Mopar 6 vs Ford V8

[Guest P15-D24]

Indy to California at 60-65 with a burnt valve. Didn't blow up, fixed the valve and drove it for another 20 years including to really two hard tows to Huntington Lake in the Sierras.

[Flatie46]

When I started at the factory where I work now back in the early 90's we had old Yale forklifts from the late 60's that were Mopar flathead powered. I've seen them flat out tortured by people and very little maintenance. I remember one forklift that was kept at a seperate warehouse that was so worn out the engine beat like a hammer. The oil was never changed and I honestly don't think it was added to. I had to use it when I did inventory and I remember comming back to the factory and telling my boss about the rods knocking and him saying, "That things been doing that for years, don't worry about it". It was running when they scrapped it. I've seen guys jump on those forklifts and say, "lets see if I can blow this one up". They dogged 'em hard but they used 'em everyday. After seeing how bad they were treated and they just kept getting the job done I just have to respect them. I can't say that I've seen the V8 Ford put to such a test but if it is one bit tougher than the Mopar flat 6 it must be a real jewel.

[Scruffy49]

I got a pasture find 32 Vicky with a V8-60 from my uncle a couple decades ago. He got stuck with it when he bought a 40 coupe and a 35 coupe, farmer said he had to take all 3. The 40 was running a 327 Chev the last time I saw it, the 35 a 302/C4. The shot to pieces (50 years in a Wyoming pasture) Vicky still runs its old flattie. Not fast, but it runs.

The 1948 P15 218 in my truck sat from 74 to 94 in my grandparents' barn. I poured some atf down the plug holes, let it sit a couple days and pull started it behind another truck. It ran, kind of. Drove it for a few weeks then it sat again from 94-2004. Tried to fire it off, broke the rings.

My 57 230 I picked up in 2011 was a runner when I got it. On 5 cylinders. Idiot had one plug the wrong reach hit a piston, haven't opened it up yet to check the damage. But it does run on the trailer. Have to swap the plug for one out of the 218. Hopefully it's fine other than that.

[Don Coatney]

one plug the wrong reach hit a piston,

Piston?

[Rusty O'Toole]

Back in the flathead era the Ford was known as the fastest low priced car, the Chev was the most popular but not suited to high speed driving, Plymouth or Dodge all around best engineered.

One old time Ford fan, who was prone to telling the truth, told me that he liked Fords because of the engine and nothing else. The brakes and suspension were strictly second rate. He admired Plymouth and Dodge for their engineering, quality and rugged durability but still drove Fords because they were faster.

An old time truck driver told me his employer in the 40s had a fleet of Ford and Dodge trucks. He preferred the Dodge and would not drive a Ford unless forced to. He felt the Ford simply would not do the job, even though they supposedly had the same horsepower. One time he got stuck on the Hamilton Heights hill pulling a trailer with a fully loaded Ford 5 ton truck. It simply stalled out half way up the hill in bull low and would not go a foot farther. He had to stop, block the wheels, set out flares and call for a cop and a tow truck. He finally got up the hill with the help of a tow truck and a police escort.

The day before he had made the same grade in a Dodge, with the same load and trailer. He was delivering prefab houses at the time, all identical, a 2 bedroom saltbox style house all complete, delivered in 1 load on a truck with a trailer behind.

Ford did have the most sophisticated engine and one that responded to hopping up. But in stock form the performance advantage was not that great, although it did have one.

This is what confuses people. They think because the Ford is known for being faster, the Ford must have gone 100 MPH and the Dodge about 40 MPH. Not so. In reality it was more like Dodge 92MPH Ford 95MPH. But even 1 mph is enough to win the race.

As far as what a flathead Chrysler product is capable of , this story was a real eye opener for me. It concerns a 1951 DeSoto 8 passenger Suburban, a long wheelbase limousine type car weighing 6000 pounds. The story was written by the original owner who drove it over 180,000 miles all on the original flathead six. My favorite part is the part about how the engine smooths out like a perfectly balanced turbine at high altitudes at 70 MPH. This in a 6000 pound car, with 4:11 gears, and a flathead 6.

http://www.allpar.com/cars/desoto/suburban-1951.html

[blucarsdn]

Trying to debate the attributes of the three engines we are talking about, is like discussing a man's preference in women or religion..

The fact of the matter is, the survival rate of the three engines and the vehicles they came in, gives a better picture of what is/was the better vehicle.

How many '32-48 Plymouth/Dodge's have survived in comparison to the Chevy's and/or Fords.. Why is the survival rate for the Mopars so much lower?

In many aspects the engineering that went into the Chrysler built vehicles may have been to a higher standard than the Chevy/Fords, however, the economic atmosphere of the 1930's and the WWII years forced people to direct what funds they had available to the daily needs of the family, in lieu of taking care of their vehicle.

