17 replies to this topic

[Bob Riebe]

https://www.speedway...-flathead/30958

 

Lee's Speed Shop in Oakland, CA was one of the first speed shops in the country, having been founded by Lee Chapel in the early 30's. Chapel created the Tornado OHV Conversion seen here. This engine also features a Lee Chapel custom made intake manifold.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Ardun remains famous today thanks to the efforts of Clark and TeBow as well as several hot rodders that have continued to develop them over the past 70 years. Sidney Allard used them in his famous J2 sports cars. Tom Senter wrote a series of “Ardun White Papers” that appeared in Rod & Custom in the early 70’s. The famous Ferguson racing family would continue to develop them to set Bonneville records. Ultimately, Don Ferguson Jr. would take over Don Orosco’s effort to reproduce them, making it possible for hot rodders to purchase a brand new set of Ardun heads.

 

Ardun's are rare, but the smaller versions made for the V8-60 are super rare.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 09 February 2021 - 02:41.

[10kDA]

[Ray Bell]

A cheap one on an A-model engine:

 

[Lee Nicolle]

All of the conversions while interesting from an engineering standpoint were really no match for the more modern engines from the even very early fifties. Or late 40s.

I believe the Ardun heads were used in South America on production engines. There is a thread somewhere on here that mentions that.

The flathead V8 was built as a low buck passenger car engine,, though Henry had huge problems in casting and reliablity. And overheating was the biggest issue once the casting problems were sorted. Those V12s were even worse. Did Ford ever learn?

It was very obvious as early as the late teens [now over a 100 years ago] that OHV was going to be better and was simpler to cast as well. By the fifties they were a very dated engine. Though were from release!! No end of revisions ever made them 'right' just less bad!

While the Y block was dated upon release it solved most of the reliability dramas of the flathead. And was remotely modern. Though just a few years later Ford made an engine that was light, good power per ci. And was still around 50years later and saw off many 'replacement' engines such as the Clevo/ M engines. The FE too was around for at least a while which too was a good engine but too bloody heavy!

 

I have seen a Frontenac T racer which sounded quite sharp on leaving the venue. And those were more in period, pre war.

[Bob Riebe]

It was no heavier than a small block Chevy and the last FE Ford was lighter than a Big Block Chevy but there the Chevy had the better cylinder head design.

 

There were some Ford flathead conversions successfully used in U.S. sprint cars into the late fifties.

At least in the URC racing series, in the period when push-rod engines first hit the market, not the small-block Chevy, there was a large variety of engines being used and winning.

The thing that made flathead block not worth the effort , outside of having to deal with some thing designed for flat heads, was you could not enlarge the bore to any thing near what dedicated push-rod blocks could be taken out to..

Not that it did not have its day in the sun, that was one reason the Ford small block was an also ran in Group 7 racing when they still ran small blocks.

 

Most of the heads for the V-8 Ford flatheads were at best rare but it would be interesting to see what some one like Jon Kaase could do to one for all out power output.

[Ray Bell]

It was the Chrysler Esplanada which used the Ardun heads in production...

 

These engines were the V8-60 block as revamped in France by Ford (taking them to 2350cc) and then Simca, then retooled in South America to have the ports removed from the blocks and bores enlarged again to take them to 2500cc.

 

But is this thread just about the flathead V8s?

 

The pic I posted previously was an A-model engine with a Chev 4 head.

[Bob Riebe]

It was the Chrysler Esplanada which used the Ardun heads in production...

 

These engines were the V8-60 block as revamped in France by Ford (taking them to 2350cc) and then Simca, then retooled in South America to have the ports removed from the blocks and bores enlarged again to take them to 2500cc.

 

But is this thread just about the flathead V8s?

 

The pic I posted previously was an A-model engine with a Chev 4 head.

The article posted is in a wonderful museum who has a collection of engines, not all Fords, but this article is just about the flat-head Ford  V-8 collection he has at the American Museum of Speed.

If you ever get to Lincoln, Nebraska make sure you get to that museum.

When as you leave you walk by the window to the storage room that has items not on display and that is just as good as what is on display.

The hours used to be few a week but now I believe it has regular hours.

The gent who created it passed a short time back.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 09 February 2021 - 02:35.

[Michael Ferner]

The gent who created it passed a short time back.

 

"Speedy" Bill Smith https://www.enginebu...th-passes-away/

 

Actually, the "short time back" is almost seven years already!

 

V8 faltheads were mostly a hot-rodders thing, they were not very successful in racing apart from a very few exceptions. Clem TeBow's Ardun-powered CRA Champion was probably the most successful and remarkable. The earlier four-bangers were an entirely different matter, as the Model T, A and B gave rise to an enormous number of full racing conversions: Frontenac, Hal, Cragar, McDowell, Dreyer and Winfield, to name just the most famous ones. They actually deserve their own thread!!

[10kDA]

Re: Models T, A, & B - Right, that's why I posted the Fronty ad. Still a flathead conversion, but the 4 cylinder iteration. This one was twin cam, 16 valves, 1920s, on a production block. And there were so many other configurations and mfrs of conversions. Hot rodding, from Mild to Wild, as they say. They do deserve a separate thread.

