Talk:Chrysler Slant-6 engine/Archive 1

Labelling something as "asinine" outside the context of a quote constitutes a value judgment and renders the "225" section NPOV.

hydraulic lifters aren't essential nor simple to retrofit

Hydraulic lifters are far from essential for normal driving since Slant Sixes redline in the 4-5K RPM range anyway. Aside from the mild ticking (which goes away with regular adjustments), these motors work fine with mechanical lifters.

I'm sure most people dont consider pulling an engine to change their valvetrain a "comparatively simple retrofit". The 30 degree slant is toward lifter side of the engine, and to replace them would require you to either bust your knuckles between the block and inner fender, or pull the engine and do it on a stand.

Cleanup on Aisle Six

OK, folks, let's make a proper go of it. I've gone through and significantly cleaned up this article, removing unsubstantiable opinion and suggestions for upgrades (which really are outside the scope of a Wiki article such as this—there are forums and books for that sort of thing), reorganising the article, concatenating the vehicle application lists into one subsection, and correcting chronology and history.

Still to be done: Expansion of the aftermarket performance section to relate the aftermarket offerings to the factory parts, discussion of specific non-automotive applications (boats, Clark Cortez motor home, etc.), discussion of slant-6 based engineering projects that never made it to production, addition of photos and other images.

Comments about the S2000 and M6 engines

I don't understand the reference aboout how this engine "was specifically designed to be inclined" in contrast to the engines in the S2000 and M6. I'm not familiar with the M6, but I have an S2000 and am familiar with that engine. It very obviously was designed specifically to be slanted at that angle. Since there is no reference for this statement, I think it should be deleted until a reference is provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.144 (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I see you reinstated the text. I removed it again. So-called "valid text" is not supported by any references, and more importantly is not even about this engine at all. Why do you think it should be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.167 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)