From my point of view, the Ford built vehicles were not really that well engineered, they in fact thrived on neglect because of the simple buggy type of suspension.

The '31 Plymouth I have is a far superior vehicle to any Chevy/Ford of that year, "The Smoothness of A Four Cylinder, The Power of a Six"..That being a fact, yet, where have all of the '31 PA's gone to?

I have a '36 Ford coupe which I purchased in '52, the speedometer showed 51k + when I bought the car from the original owner.. I pulled the original engine at 103k, having only done simple service and a valve job in 52k.. The car was unique for the time, it had the Columbia over drive with 3.78 axle ratio... It was geared for highway driving.

My '39 Plymouth convertible is a much better car than either the Chevy/Ford, however, when I found the car sitting in a field in Montana, the engine was laying on its side in the grass in front of the car. The owner of the car could not recall why he had pulled the engine from the car 38 years earlier.

I guess the whole debate can be summed up by just simply saying... some people like Fords, some people like Plymouth's....Bill

[blucarsdn]

Back in the flathead era the Ford was known as the fastest low priced car' date=' the Chev was the most popular but not suited to high speed driving, Plymouth or Dodge all around best engineered.

One old time Ford fan, who was prone to telling the truth, told me that he liked Fords because of the engine and nothing else. The brakes and suspension were strictly second rate. He admired Plymouth and Dodge for their engineering, quality and rugged durability but still drove Fords because they were faster.

An old time truck driver told me his employer in the 40s had a fleet of Ford and Dodge trucks. He preferred the Dodge and would not drive a Ford unless forced to. He felt the Ford simply would not do the job, even though they supposedly had the same horsepower. One time he got stuck on the Hamilton Heights hill pulling a trailer with a fully loaded Ford 5 ton truck. It simply stalled out half way up the hill in bull low and would not go a foot farther. He had to stop, block the wheels, set out flares and call for a cop and a tow truck. He finally got up the hill with the help of a tow truck and a police escort.

The day before he had made the same grade in a Dodge, with the same load and trailer. He was delivering prefab houses at the time, all identical, a 2 bedroom saltbox style house all complete, delivered in 1 load on a truck with a trailer behind.

Ford did have the most sophisticated engine and one that responded to hopping up. But in stock form the performance advantage was not that great, although it did have one.

This is what confuses people. They think because the Ford is known for being faster, the Ford must have gone 100 MPH and the Dodge about 40 MPH. Not so. In reality it was more like Dodge 92MPH Ford 95MPH. But even 1 mph is enough to win the race.

As far as what a flathead Chrysler product is capable of , this story was a real eye opener for me. It concerns a 1951 DeSoto 8 passenger Suburban, a long wheelbase limousine type car weighing 6000 pounds. The story was written by the original owner who drove it over 180,000 miles all on the original flathead six. My favorite part is the part about how the engine smooths out like a perfectly balanced turbine at high altitudes at 70 MPH. This in a 6000 pound car, with 4:11 gears, and a flathead 6.

[url']http://www.allpar.com/cars/desoto/suburban-1951.html[/url]

This posting is right on the mark about the good/bad points of the three engines/vehicles in question..

I have maintained for many years that if a vehicle was built using the Ford V8 engine, Chevy body by Fisher and the Chrysler chassis, that would have been a first class vehicle.

My grandfather/father disliked Fords, grand dad called the Fords race horses.. He liked to start out in first gear, "go and the corner" into high gear.. The poor low end torque of the Ford would cause the engine to stall out.

My father always said that the Fords did not have enough power to pull a sick whore out of bed... I am not to sure just why a person would want to do that?....Bill

[sorensen_dk]

Thanks for facts and stories. As mentioned each brand has it's followers for various, possibly irrational, reasons. I'm quite sure the V8 previously only found in in higher priced cars combined with the great (I have to admit) styling of the Fords must have been very compelling. Those 30s Fords look sharp. Maybe this combination is what Tim Adams calls CULT.

[40P10touring sedan]

If you really want to torture-test an engine, try tractor-pulling- it's maximum rpm against increasing load til you stall out or lose traction. What the audience is hoping to see are spectacular explosions- oil pans blown off, rods thru the block, flames and smoke, and all this WILL happen with a weak engine build.

I've never heard of the V8 Ford flathead used in this type of competition, but the 230 Dodge stood up to 2 years of vintage tractor pulling by Mark Hudson, and after teardown showed no unusual wear. He did cross-drill the crank between #5 & #4 and #2 and #3 main bearings to provide a complete oil passage to allow 6000 rpm operation.

"Hud or Hud1" I believe on another forum...yeah, I can't stop wishing he'd play with a 251 or 265 block though! As for that 23" engine I also believe he modded the oil pump to make as much as 80psi for the added oiling to the crank.

