OT - Chrysler Years of Progress - 1924 - 1941

[TodFitch]

[Don Coatney]

The film is good but it has a super finish.

 

Watching this makes me want to block off the squirt holes in my rods to improve lubrication to the wrist pins as these jockeys did not do there homework

[TodFitch]

The film is good but it has a super finish.

 

Watching this makes me want to block off the squirt holes in my rods to improve lubrication to the wrist pins as these jockeys did not do their homework

You don't think that running a flathead 6 at 4000 RPM ("equivalent of 80 MPH") for 100 hours is enough to check the lubrication system?

 

Just ran some numbers. Assuming 6.00-16 tires, typical for the era, that 80 MPH @ 4000 RPM would be with a 4.11 rear end, also typical of the era. And typical of the P15.

 

Same person/group that posted that video posted this one for those interested in the first year of the Airflow: 

[Don Coatney]

You don't think that running a flathead 6 at 4000 RPM ("equivalent of 80 MPH") for 100 hours is enough to check the lubrication system?

 

That is exactly my point. I would like to know who is spreading the rumors around that these Mopar flathead engines have poor engine lubrication systems. More than one newby has made that comment on this forum so somebody out there is providing false information.

[BigDaddyO]

I was told, quite emphatically, that our old Plymouths had 'soft' crankshafts. It was supposed to be common knowledge.

Maybe it was because of the oiling system.

[TodFitch]

I was told, quite emphatically, that our old Plymouths had 'soft' crankshafts. It was supposed to be common knowledge.

Maybe it was because of the oiling system.

I've heard that from time to time on "the Internets" but haven't seen any period information that indicates to me that Plymouths had any more issues in everyday service than other makes. I think one would have to have access to the service records of the different manufacturers to make a definitive judgment rather than just heresay, so I think it will be one of those "everyone knows" which no one knows were it came from or how true it is.

 

I know there was a lot of bad press put out by other manufacturer's about hydraulic brakes before they themselves started using them. And also about all steel bodies (GM's Fisher Body division ran ads about how a truly solid car body could only be made with a hard wood frame covered with steel).

 

Since, to the best of my knowledge, Plymouth was the first low priced car to have thin shell bearing inserts (20 years before Chevrolet went to them) perhaps there was bad mouthing those thin little bearings and the possibility of failure compared to the competition's thick and well proven babbit bearings lubricated by "proven" splash lubrication.

[RobertKB]

Let's face it. Chrysler products were just better engineered and built than Chevs or Fords.  The competition had to spread negative rumours to keep their market share. Fords were so obsolete with their mechanical brakes and transverse springs in the late 30's I am surprised anyone bought them. Must be the "mystique" of the overheating flathead V8. LOL

[40desoto]

Is this an airflow?

 

[RobertKB]

Is this an airflow?

 

Yes.

[48Dodger]

I was told, quite emphatically, that our old Plymouths had 'soft' crankshafts. It was supposed to be common knowledge.

Maybe it was because of the oiling system.

 

Cranks surfaces are not hardened. Cast and Forged cranks are the most over built part of any engine. The only reason to harden the surface would be for ease of bearing removal after failure. Somehow the soft crank story got knocked way out of whack. Crank failure (not wear) is usally the last part to considered after engine failure, IMO......

 

48D