 

The flathead V8s may not have been super successful as far as results show but they were cheap and plentiful, and it was easy to get a lot more power than stock out of them without investing in overhead valve heads. But better choices were appearing and "a lot more" power than stock wasn't quite enough to run with some of the newer engines, nor with purpose-designed race engines. But for someone racing at one or a couple of bullrings a week, a flathead would do the job even if it was not a consistent winner. It was easy to keep one runningn ot requiring a lot of attention. And flatheads are still run at Bonneville and they still push records faster. Of course supercharging can absolve many sins of inefficient design so that's often the configuration seen on record cars. The consequences are reflected in TBO (Time Before Overhaul). 

[Ray Bell]

Pat Clarke has been to the Lincoln display and sent me a lot of photos to post...

 

It certainly is a likely stopover for me when I make my next trip.

[Michael Ferner]

. But for someone racing at one or a couple of bullrings a week, a flathead would do the job even if it was not a consistent winner. It was easy to keep one runningn ot requiring a lot of attention.

 
No, not really. Flatheads were almost inexistant in racing. They couldn't keep up with the old four bangers, which only disappeared because replacement parts dried up. By then, more modern V8s were available. Only the V8-60 appeared in serious numbers in Midget racing as an economy solution. "Easy to keep running and not requiring a lot of attention" are attributes which are not really relevant in racing.

[10kDA]

 
 "Easy to keep running and not requiring a lot of attention" are attributes which are not really relevant in racing.

This is a myth for most of the fields racing short tracks in the US, at least into the 70s. My former neighbor raced a modified for 3 years without opening up his engine. A classmate's father raced a V8-60 midget in the 60s, changing oil and spark plugs every race, and between seasons new valves + lap, but not rings nor bearings for at least 2 years running, then bought a new car with an outboard engine. My ex-boss raced a sportsman at three different tracks each week for 5 years without doing anything to the engine beyond fluids and plugs. They weren't winning but there is ever only one winner per race. The important thing to competitors at this level is that they were racing. Same for me when I raced motorcycles. The budget took into account time as well as cash and I did what the budgeted resources allowed. That's the only way I could afford to do it and I had seen how these guys and so many others did it. Racing is simply NOT WINNING for most competitors most of the time. Are we supposed to stop?

[Michael Ferner]

No, of course not. Let's not split hairs, but basically that's the difference between club racing and professional racing here in Europe - in America it's all professional, at least nominally. But those competing at the front end of the fields, they routinely tear down the engines after every race, they simply have to: apart from replacing stressed parts, leaving racing fuel in a competition engine is a no-go, you have to clean it all out. And the old four bangers especially were notoriously difficult in maintenance, it's been said that e.g. Russ Garnant, multiple Pacific Coast AAA champion, replaced the Ford crankshafts in his Fronty and Cragar engines every week. I'm sure that the really hot V8 60s (those that were giving the Offies headaches) followed similar routines.

[Lee Nicolle]

It was no heavier than a small block Chevy and the last FE Ford was lighter than a Big Block Chevy but there the Chevy had the better cylinder head design.

 

There were some Ford flathead conversions successfully used in U.S. sprint cars into the late fifties.

At least in the URC racing series, in the period when push-rod engines first hit the market, not the small-block Chevy, there was a large variety of engines being used and winning.

The thing that made flathead block not worth the effort , outside of having to deal with some thing designed for flat heads, was you could not enlarge the bore to any thing near what dedicated push-rod blocks could be taken out to..

Not that it did not have its day in the sun, that was one reason the Ford small block was an also ran in Group 7 racing when they still ran small blocks.

 

Most of the heads for the V-8 Ford flatheads were at best rare but it would be interesting to see what some one like Jon Kaase could do to one for all out power output.

Clearly you have never fitted a 390 FE. They are a big heavy lump. A LOT Heavier than a Clevo or M engine. As well as the 429/460 which are not as heavy. The 428 was probably heavier again with its taller deck. A big grunter with bags of torque.

A ok engine in a full size car where they fit. Bloody dreadfull in a Mustang etc as they were so heavy and destroyed any balance the cars have.

I doubt Kaase would really be interested in a sidevalve.  A bit prehistoric for him.  I doubt he was born when they finished. About my age I think. He has done some odd OHV Fords such as the MEL thing for an engine power competition. Engine Masters? 

There is some late sidevalves out to around 300ci with I believe aftermarket cranks. 

[Lee Nicolle]

It was the Chrysler Esplanada which used the Ardun heads in production...

 

These engines were the V8-60 block as revamped in France by Ford (taking them to 2350cc) and then Simca, then retooled in South America to have the ports removed from the blocks and bores enlarged again to take them to 2500cc.

 

But is this thread just about the flathead V8s?

 

The pic I posted previously was an A-model engine with a Chev 4 head.

Am I right in thinking the V860 had smaller bore centres.  Far smaller bores. The Simca Vedette engine is quite a deal different from the Ford Pilot engine. I have seen them parked together.

