31 replies to this topic

[marion5drsn]

Doing more research into old V-8 cars. Have found lots of stuff on the Pontiac-Oakland V-8 of 1929-1932 bore and stroke of 3.4375" x 3.3750" and 250.58 cubic inches. However the Olds-Viking of 1929 is nowhere listed on the Internet. If Pontiac made this engine it almost has to have a bore and stroke of 3.500" x 3.375" and 259.77 cubic inches. Since this engine is listed many place with no bore and stroke but at 260 cubic inches the result of a 1/16" (.0625") overbore of the Viking engine produces an engine of 260 cubic inches.
Does anyone here have any information about this Olds-Viking engine?

Yours, M.L. Anderson

[Ray Bell]

As mentioned in the other thread, Marion, the Viking (it wasn't an 'Olds' at all, just a Viking, and it was made in the Olds factory) was 4257cc.

That's from the book I quoted, I'm miles away from it now, so if you want to know you'll need to wait a fortnight or so.

I believe it was identical to the Oakland version...

[Henk]

Viking V-8: 3.38-inch bore, 3.63-inch stroke.

[marion5drsn]

Henk & Ray: I just found a manual on the Oldsmobile-Viking and will get it in the mail tomorrow. But I will still see if I can get a Pontiac-Oakland manual also, but I believe at this point that are almost identical except for the crankshaft and the connecting rod. That is unless it has a different piston compression height. Hugh Ventables tell me that it has a 45 degree cut on the piston and he wants to get pistons with a higher compression ratio, this sounds very expensive to me but then again one just never knows, does one.
Ray, doesn’t this engine that Hugh rebuilt sound like the one you spoke of at an earlier point? The 37,000 miles sounds very familiar to me.

Yours, M.L. Anderson

Edit:
3.4375” x 3.375” = 250.58 cubic inches.
3.3750” x 3.625” = 259.44 cubic inches .
3.5000" x 3.375" = 259.77 cubic inches
Just why anyone would change the dimensions for such a small increase in the displacement defies a logical explanation. All they had to do was to bore it out another 1/16” (.0625”) and they would have the same displacement. No wonder the V-8 Viking was only used for one year and they went to a straight eight. They likely wanted to got to the cheaper straight eight anyway?
Good Grief! For the amount of eight cylinders sold at that time this goes along with decision to build V-12s and V-16s at Cadillac. They should have built the engines at whichever place had the better manufacturing facillities, probably Pontiac. Eight cylinders did not sell very well in the 1930s!
Only about 1/3 of the cars were eights @ Pontiac and Oldsmobile.

[Henk]

Viking V-8 engine. From http://perso.wanadoo...viking3001.html

[Aanderson]

[

Edit:
3.4375” x 3.375” = 250.58 cubic inches.
3.3750” x 3.625” = 259.44 cubic inches .
3.5000" x 3.375" = 259.77 cubic inches
Just why anyone would change the dimensions for such a small increase in the displacement defies a logical explanation. All they had to do was to bore it out another 1/16” (.0625”) and they would have the same displacement. No wonder the V-8 Viking was only used for one year and they went to a straight eight. They likely wanted to got to the cheaper straight eight anyway?
Good Grief! For the amount of eight cylinders sold at that time this goes along with decision to build V-12s and V-16s at Cadillac. They should have built the engines at whichever place had the better manufacturing facillities, probably Pontiac. Eight cylinders did not sell very well in the 1930s!
Only about 1/3 of the cars were eights @ Pontiac and Oldsmobile.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I believe that research may well show you that each General Motors Division designed and built their own engines, drivelines, suspensions and frames, while sharing most body shells with at least one other division (with the almost total exclusion of Cadillac until the last 2-3 years of the decade. This was in keeping with Alfred Sloan's (President of GM through most of the decade) carefully laid out plan to keep repeat buyers in the GM family of cars (start out with a Chevrolet, and as their affluence permitted, trading up through the various GM lines). In short, the "General" was in most all ways, a set of semi-independent automakers, each producing their own distinctive cars, with only the most expensive component, the bodywork, being shared (Fisher Body Division built body shells for all GM Divisions, while Fleetwood supplied Senior Cadillac bodies only). In many ways, the various GM auto divisions were expected to compete with one another, just as they did against other automakers.

As for the reason that no other GM division had their engines built at Cadillac, for example, Cadillac's engine assembly standards were perhaps the highest in the mass-production automobile industry for years, a tradition and set of standards which can be traced all the way back to the very first Cadillacs built under the management of Henry M. Leland.

In truth, the 8-cylinder engine, both inline and V8, accounted for a considerable portion of auto sales during the 1930's. The top-of-the-line luxury cars all had engines of 8 or more cylinders, the most popular mid-price cars were dominated by straight 8's (Buick, for example, the sales leader of the middle price range, built nothing BUT straight 8 engines by 1934-35), with makes such as Olds, Pontiac, Nash, Hudson, Studebaker all selling a hefty percentage of their cars in the 8-cylinder range. In the low-price field, Ford's flathead V8 accounted for approximately 1/3 of all engines built from 1933 onward.

