(it turns out that we’ve maligned this car; the feeblest car of the era was actually the 1975 Ford Granada six, with 48.46 lbs/hp, and it was duly given its dunce cap here)
I ran today’s question because I have long rather assumed the ’76 Buick V6 had the worst power-to-weight ratio But I’ve increasingly learned that more CC heads are better than mine. And thanks to orangechallenger, we have a new winner/loser: the 1981 Chrysler Newport takes the dunce hat crown, with a whopping 42.6 lbs/hp. Its listed weight is 3635 lbs, and the poor 225 (3.7 L) slant six, once one of America’s strongest sixes, was down to a mere 85 net hp that year. Suddenly it’s 1930!
Here’s the proof.
I was tempted to disqualify the diesels, since they were just naturally low on power due to lack of turbocharging. But that’s not a matter of a loss of performance due to emission controls; non-turbocharged diesels are just intrinsically feeble. But the gas engines lost huge amount of power during this ere, before three-way feedback catalysts and fuel injection allowed engines to be tuned for power again. But as it turns out, even the 4250 lb 1981 Cadillac Brougham with the 105 hp Olds 5/7 L diesel was no worse (40.48 lbs/hp).
The slant six’ loss of power is quite dramatic. I can’t find any net hp ratings for it before emission controls kicked in but the similarly sized 240 inch six in my ’66 F100 is rated at 129 net hp. It was rated at 150 gross hp, and the 225 six at 145 gross hp. So it’s safe to assume that the slant six used to make right about 125 net hp (or more) before getting desmogged. That’s 47% more!
What a come down, from just ten or so years earlier when the 1970 Newport came standard with a husky 290 (gross) hp 383 V8.
What a sadly dubious distinction for an otherwise attractive car.
Not the best CC article of all time, but we did cover a 1981 Newport here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1981-chrysler-newport-life-is-like-a-box-of-chocolates/
Still a great read, Shafer. 🙂
That’s truly terrible, and a high axle ratio to boot. Couldn’t have sold many of these, I wonder if there’s any left?
Is this one of them? Maybe CC’ers could Kickstarter a purchase or something :
http://lasalle.craigslist.org/cto/5261627793.html
Same car, different grille insert. Wasn’t this thing a one year wonder? Not sure quite what’s going on there, unless the lead promo photo was taken before the design was finalized. Kind of cool to find one, though $1775 seems WAY steep for a non-running car in “barn find” condition.
Some other interesting cars in that garage too–Cadillac ragtop to the right, maybe a mid 60’s Olds? hardtop on the left, and something from the late 30’s or early 40’s on the far left.
Nice find, it’s even loaded with all the power robbing accessories. All hail the Malaise King! Agree that the price is crazy, maybe cousin Gary is more open to offers though.
It may have been the feeblest car of the “Malaise” era, but (IMHO), it’s the best looking I’ve seen. Better looking than any previous Mopars of the 70s except for the Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare. I think the 5.2 litre V8 engine would’ve been the best choice for the Newport/New Yorker. The 3.7 litre Slant six would’ve been more for the Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Valiant.
I own one of the F-Body, and maybe for R-Body and F-Body, they share the problem of cracking grill. It’s extremely hard to keep the grill in one piece for F-Body, and for R-Body, unless it’s a collector’s vehicle, the grill often cracks if sits aside.
Even for F-Body, slant six is really slow already. I just drive slowest with an exception of an even slower Buick Century driven by a senior citizen on the interstate.
wow!
I owned a 80 Plymouth gran fury with a slant six(basically the same car) and I remember it as not a great highway car but at lower speeds ok. didn’t realize it was THAT bad!
I always wonder how that car feels. I didn’t really drive cars that long before driving the Volare with slant six, but then I realized everything is faster than me including Cadillac Brougham, so something must be wrong. Then I noticed the same powertrain was used on even bigger R-Body, I can’t help thinking how slow it would be.
At least it looked good. When you’re wearing a nice suit, noone knows if you are a laborer or a CEO. The cars today all go much faster but look much worse. The grass is always greener on the other side.
Sheesh, 1981 sure was a dark year for base-engine, full-size domestic cars. Besides the unfathomably weak R-body Mopar, there was the 3.8L V6 Impala, and the 4.2L V8 (!) LTD. I sure hope their prices reflected the engines those cars had to suffer with.
At least the Impala and LTD made a bit more power at 110 and 115 which was 25 and 30 more than the poor Slant Six for this year. None of these provided anything approaching good power but the Ford at least had a bit of torque at 205 LBS FT and was tied to a better 3.08 axle and the 4 speed automatic.
At least the car is lighter than I’d imagine.
Interesting, it has the same size tires as my 2015 Civic just a bit taller at 75 over the 65 Civic aspect ratio.
