(first posted 10/3/2016) In Part 1 of this series, we looked at the four-cylinder engine available in Ford trucks in the early 1940s. For Part 2, let’s jump ahead twenty years and go to Highland Park.
1959 model shown
By 1960, Dodge was in bitter need of an updated pickup. Their 1960 models were looking woefully dated and, to enhance its aura of agedness, the six-cylinder option was still a 120-horsepower flathead that dated back a mighty long time. As was typically the case ack then with pickups, the six handily outsold the V8, doing so by as much as a factor of three on base model units. Weight on pickups as shown was around 3,300 pounds.
With the new pickups in 1961, the only carryover from 1960 was the wheels. This year also saw the introduction of the now famous 225 cubic inch (3.7 liter) slant six, introduced in Dodge passenger cars in 1960. However, you still had to check an option box to obtain a 225; the base offering was less endowed.
It looked the same on the outside except for being a bit less tall, but the cylinder displacement was smaller by 55 cubes. That’s right – starting in 1961 a person could obtain a 170 cubic-inch (2.8 liter) slant six in a half-ton pickup.
Dodge limited the availability of the 170 to the half-ton models. Rated at 101 gross horsepower, this petite slant six made the old flathead six look like a powerhouse.
Dodge was the only domestic pickup to offer such an economy engine. Reports from the time stated operating costs for this full-sized pickup were nearly as minimal as those of a compact Volkswagon pickup, which was selling quite well at the time. Neither Ford nor Chevrolet were really competitive in this realm.
While the 170 slant six was standard equipment in half-tons, by 1964 it was a zero-cost option as the 225 was now standard, For 1966, the 170 was gone from pickups altogether.
The 170 had never been limited to just half-ton pickups as it was also available in Dodge’s delivery vans. As a polite warning to customers, Dodge said the 170 was focused on economy, not performance. There is sometimes truth in advertising.
The 170 in delivery vans wasn’t a unique idea as this engine was also readily found in the Dodge Sportsman vans.
The use of the 170 in pickups is the most fascinating as it doesn’t seem to be a typically envisioned power source for a pickup – or maybe it was simply overshadowed by the 225. Regardless, 58.6% of 1961 Dodge pickups were powered by a slant six, with this percentage of six-bangers increasing to nearly 70% in 1962 and staying in the majority for a brief time longer. So odds are a goodly number of these Dodges may have been sporting the junior leaning tower of power.
As with so many other things in the 1960s, times were changing. By 1969, more than six out of ten new Dodge pickups would have an eight-cylinder engine with the 170 becoming a footnote in Dodge truck history.
Given the tech available at the time, the Slant-6/Torqueflite combo was probably ideal for delivery van applications.
I owned a 1963 Dodge Dart with the 170 Slant Six while attending Kansas State in the mid-seventies.
The engine taught you patience. Engage the accelerator and you got immediate noise and vibration but little extra forward motion. Add a few people and the rate of climb disappeared. The low button on the three-speed automatic was my best friend in those cases. Luckily in those days, Interstate 70 had way fewer big rigs. You couldn’t safety merge onto that highway today without being converted to scrap metal.
Good thing it wasn’t fast as the single master brake system, drum brakes and 13-inch bias-ply tires were as equally disinterested in stopping as the engine was in accelerating.
Can’t complain about the powertrain, nonetheless. Reliable as a hammer and efficient for its day (given its one-barrel carb). With more than 170,000 miles it was sold for $300 to a Fort Riley soldier who drove it home to Minnesota when his hitch in Southeast Asia ended.
Slant six engines, while durable, are sensitive to their state of tune for peak performance. If you didn’t have power, maybe you had worn points, the timing was off, or the plugs were mis-gapped. Correct all three and you’d zoom ’round like a hot rod. Well, ok … at least I was able to beat most cars off the mark at a stop light in NYC.
If you thought a 170/Torqueflite Dart was slow, maybe you should have taken a ride in a 144/Fordomatic Falcon. I suspect the Dart would have felt like a dragster in comparison.
A friend of mine had one of those, I swear it would go slower when it went into passing gear
Just as a second thought I imagine a Chevy II with the 152 cu in four and a Powerglide might take the crown.
I once drove a coworker’s new ’76 Pinto hatchback equipped with power steering, power brakes, automatic and air conditioning. That had to be the biggest snail I ever drove. In fact, with the air running you felt like getting out and pushing. She didn’t have it long as her husband was worried that she might get killed driving it because it was so slow. I owned a ’62 Fairlane with the 170 and stick shift in college and I thought it was slow until I drove the Pinto. The Fairlane was not designed for a 19 year old male as I blew up the 170 three times before trading it on a ’64 Galaxie which turned out to be the biggest turd I have ever owned, but that’s another story.