Art Anderson

[Henk]

The Viking V-8 engine was designed by Charles L. McCuen who was Olds’ chief engineer before becoming general manager in 1933.

The engine is described and illustrated in US patent 1916522

http://patft.uspto.g...2&RS=PN/1916522
[click on "images", then use sections and arrows]

[marion5drsn]

Partial quote from Art: In truth, the 8-cylinder engine, both inline and V8, accounted for a considerable portion of auto sales during the 1930's. The top-of-the-line luxury cars all had engines of 8 or more cylinders, the most popular mid-price cars were dominated by straight 8's (Buick, for example, the sales leader of the middle price range, built nothing BUT straight 8 engines by 1934-35), with makes such as Olds, Pontiac, Nash, Hudson, Studebaker all selling a hefty percentage of their cars in the 8-cylinder range. In the low-price field, Ford's flathead V8 accounted for approximately 1/3 of all engines built from 1933 onward.

Art : I am not comparing the V-8s of Pontiac-Viking to the total field of cars, only to one another. The amount of money that they threw into the Viking must have been wasted for some reason and at this point it seems to have had no purpose. I am now going thru the full manual of the Viking and can see no purpose of this engine, as the Pontiac-Oakland seems to have been far superior to the Viking. This goes against the theory of making engines that have many (Modular) interchangeable parts. I know that G.M. did as you say but in this case in particular it seems to be very wasteful. Of both time and money. And after all that effort they BOTH went to straight eights, an inferior engine design to my mind.
M.L. Anderson

[Aanderson]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
Art : I am not comparing the V-8s of Pontiac-Viking to the total field of cars, only to one another. The amount of money that they threw into the Viking must have been wasted for some reason and at this point it seems to have had no purpose. I am now going thru the full manual of the Viking and can see no purpose of this engine, as the Pontiac-Oakland seems to have been far superior to the Viking. This goes against the theory of making engines that have many (Modular) interchangeable parts. I know that G.M. did as you say but in this case in particular it seems to be very wasteful. Of both time and money. And after all that effort they BOTH went to straight eights, an inferior engine design to my mind.
M.L. Anderson [/B]

Marion,

I think it is at least partially true that the money "thrown" into producing the V8 engines by both Oakland/Pontiac, and Oldsmobile/Viking was indeed "wasted", though it should be noted that neither V8 engine came at a propitious time in the Auto industry for introducing much of anything really new, complex, or certainly more expensive. What seemed so promising on New Year's Day 1929 was beginning to look like a sack of yesterday's ashes by December 31, due to the economic recession which began in mid-year, and was exacerbated by the stock market crash in October.

Neither the Viking, nor the Oakland V8 cars sold particularly well at all, for whatever reason, so it isn't surprising that both were discontinued. As for your premise regarding these two engines, keep in mind that up through the 1950's at least, each GM division developed their own engines, virtually independently, each division justifying and getting their funding from General Motors management and Board of Directors. Each division was expected to compete, not only with other companies, but with their sister divisions as well. So, it's not surprising that there were two simultaneous V8 engine designs established in 1928-29.

Why were these engines apparently expensive to build, and not all that well accepted? For starters, until the 1932 Ford Model 18 flathead V8, all vee engines built were done from separate castings for the crankcase, and each cylinder bank, then bolted together. Further, as they were flathead (L-head or sidevalve), the only way the makers could figure out for exhaust manifolding was a complex series of cast-iron pieces, bolted together. All of this was fine for a luxury car, such as Cadillac, Packard etc., but not for a mid-priced car at the onset of the Great Depression (middle priced cars suffered the most from the economy of that era). Further complicating things was the simple fact that at the time, no V8 was putting out significantly more power, per cubic inch, or pound of weight than a straight 8 of comparable size (that, again, didn't happen until the flathead Ford V8 reached its 85hp rating -- many writers and engineers will say that the Flathead Ford V8 of the 30's actually produced very close to 100hp!), and, those early V8 multi-piece engines were heavy (the Cadillac V8 of the day weighed over 750 lb, while the Auburn/Lycoming V12 {OK, so it had 4 more cylinders} tipped the scale at over 900lbs. Note too, that Cadillac did not produce an enbloc V8 until about 1935, and no Packard V12 was ever built anyway but assembled blocks on separate crankcase.

Smooth power was as much a consideration as was brute HP, and V8's, until the second-series Cadillac engine of the early 30's, tended to have a good vibration to them, while a straight 8 offered a smooth luxurious operation, again, something that was considered highly desireable. In fact, by 1936, the year that Buick introduced the first Century, the larger Buick straight 8 engine out-powered the Cadillac V8 by about 20-25 hp, if memory serves me right (again, Buick took the dictum of competing directly with another GM division to heart!). In fact, Buick's straight 8's ranked right alongside Cadillac's V8's well into the early 1960's for power and torque. On the other hand, the inline 8's that Oldsmobile and Pontiac replaced their first V8's with, were, while silky smooth, pretty anemic engines.