[40P10touring sedan]

Raw speed wasn't something that I was able to check on my car when I drove it. but I can tell you that she did 55mph with low compression{45/60/58/63/65/61} and dragging the rear brakes that were trying to lock up with little effort....torque, I know!

Cars of my era{1940} were geared for the national highway speed of 50mph, so this should leave some room{rpm} for passing I'd imagine. Pretty much all the flathead 6's were rated to go up to 3600rpm{1 year was up to 3800 but I don't remember which it was or why}. My axle gearing is the normal 3.91 range with the factory 3 speed which is 1:1 in 3rd - no OD, figure in 16x6 tires and yeah, she should be able to hit 60-65 easily enough.

Now, out of shear curiosity, what is the max rpms on the ford flathead V8's and the chevy inline 6's...not trying to start anything...simply curious!

[james curl]

Check post #2 in this thread, this will be #36.

[Tim Keith]

Fords generally crack the block due to heat stress. Passing the exhaust ports entirely through the block was a tradeoff to save costs. Half the work in building the Ford 8 is finding a good block, or repairing the cracks. Fords also only have 3 main bearings. The Chrysler metalurgy that allowed for the compact four-bearing six cylinder crankshaft was a major advancement of the 1930s.

Henry Ford wasn't confident in the low cost six, didn't build a six until 1942. Ford knew that the cost for a V8 crankshaft was similar to the cost of a crank for the older four, hoping that bleeding edge foundry technology could produce a low cost monoblock V8 casting. Ford gambled that foundry advances could save more money than by attempting to develop a crank for a low cost six. The crankshaft was the single major expense, a cheap six or high-end six, both require six distinct crank pins. In those days limited automation was used in production machinists operations, a screw up could mean that a costly crank was scrap.

The Chrysler six proved to be more economical to build than the Ford 8, which is why Mopar outsold Ford from 1937 through 1951. The hemi era was the beginning of the downslide in Mopar sales. Had Chrysler developed only the 331 series double rocker V8 with a cheaper poly head for lower cost DeSoto and Dodge - along the earlier pattern, Chrysler might have maintained its market position. When Ford and Chevy entered a sales race in '53, the independents dropped out fast, and makes like Buick with its simple nail head V8 became #3 in sales for 1955, knocking down low cost Plymouth - which also had a good year. The cheaper to build nailhead allowed for Buick to load its cars up with chrome and other gadgets that customers wanted, making more profits than Chryslers with the costly racetrack technology hemi motors.

With 8 cylinders and a Mercury crankshaft you can build a larger Ford without too much trouble. Either motor can be built better today than when new, but there are much more recent high quality parts for the Ford.

[B-Watson]

Ford engines were oil burners with cooling problems when the V8 was introduced in 1932. The oil usage was under control by 1935, but the cooling problem was not solved until the 1949 models. Unlike Chrysler's flatheads, Ford V8s did not have a water distribution tube, or something similar, and thus the rear cylinders ran hotter than the front. The Lincoln-Zephyr with its V8-and-a-half V12 was even worse.

Ford did not get hydraulic brakes until 1939 and independent front suspension until 1949, yet is was a solid number two in sales from 1932 on, except for #1 in 1937.

Chevrolet's "Stove Bolt Six" was introduced in 1929 with a 3-main crank, poured crank bearings and splash lubrication for the lower end. The engine had another name - "Cast Iron Wonder". Got that name because the engine used cast iron pistons.

Contrary to what many believe, the last Stove Bolt was built in 1962, replaced by a larger version of the new for 1962 Chevy II six. The Stove Bolt had gone through two re-engineerings since the introduction in 1929. The first re-engineer came for 1937, with the adoption of a 4-main crank and insert bearings. The block was 2" shorter than the 1929-36 unit,

The final re-engineering was 1950, with full-pressure lubrication, and aluminum alloy pistons. This engine was used with Powerglide while the older engine was used for two more years with the manual transmission.

Engineering-wise, the Chevrolet did not adopt an all-steel body until 1937, hydraulic brakes in 1936, and coil independent front suspension in 1939. Chevrolet used Dubonnet "Knee Action" IFS starting in 1934, but it needed regular maintenance or the system would fail. And many owners had no time for maintenance. And once the system failed, you had a vehicle that was hard to control at speed.

The Ford V8 was known for speed and with its transverse springing it had decent handling on rough roads. Chevrolet was noted for a comfortable ride and reliability, but not high speed travel. Not with that engine. And a car with a broken Knee Action system had poor handling.

Plymouth had coil spring IFS in 1934 and again starting in 1939. Hydraulic brakes had been used on Plymouths since day one and all-steel bodies were used beginning in the early 1930's.

