for performance back in the day, except some Jag engines maybe...

It sounds like you're still confusing a slant 6 with all straight 6's.

The slant 6 was an in-line 6 most all other straight 6's were NOT slant 6's.

Think of of an upright straight 6. Now think of that same engine tilted to the side instead, much as if it were just one bank of a 60 degree V-12 sitting there -- that's a slant 6!

Back in the day, it was said, perhaps apocryphally, that if you GAVE a Mexican farm worker a car of any make or model, they would immediately sell it and use the proceeds to buy a slant 6!

Also, I've never heard anybody refer to the 390 as the Ford-Edsel 390 even though the FE in its designation originally stood for that.

This is probably because no Edsel ever offered a 390ci engine. In fact, no Ford product offered that displacement during the brief life of the Edsel. The 390 was a later derivative of the FE block that came after the Edsel's demise.

OP, I'm not trying to needlessly give you shit as every other poster in this thread has more hands-on, hard-core gearhead experience and knowledge than I do, but it nearly made me spit beer on my lappy when you asked about putting a full rolling frame under a unit body! I mean, with enough torches, tools and focused madness I guess you can do just about anything, but . . . :awe:

Still, nobody ever learned a damn thing w/o making mistakes and without being unafraid to ask seemingly "stupid" questions, so, go live the dream, you certainly seem to be in good hands here! :thumbsup:

Ahhh, one last thing on "legendary" American 6's. Most of you probably remember the brief life of the Pontiac ohc 6 (actually a chevy block) in the late 60's, but I had a crazy friend back in the day who was in LOVE with that Kaiser Willys Jeep ohc 6 so much that he'd buy Wagoneers with the AMC (and sometimes Buick!) factory V-8's but immediately replace those engines with the Kaiser ohc 6!

Kaiser had acquired Willys in the early sixties, and, I guess to make a splash, had their engineers graft an overhead cam onto to the old Continental f head six that Willys had been using. The resulting engine had a pretty strong rep for pep, torque (it was undersquare) and even fuel economy (all relative, you must understand) amongst a small but adoring subset that included my friend!

 

[TehMac]

OP, I'm not trying to needlessly give you shit as every other poster in this thread has more hands-on, hard-core gearhead experience and knowledge than I do, but it nearly made me spit beer on my lappy when you asked about putting a full rolling frame under a unit body! I mean, with enough torches, tools and focused madness I guess you can do just about anything, but . . . :awe:

I've asked some ludicrous things, but I don't recall asking that. :S

 

[Iron Woode]

Ahhh, one last thing on "legendary" American 6's. Most of you probably remember the brief life of the Pontiac ohc 6 (actually a chevy block) in the late 60's, but I had a crazy friend back in the day who was in LOVE with that Kaiser Willys Jeep ohc 6 so much that he'd buy Wagoneers with the AMC (and sometimes Buick!) factory V-8's but immediately replace those engines with the Kaiser ohc 6!

I saw one back in the day in a 1968 Firebird Sprint. 4bbl SOHC inline six making 205 HP was kinda cool.

 

[EightySix Four]

Speaking of bullet proof.

 

[Iron Woode]

Speaking of bullet proof.

same thing happened to my friend's 170 cu. in. slant 6. We needed to do the head gasket and noticed a piston was fubared.

The thing still ran good.

lol.

 

[TehMac]

Btw, here is a company that makes chassis for C1 and C2 generation Vettes, as well as other pony cars. They claim that with the proper engine, tires, the cars are capable of achieving 1g!

link

 

[TehMac]

Now days emissions = efficiency = peak potential, so it's a non issue. You aren't making great power if your dump raw fuel out the exhaust or are misfiring. On a modern EFI engine, great performance and clean emissions come hand in hand. When you tune an engine by leaning out the over rich factory safe tuning or increase the power of a given engine, you are increasing it's efficiency as well.

Technically speaking, wouldn't you be achieving a similar level of efficiency (although not as good) with even a carbureted engine that has electronic ignition, like MSD?

I've been puzzling over this for a while now because as far as I can work out, all that you really should need is a proper strong spark.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Technically speaking, wouldn't you be achieving a similar level of efficiency (although not as good) with even a carbureted engine that has electronic ignition, like MSD?

I've been puzzling over this for a while now because as far as I can work out, all that you really should need is a proper strong spark.

Wow, this thread still going?

To answer your question, no....just putting an MSD on a carb'd engine won't get it close to a good EFI engine.

At a steady rpm, such as highway speed? Probably fairly close on a well-tuned carb engine.

But most of your emissions come in accelerating and decelerating. That's where an EFI engine excels. But it's not because of spark....it's because of fuel control.

When you coast down a long hill....there's no good way to stop a carb from using fuel. If air is getting drawn past the venturis, it's sucking gas in by design.
But EFI has a computer to totally shut the injector pulse off. Engine is literally a vacuum pump only on long coasts.

Accelerating is another area of waste. An EFI can simply control the spark AND the fuel much more precisely. Keeping the best fuel/air ratio during the entire rpm range. All carbs are a compromise....they're either jetted for best power at WOT, or best emissions, or somewhere in between. But they still are going to be deficient in parts of the rpm range....an EFI is not....at least not because of improper fuel/air ratio.

Now, WOT....that's going to be pretty similar. But that's an extremely microscopic portion of an engine's life.

All this said, a CD ignition like an MSD will help you in lower rpm situations. You have to remember that the multiple sparks only happen at lower rpm's....but that's when you need them on a carb engine.

If you have a low RPM, torque-y engine like the Jeep straight 6, or the Slant 6 mentioned earlier....you'll almost definitely see improvement from an MSD.

Even when they stop sending multiple sparks, (just over 3k rpm, IIRC) they still send one BIG spark.
Watch this:
http://www.msdignition.com/info.aspx?taxid=4

MSD's patent on the 6 series CD ignitions has run out, and other companies have made almost direct copies. I think Summit has their own, and it's almost a dead-nuts copy internally. From what I've heard, they've been holding up just fine.

 

[TehMac]

Thank you Pac, and yes, this is a good thread. Why shouldn't it keep going?