Art Anderson

[marion5drsn]

Art wrote:
On the other hand, the inline 8's that Oldsmobile and Pontiac replaced their first V8's with were, while silky smooth, pretty anemic engines.

You are certainly right about the Pontiac and Olds engines being pretty anemic. My fathers Buick Century four door 320 c.i. would outrun and never get out of second gear. The straight eights of Olds and Pontiac only had a few inches more in engine size than their own straight sixes. The Olds eight of 1937 had only 27.4 more inches than the six. The stroke/bore ratio being 130% on the six and the ratio of the eight 119.2%, neither one being anywhere close to the 1932 Pontiac of 98.2%.
The only car of that time that seemed to be able to beat the Buick Century was the La Salle. The La Salle I believe was very much the same chassis as the Buick but with the 322 c.i. flathead engine. The two cars seemed to look a lot alike but my old Motor Manual, 1935/1948, hasn’t any chassis dimensions or weights, so comparing them isn’t very easy.
The only reason that Clyde didn’t use La Salle’s or Buick’s was there just wasn’t very many of them due to the depression and they would be far too conspicuous to the bystanders. It’s easier to steal a Ford than a Buick Century/La Salle two door.
The only thing I could find is the wheelbase, Buick Century 126” 37-60, La Salle 124” 37-50.
One must also remember that the Buick intake manifold being a straight eight is just unmanageable or any straight eight for that matter as all American cars having the same firing order and cylinder numbering system.
This was made very apparent when Buick tried to make an engine with a four-barrel carb. and the fuel mileage went completely kaput! The strokes were all ridiculous, Buick 4.1875”, La Salle 4.5000”.
It all may have been that top Pontiac management didn’t see far enough into the future as we both know the depression was just getting into full stride and things only got worse for about 5 years and then not much better until Hitler invaded Poland, Sept. first 1939, and the depression was over as so many governments in the world started to spend money as if they had it.
M.L. Anderson

[Ray Bell]

Classic line there, Marion!

The Century, as with other Buick engines, naturally benefitted from having overhead valves. As for the firing order and the disturbance it made to multiple carburettor setups, Jim Bertram pondered this problem (re the Hudson's firing order) and came up with a manifold design to suit.

[Aanderson]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
Art wrote:
On the other hand, the inline 8's that Oldsmobile and Pontiac replaced their first V8's with were, while silky smooth, pretty anemic engines.

You are certainly right about the Pontiac and Olds engines being pretty anemic. My fathers Buick Century four door 320 c.i. would outrun and never get out of second gear. The straight eights of Olds and Pontiac only had a few inches more in engine size than their own straight sixes. The Olds eight of 1937 had only 27.4 more inches than the six. The stroke/bore ratio being 130% on the six and the ratio of the eight 119.2%, neither one being anywhere close to the 1932 Pontiac of 98.2%.
The only car of that time that seemed to be able to beat the Buick Century was the La Salle. The La Salle I believe was very much the same chassis as the Buick but with the 322 c.i. flathead engine. The two cars seemed to look a lot alike but my old Motor Manual, 1935/1948, hasn’t any chassis dimensions or weights, so comparing them isn’t very easy.
The only reason that Clyde didn’t use La Salle’s or Buick’s was there just wasn’t very many of them due to the depression and they would be far too conspicuous to the bystanders. It’s easier to steal a Ford than a Buick Century/La Salle two door.
The only thing I could find is the wheelbase, Buick Century 126” 37-60, La Salle 124” 37-50.
One must also remember that the Buick intake manifold being a straight eight is just unmanageable or any straight eight for that matter as all American cars having the same firing order and cylinder numbering system.
This was made very apparent when Buick tried to make an engine with a four-barrel carb. and the fuel mileage went completely kaput! The strokes were all ridiculous, Buick 4.1875”, La Salle 4.5000”.
It all may have been that top Pontiac management didn’t see far enough into the future as we both know the depression was just getting into full stride and things only got worse for about 5 years and then not much better until Hitler invaded Poland, Sept. first 1939, and the depression was over as so many governments in the world started to spend money as if they had it.
M.L. Anderson

Marion,

Farsightedness (or lack thereof) by Pontiac's, or any other GM management team had little to do with their engine-making decisions. Rather, it was the very unusual, and troubling economic times.
After all, GM nearly hit the ropes in the aftermath of the 1920-21 recession, complicated by the stock dealings of their then-president, WC Durant, and things certainly had to look much bleaker by 1930.

Additionally, there had been many attempts over the previous 20 years to introduce V8 engines, even Chevrolet had one in 1917, that went nowhere commercially. No less a brilliant engineer than Childe Harald Wills, after leaving Ford Motor Company with a considerable nest-egg from the forced buyout by Henry Ford in 1917, started his own company, Wills St. Claire, producing a Very advanced (for the day) SOHC V8 engine for the cars bearing his name, but it too was a commercial failure. One also must consider that Cadillac was at best a distant second-place in luxury car sales to Packard, only gaining ground on the big P as the Depression unfolded. The buying public just wasn't ready for a V8 engine in mass production yet.