Plymouth's flathead six came out in 1933 and was improved in 1935 with full-length waterjackets. That and the water distribution tube helped Plymouth engines keep cool. Full pressure lubrication and insert bearings helped keep Plymouth engines last.

Maintenance was needed more often on all cars back then due to poorer quality oils and lubricants. And everything needed maintenance more often, from oil changes to chassis lubrication to brake adjustments. No teflon or self-adjusters.

[B-Watson]

GM products dominated the market, so it is not surprising there are more of them around today. Same with Ford vs Plymouth. However, when it comes to survivors Plymouth and Dodge are doing well.

Used to find old Plymouths and Dodges in fields and the bush, but very few Chevrolets and Pontiacs, especially pre-1937 models with their wood-framed bodies. Even at car shows, you come across Plymouths and Dodges but fewer Chevrolets and Pontiacs.

Mopar actually had a higher rate of survival than you think. Remember, Mopar was #2 only because they built five car lines while Ford had two. The straight eight offerings by GM makes, introduction of the Mercury in 1939 and the Ford flathead six for 1941 marked the beginning of Mopar's slide to #3.

In 1936, US calendar year production was -

1. Chevrolet - 975,238 - 26.5%

2. Ford - 791,812 - 21.5%

3. Plymouth - 527,177 - 14.3%

4. Dodge - 274,904 - 7.5%

5. Oldsmobile - 187,638 - 5.1%

6. Buick - 179,533 - 4.9%

7. Pontiac - 178,496 - 4.9%

11. Chrysler - 71,295 - 1.9%

12. DeSoto - 52,789 - 1.4%

In 1941, US calendar year production was -

1. Chevrolet - 928,477 - 24.7%

2. Ford - 600,814 - 16.0%

3. Plymouth - 425,728 - 11.3%

4. Buick - 316,251 - 8.4%

5. Pontiac - 282,087 - 7.5%

6. Oldsmobile - 230,703 - 6.1%

7. Dodge - 226,355 - 6.0%

8. Chrysler - 140,175 - 3.7%

10. DeSoto - 85,098 - 2.3%

12. Mercury - 80,085 - 2.1%

Actually, the ohv V8 was not the source of Chrysler's downfall. The GM makes had a straight-eight available back before WW II, and in the case of Pontiac and Oldsmobile the eight was about the same size as the six. Thus they were priced a little bit above the sixes, and not hundreds of dollars as in the case of Chrysler. And that did help GM increase their market share between 1936 and 1941.

After the war it got worse for Chrysler, with cars too large (and expensive) for their markets, styling two or three years out of date, aging engines, and no automatic transmission.

Ford in 1946 was faced with Chrysler's situation - Ford to be on a 118" wheelbase, Mercury 121", the small Lincoln (ex-Zephyr) 125" and the Cosmopolitan 129". The cost people announced Ford would lose money with these cars as they were too big and too heavy - ie. too much money spent on steel.

Ford moved everything down a notch - Mercury to 118", small Lincoln to 121" and Cosmopolitan to 125". Ford, it was decided, would be 114". Meanwhile Chrysler stuck with a 118.5" Plymouth, 123.5" Dodge, 125.5" DeSoto and Chrysler 6 and 131.5" Chrysler 8. By 1950 Chrysler management finally figured out the cars were too big and too expensive to build. They were pricing themselves out of their markets. Thus the shrunken 1953 models.

Chrysler had a V8 two years before Buick, its main competitor, as did Dodge with its competitor, Pontiac. DeSoto was three years behind Oldsmobile, and two years ahead of Mercury's ohv V8. Plymouth did not get its own V8 until 1956, and had to use Dodge's V8 to get an engine out to do battle with Ford (new ohv V8 in 1954) and Chevrolet (1955).

Even in the six cylinder market Plymouth was now behind. Chevrolet introduced a new six in 1950 and Ford came out with an overhead valve six in 1952. Plymouth's six was now twenty years ago. And looked it.

Chevrolet had Powerglide in 1950, Hydramatic in Oldsmobile for 1940 and Pontiac in 1948, while Buick got Dynaflow in 1948. Ford and Mercury got an automatic transmission for 1951. As for the independents, Packard had an automatic in 1949, Nash, Kaiser and Frazer for 1950, Studebaker mid-1950, and Hudson in 1951. And Chrysler?

Over at Chrysler, Powerflite came out in late 1953 for the Chrysler Imperial, 1954 for Dodge, DeSoto and Chrysler and mid-1954 for Plymouth.