During the advising session today, I was meeting with my advisor talking about my professor for the design project, and that professor came in talking about why I was late weeks ago after the meeting in Warren, wondering why it took me 40 minutes instead of 18 minutes other guys did, thinking I was stopping by somewhere else. I told him I was driving my slant six Volare on the road instead of I-696, and still slower than average traffic during rush hour. He had the expression of “must be kidding me” palming his face, then my advisor mentioned my tales of driving 130mph on the interstate just few years ago, and I said I feel more relaxed and healthy by driving the slower car more often. The professor had the “they must be crazy” expression and palmed his face again.
Back in the late 60s our 225 cube slant six Valiants were badged 160hp yeah I know thats gross hp but to get down to 85 is quite a feat.
…and the Oz Pacer 225 was 175hp (that and the 160hp used the same Carter twin choke carb as the equivalent year 318, albeit slightly smaller chokes, whereas the wheezy 145hp 225 had a single throat carb . .
At least a slant 6 is reliable unlike the Buick v6. This car would make an awesome taxi.
the amount of iron used in the 225 is awesome ..the cylinder head is so heavy one man can barely lift it on his own
Slant six was slow, reliable, but mine sucked lots of fuel through its little Carter 1-barrel!
It wasn’t that the Buick V6 was unreliable per se but it was not a long lived engine without a rebuild or very meticulous care and service. The Slant Six was an old fashioned heavy cast iron wonder that could theoretically go a million miles. My folks and I had our 1981 and 82 Cutlasses with the 231 well over 100k without anything of note going wrong other than carb rebuilds and the odd sensor. The oiling system was it’s primary weakness with aluminum gears that wore and brought oil pressure down to as little as 5 LBS at idle in some cases. The other issue was the distributor oil pump drive that went bad effectively dropping oil pressure to zero. They thankfully fixed this issue in the mid 80’s and these engines went on to being one of the best V6’s going, especially when it became the 3800. We used to take some of our weak oil pressure trade in 231 Buick cars and swap out the oil pump drive gears and stick in the same spring they used in the turbo cars and that dramatically increased oil pressure.
Chrysler listed both net & gross in their ’71 brochures.
Thanks for posting this – I’ve never seen net power figures for the Hemi or 440 6-Pak.
What brochure is that from? None of the ones from oldcarbrochure show any hp figures for ’72. Canadian?
I think the slant 6 was also available in the “sporty” Dodge Mirada (and maybe Chrysler Cordoba) that year…they were probably a bit lighter than the R body, but still were supposed to be “sporty” cars (I guess they were, except for engines with slant 6).
I remember the time pretty well as I was selling my 1974 Datsun 710, and even though it was pretty rusty from having spent most of its life up in Vermont, I ended up getting a number of offers for it…mostly because it was “compact” and got “good mileage”. I remember some trim pieces even falling off during a test drive of the person who ended up buying it. But back then gas prices seemed to be in endless rise, and inflation was very high (I remember a co-worker who had an auto loan with 24% interest annually) so I’m sure people were trying to get away with as small an engine as they could, mostly from cost of gas (but also cost of car, I’m guessing the slant 6 was at least a few hundred dollars cheaper than the V8).
Wish Chrysler had stuck with the R body a bit longer, but with the loan guarantee and poor sales, it seemed doomed due to bad timing.
The Aussie VF Valiant 225 ‘Pacer’ slant six was a hot machine in the day .. it was rated at 175hp and boasted a floor change manual trans in a lightish ‘Dodge Dart lookalike’ 4 door sedan body .. the year was 1969 .. and the engine was painted bright yellow .. the car could honk and no-one would have said it was gutless by a long shot..lol
The later versions with the Chrysler inline six engines .. the so-called ‘Hemi’s’ .. these were VERY quick cars with triple side draught dual throat carbs, hot cams, and low restriction exhausts .. complete with flour speed manual floor shift .. the different configurations ranged from 203hp for the base 265 cid engine .. up to 302hp for the top model .. very nice high powered six cylinder Mopars they were indeed!
Anyone who might have traded his 30 year old Windsor with its flathead six and fluid drive would have felt right at home in one of these.
My dad claimed that his 1978 Mercedes 230 gas was the most gutless car he ever owned. I can’t quite find the North American specs. Anyone able to show how it stacked up?
There you go
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1978/1473920/mercedes-benz_230.html
Thanks! 35.7 LBS per HP! 86 HP and 3071 LBS. Paul, is it in the top 10? And if so, the 240D must be near the top!
I had an 81 d100 pickup with the same drivetrain. Slow, but sure. I always liked the sewing machine smoothness of that gutless lump.
I had 72 Valiant with a slant 6 and always said it reminded me of a sewing machine, so your comment cracked me up.