As for LaSalle, this car was always a "junior Cadillac", each and every year of its production, with the possible exception of the straight-eight LaSalles of 1934, although even then LaSalle used a shorter version of the Cadillac chassis. There are considerable differences between any LaSalle and a Buick, in the frame, and certainly the front suspension, although Buick's engineers did borrow a lot of their ideas from the Cadillac when adding IFS in 1934 or thereabouts.

As for Depression-era auto production in the US, by 1936, both Ford and Chevrolet had seen their numbers return to at or near the levels of 1929, but of course, this was as much at the expense of the failed independents as anything else. Cadillac reached new heights yearly after 1933, while Packard's sales, even with the addition of the 120 (mid-priced 8-cylinder) and 110 (their attempt at the low end of the middle range, a 6-cylinder car) added in, stayed flat pretty much.

I think the bottom line is here that, while both the Oakland V8, and the independently created Viking V8 were technically interesting, they both were then, and are very much today, curiosities, and I believe the general consensus among automotive historians is simply the question: Why, why did either company elect to go that route?

Art Anderson

[Ray Bell]

What straight 8 was in the 1934 La Salle?

[Aanderson]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
What straight 8 was in the 1934 La Salle?

Cadillac took on the Oldsmobile straight 8 engine, but did all the machining and assembly in their engine plant, to their specs and manufacturing standards. It was a one-year only thing, done to keep the marque going as the Depression had quite a toll on the luxury car market.

The next year, LaSalle returned to V8 engines.

Art

[Ray Bell]

That would be, of course, the alloy crankcase V8 with the separate blocks?

What year did Caddy introduce the monobloc V8 that did service in so many searchlight batteries during the war?

[Henk]

Ray – The Cadillac monobloc dates from 1936, when the 322 cubic inch V-8 was introduced (in the following years fitted in the La Salle). In 1937 came the 346 cubic inch version, which Cadillac maintained until 1948. I suppose that’s the one they used in wartime searchlight batteries.

Originally posted by Aanderson
I believe that research may well show you that each General Motors Division designed and built their own engines……

Art – You are right. Despite similarities (monobloc, horizontal valves), the Viking and Oakland V-8s were independently designed. The Viking by Charles L. McCuen of the Oldsmobile division (see above), the Oakland by Benjamin H. Anibal, chief engineer of Oakland-Pontiac since 1925.

Anibal’s design particularly focused on compactness. His ‘invention’ is outlined in US patent #1897783 at
http://patft.uspto.g...3&RS=PN/1897783

[marion5drsn]

The Viking by Charles L. McCuen of the Oldsmobile division, the Oakland by Benjamin H. Anibal, chief engineer of Oakland-Pontiac since 1925.

If these two were the head of the groups designing the engines then I have to give the Cup of Excellence to the Pontiac group. Both of the groups made a lot of mistakes, Pontiac the 180-degree crankshaft and the Viking group the angled head. As the head pictures in my shop manual show a very poor head design, no use of Squish and Quench. But this might have been before this was fully appreciated. When did other manufacturers use this combustion control method? It would be very difficult to use this in the Viking head design. Also the Viking B & S wasn’t exactly inspired from above!

When one considers that in 1934 that Cadillac was making a V-12 and a V-16 the theory of making a straight eight for La Salle wasn’t quite in keeping with the Depression theory. As one of the officials at Cadillac said later, “We must have been quite mad to be making these engines at that time.”
The above statement lends some credence to the belief that Cadillac was in fact very much in charge of who made what at G.M. at least in engines. The, “We make the V-8s at G.M. and all the rest have to make do with straight eights. After Pontiac made V-8s for 4 years why all of a sudden did they go to straight eights? The tooling was already made and in production mode, the workers were already trained to make all the parts for it. After all of that they decided to drop all of their advances and make an inferior design? If at this point it was cheaper to make straight eights remember they had to redo all of the tooling, retrain the workers, design a new engine, etc, etc. This does not make what I would call good decisions making. The casting of a straight eight block is probably not any easier than a V-8 block. Just look at a Buick block. The cyl. heads on a flathead V-8 are much simpler than on a straight eight O.H.V. Buick. It did take Ford several years to iron out all the problems in the casting of V-8 blocks but they did it by the millions.
Don’t you believe that Internal politics at G.M. had something to do with it?
M.L. Anderson

EDIT # 1

From the book , “CADILLAC, THE COMPLETE HISTORY.” By M.D. Hendry 1979, page # 239.

The design, however had become outmoded, particularly the three- piece block crankcase structure, with light alloy case and cast iron blocks. A unit block was better, in one material . This principal had first been applied way back in 1916 by the Ferro Foundry, Cleveland, in a line of V-8’s and V-12’sdesigned by ex-Cadillac engineer Alanson Brush. They were use in several makes, notably the Hollier, built by Lewis Spring and Axle Company in Chelsea, later Jackson, Michigan.
General Motors had already built such and engine for the V-8 Oakland and Olds Viking models during1929-1931. These actually preceded the Ford V-8; thousands were built and from a foundry point of view the casting were completely successful.