In 1953, the year before the roof fell in for Chrysler -

1. Chevrolet - 1,477,299 - 24.3%

2. Ford - 1,184,187 - 19.5%

3. Plymouth - 654,414 - 10.8%

4. Buick - 485,343 - 8.0%

5. Pontiac - 414,011 - 6.8%

6. Mercury - 320,369 - 5.3%

7. Oldsmobile - 319,414 - 5.3%

8. Dodge - 301,827 - 5.0%

10. Chrysler - 160,410 - 2.6%

12. DeSoto - 129,963 - 2.1%

And the sales push at Ford had not yet begun. By 1956 Plymouth was down to #4 and 7.8%, Dodge at #8 (3.6%), DeSoto #10 (1.8%), Chrysler #11 (1.6%), and Imperial #17 (0.2%).

So don't blame Ford for Chrysler's woes. Chrysler brought their problems on all by themselves with management satisfied with the status quo and ignoring the fact that markets, and car buyers' needs, were changing.

[Tim Keith]

By '53 Chrysler had 3 totally distinct double rocker V8 motor series that shared almost no parts. Then to cut costs they developed poly versions of the Chrysler and the Dodge V8, even as high deck versions of three distinct Hemi V8s series were developed. Then to attempt to recover some more costs, entirely distinct poly V8 motors were rolled out. By the mid '50s Mopar engine varieties got to be pretty complicated compared the flathead era, especially considering that the advantages of the Hemi were best proven on the race track. The performance of the cheaper to build Y-blocks, nail heads and Rockets were good enough for the family cars of the day. All of this makes collecting '50s Mopars interesting, but it sure is easier to find parts for the motors of the '40s.

The flathead motors had been good enough for the roads and the poor quality fuel of the day, the sixes were smooth and easy to maintain. Many service stations could rebuild the flathead motors with easy to source parts. Chrysler's strategy through the '40s was what today might be called a modular motor, sharing a great deal of tooling, with incremental improvements sufficient to keep up with the competition. If the Ford V8 was perceived to be a little faster, it didn't matter that much for the practical minded buyer, the buyer who might have bought a Toyota or Honda in years to come.

I've got nothing against the Ford 8s. They're all fun.

[DCurrent]

kind of funny to me to, my flathead is bone stock, has a beat carb that leaks all over, and i drive my car at 65-70 mph up hill every day of the week, don't know where you got the info, but its definatly wrong

Those that are speaking of 65-70 mph, are these with stock motors through rearend?

Darren

[DCurrent]

Those that are speaking of 65-70 mph, are these with stock motors through rearend?

Darren

never mind! I just needed to read down further.

Darren

[blucarsdn]

All of the stats pertaining to market share and the comments about the attributes of the almighty Chrysler Hemi make for interesting reading, but they do not really address the real issues about the three six cylinder engines, Chevy, Mopar, and Ford V8..

The supposed short comings of the Ford V8, i.e., overheating and poor suspension have been pointed to many times.

The Chevy six use of stove bolts and a splash oiling system have also been mentioned..

The Mopar six has been shown great favor in comparison to the Chevy/Ford, with mention made about the high successful use in industrial applications..

The fact of the matter is that the overhead valve Chevy engine is/was the best overall designed engine of the period in question. The introduction of the Chevy six in 1928 kicked Ford out of first place in sales. Which for other than very short periods of time, Ford has never been able to recover.

True, the Chrysler six enjoyed extensive use in industrial engines, marine, farm and industrial.. Was this due to longevity or cost factors? It has been written that Chrysler had a habit of supplying engines to industrial manufactures on a "flooring" basis.. i.e., they did not have to pay for the engines until the units were completed and sold... GM and Ford wanted payment for their engines up front.

Chevy engines were infamous for having leaking rear mains and bad rod bearings.. Ergo "Babbit pounders"... The original owners of these cars did not experience these issues because they usually sold the vehicle when it had under 40k on the speedometer.

The Ford V8 enjoyed a reputation of overheating because of poor water pump design, the exhaust exiting through the block, and/or cracked blocks..

I would submit that the overheating issue, and/or cracked blocks, were more a result of poor maintenance. The omission of the factory installed thermostats which were designed to maintain a constant temp of the coolant.

By nature, the side valve engines offer the poorest design for engine performance, they also generally require a water distribution tube that is needed to distribute water/coolant to the rear portion of the block..

With the poor engine maintenance that was so common in the '30's/40's, the water distribution tube rusted away in very short order which starved the rear cylinders of coolant.. Burnt valves, etc., was the result.

This whole discussion can be summed up with just a few words;

"Don't Try to Confuse Me With Facts, I already Have My Mind Mad Up"....Bill

[Bob Riding]

I have this hanging in my shop- it's a reminder that "less is more"

[Plymouthy Adams]

[quote name=

"Don't Try to Confuse Me With Facts' date=' I already Have My Mind Mad Up"....Bill[/quote]

we knew that with your first post..but hey there is hope that insight can enlighten..

[sorensen_dk]

Bill, in your last post I really think you are contradicting yourself.

