<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>The Chevy 572 and 8.1 both have a stroke around 4 3/8.</DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=soffiler@gmail.com>Stephen
Offiler</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 20, 2019 8:37 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=at@lists.antique-tractor.com>Antique Tractor Email
Discussion Group</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [AT] Charles Sorensen not a tractor
man</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<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> </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/">https://www.onallcylinders.com/2018/03/07/ford-engine-bore-stroke-guide/</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </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> </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> </DIV>
<DIV>SO</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<DIV class=gmail_attr dir=ltr>On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 9:02 AM Cecil Bearden
<<A>crbearden@copper.net</A>> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex">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>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 target=_blank>AT@lists.antique-tractor.com</A><BR>> <A
href="http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com"
rel=noreferrer
target=_blank>http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>AT
mailing list<BR><A target=_blank>AT@lists.antique-tractor.com</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com"
rel=noreferrer
target=_blank>http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>AT mailing
list<BR>AT@lists.antique-tractor.com<BR>http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>