Around town it probably wasn’t too bad. I’m guessing these were mostly bought by people who learned about the mean cold world during the 30’s and felt it was good enough to putt down to the store, VFW hall, church, etc.
I’m probably crazy, but this brings the Prius to mind. I have some experience with them as we have many in the motor pool. I’m not a particular fan due to their poor NVH and clumsiness on the road, but they are cheap, reliable, surprisingly roomy – very well suited to people who just putt around town. People bitch that the Prius is slow (it’s really just the throttle mapping, hint – hit the “power” button when you power it up) – it’s a rocket ship compared to this thing with 0 to 60 in 10 seconds or so. This probably burns a gallon of fuel wheezing up to 60 in twice the time.
I remember 85 certified net horsepower on the data plate of a 1953 Chevy pickup my Grandpa owned. It was the 1937 design with 216ci and splash lubricated rod bearings. “Suddenly its 1930” is not far off indeed.
My ’76 Volare six was virtual slugbait, even with the 4 speed stick. But that is no way to judge the legendary Slant Six. Up until the emissions regulations, it was one of the best sixes around, and with the long stroke in the 225, the torque was V-8-ish. People in the Slant Six Club will tell you that the rumor was that Chrysler under-reported the hp rating, as the cars performed better than expected for 145 gross hp, so I’m not surprised that they were rated higher in Australia, where they might not have competed so much with V-8s from the same manufacturer. I’ve owned a number of them. My ’66 Dart wagon was not slow. I might add that aesthetically, the engine is quite handsome, and it’s asymmetry might have suggested the template for the Plymouth XNR showcar to Virgil Exner >>>
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/concept-classic-1960-plymouth-xnr-exners-hot-slant-six-corvette-fighter-that-almost-got-built/
The Australian Mopar slant six (225 cid) was also rated at 145 hp from the first introduction in the early ’60’s through to the VC model of ’67.. with the VE of ’68 and the VF of ’69 the engine was re-rated at 160 hp ..however to get this increase a different camshaft was employed in combination with a dual throat carburettor similar to the Carter carb used on the 318 V8 ..the ’69 225 ‘Pacer’ slant six employed higher compression in addition to the cam and carb changes to achieve 175 hp
By the end of ’69 the slant six disappeared from the scene in Australia and the VG Valiant for 1970 came out with an upright inline six in 245 cid configuration
The 145 hp slant six was on the scene in Australia with competition from the 273 V8 from 1965 and from the ubiquitous 318 V8 during 1969 ..both V8’s being used in the top end ‘Regal’ and ‘VIP’ same bodied Valiants during that time
The 360 V8 came onto the scene in Australia with the ’72 CH and ’73 CJ ‘Limo’ extended wheelbase 4 door sedans.. although the performance was actually more spritely from the 318 engined smaller and lighter 1970 VG models, which boasted fewer power-sucking power options..
I have driven most of these back in the day and can confirm the VG 318 Valiant Regal was the best of them due to the power to weight aspect and the lack of an air-conditioning compressor nor power steering pump under the hood. Additionally there no electrically powered seats nor power windows in the VG. It was all power to the back wheels ..and 340 ft lbs of torque at 2400 rpm meant at least 50 yards of rubber on the road from a full throttle standing start ..great fun for a kid at the time!
The 360 was a bit of a slug by comparison
I drive my Prius 100% in power mode, it really is very fast in that mode. I never use regular or ECO.
Sweet Jesus, 85 HP out of the Slant 6 by then?
In the early 2000s, I worked at a state park that, thanks to some cracks in state accounting, had a 1981 Dodge Ram pickup that was off the books and was, therefore, free for us. State agencies at that time, possibly still now, had to lease vehicles from the Motor Transport Division and pay whatever the lease rate was PLUS a mileage rate. Accordingly, since we had the “12-444,” our park manager made us use it for pretty much everything as the nice 1999 Chevy V8 pickup cost us a lot of money to actually operate.
That truck had the Slant 6. That truck was driven primarily by 18- to 22-year olds working summers between college (the park officers and managers used the nice 1999 Chevy), none of us having any idea of how to correctly treat a carbureted vehicle. That truck, thanks to state mandate, went 5,000 miles between oil changes. The furthest that truck went daily was 2 miles to the Day Use unit of the park to collect trash, but generally the truck did 10 miles per hour through the campground over and over and over again. In that 2 miles on a state highway, though, the truck sometimes went 25 and sometimes went as fast as it could go. The carburetor probably hadn’t been tuned or rebuilt since the late ’80s, and it burned oil like a mo-fo, but by god it just kept coming back for more (once we got it started)
But god damn that truck was slow! Foot to the floorboards (which is how most of us drove it if we weren’t in the actual park) only meant we’d get to speed like driving a normal car at a normal pace. And now I understand why.
