Jump to content


Photo

V-8 90 DEGREE CRANK


  • Please log in to reply
339 replies to this topic

#301 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 27 December 2006 - 02:03

Originally posted by m9a3r5i7o2n
The 1915 Cadillac V-8 was an almost identical copy of the De Dion–Bouton whom I understand shipped one to New York and Cadillac is reputed to have copied it lock, stock and barrel!


While that claim has been made many times, and it is true that the Lelands bought a De Dion off the floor of the NY Auto Show for study, the two engines have no more than a superficial resemblance. It appears the De Dion was used as an example of what not to do. It had only two main bearings, for example.

Advertisement

#302 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 27 December 2006 - 02:07

Originally posted by Ray Bell
In the early twenties, the Nash subsidiary Lafayette built a V8...

It was designed by ex-Cadillac engineer D McCall White. Do we know anything about it's crank layout or other features?


The Lafayette was sort of a rare bear, have only seen a handful of them in my life. They are flat crank, I am certain. Side note: the Lelands could not stand McCall White. They were New England puritans straight through and for some reason they considered him quite a libertine. Probably for wearing a straw hat or something.

#303 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 27 December 2006 - 02:18

Originally posted by m9a3r5i7o2n
One must remember that Cadillac did not come out with a mono-block V-8 until 1936, Ford in 1932. The V-8 needed an Overhead Valve System to really succeed as to make the block easier to cast.


Cadillac didn't have the same need as Ford for a monoblock. There was not the same pressure on unit cost in order to get the thing produced. If you are Cadillac you will let Ford be the pioneer on that sort of thing. Ford's concerns are cost and weight, while yours are smoothness, reliability and quiet operation. If a monoblock can be done without sacrifice in any of those areas, then you do it when the technology is ready... and that would be around 1936. If you will remember, Ford had a lot of casting problems with its V8 blocks the first few years... and never did solve the overheating problem when you get right down to it.

#304 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,257 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 27 December 2006 - 09:42

Originally posted by McGuire
Cadillac didn't have the same need as Ford for a monoblock. There was not the same pressure on unit cost in order to get the thing produced. If you are Cadillac you will let Ford be the pioneer on that sort of thing. Ford's concerns are cost and weight, while yours are smoothness, reliability and quiet operation. If a monoblock can be done without sacrifice in any of those areas, then you do it when the technology is ready... and that would be around 1936. If you will remember, Ford had a lot of casting problems with its V8 blocks the first few years... and never did solve the overheating problem when you get right down to it.


Cadillac avoided some of those casting problems by compromising on exhaust port location...

They had the exhausts exit within the vee, then made provision for the engine pipe to be routed away from that point. Ford's famous overheating problems were surely caused by the routing of the exhaust ports across the block through water jacket that didn't really need so much exposure to heat.

#305 m9a3r5i7o2n

m9a3r5i7o2n
  • Member

  • 241 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 28 December 2006 - 17:21

I don’t believe that Cadillac had the resources to do a monobloc engine as they were wasting all there “extra” money on next-door to useless V-12 and V-16 engines at that time. Besides the monobloc V-8 was done by other firms in Michigan some fifteen or twenty years before Cadillac in 1936 and Ford in 1932 and all of this without using the simplification of OHV. All Ford had to do really was to get the costs down to a reasonable figure so as to stop Chevrolet from doing an end around number of cylinders as they did several years earlier on the six. I believe that Ford just made a goof in using the down thru block exhaust to keep from copying Cadillac in their use of exhaust out the top of the block.
The last thing that Cadillac did of any note was to put detachable heads on their engine in 1927. All the other manufacturers of expensive cars weren’t really that much of a worry to Cadillac. I believe they wasted that money out of sheer whims and over confidence in their ability to do something different.
We have to remember neither Ford nor Cadillac were the leaders of the monobloc engine nor were they the leaders in the OHV V-8 this had all been done by smaller firms much earlier, the same as the monobloc engine. Some of this is written in the book on Cadillac page # 239. Much of the advance work was done by small firms that both Ford and Cadillac used.
Another thing that has often puzzled me is just why did Chrysler not build a V-8 as all the advance work was already finished and do just as they did on the original “Hemi”, the block of which was a direct copy of the 1949 Cadillac. Even to the using of the same bore and stroke. But they didn’t!
M.L. Anderson

