Nice story. I always liked his projects. A very innovative person.

I think I saw an article about this guy in a book from the 70's. My memory is a bit sketchy, but I remember the article involving a Maverick, a six cylinder and them machining the factory cast iron intake to accommodate dual or triple carburetors. I think they were also converting a 3 speed manual transmission to a 4 speed? 

http://www.maverick.to/grabber/MaviGT.html  - Here you go

Not to bust a bubble, but in 64-65, Dodge and Plymouth had their small cars with the 225 six, an aluminum intake and Carter AFB, higher compression head, marine cam, cast iron dual exhaust and 4 speed.  It was called the Hy-Per Pak, and it really ran strong.  One of these outran a buddy's 65 Malibu with a pretty stout 283.  Almost started a fight.
Hmm, toss in the Corvair Turbo Monza and that could have been an interesting 6 cyl matchup.

66 coupe wrote:

Not to bust a bubble, but in 64-65, Dodge and Plymouth had their small cars with the 225 six, an aluminum intake and Carter AFB, higher compression head, marine cam, cast iron dual exhaust and 4 speed.  It was called the Hy-Per Pak, and it really ran strong.  One of these outran a buddy's 65 Malibu with a pretty stout 283.  Almost started a fight.
Hmm, toss in the Corvair Turbo Monza and that could have been an interesting 6 cyl matchup.

Weight to horsepower.  A 283 in a Nova can rip pretty good, but hauling around that Malibu its undersized.  Think about it like this: a 150HP in a car is a joke, but in a motorcycle its a rocket ship. 

A 6 is going to make more torque at a lower RPM than a similarly sized V8 too, because they have small bores and long strokes.  So, even though that 225 is giving up 58 cubes to the 283 I'll bet its making as much torque, because the 225 has a 4.125" stroke vs. the 283s 3" stroke.  Same reason the 5.9 Dodge/Cummins always made more torque than the Ford/IH and GM?Detroit engines that were 7.3s and 6.5s respectively.  Its tough to beat a big six for low end torque.  Modified to spin you can get both low end and top end and have a pretty good combination.

Ultimately the V8s start to win because they can easily be made bigger than 300 cid.  So the 6 has to resort to a turbo to remain competitive and costs start to get out of hand.  There are some seriously powerful 6s out there, but being expensive to build is why most guys opt for a V8. 

Had a customer once who wanted 300 hp from his 200 six.  I told him it could be done with enough cash, but I was not interested in the project.  A year later I saw the car at a show with a dyno sheet showing 300+ horses.  Seems he had around $20,000 in the engine, BUT IT WAS STILL A SIX CYLINDER.  What could he have done with a small block and that money.  The little six is one of my all time favorites, but it is what it is.
Best,
Al

I tend to agree about the sound of most sixes.  However, I have heard a few really mean sounding ones.  And even though a V8 will normally sound best, the very best engine sound I recall was a 220CI Model B Ford four-banger going across El Mirage dry lake at nearly 6 grand. 

BB

One of the most astounding engines I ever heard was my 66 Merc Cyclone with a 390 when it shifted into 3rd (C-6) at 6K.  I had two 66's, one with a 289, the race car had the 390.  We were running SS/JA at Dallas, turning 11.19 at around 120.  On that particular day, the rear u-joint parted ways and the driveshaft slid out but not before our Jones-Motorola tattle-tale tach sat just under 7500 rpm.  The engine sounded like a piece of canvas ripping.  Those were long before we had RPM shut-off's.
That 390 was all but a very built 427 with what we used to call "LeMans" internals.
If I want ear-candy, I would toss into the ring my second motorcycle, a 1973 Kawasaki Mach III 2 stroke triple with expansion chambers.  Unbelievable power, lousy handling.  It would lift the front wheel in the first 3 gears at any speed by rolling the throttle.