It’s funny that they kept referring to the 170 cu in version around as an “economy option” – its not like the 225 was a gas hog or anything.
Actually, the 225 engine was more efficient. My ’64 w/170 averaged 17 mpg. (which is what I got in my ’74 Dart with a V8!) The 225 equipped vehicles got 20 mpg. But you didn’t have to spend extra to get the 170! Economy!
YMMV
Seriously, saying that the 225 was more efficient than the 170 is not really accurate. The 170 had less internal friction. Maybe in some applications the 225 operated in a more efficient part of its power band but that’s not the same as saying it was a more efficient engine.
Sorry, poor choice of words or perhaps I should have said “more efficient for every day use”?. In over 30 years of driving these cars (Dodge Darts, Plymouth Valiants, versions from 1963 to 1976 with both engines) and lots of miles as daily drivers , I consistently got better gas mileage with the 225.
It may have been gearing. Often the small engine, especially with manual transmission, was turning too fast at freeway speeds. In a passenger car with 13 or 14 inch rims, you might have gotten 3.31 gearing or so, while the big six/automatic combo may have gotten 2.76 gears. The cheapo setup may have saved gas in town with lots of idling, such as taxi service.
Did our fearless leader get a new, abbreviated, seven-letter name? Same picture serving as an avatar, though!
Yup. My dad’s ’63 Dart with the 225 could get 30 mpg on the highway easily. Equalled the ’66 Bug that I owned at the time.
Nice article! I had a 170 slant 6 in a 1963 Valiant with a manual trans. It was pretty slow when compared with any type of new V6 or V8 but it could keep up with traffic fine if you flogged it. Of course no engine could stand up to that flogging better than a slant 6–I shifted an near valve float RPM’s for literally years and it just took it. This and my 1970 VW Westfalia with a 1600 single port were two cars where you regularly accessed all of their available HP in normal driving.
In a truck it would have been fine so long as acceleration was a low priority…
Could you imagine a V12 option? They could of mirrored that slant 6 and put them together. It could of predated their V-10 truck engine. But seriously, that 225 slant six was nearly indestructible.
450 inches of V12! Or a ‘small-block’ 340 V12. 🙂
But would it fit width-wise?
FWIU they finally dropped the 170 in 1970ish because it really didn’t give much better gas mileage than the 225 in the A-body cars which were the only place it was found by then, and didn’t cost Chrysler any less to make.
An interesting piece. However, as to your statement “Dodge was the only domestic pickup to offer such an economy engine”, there was one other: The 61 Studebaker Champ also offered a standard 170 cid mill, though their newly-converted-to-OHV unit was rated a little higher, at 110 horsepower. I will give you a pass, as nobody really remembers these when thinking of American pickups of 1961.
One of these would have been interesting, as I understood the 170 to be more of a revver than the torquer that the 225 was. Which was not really a good combination for a pickup.
I just looked it up. The Dodge 170 made its 101 horsepower @ 4400 rpm while Stude made its 110 @ 4500.
Torque was interesting, in that Dodge made 155 @ 2400 whereas Stude made 156 @2000.
It is hard to imagine that the Studebaker had a broader torque band than a Slant Six, but it appears that it did. What it lacked was durability, as those early OHV sixes cracked heads with some frequency. Like Dodge, Stude was still offering the 170 flathead in 1960.
It is hard to imagine that the Studebaker had a broader torque band than a Slant Six, but it appears that it did.
Not really, since the Stude was a long stroke engine while the 170 /6 was a short stroke with excellent breathing. The 170 was a revver, and in top tune could rev cleanly to 6000 rpm. I wouldn’t try that with a Stude six. 🙂
Ouch! I forgot all about the Champ. I’ll opine there may have been a distinct payload capacity (but with my luck, probably not).
The need to rev is the only negative I give to Ford for putting a 4.6 in a pickup for so long. It made all the power that was needed, but it just didn’t get to cooking good until about 3000 to 3500 rpm, based upon the one I own.
Studebaker rated the Champ 1/2 ton with the six at a GVW of 5,000 pounds. I don’t know what the Dodge’s was. Surprisingly, Studebaker also offered that six as standard on the 3/4 ton version with a GVW of 7,000 pounds!
You need to tow a heavy camper with a 4.2 V6 then. Same issue, but with a manual the engine could be kept in its power band and did an OK job. Try to get a run for the hills! Hitting the bottom at 65 in fourth sets you up for an easy climb. Otherwise it’s 40 mph in third.
