[AT] Charles Sorensen not a tractor man
Cecil Bearden
crbearden at copper.net
Sun Oct 20 09:11:10 PDT 2019
I had not checked the ford modular engines. I have a couple of 5.4
Fords and they are good engines. Plenty fo power for what we use..
Cecil
On 10/20/2019 8:37 AM, Stephen Offiler wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/a95c25d4/attachment.htm>
More information about the AT
mailing list