#306 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 29 December 2006 - 10:56

I don't believe the Chrysler hemi was in any way a copy of the Cadillac V8. The bore and stroke are a coincidence, nothing more.

I don't believe the pre-36 Cadillac V8 was a backward design for not being monobloc. To me that is an anachronistic yardstick. They didn't see any need to push early for a monoblock and there is no reason they should have. The pre-36 Cadillac V8 is a better engine than the goofball Oakland/Viking V8s by an order of magnitude, despite the latter's use of monoblock castings. Those engines may be interesting but they were obviously a dead end as they never went anywhere. If the lowline V8s had been any good, one would have gone into the 1934 LaSalle, for example. Instead that car got an Oldsmobile straight 8.

Nor do I believe the V12 and V16 were a waste. These were halo cars, designed to demonstrate that Cadillac really was the Standard of the World, and that General Motors was the greatest and most advanced automotive engineeering company in the industry -- which it certainly was at that time. Lack of technical resources was in no way a problem at Cadillac. And interestingly enough, the V12 and V16 represented a significant portion of Cadillac sales, with over 15,000 of them produced. (About two-thirds V12s.) The Cadillac V12 is a better engine than the Packard 12, and the V16 is a far better car overall than the Duesenberg 8. When you drive these cars today it is painfully obvious.

#307 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 29 December 2006 - 11:24

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Cadillac avoided some of those casting problems by compromising on exhaust port location...

They had the exhausts exit within the vee, then made provision for the engine pipe to be routed away from that point. Ford's famous overheating problems were surely caused by the routing of the exhaust ports across the block through water jacket that didn't really need so much exposure to heat.


That choice was all about form factor. The Ford V8 engine was designed to drop into the same spot as the old inline four.. the 1932 Ford was essentially an updated Model A; the four was offered alongside the V8 for several more years (32-34). And a V8 is an easy swap in a Model A, as hot rodders quickly discovered.

Henry Ford never quite let go of the four. Several years later when the V8-60 was discontinued, Ford offered the four-cylinder 9N tractor engine in passenger cars. Fairly rare, as you can imagine.

#308 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,257 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 29 December 2006 - 11:33

Was the V8/60 discontinued before Henry died? I woldn't have thought so, as it was in production in England until about 1952 and in France until that part of the Ford empire was sold off to Simca... who continued to produce it as we've discussed previously.

There were differences between each of these versions, but seeing as the American one was the last to go into production it surprises me that it should be the first to fall by the wayside... and apparently by a considerable margin.

I fail to see, by the way, the point of your explanation about the V8 having to slot in where the four had been. If that were the case, surely central exhausts would have been beneficial?

#309 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 29 December 2006 - 12:10

The V8-60 was offered in American vehicles from 1937 to 1940. H1 died April 7, 1947.

#310 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,257 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 29 December 2006 - 21:37

I'm fairly sure that differs from what I've read...

Released in England 1937, France 1938, US (which surprised me at the time) 1939. I'd have thought that earlier in the US was more likely.

#311 m9a3r5i7o2n

m9a3r5i7o2n
  • Member

  • 241 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 30 December 2006 - 15:37

McGuire; I am aghast that you state that it was a mere coincidence after all the B & S was identical I fail to see your reasoning on this.
The rod and main bearing were the same diameter, altho this might/was a carryover from the old Chrysler Straight Eight on the mains.
The wrist pins only .016” smaller on the Chrysler. I wonder if the block was difference but I have no information on the conrod length either. I think the word “copy” is definitely in keeping with the bore and stroke being so identical. This one of the greatest coincidences I have ever seen!
M.L. Anderson

#312 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 31 December 2006 - 12:27

Originally posted by m9a3r5i7o2n
McGuire; I am aghast that you state that it was a mere coincidence after all the B & S was identical I fail to see your reasoning on this.