I’ve driven a few of the 4.2 V6 pickups, but only one with a manual. I can see what you are saying!
Ford actually offered the 4.2 in 3/4 ton vans. I drove a few set up as wheelchair transports…in two words: NOT ENOUGH! I suspect they were under-geared as much as anything else…I think they’d have bern fine with 4.10s.
There was also the ’61 International C-900 with a whopping 94 hp 4 banger. I think they were about as “economical” as it got back then.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/separated-at-birth-1961-ih-c-series-and-1963-toyota-stout/
This article has more details on the four cylinder IH C-900: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake-196-international-c-900-the-smallest-american-pickup-beforel-the-ranger-and-s-10/
Ah yes, that’s the link I was looking for. That old mini ‘binder had 2 less horsepower than my ’83 Toyota Pickup. That’s ignoring gross vs. net ratings of course.
“Dodge was the only domestic pickup to offer such an economy engine”
That line slipped by me. There was the 4 cylinder 2.5 L IH C-900, and there was the 144 inch Ford Econoline pickup and van, and there was the 145 inch Corvair Rampside pickup. I assumed Jason was going to cover those in subsequent posts.
And then there was the Perkins diesel engine available on these Dodge pickups in 1962 (below), although it wasn’t all that small displacement-wise. But it was economical.
Studebaker had been putting the 169.9 cu.in. flathead into their trucks since the introduction of the 1941 M5 Pickup. That same engine was continued in the 1949 R5 pickup, which was really still the same as the Champ truck with the Lark body. In the 50’s, Studebaker played with size, ramping it up to a maximum of 185 cu. in. before returning to the 169 size with the introduction of the Lark in 1959.
I would regularly pull close to 1400 lbs of house-remodeling debris in my 1950 2R5 with the 169 cu. in. engine.
A slant six develops more torque lower down somehow, letting you get a jump on traffic in the way a six cylinder Studebaker never would. The little six in a Studebaker didn’t get you much more in gas mileage than the 170 slant six, but I couldn’t get an overdrive on the Slant Six. That would’ve helped a lot, as I’ve always felt the Valiants and Darts were over-spun at 70 mph on the highway.
[hey! I just remembered that my father’s 1976 Volare wagon had a 225 super six with 4-spd-on-the-floor-with-overdrive! Could you get that tranny in a truck in 1976?]
If it wasn’t in ’76 it would be shortly.
Is there any information on what axle ratios came in these trucks? An under-powered engine might be fine if paired with a 4.56:1 axle… as long as you never needed to exceed 45mph!
I couldn’t find anything about axle ratios despite repeated attempts. However, it’s hard to see how it wouldn’t have been geared fairly low in comparison to other pickups.
That said, I’m going to fuse this comment with a preview. Part 3 is coming Friday and I was able to find axle ratios.
My 64 /6 3-speed came with a high numbered ratio, can’t remember what it was now, sorry. 3.91? Was popular with hot-rodders, traded it –though it was hard-used– for a rebuilt 3.23 or maybe it was 2.73 posi which was much better on the highway and on rough back roads. So much better that I took a trip across the US and a tour of New Mexico with it.
Still would’ve climbed a tree if I had asked it to. I pulled 4WD’s out of ditches with it in winter, was often the only thing out running on some of those rural roads after a storm, it ran the PA turnpike in a snowstorm when it was being closed right behind me as I drove. It saved my career by doing that.
Love the /6, not a bad word to say about it.
The factory service manual I had still had instructions for the flathead and for the Perkins diesel.
Thanks for all the photos of the best-looking pickup ever made. I love those early mesh grilles. No gawky hood nostrils like another brand had at the time. It’s a deceptive design that grows on one as one appreciates the practical verities that were based on utility rather than purposeless posturing.
Well, if you include vans, Ford had the even smaller 144 from the Falcon in the early Econoline…
And the Econoline pickup…
Yes, of course. Forgot that.
Ford had a 170 six, too. 101 hp. It was used in the Falcon and Econoline and Bronco.
The previous owner had transplanted a 170 into my ’68 Mustang. I suppose that was cheaper than rebuilding the 200. I still got bad mileage because they’d put 13″ S/S mags on it.
My mother’s Dad had an Econoline with the small 6. He nicknamed it the “sufferin’ 6” because of how he mercilessly beat on it due to the lack of power.
that Dodge P200 was used in the UK – I remember white ‘Initial Services’ vans in the early / mid 70s – I guess they must have been rhd, possibly made here too?