You state that "the overhead valve Chevy engine is/was the best overall designed engine of the period in question." Then later: "Chevy engines were infamous for having leaking rear mains and bad rod bearings.. Ergo "Babbit pounders"."

Unless you mean that the shortcomings were not a design feature, in which case I am curious as to how you would define engine design.

Respectfully,

Tom

[Tim Keith]

The Mopar six was better engineered for the era, in that it did was was needed with less complexity. Even when phased out for automobiles the flathead six was 40 percent of Plymouth sales. There were advocates within Chrysler who wanted to keep building the classic L-head.

When comparing the Mopar not against Ford or Chevy, but other ubiquitous L-head sixes of the day, the Mopars still have the most fans today. A well maintained Plymouth six could go for 85,000 miles before it needed an overhaul. What was the best service life of the Ford or Chevy?

Having viewed demonstrations of pouring babbit bearings, how did Chevy manage to keep doing that for so many years? The insert bearings must have been a major time saver in the production of motors. GM's Labor costs must have been low in those days.

The low production cost of the L-head six is a reason that its easier to find a solid '47 P-15 project car than a '57 Plymouth. The low cost Chrysler products of the mid to late '50s were prone to rust, because of cost

cutting that were necessary due the costly mechanicals that the corporation then used. In many ways the Chrysler L-head sixes were ideal for their times.

Ford 8s are cool too (not cooling running ). The Caddilac flathead V8 had the exhaust coming out the top of the block so that it didn't overheat.

[Plymouthy Adams]

All of the stats pertaining to market share and the comments about the attributes of the almighty Chrysler Hemi make for interesting reading, but they do not really address the real issues about the three six cylinder engines, Chevy, Mopar, and Ford V8..

The supposed short comings of the Ford V8, i.e., overheating and poor suspension have been pointed to many times.

The Chevy six use of stove bolts and a splash oiling system have also been mentioned..

The Mopar six has been shown great favor in comparison to the Chevy/Ford, with mention made about the high successful use in industrial applications..

The fact of the matter is that the overhead valve Chevy engine is/was the best overall designed engine of the period in question. The introduction of the Chevy six in 1928 kicked Ford out of first place in sales. Which for other than very short periods of time, Ford has never been able to recover.

True, the Chrysler six enjoyed extensive use in industrial engines, marine, farm and industrial.. Was this due to longevity or cost factors? It has been written that Chrysler had a habit of supplying engines to industrial manufactures on a "flooring" basis.. i.e., they did not have to pay for the engines until the units were completed and sold... GM and Ford wanted payment for their engines up front.

Chevy engines were infamous for having leaking rear mains and bad rod bearings.. Ergo "Babbit pounders"... The original owners of these cars did not experience these issues because they usually sold the vehicle when it had under 40k on the speedometer.

The Ford V8 enjoyed a reputation of overheating because of poor water pump design, the exhaust exiting through the block, and/or cracked blocks..

I would submit that the overheating issue, and/or cracked blocks, were more a result of poor maintenance. The omission of the factory installed thermostats which were designed to maintain a constant temp of the coolant.

By nature, the side valve engines offer the poorest design for engine performance, they also generally require a water distribution tube that is needed to distribute water/coolant to the rear portion of the block..

With the poor engine maintenance that was so common in the '30's/40's, the water distribution tube rusted away in very short order which starved the rear cylinders of coolant.. Burnt valves, etc., was the result.

This whole discussion can be summed up with just a few words;

"Don't Try to Confuse Me With Facts, I already Have My Mind Mad Up"....Bill

I love his comparing the three six cylinder engines comment..the Chevy, Mopar and the Ford V8....my math sees two extra cylinders not to mention the v-shape of the piston alignment to centerline of the block..thus again, apples and oranges

"These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed."

[blucarsdn]

Well, got carried away on youtube and watched some Ford flathead V8s for a couple of hours.

Now, what struck me was how.....clumsy they look compared to the Mopar flathead 6. The generator on top of the engine, two waterpumps, the whole manifold deal. The 6 looks really sleek and compact and, viewing some specs, even seem to have better torque.

I haven't driven an old Ford V8, but someone on the forum must have checked them out and it would be interesting to know if they were actually superior to the 6s.

Tom

This thread/topic started off asking for a comparison between the Ford V8 and the Mopar flathead 6... In short order it drifted off with the introduction of comments about the Chevy 6.. "Stove bolt, babbit bearing, cast iron wonder", the Chrysler Hemi's, Buick nailheads, and stats trying to explain why Chrysler started to suck wind in the sales race during the mid '50's.

I think I can be pretty objective in a comparison of the two vehicle in question;

Not to much attention can given to sales advertizing... Sales advertizing is nothing more than propaganda trying to glorify one product at the expense of another product.