I've had both engines apart many times and there are far more differences than similarities in their short-block assemblies. For example, on the hemi the left bank is offset to the front and the thrust bearing is on the rear main; on the Cadillac the right bank is to the front and the center main carries the thrust bearing. Why would Chrysler engineer its own engine in every detail and then copy Cadillac on such an easy and arbitrary decision as the final bore and stroke specifications? That doesn't make sense.

Also, the Cadillac was introduced in January of 1949 while the Chrysler hemi appeared in the fall of 1950. There wasn't time for Chrysler to copy the Cadillac, tool it and bring it to production by then. In fact, planning on both these engines began before the war was over as has been well-documented. Everyone could see that inexpensive high-octance fuel was on the way. That's what drove the post-war movement to short-stroke, high compression overhead valve V8s.

The hemi had designers and they didn't work at Cadillac. These men included Ev Moeller, Bill Stunkard and Mel Carpentier, to name a few. These are very well known and accomplished people in the industry and to accuse them of copying the Cadillac... well, that would be noteworthy. The coincidence in bore/stroke dimensions has been noted before. Some have said this was a "shot over the bow" at Cadillac, which is possible... and a far more sensible and likely explanation than Chrysler was simply aping the Caddy.

#313 m9a3r5i7o2n

m9a3r5i7o2n
  • Member

  • 241 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 31 December 2006 - 16:39

MOTEUR 20-CV-1913/1914-(100 x 140)
MOTEUR V8 20/30 CV-1914-(75 x 130) page # 93
The picture definitely shows a 3 main bearing crankshaft!
Only the older engines have a two bearing crankshaft.
One must remember that the De Dion Bouton was about 5 years
ahead of the Cadillac V-8. Also WW-1 had a lot to do with them
dropping the V-8 in 1923. During the war they made the Hispano-Suiza which
adopted the De Dion Bouton bore and stroke from their engine that was
supposed to power the French aircraft.
M.L. Anderson :clap:

#314 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,257 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 31 December 2006 - 21:38

Any serious information about the Lafayette yet?

Just thought I'd bring that question back to the surface...

#315 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 01 January 2007 - 17:36

The Lafayette Motor Co. was originally located in a place that doesn't really exist anymore: Mars Hill, Indiana. Roughly three miles south-southwest of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, on the east boundary of where Indianapolis International Airport is now, and west and south of Stout Field (which doesn't exist anymore either) Mars Hill today consists of tract homes and commercial parks. Mo Nunn's race shop was in "Mars Hill"... not that many would call the area by that name these days.

At some point (exactly when and how much is unclear) in the floating of the company Charles Nash and James J. Storrow, his money man, got involved. Storrow was with the group of investment bankers that bailed out General Motors when Billy Durant bankrupted it the first time, and backed Nash when he left GM and bought out Jeffrey (Rambler) to create Nash Motor Co. (They also tendered an offer to Packard.) Storrow is also the guy who brought Walter P. Chrysler into the auto industry, to serve as Nash's manufacturing executive at Buick.

Nash no doubt became acquainted with D. McCall White, Lafayette's chief engineer, from their time together at General Motors. Also, evidently most Lafayettes carried Seaman bodies, as Nash also controlled Seaman. However, apparently Lafayette was held as a separate company and not absorbed into Nash Motor until several years later -- when the Lafayette works was moved to Racine, Wisconsin and into the former Mitchell plant (another make Nash had bought out.) Production of the Lafayette was discontinued shortly thereafter, though at one point Nash did consider purchasing Pierce-Arrow (another luxury make then dead broke) and merging the two.