From the same page, “The La Salle for the years 1934, 1935 and 1936 was virtually a high class Oldsmobile straight eight.”

At this time, 1936, Cadillac was building five engines, the V-12,V-16, and two V-8s of 322 and 346 cubic inches. And the straight eight of the La Salle! Isn’t there something very fishy here somewhere? Cadillac wound up with so many engines and Olds and Pontiac couldn’t even have a V-8 apiece? Strange!
M.L. Anderson


EDIT;Just recieved from Australia from: Hugh Venables @ hughes25@optusnet.com.au

Hi Marion,
How did you find me? Thanks for your Oakland/Pontiac V8 engine enquiry. This engine was sold in Oakland in 1930 and 1931, the last two years of Oakland and in Pontiac in 1932. Pontiac was Oakland's GM companion make from 1926 to 1931 and was the only one of GM's four companion makes to succeed it's parent.

I find this a very interesting engine. It is probably the second mass produced V8 to have cylinder blocks and crank case cast "enbloc", the first being Oldsmobile's 1929/30 Viking V8. In 1930 90° cranks were forged flat and twisted on the mains, an expensive proceedure. The Oakland V8 was to be a relatively inexpensive V8 so had to have a 180° crank. Oakland's solution to the secondary shake was very interesting and it is clear they knew exactly what they were up against. The engine is mounted on stiff rubber mounts at the back of the transmission which act as pivots and in leaf spring packs at the front which isolate the engine's sideways shake from the rest of the car. So far so good but the natural frequency of the mounting springs is well within the operating range of the engine so they developed the "synchronizer". This is basically a friction link between the front of the engine and the frame/chassis, but if the link was fixed it would transmit the vibration already isolated by the springs. There is a four lobe cam on the front of the camshaft rocking a lever that pivots just below the crankshaft. At crank level there is a notch cut in the side of the lever into which an arm is heavily spring mounted. This arm ends as a blade which is clamped by a heavy spring to a bracket on the frame via friction material. I wonder what all this cost to develop and manufacture compared to what they saved on the cranks.

The engine does have horizontal valve stems which are operated by rockers with roller cam followers. The head gaskets are bent at 45° as they follow the valve heads vertically and the piston tops at 45°. There are three main bearings, three cam bearings and three rocker shaft supports in the three cylinder block webs. The rods are side-by-side on the crank pins and the left bank leads. The firing order is 1342 on each bank and the second cylinder to fire is the second cylinder on the right bank. The left bank is odd numbered and the right even so the firing order is #1 -4-5-2-7-6-3-8 . The exhaust note is completely even like a straight eight. There are four inlet and eight exhaust ports. Exhaust from the right bank passes across the engine, preheating the intake under the downdraft carburettor, where it joins exhaust from the left bank and passes through a cast passage between the centre cylinders through the water jacket to the single exhaust pipe.
I have been an Oakland V8 enthusiast for over 30 years and have owned a still unrestored sedan for nearly as long. Seven years ago I was lucky enough to rebuild the engine on a roadster which has done about 37,000 miles since. It has competed in a lot of historic motor sport including five Targa Tasmanias. We always drive it as hard as we can and it has been astonishingly reliable. It is now fitted with a 3.6:1 final drive and has a top speed of about 85 MPH which it sits on comfortably. I did 2500 road miles in it in the first week after I finished the engine at 55-60 MPH with the original 4.4:1 final drive. I am completely unable to detect any engine vibration when I drive it. I am certainly unaware of any design flaw except that it was too expensive to manufacture for the price bracket they were trying to fit into. 22,000 were made in 1930, 12000 in 1931 and 8000 in 1932. About 20 restorable cars are known to exist in Australia. Please feel free to put me in touch with the fellow enthusiast, I would love to help. The correct distributor cap for this engine has cylinder numbers on the cap. I do have quite a collection of relevant literature and a photo of the roadster's engine spread out on the floor prior to reassembly but would need a bit of a crash course on using the scanner if I were not to tie up the e-waves for hours.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance,
Cheerio, Hugh.

[Ray Bell]

According to Art, the straight eight was gone before 1936...

And surely Pontiac's problem with the vee engine was the secondary shake?

The other point is that this means my reference book is wrong, it says that the Viking and Oakland shared the same engine. Or is your source wrong? There are similarities...

[marion5drsn]

From the book, “CADILLAC, THE COMPLETE HISTORY.” By M.D. Hendry 1979, page # 239

“The La Salle for the years 1934, 1935 and 1936 was virtually a high class Oldsmobile straight eight.” 3.000’ x 4.375” Bore & Stroke, 248 cubic inches. 6.25 to 1 compression ratio, 105 h.p.

Oldsmobile straight eight was 3.000" x 4.250" Bore & Stroke, 240.3 cubic inches, 6.2 to 1 compression ratio.

Just received a message from Hugh Venables and he states that the two engines have nothing in common and when I get the shop manual on the Pontiac/Oakland engine it will be very apparent that there is no real relationship.

M. L. Anderson

Edit; http://www.autorevis...s/35lasalle.htm

[Ray Bell]

Pardon my ignorance, Marion, but who is Hugh Venables?