Wow. 85 HP in a 3600 lb. car–kind of boggles the mind. Makes the slowest car I’ve ever owned (’82 Malibu V6, 110 HP in a 3200 lb. car) seem rather brisk by comparison!
While its New Yorker stablemate is somewhat overwrought by comparison (though I do love the hidden headlamps and full-width tail panel) I still find these Newports to be on the plain side, and I don’t care for the grille. For R-body styling perfection, the St. Regis is where it’s at for me.
The Six in the R body would’ve been basically a mileage champ as long as one would set the cruise control at 55mph across flat highways. I had an ’83 Dodge D-150 long bed 4×2 with the O/D trans. Not a race truck, but not so gutless as could be assumed in the R body sedan with Torqueflite. Of course, any grade at highway speeds necessitated dumping it into 3rd gear.
The Slant Six and Ford 200-250 straight six engines were good mills that lived a lot longer than intended. They were born in a non emission era and in order to pass ever more stringent tests by the late 70’s and early 80’s were strangled to death just to meet these laws. Other engines such as the Pontiac 151/301 engine duo introduced in 1977 were actually designed around the upcoming emission regulations and got a bit more power as time went on. Some engines adapted well to the new systems and others seemed to falter.
To this day the modern contraction of the old Ford 200 six lives on in the Aussie Falcon as the 4.0 ‘Barra 6’ (3984cc) and puts out some big 310 plus kilowatts in the top turboed version ..even the normally aspirated ones are putting out 195 plus kilowatts .. they remain a long stroke engine and are very hardy long lived engines that have been refined to the max .. however .. soon they die .. 2016 is their last year by all accounts .. sad!
With the power-to-weight ratio of these six cylinder Furys, they were real flatlanders! If the driver didn’t have significant hills to travel daily like the Midwest, they’d been just fine. Their spacious seating and low horsepower six made them ideal taxi cabs. They were seen in droves milling and lined up outside airport terminals back in the day.
Considering the aftermarket parts you can get for a /6, I imagine that you could now make quite a sleeper from an old R-body. A Magnum V8 from a ’90’s Dodge pickup would do the trick as well. I always liked the look of these, but I haven’t seen one on the road in a long time.
It amazed me back then, and now, that anyone would even consider buying a car with the slant 6, or just about any other I6 or V6 in a mid or full sized car or truck. I bought a ’77 Power Wagon with a supposedly 165 HP 360 2 barrel’ed V8, and it was so slow I began making plans and buying parts to hop it up to tolerable levels. It would barely make it to 60 in a headwind, and it took forever to do it. After a cam, heads, intake, a four barrel Thermoquad carb, head porting, headers, and a bunch of wrenching, it was actually fun to drive, and it got better mileage, if I controlled myself, than it did stock.
What a turnaround 3 decades make. The same company that makes a 707 HP Hellcat V8 in the Charger & Challenger made that.
Truly the nadir of automotive performance in that era.
During the fuel crisis of the mid 1970’s there were odd/even days, long lines, with many stations running out of gas just as you made it to the front of the line! Prices shot up, I remember when gas hit 1.00 a gallon. It seemed like the end of the world for American motorists. Domestic cars all got terrible mileage at this time. People were desperate for relief.
There was a device/procedure for V8 engines where four pistons were replaced by “slipper slugs” that did not produce any compression, but maintained engine balance. The pushrods were removed, and the intake ports blocked off, and the spark plugs were grounded, This reduced the displacement by 50%.
There was an article in a “Rod” magazine, “Street Machine” that explained how the “Cragar V8/4 kit” worked. They took a 455 Olds sedan and reduced the engine displacement to a bit over 225 cid. As you might imagine performance suffered, but they reported that the car could maintain freeway speeds and fuel economy was now in the double digits,though I don’t recall the actual improvement. They said that it was far from an ideal solution, but it did provide some relief, as these types of cars had almost no value during this period. I can’t imagine that many cars were treated to this procedure.
I had saved this magazine for years, I have not been able to find any info during recent internet searches, including the one that I did this morning.
Now with large displacement modern engines equipped with direct fuel injection, variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation, 6-10 speed transmissions, and improved aerodynamics, they can offer high performance with no real penalty in fuel consumption.
My Dad had a ’61 Dodge Slant Six three speed stripper, two door sedan around this time.According to my Chilton manual the 225 six produced 149 h.p.@ 4,000 rpm and 215 ft/lbs.of torque @ 2,4000 rpm. It surprises me that the power came at such high revs. The car was slow but it would cruise pretty easily at 65-70 mph. I don’t recall the fuel mileage.
I don’t remember it being as gutless as my ’75 Honda Civic wagon w/ Hondamatic. Now that was a slow car!