The empty Mitchell/Lafayette plant was then used to manufacture the Ajax, another Nash production. A cheap six, the Ajax seems to have been held in such low esteem by the public that the remaining cars in inventory had all their badging pulled off and replaced with Nash emblems so they could be unloaded. Nash apparently felt enough pity for previous Ajax buyers that these badge kits were sold over the counter so these cars could be "repaired" as well. Last I heard of the Mitchell-Lafayette-Ajax-Nash-AMC plant, it was owned by Jacobsen Manufacturing (the lawnmower and snowblower makers) and about to be demolished.

#316 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,257 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 01 January 2007 - 20:27

And the V8 engine they made, any information on it?

Now you're on a roll... and Marion's posting again...

#317 m9a3r5i7o2n

m9a3r5i7o2n
  • Member

  • 241 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 01 January 2007 - 22:38

The firing order of the Chrysler was identical to the 1949 Cadillac at #1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2 which if both Cadillac and Chrysler engineers can count puts both #1 cylinders on the left front. Unfortunately Cadillac kept shifting the firing order from left to right over the years. Only once was it necessary when they changed from a 180 to a 90 degree crankshaft. Fortunately Chevrolet & Pontiac seemed to know better. Maybe of the two one can’t turn an engine upside down and count the conrods fore to aft. Chrysler did keep their V-8 engines with a similar firing order but I understand that Cadillac :o did change theirs on their later and miserable engines.
M.L. Anderson

#318 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 02 January 2007 - 00:34

Originally posted by m9a3r5i7o2n
The firing order of the Chrysler was identical to the 1949 Cadillac at #1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2 which if both Cadillac and Chrysler engineers can count puts both #1 cylinders on the left front. Unfortunately Cadillac kept shifting the firing order from left to right over the years. Only once was it necessary when they changed from a 180 to a 90 degree crankshaft. Fortunately Chevrolet & Pontiac seemed to know better. Maybe of the two one can’t turn an engine upside down and count the conrods fore to aft. Chrysler did keep their V-8 engines with a similar firing order but I understand that Cadillac :o did change theirs on their later and miserable engines.
M.L. Anderson



Bank offset has no bearing on cylinder numbering or firing order. Or, just because the cylinder is first on the crankshaft doesn't mean it has to be first in the firing order. For example... on the Pontiac V8 the first cylinder in the block is on the right but "#1 cylinder in the firing order is on the left. (Like a Cadillac.) But on the flathead Ford V8 they did the opposite: the left bank is forward in the block but cylinder #1 is on the right. Of course, with fork-and-blade connecting rods (Lincoln, Wills, early Cadillac etc.) there is no bank offset so none of this matters.

#319 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 02 January 2007 - 00:50

Originally posted by Ray Bell
And the V8 engine they made, any information on it?


Not sure there's much more to say, pretty standard fare. One interesting aspect vs. the Cadillac: five main bearings instead of three. Probably the most interesting of these early V8s from a technical standpoint is the Wills. Or maybe the Willys-Knight which used twin sleeve valves. Speaking of Indianapolis V8s, the Cole was pretty successful (in comparison to the Lafayette). I think they were making 5000 a year at one point. J.J. Cole had very good connections within General Motors, which provided the engines.

Advertisement

#320 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,257 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 02 January 2007 - 01:48

Okay... so on the Lafayette we have:

Cast in two blocks of 4-cyls.

180° crankshaft

Extremely undersquare (3.25" bore, 5.25" stroke)

Five main bearings.

So...

Did it have a separate crankcase, or were the two blocks split along the main bearings?

Did it have the exhaust ports routed around the cylinders to the outside of the block, or some other solution to this problem?