Thanks for the clarification on the La Salle too... so that's an issue corrected...

[marion5drsn]

Hugh Venables is the man who rebuilt the Oakland engine in the old car that you spoke about in an earlier post. He seems to know more about this engine than anyone I know of. Unfortunately or fortunately as one’s view surely differ. He is from Australia, you know the Land Down Under. Therefore since he is not from the Los Angeles area I can’t speak to him, face to face. One of his letters to me is in this thread somewhere! Well-written and sounding very knowledgeable.

Unfortunately for me I can't seem to find a good manual of the Pontiac/Oakland engine/car .
M.L. Anderson

[Ray Bell]

Marion, if you have contact details I would be happy to telephone or call on him some time with any questions you might have...

[marion5drsn]

Hugh Venables: hughes25@optusnet.com.au

This is all I have on him as I do not have his home address, phone number. For all I know he might live in Alice Springs.

This finding of a good shop manual is getting so bad I have had to join the Pontiac/Oakland Club to be able to get in on the stuff that the Pontiac people are keeping secret. There seems to be no real good Shop Manual anywhere in the U.S.A. at least not on the Internet! Yours, M.L. Anderson

Edit 11-01-2003 From his e-mail of Oct-19-2003
"hugh venables"

[Ray Bell]

Something wrong with that one, Marion...

And it's not just the 'con' instead of 'com'... I fixed that.

[marion5drsn]

Here is the whole thing from his e-mail of Sunday, Oct. the 19-2003. Fixed the "m". Note the "e " in hughe s

"hugh venables"

hughes25@optusnet.com.au

[Aanderson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by marion5drsn

When one considers that in 1934 that Cadillac was making a V-12 and a V-16 the theory of making a straight eight for La Salle wasn’t quite in keeping with the Depression theory. As one of the officials at Cadillac said later, “We must have been quite mad to be making these engines at that time.”
The above statement lends some credence to the belief that Cadillac was in fact very much in charge of who made what at G.M. at least in engines. The, “We make the V-8s at G.M. and all the rest have to make do with straight eights. After Pontiac made V-8s for 4 years why all of a sudden did they go to straight eights? The tooling was already made and in production mode, the workers were already trained to make all the parts for it. After all of that they decided to drop all of their advances and make an inferior design? If at this point it was cheaper to make straight eights remember they had to redo all of the tooling, retrain the workers, design a new engine, etc, etc. This does not make what I would call good decisions making. The casting of a straight eight block is probably not any easier than a V-8 block. Just look at a Buick block. The cyl. heads on a flathead V-8 are much simpler than on a straight eight O.H.V. Buick. It did take Ford several years to iron out all the problems in the casting of V-8 blocks but they did it by the millions.
Don’t you believe that Internal politics at G.M. had something to do with it?
M.L. Anderson

EDIT # 1

From the book , “CADILLAC, THE COMPLETE HISTORY.” By M.D. Hendry 1979, page # 239.

The design, however had become outmoded, particularly the three- piece block crankcase structure, with light alloy case and cast iron blocks. A unit block was better, in one material . This principal had first been applied way back in 1916 by the Ferro Foundry, Cleveland, in a line of V-8’s and V-12’sdesigned by ex-Cadillac engineer Alanson Brush. They were use in several makes, notably the Hollier, built by Lewis Spring and Axle Company in Chelsea, later Jackson, Michigan.
General Motors had already built such and engine for the V-8 Oakland and Olds Viking models during1929-1931. These actually preceded the Ford V-8; thousands were built and from a foundry point of view the casting were completely successful.

From the same page, “The La Salle for the years 1934, 1935 and 1936 was virtually a high class Oldsmobile straight eight.”

At this time, 1936, Cadillac was building five engines, the V-12,V-16, and two V-8s of 322 and 346 cubic inches. And the straight eight of the La Salle! Isn’t there something very fishy here somewhere? Cadillac wound up with so many engines and Olds and Pontiac couldn’t even have a V-8 apiece? Strange!
M.L. Anderson


Marion,

I just dug out my Hendry history of the Cadillac, and must agree, it does seem incongruous for Cadillac to have built so many different engines in those years. However, one must take a look at the times when those were being built. Of course, Cadillac had been building V8's since 1916. And of course, the LaSalle came along in 1928, as a "Junior" Cadillac. However, in the heady years just prior to the onset of the Great Depression, Cadillac, along with a number of other luxury car makers, determined that the coming generation of larger, heavier luxury cars would require engines of greater performance than they were building, not to mention a prestige factor. We see this in the introduction of the mighty Duesenberg Model J (1929), Packard's new V-12 (under development at the time of the stock market crash) replacing their aging "Twin-Six), the beginning of development of V-12 engines by Pierce Arrow, and the V-16 from Marmon.

