Re: IML: HORSEPOWER

Burt,
My sincere thanks. This is the kind of information I really love to read. Some would say "Who cares, they never put a slant six in an Imperial" Well, I care. It's neat to read these little tidbits of information. You should write a book!
I've been a Mopar man ever since I could say Dodge, and I'm always looking to read, hear, or see anything Mopar.
I think there will be a time when the slant six cars will come into their own, as far as collectibles goes. It's just too bad that these six-banger cars are mostly donors. I've had several "leaning tower of power" cars, some good, some great. The best was a 74 Duster with automatic transmission. It seemed to have plenty of power for the weight of the car. My worst, or should I say least best, was a 1980 Cordoba with a lock-up torque converter. It couldn't get out of its own way. But as long as it was a Mopar, I was content.
Thanks again for the interesting message.

Best regards,
Mark Souders
Mohrsville, PA

I was in Chrysler Engine Lab in 1951 and 1952 and I was involved in the manufacturer of DeSoto engines (Warren Plant) and Chrysler/Imperial engines (Jefferson Plant) until 1960.

I remember that Chrysler factory HP ratings were honest except for the 1960 "slant 6" engines where we under rated the 170 cu. in. version and over rated the 225 cu. in version. More on that later.

Rated horsepower in the 1960's was "gross HP". Gross HP is measured on a dynamometer with lab exhaust (zero back pressure), intake air corrected to standard barometer and temperature settings and no accessories - not even a fan. Horsepower as installed in a car would be considerably less.

In 1960 the new 170 cu. in. engine tested in the Laboratory at 117 HP but was rated at only 101 HP it because it went in a subcompact car (Valiant) and we thought the subcompact customers wanted a 100hp - or less - engine.

The same year (1960) the new 225 cu. in. slant six tested at 123 HP but was rated at 145 HP because that displacement should have produced 145 HP. We obviously had work to do. (A common cylinder head on the 170 cu. in. and 225 cu. in. versions penalized the larger displacement.)

Some Chrysler Engineers were upset about this discrepancy but Product Planners rationalized that it's not so bad when you average the over rating of the 225 with the under rating of the 170 for the "slant 6" family of engines.

Burt Bouwkamp