#321 Henk

Henk
  • Member

  • 227 posts
  • Joined: July 03

Posted 02 January 2007 - 22:34

For photos of the 1921-1924 LaFayette engine go to:

http://www.nashcarcl...nty/21_laf.html
and
http://www.nashcarcl...te-5344mnu.html

#322 m9a3r5i7o2n

m9a3r5i7o2n
  • Member

  • 241 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 02 January 2007 - 23:25

Now if someone can tell us just where the exhaust passages run I
would be very pleased. Much of the engine looks similar to the
Oldsmobile that I would suspect it was made or designed by the
same people.
The Carburetor is updraft, but where is the exhaust? Now comes
the storm for the dissections. The picture is not in my case clear
enough to see the exhaust manifolds! But I’ll make a guess and
that would be that the exhaust passages are down thru the block
just as the 1932 Ford V-8 :clap: . There seems to be three pipes on the outside
but it isn’t very clear.

Oldsmobile picture I hope!
http://www.rvebike.c... Cars/wpe14.jpg
Now maybe I can compare.

M.L. Anderson

#323 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,257 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 03 January 2007 - 00:13

No, Marion, the exhausts definitely aren't on the outside... look at this pic and see only a leaking welch plug:

http://www.nashcarcl...y/21_laf-2.html

A shame the three pics on the other page, the 1924 car, don't enlarge! *edit* They do! when you click on the title alongside they come up. But even with enlargement from that larger pic to the start of pixelisation doesn't really disclose anything exhaust wise. Other than that it's not on the outside of the block.

And isn't there a lot of bulk, apparently aluminium, at the front of the engine?

#324 m9a3r5i7o2n

m9a3r5i7o2n
  • Member

  • 241 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 03 January 2007 - 17:15

If that is aluminum then this must have helped to put this engine
up in the price class. But we don’t know just how good the quality
of the metal was!
Is there a way to write these owners as this must be the only V-8
Lafayette in existence?

M.L. Anderson

#325 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 03 January 2007 - 18:42

Here is another early V8 engine in which they forgot to include an exhaust system. No wonder so many of these outfits went out of business. :D


Posted Image

I snapped this foto from my copy of the January 2, 1918 Automotive Industries, p. 125, from a two page ad by Herschell-Spillman. A number of "assembled cars" (the term at the time) used the Herschell-Spillman V8 engine, while two more automakers -- Peerless and Daniels -- apparently developed their own engines based upon the Herschell-Spillman design... or based upon their experience in trying to make the Herschell-Spillman run. Depends who is telling the story.

The New York company is far better known today as an amusement ride manufacturer. An original Herschell-Spillman merry-go-round in authentic condition is considered the quite the thing among devotees and collectors of that sort of junk.

#326 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,257 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 03 January 2007 - 22:22

The makeup of the Spillman is clear enough, though, McGuire. Separate blocks on a separate alloy crankcase.

Originally posted by m9a3r5i7o2n
.....Is there a way to write these owners as this must be the only V-8
Lafayette in existence?


Well, there's two of them there, Marion... write to this address, as they must be in the Nash Car Club:

Jim and Dorothy Bracewell
1N274 Prairie
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 ...or:

Cindy & Ken Carmack,
Renewal Chairpersons Nash Car Club,
709 Holiday Dr. Fortville, IN 46040-1138

Or you might e.mail: kencarnash@aol.com or bracewell@nashcarclub.org

Hope you do some good!

And by the way, Marion, with a lot of information derived from this thread, topped up with other details of course, I've just had a nice little story published about the V8 engine. I have to thank you for all your help.

#327 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 04 January 2007 - 11:13

Originally posted by Ray Bell
The makeup of the Spillman is clear enough, though, McGuire. Separate blocks on a separate alloy crankcase.


By far, most of these early V8's were constructed that way. The use of detachable heads is one differentiator. Also, some used twin water pumps, some used one and a handful were thermo-syphon.

The Lincoln V8 is sort of interesting in that it was flat crank and fork-and-blade rods with a 60-degree bank angle...and stayed that way through the early 30's when it was discontinued. All Lincolns were V12s for a number of years, then after the war used the big Ford truck flathead V8 lump (337 CID) until the OHV V8 arrived.