Cadillac developed, almost concurrently with their 452cid V16, a V12 which used the same basic internals (pistons, valves, their cutting edge hydraulic lifters) as the V16, with of course a new block, heads, crank and manifolds, but all to essentially the same design. These Vee engines continued through 1936-37, likely (I haven't read that far) from castings and forgings that may already have been produced years earlier (Same with the Lycoming-built Duesenberg Model J, of which approximately 500 engines were built between late 1928 and 1932, but not all installed in cars until the end, in 1937, with the last Model J completed in 1940). These engines were not for "bread and butter" Cadillacs, however. These were installed in "super-luxury" cars, built to a completely different set of standards, with custom-built coachwork by Fleetwood (for the most part, although a few outside coachbuilders did install bodies on these chassis--documented in Hendry's fine book). In fact, even as all other US luxury car makers dropped away, leaving Cadillac and Packard (their last two small competitors, Pierce Arrow and Duesenberg were gone by 1938), Cadillac introduced yet another V16, the 120-degree (almost a boxer!) engine for 1938, simply because of a perceived need for a prestige product, but an engine far simpler and less expensive to produce).

Even into the depth of the Depression, the conventional wisdom was to design and produce even better engines and the cars to use them. After all, did not Ford pull out an awful lot of stops, go way out on a limb, to introduce an all-new V8 engine in 1932, historically the worst economic times the US ever faced? In fact, if one looks at the cars introduced by every US automaker in 1932, one simply does not find a single "bad car" in the lot. 1932 is considered by most automotive historians, and many, many enthusiasts, to have been an absolute "pinnacle year" in automotive design and engineering.

In retrospect, the idea that an even better car, a better engine, and superior design, even in a year of great despair was correct. Granted, the vast majority of automakers in business at the start of 1932 disappeared within the coming decade. However, it must be said that most all of them were small independents, and their like had been "shaking out" of the industry for the previous 20 years or so. However, the two large multicylinder engines with the greatest longevity of all were introduced that year, by small independent automakers. The Pierce-Arrow V12 went on to power Seagrave fire apparatus well into the 1960's, while the Auburn-Lycoming V12 was produced for/by American Lafrance (fire apparatus) until 1964-65 as well. But, the fact was, there were far too many companies trying to make it in the auto industry in an era of consolidation, mass production and its economies of scale, most simply would not have survived, even without a depression.

LaSalle, in its price class, was, in the 1930's, a car for those who wanted the prestige of a Cadillac product, but had not the money (or were unwilling to seemingly "flaunt" it in those days of breadlines). Hence the falling price of LaSalle cars at the time. In order to meet this market, the straight 8 was a wise choice from a purely business standpoint--less expensive to produce.

As for combustion chamber design, this was very much a "black art" in those years. Until Charles "Boss" Kettering and his small band of engineers had a few cylinder heads built with heavy glass portholes giving a view of exactly what happens in the combustion chamber of a gasoline engine, no one really understood the effect of different shapes and styles of combustion chambers on the output of an engine. Until that time, it was very much a matter of trial and error.

As for Ford's V8, it is very true that Ford experienced an extremely high rate of scrap in the foundry for weeks as they learned to make this very complex casting. It is also quite true that Ford replaced (actually very quietly) many early V8's in service in 1932. In fact, it is easily noted from reading about the 1932 Ford Model B (4-cylinder) and Model 18 (V8) cars that even the cars were not all that good as well (much to the dismay of hot rodders all over!), with it's unbelievably flexible chassis (Tony Thacker's " '32 Ford, The Deuce" -- Osprey, 1984) details much of this. However, by 1934, with the introduction of an "over-under" intake manifold, and the Stromberg 97mm 2bbl carburetor) the 221cid V8 reached much of its potential. What really hurt the Ford V8 wasn't the foundry problems at the outset, nor the lower power output (65hp) in it's first months, but rather old Henry Ford's intransigence regarding cooling, by relying on water pumps mounted in the cylinder heads, pulling water out of the head, rather than in the block, pushing water into the engine. This lead to steam pockets and overheating, particularly in an engine with nearly 4 inches of hot exhaust passage heating up the water jackets. Even with the introduction of a much more logical setup in 1937, Ford engines retained a tendency to run hot until the flathead was finally discontinued in 1953.

Yet, in all of this, it is my understanding that it really took the success of Cadillac and Ford (Cadillac at the high end, Ford at the low end, of the marketplace) to give the V8 (indeed all Vee-block engines!) acceptability in the marketplace, for until Cadillac surpassed Packard as the premiere builder of luxury cars, and until Ford firmly established that a mass-produced V8 was a viable engine design, the general public perception of this type of engine was one of exociticsm, interesting to look at, but not really accepted in the showroom. As for Buick, they like Packard, hung on to the straight 8 (Buick of course, with their tradition, along with Chevrolet, of having never built anything BUT OHV engines) well into the V8 era of the 1950's (both marques finally dropped their last straight eights at the end of the 1954 model year).

Lastly, I find it most interesting that GM, once they opted to go to the concept of "corporate engines" (By the way, Ford and Chrysler had "corporate engines" for nearly all their respective corporate lives until the 1990's), began their long slide from near-absolute dominance of the industry. Could there be at least some correlation? It does seem to me that GM's rise to pre-eminence in the auto industry came about by the expectation that each GM car was significantly different from its corporate cousins, each offering a serious choice to the buyer, each one having significant competitive advantages.