Are you thinking of the Dodge 50 Series? It was made in Europe, with European parts except some US / Canada Dodge B Series (Tradesman, Ram Van) body parts.
Interesting that no one has mentioned the 170’s replacement, the short-lived 198, which only lasted five years from 1970 to 1974. Seems somewhat ironic that the 198 was dropped at a time when fuel economy had become such a paramount issue. Of course, it’s also typical of Chrysler’s fortunes in the seventies.
In researching this, I found a statement somewhere that the 198 was briefly available in the ’70 and/or ’71 Dodge 1/2 ton. However, I couldn’t find anything to verify this in factory literature or anywhere else.
So whether or not that happened is merely an interesting proposition.
The slant six never went below 225 cubes over here less parts to carry might have been the reason, who knows but we never had it.
Yes, when the Valiant came out with 225 inches standard compared to Ford’s 144 and Holden’s brand-new 149, it really made an impact. Such a big engine implied the Valiant was a class above rather than a direct competitor.
I think that initial photo’s background “Jet Flagship” 707 is in AAL livery. One clue: Mostly bare metal. C.R. Smith, an early CEO, hated paint. It does add weight.
I wondered when someone would mention the plane. I still miss that lightning bolt orange stripe livery, one of my all-time favorites. Not only does paint add weight, but has to be stripped for major airframe inspections in order to check for cracks.
I dont like the current pearlesent light grey AA livery. With the US Airways merger came a fleet of Airbus products. Airbus does not use alclad skins that can be polished like Boeing. It doesnt matter now with the introduction of the composite 787.
I know I am WAY late replying to you guys, but this was one of the best liveries ever on a 707…
I test drove a 164 cubic inch 6 cylinder F150 a couple of weeks back. No lack of power though.. Maybe we’ll see a smaller engine yet.
Great piece, Jason. I know little about engines and mechanics relative to many folks, but I enjoyed reading this. The thing I couldn’t help wondering was what the 0-60 time would have been for one of these, even with a light load.
every body with a slant six has stories to tell My 65 belvedere would run
with the oil light on crankcase dry as a bone don’t know why the engine
never seized.
Many years ago, a lady customer limped her ’69 Valiant in to the shop where I worked, complaining about an oil leak. I popped the hood and immediately saw the hole in the slant-six, under the manifolds, where one of the rods had gone through the block. The bare crank journal was spinning past the hole, squirting a bit of oil with every revolution.
I gave her the bad news and she drove off.
I suppose, a hose-clamp could’ve been applied to plug the oil-hole in the crank, and a patch fastened somehow to the hole in the block, keeping that engine alive for awhile longer, as a slant-five!
Happy Motoring, Mark
Those early 60s Dodge trucks and vans were quite handsome. It’s difficult to believe the overwrought, bizarrely styled Chrysler Corporation cars of that era were being offered by the same company.
Styling is a matter of taste, but I found them quite ugly. My A-100 looked homely compared to an Econoline, Greenbier or even GMC HandiVan.
The ’59 Dodge near the top has a few Imperial styling queues, but was looking dated next to the ultra modern 1960 GM trucks. The ’61 Ford was also very clean.
We never got this generation of Dodge pickup in Australia, so they look quite strange to me.
I have a mid sized (for the time) 1965 Belvedere sedan with the 225 slant six, and it won’t win any races but is plenty peppy for interstate driving, and at a stop light will usually take off as fast or even faster than most other cars! Getting the valves set right is one of the main keys to good performance.
Chrysler was last of the big three to get an OHV six and then the last to use hydraulic lifters. The 273 LA V-8 in my ’66 A-100 also lacked them. Hot valve adjustments were a pain, especially with the narrow doghouse in the van.
I think it was not so; my understanding is the 225 was standard equipment, and the 170 was a zero-cost downgrade option for D100 and P200 buyers who planned on only ever driving downhill and wanted minimum fuel consumption while doing so. That’s what it looks like according to this page from the 1962 Dodge Truck technical buyer’s guide, put out by Chrysler in late 1961.
The 170 was standard fitment on the A100 and A108 vans through ’69; this page is from the ’66 buyer’s guide.
Great article – I saved the original https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/brochure-capsule-the-little-engines-that-could-part-1/… and just simply changed the -1 to a -2 after the word part to get to this one.
Re: The 1961 Dodge Truck technical buyer’s guide – I see 251-3 and 251-4 6 cylinder models. I wonder what engines those were? I thought there were just the 170 and 225 cid 6s, at least in light trucks/vans.