Straight sixes are shit. They don't fit transversely. They require a ridiculous amount of engine bay. They require overbuilt crankshafts. And yes. People like slant sixes, too. They're insane. They don't like the slant 6 because it puts out power, they like it because they had a '77 Valiant that lasted almost as long as their sister's '77 Civic except since it was American it was obviously superior. You can shave 180lbs off the front end of a 280Z by putting in a 350V8. Think about that: 2.8L of SOHC inline 6 (with an aluminum head!) weighs more than 5.7L of all-iron V8. Here's the thing: the hot rod community is full of douchebags and morons. They're the same ones who used to argue that all American 4x4s were superior because they had live axles and leaf springs. Why? Because they were American, therefore live axles and leaf springs must be superior by definition. Meanwhile Subaru would kick your ass on the trail and you were in a constant state of being embarassed by 2wd baja bugs. So of course the slant 6 is brilliant. Why? Because Lee Iacocca is brilliant, therefore everything he touches is brilliant and if you disagree, you're a traitor. It has fuckall to do with the assets of the motor itself. This is a Chrysler Slant 6 in situ. it displaces 2.8L. Here's the same displacement engine, same era, in a ford, in iron, in a V-6, in a PINTO FFS, making more power. Here's a Jaguar 12-cylinder, same era, taking up the same amount of space, weighing about the same, making so much more power that it isn't even worth discussing. Worthy of note: the '94 Cherokee inline 6 b_b is waxing eloquent about is the same motor Jaguar abandoned back in the '70s. If you've got a large boat, and you need to be able to work on the engine while at sea, an inline 6 is fine. if, on the other hand, you're attempting to engineer a motor vehicle with minimal moment of inertia, the lowest hood possible and the most compact arrangement you can come up with, the only thing worse than an inline 6 is an inline 8.
Yeah. That's a pretty compelling arguement, especially the size and weight argument. The comment about Chrysler's Slant six kind of rings home a bit. You don't see it as much in person, where people tend to be a bit more polite, but there really is a sense of tribalism when it comes to car brands. It gets a bit ridiculous sometimes. I remember one of my friends giving me shit for picking the FR-S over the Mustang GT for example, but let's be honest, the FR-S handles better and the only thing I liked about the Mustang more was the amount of power, which I'd almost never use. Not that I'd ever get my car modified myself, but the aftermarket community really seems to like Subaru's FA20, so it has that going for it as well. I know there tends to be a lot of elitist attitudes, but I also think that maybe certain people like engines by different priorities. Rat rodders for example love flatheads because they lend an element of authenticity to their cars and I know a guy who swears by old straight 8s like you'd find in '30s coupes because they're so simple and easy to work on. Which leaves me kind of curious as to what engine platform you appreciate more than any other . . .
Rat rodders don't give a fuck about going fast or taking turns. They also think primer is a color. They are the steampunkers of the hot rod universe - so long as it's made out of ostrich feathers and has surplus "e"s in the name, it's cool by default. I'm agnostic as to motors. My primary beef is affected primitiveness. Harley Evos? affected primitiveness. Pushrod V8s in the year 2016? affected primitiveness. For nearly any automotive application you care to name these days, there's probably a VVT DOHC sub-2L inline 4 that's doing the job quite nicely, thanks. But from an "art" standpoint? Fuckin' Ferrari 512 ain't bad. Too bad you can barely fit them on the road. For "real world" I gotta say there's something about the radial valve MV Agusta F4... ...but when I call an MV Agusta F4 "real world" you know I'm fucked in the head anyway.
Well, rat rods are more about aesthetics than functionality, which I'm sure you know but I'm just more stating this for anyone else who reads this. I do think though, there is something charming to the idea that they want to use flatheads for authenticity. They really aren't my thing, much like donks and lowriders aren't my thing, but when I see one at a show or out in the wild, in good shape and done well, I still find myself admiring them. They're all about form over function, but somehow function seems to find its way into their art. I think an extreme example, on the other end of the spectrum, would be pro-street and mudders, where function comes first, but somehow that function lends itself to a certain aesthetic that people try to emulate. My knowledge in automotive history is pretty spotty, but I think Honda could take a lot of credit for this trend. I'm not a Honda fanboy by any means, in fact Honda fanboys kind of turn me off to the brand if I'm being honest. But in the late '80s and early '90s, I think Honda's VTEC technology really paved the way for respecting smaller displacement engines. I'm unfamiliar with the engine so I googled it. Am I right in that it's for bikes? What do you like about it?Rat rodders don't give a fuck about going fast or taking turns. They also think primer is a color. They are the steampunkers of the hot rod universe - so long as it's made out of ostrich feathers and has surplus "e"s in the name, it's cool by default.
For nearly any automotive application you care to name these days, there's probably a VVT DOHC sub-2L inline 4 that's doing the job quite nicely, thanks.
MV Agusta F4
That's just the thing: rat rods are all about functionality, same as rat bikes. You have this thing, you don't give a fuck what it looks like, you just drive it. That was my childhood. A rat rod used to be a Porsche 914 with a poorly-hidden Hillborn-injected V8 in the back. Hell, I know a guy who would build fast CVCCs by putting a motor/transaxle in the front and the back and then link up the shifters and throttles. Now it's this twee fuckin' fiberglass t-bucket with a lovingly-restored flathead v8 in it. Gimme a break. And yes - Honda pretty much made variable valve timing de rigeur. They came up with a way to do it pretty simply, so that's what everybody does. Makes a hell of a difference. The MV Agusta F4 engine is the only production multi-cylinder engine I know of with radial valve symmetry. Know the difference between a wedge combustion chamber and a hemi? Thing of it is, hemis aren't actually hemispherical - they're just tented. The MV actually has angle-cut cams because the valves are splayed out in two dimensions. It's actually a hemi.