Art Anderson

[marion5drsn]

Cadillac introduced yet another V16, the 120-degree (almost a boxer!) engine for 1938. Actually at 135-degrees see page 241 left hand column.
Since I am having so much trouble finding an old Oakland/Pontiac V-8 shop manual I can only make comments about things that Hugh has told me. But one of the things that is coming to the fore is the old statements that V-8 crankshafts are so much more expensive to make than Straight eight cranks and now that I am thinking more on this subject I don’t believe that that is true.
Example the V-8s at that time had 3 mains, Str.8s had 5, V-8s had four conrod journals Str.8s had 8. Straight 8s probably weighted more and required more steel than a V-8, as they were longer and flimsier.

Go back to my quote from the book.

From the book , “CADILLAC, THE COMPLETE HISTORY.” By M.D. Hendry 1979, page # 239.

The design, however had become outmoded, particularly the three- piece block crankcase structure, with light alloy case and cast iron blocks. A unit block was better, in one material. This principal had first been applied way back in 1916 by the Ferro Foundry, Cleveland, in a line of V-8’s and V-12’sdesigned by ex-Cadillac engineer Alanson Brush. They were used in several makes, notably the Hollier, built by Lewis Spring and Axle Company in Chelsea, later Jackson, Michigan.
General Motors had already built such an engine for the V-8 Oakland and Olds Viking models during 1929-1931. These actually preceded the Ford V-8; thousands were built and from a foundry point of view the casting were completely successful. Ford did not have this background but G.M. did.
Who made the castings for G.M. was it G.M. or was it Ferro Foundry?

I can’t find anything on the Internet about Hollier, nor can I find anything about whether or not Brush had anything to do with the casting process but it does make one think that very possible that Pontiac was not having any problem with the casting of the V-8 engines blocks. It also makes me think that Cadillac was slow in their making of mono block V-8s engines, as they didn’t make any until 1936(?).
Were they covering up their mistakes in making too many engines and not staying with the V-8 and making more improvements on it? I believe that the more one questions the decisions at Cadillac the more one is made suspicious of their actions. According to Hendry they were years behind on the casting of V-8 mono blocks, at least if one reads between the lines. And Cadillac didn’t want Pontiac/Oakland getting ahead of them! I think that even thinking about what happened outside of G.M that is just confusing the issue as they were, as you say, going out business anyway whatever happened. But Cadillac was at least seven years behind Pon. /Oak. V-8 mono blocks. M.L. Anderson

[Ray Bell]

Perhaps Cadillac simply weren't prepared to accept the vibrations from the single plane crank?

[marion5drsn]

Cadillac introduced yet another V16, the 120- degree (almost a boxer!) engine for 1938. Actually at 135 -degrees see page 241 left hand column.

Since I am having so much trouble finding an old Oakland/Pontiac V-8 shop manual I can only make comments about things that Hugh has told me. But one of the things that is coming to the fore are the old statements that 90-degree V-8 crankshafts are so much more expensive to make than Straight eight cranks and now that I am thinking more on this subject I don’t believe that that is true.
Example the V-8s at that time had 3 mains; Str.8s had 5, V-8s had four conrod journals, Str. 8s had 8. Straight 8s probably weighed more and required more steel than a V-8, as they were longer and flimsier. They also had to be bent at 90-degrees crank journal angle on both V-8 and str. 8 shafts. It may well be that straight 8 cranks are more expensive than V-8 cranks upon examination. Remember that Pontiac had a somewhat complex device to reduce the Horizontal Secondary Shake to a minimum to the car occupants. Olds and Cadillac did not need this with the 90-degree shaft.
M.L. Anderson

[Aanderson]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
That would be, of course, the alloy crankcase V8 with the separate blocks?

What year did Caddy introduce the monobloc V8 that did service in so many searchlight batteries during the war?

Cadillac introduced their monobloc flathead V8 in 1936, in 332 & 346 cid variants. I believe the only real difference here was the cylinder bore, just 1/8" smaller in the 332.

I was unaware that Cadillac V8's were used to power searchlights, as it does seem that an engine of that size would have been a bit of overkill.

The 346cid Cadillac V8 was, however, used in pairs to power the US M5 Stuart tank (replacing the Continental 7-cylinder aircooled aircraft engine in the first variant of this tank, the M3), each one coupled to a Hydramatic transmission. Additionally, this same engine and powertrain was used in the M8 self-propelled howitzer, and in the late war, the M24 Chaffee tank, and the M19 Anti-Aircraft gun carriage.

Art Anderson

[Aanderson]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Perhaps Cadillac simply weren't prepared to accept the vibrations from the single plane crank?

Cadillac developed the 90-degree (quartered) crankshaft for the 1924 model year, in order to get rid of the secondary vibration problem.

Art Anderson

[Ray Bell]

I knew they developed that crank, Art, but I'd forgotten when... I had thought it was with the monobloc engine.

Thanks for the refresher...