If so the tooling would have had to be modified though with the volume I guess that was not that hard. But prehistoric in the 70s

V860s in midgets, at least here in Oz had ok power but were boilers. The Kiwis found the same. There has been a couple in classic midgets and sound great but struggle to do more than around 10 laps. Methanol probably would help but I doubt the carbs were available to feed it. Many have modded a 97 for meth but at best never very good. And at around a 150 cfm you need a lot of them!

In our classic Supermods we have Y blocks and A Mopars with three per engine and a LA 360 with 6 of them. Somewhere around there is a 283 Chev with 4.

[Bob Riebe]

Clearly you have never fitted a 390 FE. They are a big heavy lump. A LOT Heavier than a Clevo or M engine. As well as the 429/460 which are not as heavy. The 428 was probably heavier again with its taller deck. A big grunter with bags of torque.

A ok engine in a full size car where they fit. Bloody dreadfull in a Mustang etc as they were so heavy and destroyed any balance the cars have.

I doubt Kaase would really be interested in a sidevalve.  A bit prehistoric for him.  I doubt he was born when they finished. About my age I think. He has done some odd OHV Fords such as the MEL thing for an engine power competition. Engine Masters? 

There is some late sidevalves out to around 300ci with I believe aftermarket cranks. 

You are comparing big block FE with tall deck small blocks, apples and oranges, at that the Cleveland small blocks are heavier than the so called Windsor small blocks , either standerd or tall deck 351 based.

The FE/FT (Ford Truck, steel crank) ran from 330 inches up to 428, identical block dimesions.

 

390 has a 4.05 bore and a 3.78 stroke, where as the 428 has a 4.13 bore and a 3.98 stroke. The externals on the blocks are identical and the stock 428s used 390 heads and cams. 

All FE and FT engines have a bore spacing (distance between cylinder centers) of 4.630 in (117.6 mm), and a deck height (distance from crank center to top of block) of 10.170 in (258.3 mm). The main journal (crankshaft bearing) diameter is 2.749 in (69.8 mm). Within the family of Ford engines of the time, the FE was neither the largest nor smallest block.

 

The FE block was manufactured using a thinwall casting technique, where Ford engineers determined the required amount of metal and re-engineered the casting process to allow for consistent dimensional results. A Ford FE from the factory weighed 650 lb (295 kg) with all iron components, while similar seven-liter offerings from GM and Chrysler weighed over 700 lb (318 kg). With an aluminum intake and aluminum water pump the FE could be reduced to under 600 lb (272 kg). This weight saving was significant to boaters and racers.

[Lee Nicolle]

You are comparing big block FE with tall deck small blocks, apples and oranges, at that the Cleveland small blocks are heavier than the so called Windsor small blocks , either standerd or tall deck 351 based.

The FE/FT (Ford Truck, steel crank) ran from 330 inches up to 428, identical block dimesions.

 

390 has a 4.05 bore and a 3.78 stroke, where as the 428 has a 4.13 bore and a 3.98 stroke. The externals on the blocks are identical and the stock 428s used 390 heads and cams. 

All FE and FT engines have a bore spacing (distance between cylinder centers) of 4.630 in (117.6 mm), and a deck height (distance from crank center to top of block) of 10.170 in (258.3 mm). The main journal (crankshaft bearing) diameter is 2.749 in (69.8 mm). Within the family of Ford engines of the time, the FE was neither the largest nor smallest block.

 

The FE block was manufactured using a thinwall casting technique, where Ford engineers determined the required amount of metal and re-engineered the casting process to allow for consistent dimensional results. A Ford FE from the factory weighed 650 lb (295 kg) with all iron components, while similar seven-liter offerings from GM and Chrysler weighed over 700 lb (318 kg). With an aluminum intake and aluminum water pump the FE could be reduced to under 600 lb (272 kg). This weight saving was significant to boaters and racers.

The FE,,, are all iron, and bloody heavy. A lot heavier than a small block Chev, or small block Fords. Or the 429/460

Yes they maybe a similar weight to a BB Chev or Mopar both are better engines and have more capacity.

A 400 Chev is far smaller than a 390 FE. I would probably prefer the 390 FE,, in a full size car. But Ford also made a 400ci Cleveland based tall deck engine which was far more modern. The engine that mine and most Aussie assembled ones has. 

The Mopar and Chev have a far bigger range of alloy aftermarket parts than the FE. And did in even the late 60s, and head by the mid 70s.

In 69 Chevrolet had an aluminium engine available!

As an aside to all of this I own a 71 Galaxie that in the US had a huge range of engines. 240ci 6, 302W V8, 351W V8, 400M engine V8 and 429 both  base models and Super cobrajets as well as the venerable 390 in base and 4 barrell form. This in a 2 tonne full size family car.

It was Fords out with the old and in with the new engine year.

[Bob Riebe]

The 385 series (429/460) was/is the best Ford big block but outside of the Boss, with a modified block, little to no high performance products were made for it till the past ten to fifteen years, even in this country.

Now Air Flow Research, Jon Kaase have developed a  number of items for it now, and possible other after market companies, including aluminum blocks.

Even the old FE suddenly has a cluster of new blocks and heads available.