<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>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..<br>
Cecil<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/20/2019 8:37 AM, Stephen Offiler
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP6upciDuMT3zqPA11Rm2xOyfvAzvAHfgPrpgK5ZkrDAeGtFzg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">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".
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.)</div>
<div><a
href="https://www.onallcylinders.com/2018/03/07/ford-engine-bore-stroke-guide/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.onallcylinders.com/2018/03/07/ford-engine-bore-stroke-guide/</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SO</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 9:02
AM Cecil Bearden <<a href="mailto:crbearden@copper.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">crbearden@copper.net</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In
response to an earlier post.... A V-8 will never have the
torque <br>
of an Inline engine. There is just not enough room to swing
the <br>
crankshaft. I have a 78 Ford F-350 with a 400 small block. I
am in the <br>
process of rebuilding it with a set of Keith Black Pistons
that will <br>
raise the compression ratio to a decent level. This engine
has the <br>
longest stroke of a production v-8 gasoline engine. When
produced in <br>
1978, this engine was designed with pistons that had a
compression <br>
distance that did not allow the piston to go to the top of the
block. <br>
This was to lower compression for emissions. The new design
has reliefs <br>
for the valves and will raise the compression to about 9 to
1. With <br>
some more tweaks I can raise the compression to 10 to 1. It
will have a <br>
propane system so I don't have to worry about running pump
gas.<br>
Cecil<br>
<br>
On 10/20/2019 6:12 AM, James Peck wrote:<br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> The replacement engine allowed the use of antifreeze and
cold weather starts.<br>
><br>
> The rule of thumb was the locomotive weight dictated what
it would pull.<br>
> The horsepower would determine how fast it would pull it.<br>
><br>
> Harry Ferguson was likely wrong to emphasize low tractor
weight. An example would have been his use of aluminum
castings.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> [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.<br>
> <br>
> [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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Harry Bennett, the gunslinger and wannabe mobster, who
was Henry’s choice of successor.<br>
> Charles Sorensen, who maintains the feds offered to give
him the top job at Ford due to his Willow Run success.<br>
> Harry Ferguson who knew HF2 when he was a kid.<br>
><br>
> [Jason] The Ford row crop tractor <a
href="https://antiquetractorblog.com/2016/09/26/experimental-ford-tractor-link-between-fordson-and-ford-9n/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://antiquetractorblog.com/2016/09/26/experimental-ford-tractor-link-between-fordson-and-ford-9n/</a>
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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
> .<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> AT mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:AT@lists.antique-tractor.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">AT@lists.antique-tractor.com</a><br>
> <a
href="http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AT@lists.antique-tractor.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">AT@lists.antique-tractor.com</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
AT mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AT@lists.antique-tractor.com">AT@lists.antique-tractor.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com">http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>