[AT] Charles Sorensen not a tractor man

Sun Oct 20 06:37:55 PDT 2019

Interesting, Cecil.  I never knew the 400 engine was such a stroker.  The
460 came immediately to my mind, but the data agrees with you.  The 400 has
a 4.000" stroke and the 460 is 3.850".

Ah, but then, I stumbled across a guide to Ford boreXstroke backed up by
Summit, the racing people.  I figure this is must be a pretty reliable
reference.  Link below.  Surprised to find a member of the modern-ish
"Modular" engine family at 5.8 liters with a stroke of 4.230".   (This 5.8
not to be confused with the old 351W and 351M, which carried a 5.8
designation as the country tried to go metric back then.  The best known
"Modular" engines were the 4.6 and 5.4 and you can cue up the complaints
about the spark plugs now.  They were a nightmare.)
https://www.onallcylinders.com/2018/03/07/ford-engine-bore-stroke-guide/

I clearly need to get off the computer and go do something useful, because
my next stop was to check the specs on the engine in my '16 Super Duty,
which is a 6.2 liter gas.  Stroke is 4.015".  That's a pretty good engine.
Makes 385HP and 420 ft-lb and gets about 15mpg in normal mixed city/highway
driving.

I can say you're right about the 400 as long as we're talking about the
engines of that late 1970's - early 80's vintage.

SO

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 9:02 AM Cecil Bearden <crbearden at copper.net> wrote:

> In response to an earlier post....     A V-8 will never have the torque
> of an Inline engine.  There is just not enough room to swing the
> crankshaft.  I have a 78 Ford F-350 with a 400 small block.  I am in the
> process of rebuilding it with a set of Keith Black Pistons that will
> raise the compression ratio to a decent level.  This engine has the
> longest stroke of a production v-8 gasoline engine.  When produced in
> 1978, this engine was designed with pistons that had a compression
> distance that did not allow the piston to go to the top of the block.
> This was to lower compression for emissions.  The new design has reliefs
> for the valves and will raise the compression to about 9 to 1.  With
> some more tweaks I can raise the compression to 10 to 1.  It will have a
> propane system so I don't have to worry about running pump gas.
> Cecil
>
> On 10/20/2019 6:12 AM, James Peck wrote:
> > I worked on some industrial locomotive re-engineing projects where we
> put in a lower HP late model Cat or Cummins engine in place of the heavier
> low RPM OEM version. We would have to add ballast to make up for the lower
> weight.
> >
> > The replacement engine allowed the use of antifreeze and cold weather
> starts.
> >
> > The rule of thumb was the locomotive weight dictated what it would pull.
> > The horsepower would determine how fast it would pull it.
> >
> > Harry Ferguson was likely wrong to emphasize low tractor weight. An
> example would have been his use of aluminum castings.
> >
> > Most use of 3 point hitch in the current era is for other than plowing.
> Big tractors have the hydraulic cylinders or hydraulic motors on the off
> tractor equipment.
> >
> > Those low hanging wheel hub castings were dropped by IH and were likely
> a "get stuck" magnet. I have wondered if they worked against the Massey
> Harris GP which also had them.
> >
> > That 37 Experimental did not have a PTO. It should have included state
> of the art of all the competition. Maybe that means the same type of
> hydraulic cultivator lift that the John Deere A had.
> >
> > The Continental engine in the TO tractors had torque advantages over the
> 9N/8N  Ford engine. Maybe Henry did not understand the need for torque at
> low RPM.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Dean VP] Interesting thoughts.  I don't know how much impact adding a
> three point to a Ford experimental type tractor like a 1939 Farmall H or M
> or say a JD A or B would have changed tractor sales or usage all that much.
> Fuel economy was still pretty important during the war years. The HP wars
> didn't start until after the war.  I don't think the flat head V8 would
> have been successful when used on the farm for reasons other than fuel
> economy and an example would be torque. Funk made Funk V8 and straight 6
> conversions for the Fords but  I don't think they ever gained a big market
> share.  However, adding power to a N series Ford was really kind of like
> putting lipstick on a pig. For plowing and with the three point I suspect a
> little more hp could help but for most all other farm chores the Fords
> didn't have enough weight on the rear wheels to do much of anything. The
> Ford N series would never have succeeded without the Ferguson system. I
> can't speak for the Farmall M or H tractors but the JD tractors had 70% of
> their weight over the rear axle so tag implements were pulled with ease.
> And a three point hitch really wasn't needed for additional traction.  But
> in the early to mid 50's  the farmers got so sick of having to buy
> proprietary implements they forced the manufacturers to establish a
> standard hitch.  The three point hitch concept won. JD only jumped on the
> Three point hitch bandwagon because the farmers demanded it not that they
> thought it was really needed.  The standard conventional three point hitch
> they designed in on the 20 Series tractors announced in 1956 set the
> standard for many years. But....  then there was the other farmers like my
> Dad who had a whole barn full of tag implements and they were not going to
> buy a whole new line of implements just to take advantage of the three
> point hitch so implementation outside of Ford was very slow.  I can still
> hear my dad saying over and over. "We are NOT going to be machinery poor".
> Live with what you have, fix it until it is so worn out that you HAVE to
> buy something else. And then probably buy used if you could find something
> good. My Dad farmed from 1936 to 1962. His only brand new  tractor was
> purchased in 1962 and it was his first three point tractor.  It took him
> awhile to make the transition. I don't think he was that much behind very
> many other farmers.  Don't fix it if it isn't broken.   I consider the
> Ferguson System to be one of the top farm equipment inventions but it needs
> to be put into the right context for all types of tractors. John Deere was
> still succeeding in designing tractors that set new fuel economy standards
> in 1956. One was the JD 720 Diesel economy record that stood unbeaten for
> many years well into the 60's and 70's. And at the same time gained market
> share enough away from International Harvester to become the largest
> manufacturer of farm tractors in and around 1958. All with what many called
> an obsolete 2 cylinder design. And became the largest Farm Equipment
> manufacturer in around 1963. The three point hitch didn't cause all that.
> >
> > [James] Sorensen implies that Henry was already senile when he made the
> deal with Harry. It worked for both of them. However, Henry could have just
> asked Harry to provide him a hydraulic belly lift and three point hitch for
> the 37 experimental. But why argue with a working machine. It turned Ford
> back into a major player in the tractor market.
> >
> > There is no record of Harry and Henry falling out. When Henry died and
> his grandson took over, Hank the Deuce had to get rid of his competitors
> who had his grandfather's ear.
> >
> > Harry Bennett, the gunslinger and wannabe mobster, who was Henry’s
> choice of successor.
> > Charles Sorensen, who maintains the feds offered to give him the top job
> at Ford due to his Willow Run success.
> > Harry Ferguson who knew HF2 when he was a kid.
> >
> > [Jason] The Ford row crop tractor
> https://antiquetractorblog.com/2016/09/26/experimental-ford-tractor-link-between-fordson-and-ford-9n/
> could have done well if they developed a integral hydraulic lift like
> Farmalls and Deere A B G etc had with matching attachments for planting and
> cultivation, the latter where the N series had limitations. Had they added
> three point as well they might have had a true game changer.
> >
> > That corrupted hard drive also had my photos of the 1937 or so Ford
> tractor experimental model. It looked like a Farmall F12 with a 1932 Ford
> V8 radiator shell and hood.  It does not live where it used to live.
> >
> > I do not know how the torque curves of a flathead V8 compare to a
> straight four of the same displacement. Used to be that straight sixes were
> credited with more low rpm torque than equivalent displacement V8s.
> >
> > I believe that Charles Sorensen's viewpoint, expressed in his biography,
> that this model would have had much commercial success if Henry had not
> quashed it in favor of the 9N, is inaccurate.
> >
> > Charles was probably the gatekeeper who kept Ford and Ferguson apart for
> so long. If he was more tractor savvy, maybe the Farm Jeep would have been
> more of a success.
> >
> > Some years back I was invited to join a lean manufacturing email group
> by someone I interacted with in a stamping group. My experiences dealing
> with Toyota led me to speak up about some of the viewpoints of those who
> anticipated getting something for nothing. That led me to be lent a book
> about the manufacturing of TE20s at Banner Lane when Standard Motor Car was
> the world’s most efficient auto manufacturer. I scanned the book. Well, the
> wages of sin led to my hard drive becoming corrupted and it was not backed
> up.
> > .
> > _______________________________________________
> > AT mailing list
> > AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
> > http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.antique-tractor.com/pipermail/at-antique-tractor.com/attachments/20191020/4efc3bfd/attachment.htm>