#328 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 04 January 2007 - 11:21

Originally posted by McGuire
The New York company is far better known today as an amusement ride manufacturer. An original Herschell-Spillman merry-go-round in authentic condition is considered the quite the thing among devotees and collectors of that sort of junk.


Of course the horses and other animals from these rides are considered very collectible as well. While many were carved from wood, some were aluminum castings, which seems worth mentioning. Herschell and Spillman were brothers-in-law as well as business partners. One was a foundryman and the other was on more of an artistic bent... I have forgotten who was which.

#329 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,257 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 05 January 2007 - 12:56

Originally posted by m9a3r5i7o2n
.....Is there a way to write these owners as this must be the only V-8
Lafayette in existence?


Not the owner, but the man who did the restoration for the owner has been contacted and asked for details, Marion...

We might get pics from when the engine was out of the car. If not we'll get a description.

#330 m9a3r5i7o2n

m9a3r5i7o2n
  • Member

  • 241 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 05 January 2007 - 15:15

Firing order is #1-4-5-2-7-6-3-8
Odd numbers on the left.
Even numbers on the right.
180 degree crankshaft.

Cylinders numbered same as 1930-1931 Oakland-Pontiac.
Also 1949 Cadillac, 1955 Chevrolet, Pontiac and many others.
These engines had 90 degree cranks.
M.L. Anderson

#331 m9a3r5i7o2n

m9a3r5i7o2n
  • Member

  • 241 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 05 January 2007 - 15:23

After studying the book of De Dion-Bouton and especially the part about Charles Kettering and the purchase of a 1912 V-8 car I got to thinking about just how much copying of V-8 engines in particular was made at that time from 1902 and the Levavasseur engine up to and around 1958. Since the Levavasseur V-8 was a 1902 patented device I wonder just how much if any De Dion-Bouton paid to use the patents for their use of these patents? The book states that something about Hispano-Suiza and their company was done, but exactly just what it was is written in French and I can’t read it that well and French law is in the same category. There is no mention of any royalty payments between Levavasseur, De Dion-Bouton and General Motors. It may well be that De Dion-Bouton waited until Levavasseur went broke and couldn’t sue that they started into the actual production of V-8s. I don’t know just exactly when Levavasseur did fold up but I also know it was around 1910 the same year that DeDion-Bouton started production of V-8s. But they must have started designing the engines several years earlier. The patent was probably due up in 1917 not 1910!
One of the things that De Dion started but stopped was the use of cote-de-cote (side by side) conrods for some reasons they admitted to rapidly changing over to fork and blade rods (?) peculiar. We know now this was a bad move but was it of such necessity then? :confused:

Another one of the things peculiar to the De Dion car engines is the use of so many V8s with different Bores & Strokes it would seem as tho they would have used the largest bore, 90mm (1910) with their shortest stroke of 100mm (1920) equals 5.089 liters or 310.6 cubic inches. No where is there any mention of the maximum of r.p.m. at what H.P.
M.L. Anderson :)

#332 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,826 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 January 2007 - 16:17

Originally posted by m9a3r5i7o2n
After studying the book of De Dion-Bouton and especially the part about Charles Kettering and the purchase of a 1912 V-8 car I got to thinking about just how much copying of V-8 engines in particular was made at that time from 1902 and the Levavasseur engine up to and around 1958. Since the Levavasseur V-8 was a 1902 patented device I wonder just how much if any De Dion-Bouton paid to use the patents for their use of these patents? The book states that something about Hispano-Suiza and their company was done, but exactly just what it was is written in French and I can’t read it that well and French law is in the same category. There is no mention of any royalty payments between Levavasseur, De Dion-Bouton and General Motors. It may well be that De Dion-Bouton waited until Levavasseur went broke and couldn’t sue that they started into the actual production of V-8s. I don’t know just exactly when Levavasseur did fold up but I also know it was around 1910 the same year that DeDion-Bouton started production of V-8s. But they must have started designing the engines several years earlier. The patent was probably due up in 1917 not 1910!
One of the things that De Dion started but stopped was the use of cote-de-cote (side by side) conrods for some reasons they admitted to rapidly changing over to fork and blade rods (?) peculiar. We know now this was a bad move but was it of such necessity then? :confused:

Another one of the things peculiar to the De Dion car engines is the use of so many V8s with different Bores & Strokes it would seem as tho they would have used the largest bore, 90mm (1910) with their shortest stroke of 100mm (1920) equals 5.089 liters or 310.6 cubic inches. No where is there any mention of the maximum of r.p.m. at what H.P.
M.L. Anderson :)


Interesting point about the patents.

But where would that have left Rolls-Royce? The company made its "Legalimits" which, I believe, were catalogued models (even if only three or so were built) in 1905/6.

PdeRL

#333 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:42

While any engine (V8s included) may recieve a design patent, I do not believe the V8 configuration itself could be protected, any more than an inline four is protected. Claims of invention may be made and pursued (see Selden patent) but ultimately some ideas are too self-evident to have an inventor in any tangible sense.

The essential vee configuration (two cylinders at a converging angle on a common crankpin) was employed by Gottleib Daimler in 1889 (and in steam engines much earlier). What is a V4 but two of these engines in combination? And what is a V8 but four V2s in a neat little row? Hard to see how anything has been "invented" here.

By the time the DeDion Bouton V8 automobile appeared in 1910, dozens of V8 engines had been successfully built all over the world. In 1907 the fastest land vehicle on earth was powered by a V8, and by 1910 the same basic engine was installed in aircraft making 50-mile flights. Where De Dion Bouton innovated, if you will, was in the use of a V8 in a production passenger vehicle, but its success was sorely limited because it was not very good.

#334 m9a3r5i7o2n

m9a3r5i7o2n
  • Member

  • 241 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 06 January 2007 - 15:33

The Selden patent may be a good argument as to why there aren’t more lawsuits on various “Inventions” as many lawsuits may have been prevented by getting a patent for their own protection and preventing lawsuits knowing full well the first patented “Invention” itself wouldn’t stand up in court.
The only reason that the patent of the Houdaille stood up may not have anything to do with the patent itself but due more to the fact no one could figure out a way to seal the shafts in a commercially viable way. Certainly the way Houdaille did it wasn’t very practical in large scale production. This may be the reason that Houdaille shocks weren’t used to any great extant. It would be very interesting to know how much they would cost in present day U.S.A. Dollars. Outside of the seals the shocks certainly weren’t difficult to manufacture.
M.L. Anderson :)

#335 m9a3r5i7o2n

m9a3r5i7o2n
  • Member

  • 241 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 09 January 2007 - 20:31

Quote from McGuire;

By the time the DeDion Bouton V8 automobile appeared in 1910, dozens of V8
engines had been successfully built all over the world.

After seeing this I got my old book to see if there was a count in the Old, “Airplane
Engine Encyclopedia “1921. In the back of the book is a list of various engine types.
Under Vee Eight-Cylinder it lists 115 engines. Even if one cuts this in half as
many of them are made by the same manufacturer
It is one big bunch of engines. But by going thru the book one can easily see just
why many of them never went to mass production.
Reasons:
#1, Not enough money available to manufacture them in any reasonable quantity.

# 2. A design flaw very apparent to us these days but not at the time of design at
that time.

#3. Designing an engine with a flaw that was very apparent to the people who had
their hands on the money.

#4. Designing an engine in a country that could not afford to build and test an
engine (Germany). Many engines designed after WW-1 just weren’t wanted or
needed.