I have a copy of an ad that Ford distributed in 1937 touting their mechanical brakes when compared to the Chevy/Plymouth hydraulic.. The big hype for Ford was that they could disable the cables going to three of the wheels, (the '37-38 Fords had cable operated brakes in lieu of the earlier rods) The Ford stopped in just a few feet.. When one hydraulic line on the Chevy/Plymouth was damaged, the whole system failed.

I also have a copy of an ad that compares the Ford fabric insert on the top with the GM all steel "turret top".. Mopar had a fabric insert through '36, all steel '37 and later.

Ford maintained in their ad that the all steel body was "unhealthy" ie. There was no place for the air within the car body to expand when the doors were closed with the windows up,,,ergo ear damage to the occupants would occur.

Now ain't that a crock of BS....

In their own right the Dodge/Plym and Ford cars were very good.. It is a well know fact that the Ford would run off an hide from the Mopars, however, the Mopars would give the loser a better ride.

The Mopars had a much better suspension system, having pioneered independent front suspension in a low priced car in '34.. They quickly dropped this type of suspension for one simple reason.. Solid I beam front suspension cost on the average, $18. per vehicle more than the independent.

Why the switch? There was not enough coil spring manufacturing available in the world to keep up with the demand.

Why did Ford stay with the old "buggy" suspension that they started with under the Model T's? Very simple.. Henry Ford was a dictator, it was his way or the highway. Henry Ford died in 1947 where-as the design for the new '49 Fords was put in motion. The 8BA '49-53 engine had an extensive redesign which eliminated the overheating problems that had plagued the earlier engines.

Would a Mopar outlast a Ford when given the same degree of maintenance? Yes and no... A first person experience:

I had two uncles that purchased new cars in '36 and '38. One purchased a new '36 Ford 2dr sdn, the other purchased a new '38 Dodge 4 dr.

Uncle number one keep his Ford until he purchased a new 56 Ford 4dr sdn.. His '36 had less than 40k on the odometer.. He sold the car for $125.

Uncle number 2 keep his '38 Dodge until 1961 when he purchased a new Oldsmobile 88. The car had slightly over 50k on the odometer. He sold the car for $100.

Both of these cars were garage kept and they were not driven during the winter.. Public transportation was used.

I purchased my '36 Ford cpe in 1952, it had 51k + on the odometer, I paid $125. for it... With minor maintenance and a $35. valve job I ran the engine to 103K. I installed a 59 AB engine (46-48 Merc).. I sold the 21 stud '36 engine to a friend, he put it in his 36 Ford work car, driving it for five more years.

OK, Now lets compare the two vehicles for heavy, hard, high speed uses.. Namely police and taxi cabs:

The Mopars were used extensively by police departments and taxi company's, as were the Fords.

As a general rule, cities, etc., put their vehicle needs out to bid, the lowest bidder got to supply the cars.. The factories usually stepped in, cutting the local dealers out of the sale..

As I have pointed out earlier, The Chrysler 6's enjoyed a much higher use in industrial applications, however, this high usage is more a result of cost effectiveness compared to better longevity..

My father generally preferred Chevy's, but then he also owned some Mopars.. I can recall a '36 Chevy he had in about 1938, he traded the car in on a '37 Desoto.. It was a very nice car. In 1939 we cruised to the San Francisco Worlds Fair in style.. I can recall the speedometer sitting on 70 when the road would warrant such speed.

In 1940 dad bought a new '40 CHevy 2dr sdn.. We took that car on several road trips from Los Angeles to my grandfathers place in Idaho... The '40 Chevy was followed by a '36 Plym in 1943... Dad was offered $1,600. for the Chevy. The '36 Plymouth was a piece of junk which my father had paid $1,200. for (WWII prices).. It disappeared one night.. Dad left the keys in it and some fool stole it. Dad never bought another Mopar until he bought a '46 Dodge in 1948... Another piece of junk... His last Mopar.

To summarize, I can truthfully say that my '39 Plymouth conv. cpe is far superior to a Ford of the same year, and/or later. The Plymouth has a longer wheel base which improves the ride and handling. My '36 Ford, which I have owned for just a few day shy of 60 years. I have driven it over 94K, is a family member.

When all is said and done It just could be that the Ford V8 does enjoy almost a "cult" following.... When the term Ford V8 is used, many people conger up illusions of a '32-34 or '40 Ford convertible roaring down a road adjacent to the beach, two very attractive blonds in the back seat with their pony tails flowing in the wind.....Bill

[scottyv47]

This thread/topic started off asking for a comparison between the Ford V8 and the Mopar flathead 6... In short order it drifted off with the introduction of comments about the Chevy 6.. "Stove bolt, babbit bearing, cast iron wonder", the Chrysler Hemi's, Buick nailheads, and stats trying to explain why Chrysler started to suck wind in the sales race during the mid '50's.