In item #3a. One of the most apparent was designing an aircraft engine with no
thought about dirt getting into the lubrication system with dumping oil out of the
engine into the air, other parts of the engine and fuselage onto fabric. Rocker arms
push rods valve springs valve stems, etc. Hispano-Suiza showed them the way on
this in 1915. Many of the engines were built by people who had no idea of the
multiplicity of the problems of in-flight acrobatics! Unlubricated rocker arms and
valve stems.
Another thing was designing an engine with unneeded complexity such as the
Renault V-8 with enough gears to drive several engines when a chain drive would
have been sufficient. Bicycle chains would have been satisfactory as these engines
didn’t last very long in any case, piston rings and bearings being the big culprit.
Exhaust valves may have been a big culprit also!

Making engines without valve/cam covers.
Making crankshafts without any counterweights.
Making engines with what should have been very apparent out of
proportion bore to stroke ratios. One of these was a Peugeot
V-8 with b x s ratio of 1.8 and a gear train of 13 gears.

As with many things there were rays of hope in B x S dimension as
in the Benz V-8 of 5.310” x 5.310” = 943.4 cu. in. However it was one
of the engines that had lots of valve gear hanging out in the wind, push rods,
rocker arms, valve springs, valves etc.

Of all these engines the Sunbeam Arab V-8 has the last line by Glenn D. Angle
of quote:
“Considerable trouble has been experienced with designs and as a result
they have been completely abandoned”. These engines were so poor
that they have been called by some as the, “Worlds Worst V-8 Engine”.
This due to the use of articulated rods on one side of the engine which
were very short. The vibration of this type was not understood by very
many people at that time. The Sunbeam Co. at that time had been building
6, V-8, V-12 and 18 cyl. engines, too many engines with not enough resources.

M.L. Anderson :)

#336 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 10 January 2007 - 01:02

Indeed. When you look at all the problems and the state of the technology, you can see how the rotary radial engine was so successful for a time.

#337 onelung

onelung
  • Member

  • 546 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 December 2007 - 00:40

Post # 301 by McGuire

It appears the De Dion was used as an example of what not to do. It had only two main bearings, for example.


And it may possibly have been the reason they went to fork & blade rods - to shorten the crank?

#338 onelung

onelung
  • Member

  • 546 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 December 2007 - 01:17

Here's an interesting V-16 (!) engine from the Malartre museum (Rochetaillee, near Lyon). Rotary valves in 1916!
[IMG]http://img137.images...3704bfh3.th.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://img137.images...3707bhf6.th.jpg[/IMG] http://[IMG]http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/2289/img3705beo5.th.jpg[/IMG] http://[IMG]http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6850/img3706bug5.th.jpg[/IMG]

#339 Tmeranda

Tmeranda
  • Member

  • 605 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 06 December 2007 - 19:36

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Actually, no...

The flat 6 had only one cam per bank, at least for many years, and it must be a bulkier engine as even though it started out at 2-litres, it grew to 3.3 or so litres while retaining six cylinders.

The 908 engine was more likely a development of the 1962 F1 flat 8 1.5-litre engine.


The flat 8 in the Porsche was had more in common with their flat 6 with two additional cyclinders then it did with the Flat 8 F1 motor. The early 8's in the 908's had so much vibration that it almost shook the cars apart. They had to do a fast reconfiguration of the crankshaft to make it drivable. I can't find out anywhere what the first and the later reconfiguration were. Does anyone know?

Advertisement

#340 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,257 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 06 March 2008 - 11:12

Interesting day spent at Ivan Saxton's place... he has so much old stuff out there it's unfathomable!

Among the many artefacts is a set of these rods and pistons. They're obviously for a vee engine (bearings wrap around one side, not the other) and because there's eight of them it's reasonable to conclude they're for a V8.

Ivan knows his way around various engines, but these defeat him. He says all dimensions are metric, but the bolts aren't.

Posted Image

While we're playing with this tread, here's a pic of the crank that started it all:

Posted Image