I think I can be pretty objective in a comparison of the two vehicle in question;

Not to much attention can given to sales advertizing... Sales advertizing is nothing more than propaganda trying to glorify one product at the expense of another product.

I have a copy of an ad that Ford distributed in 1937 touting their mechanical brakes when compared to the Chevy/Plymouth hydraulic.. The big hype for Ford was that they could disable the cables going to three of the wheels, (the '37-38 Fords had cable operated brakes in lieu of the earlier rods) The Ford stopped in just a few feet.. When one hydraulic line on the Chevy/Plymouth was damaged, the whole system failed.

I also have a copy of an ad that compares the Ford fabric insert on the top with the GM all steel "turret top".. Mopar had a fabric insert through '36, all steel '37 and later.

Ford maintained in their ad that the all steel body was "unhealthy" ie. There was no place for the air within the car body to expand when the doors were closed with the windows up,,,ergo ear damage to the occupants would occur.

Now ain't that a crock of BS....

In their own right the Dodge/Plym and Ford cars were very good.. It is a well know fact that the Ford would run off an hide from the Mopars, however, the Mopars would give the loser a better ride.

The Mopars had a much better suspension system, having pioneered independent front suspension in a low priced car in '34.. They quickly dropped this type of suspension for one simple reason.. Solid I beam front suspension cost on the average, $18. per vehicle more than the independent.

Why the switch? There was not enough coil spring manufacturing available in the world to keep up with the demand.

Why did Ford stay with the old "buggy" suspension that they started with under the Model T's? Very simple.. Henry Ford was a dictator, it was his way or the highway. Henry Ford died in 1947 where-as the design for the new '49 Fords was put in motion. The 8BA '49-53 engine had an extensive redesign which eliminated the overheating problems that had plagued the earlier engines.

Would a Mopar outlast a Ford when given the same degree of maintenance? Yes and no... A first person experience:

I had two uncles that purchased new cars in '36 and '38. One purchased a new '36 Ford 2dr sdn, the other purchased a new '38 Dodge 4 dr.

Uncle number one keep his Ford until he purchased a new 56 Ford 4dr sdn.. His '36 had less than 40k on the odometer.. He sold the car for $125.

Uncle number 2 keep his '38 Dodge until 1961 when he purchased a new Oldsmobile 88. The car had slightly over 50k on the odometer. He sold the car for $100.

Both of these cars were garage kept and they were not driven during the winter.. Public transportation was used.

I purchased my '36 Ford cpe in 1952, it had 51k + on the odometer, I paid $125. for it... With minor maintenance and a $35. valve job I ran the engine to 103K. I installed a 59 AB engine (46-48 Merc).. I sold the 21 stud '36 engine to a friend, he put it in his 36 Ford work car, driving it for five more years.

OK, Now lets compare the two vehicles for heavy, hard, high speed uses.. Namely police and taxi cabs:

The Mopars were used extensively by police departments and taxi company's, as were the Fords.

As a general rule, cities, etc., put their vehicle needs out to bid, the lowest bidder got to supply the cars.. The factories usually stepped in, cutting the local dealers out of the sale..

As I have pointed out earlier, The Chrysler 6's enjoyed a much higher use in industrial applications, however, this high usage is more a result of cost effectiveness compared to better longevity..

My father generally preferred Chevy's, but then he also owned some Mopars.. I can recall a '36 Chevy he had in about 1938, he traded the car in on a '37 Desoto.. It was a very nice car. In 1939 we cruised to the San Francisco Worlds Fair in style.. I can recall the speedometer sitting on 70 when the road would warrant such speed.

In 1940 dad bought a new '40 CHevy 2dr sdn.. We took that car on several road trips from Los Angeles to my grandfathers place in Idaho... The '40 Chevy was followed by a '36 Plym in 1943... Dad was offered $1,600. for the Chevy. The '36 Plymouth was a piece of junk which my father had paid $1,200. for (WWII prices).. It disappeared one night.. Dad left the keys in it and some fool stole it. Dad never bought another Mopar until he bought a '46 Dodge in 1948... Another piece of junk... His last Mopar.

To summarize, I can truthfully say that my '39 Plymouth conv. cpe is far superior to a Ford of the same year, and/or later. The Plymouth has a longer wheel base which improves the ride and handling. My '36 Ford, which I have owned for just a few day shy of 60 years. I have driven it over 94K, is a family member.

When all is said and done It just could be that the Ford V8 does enjoy almost a "cult" following.... When the term Ford V8 is used, many people conger up illusions of a '32-34 or '40 Ford convertible roaring down a road adjacent to the beach, two very attractive blonds in the back seat with their pony tails flowing in the wind.....Bill

funny because when the term ford v8 is used, only thing i think of is the local junkyard !!!!!!!!