Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tim Keith

IND-32 type 233

Recommended Posts

I  have found a Industrial motor,  IND-32 type 233.    Does anyone know the displacement.  The head is 25 inches long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably a 265 but I wouldn't swear by it. My ind 32 is a 265. The bore is the same as a 251 so the easiest way to check is to unscrew the access nut over the #6 cylinder and measure the stroke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this one!

An Industrial Model 32 is a 265 cid with a chain drive camshaft. On the engine tag it might say IND 32.

An Industrial Model 33 is a 265 cid with a gear drive camshaft. On the engine tag it might say IND 33.

The Model 33 because of the gear drive has a reverse rotation camshaft and the oil pump has a different gear on it.

So if you were building a boat with two engines and wanted counter rotating propellers it would have been easy to spec the engines.

237, 251, 265 all have the same size bore and pistons. Where Chrysler "made up" the difference was to install progressively shorter rods with the shortest in the 265.

The stroke being a whopping 4 3/4 inches in the 265! By comparison the flathead Mercury had a 4 inch stroke and was considered a "big engine."

Peak torque was at 1200 rpm while peak horse power was at 3600 rpm, so gear your car accordingly.

 

I am putting Model 33 in my 1952 Suburban with a 3.54 rear axle and an Overdrive transmission, COVID 19 willing. The parts are in California and it is taking forever to get them back.

Are you going to keep or sell your engine? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks!

 

I think it might be stuck - exhaust manifold is broken.  Its got the power

system with transmission/clutch -  which I don't recognize.   I may attempt

to  get the rotating assembly.  I've got a couple 265 rotating assembles in

my parts collection.  Its just that its 100F and humid in south Texas and

its sitting outside.  I think it was run on propane so if its not stuck it might

be a good shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do propane industrial flatheads have higher compression?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Propane is equivalent to 104 pump octane so the like high compression 10 to12.5 to 1 seems to be their sweet spot.  Don't know if the old flatties in forklifts got in that neighborhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a problem with flatheads and high compression. There are limitations.

Because the valves are surrounded on at least half the diameter by cylinder head you lose breathing capability.

You can get back some of that compression by having a long stroke but then you lose rpm.

Increasing rpm is a way to higher performance (more power strokes in a given amount of time).

However with three intake ports for six cylinders and that long stroke you're not going to be able to take advantage of rpm.

So long stroke to get compression = high torque at low rpm, which makes a car easy to drive and powerful if you have the right gears.

 

Ed Winfield said that more than 7.2 to 1 in a Model A would make it LESS not more power because it could no longer breathe.

When the Ford Engineers showed him the cylinder heads for the 1969 Boss 302 his reaction was a sarcastic, "Ya think you could put bigger intake valves in this thing?!"

The next year the Boss 302s had smaller intakes and more power. Winfield knew what he was talking about.

He also advocated softer valve springs for less rotational friction and also to limit rpm.

Pick a valve spring only stiff enough to reach the rpm you wanted and you'd get more power. In a non-interference engine when the valves started to float that was a "soft rev limiter". Model Ts had two intake ports so Winfield made a crankshaft with two up and two down. This allowed more air through the intake ports with a flathead. He raced against one of Louis Chevrolet's 16 valve DOHC Frontenacs and beat him! Chevrolet's comment was "I see it but I don't believe it!"

So if you really wanted to make a fast Mopar 6 you'd make a new crankshaft that would look like a 3 cylinder. Each pair of cylinders would be timed 180 degrees apart thus making the most of each intake port.

It's fun to dream isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using Ford flathead data for anything other than a ford flathead is only useful in the most general sense, the Ford's intake and exhaust tracts are way different and one could argue substantially less efficient that the Mopar flathead.  The way the exhaust ports are routed through the block is what gave Fords the rep for overheating.  A lot of the exhaust heat was dumped into the cooling system.

 

Now your comments on the crank makes sense, but I think that it would be three pairs with the timing 120 degrees rather than 180, 360/3 is 120, with a cylinder firing every 120 degrees adn all 6 would fire after 720 degrees of crankshaft rotation.  I thin the best bang for the buck would be a modern piston adn rig design with a shorter piston, using longer rods and a three ring pack using much thinner rings.  Lots of mechanical friction to be removed and while the lesser bob weight would help higher rpm (not where we want to go as you mentioned) but it will help it rev faster too.

 

I love these kinds of skull sessions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mention the Ford V8, just the Model A & T (and the Boss 302) The V8 of course has 8 intake ports for 8 cylinders while the T & A have 2 for 4 so the T & A can relate to Plymouth/Dodge & DeSoto/Chrysler six cylinders.

Yes the V8 had cooling issues and the exhaust running thru the block is one of them. However the A & T share a major design issue with the V8 and it relates directly to Henry Ford.

Ford insisted that the water pump was mounted in the head (or none at all as in the T) and one of the outlet or inlets were in the middle of the engine. He thought he knew best and besides his name was on everybody's paycheck. The fact that all of Fords engines were "Last minute" hurried designs didn't help either. The V8 finally got a re-design which stopped overheating but only after Henry was dead.

After a lifetime being around Ford Fanatics I instantly came to appreciate the ZSB Chrysler designs. The cooling system alone is enough.

On Winfield's two up two down engine, that's what you get with a 4 cylinder. Each port gets a pair of rod throws together on the crank so that they draw from the port 180 degrees apart. On a six with three ports, the pairs are 120 degrees apart (like the single cylinder throws of a 3 cylinder crank) for balance. The intake manifold in this imaginary engine would have long runners to keep the velocity high and stop intake pulses from colliding with each other, just like Chrysler has used many times before.

The Germans have done research as to the optimum cylinder size/bore vs stroke/rod length. We have a MINI with a three cylinder that is the product of this research and I can tell you it is very impressive! You can get a 2,000cc 4 cylinder or the 1,500cc 3 cylinder. The 3 cylinder was plenty enough. The debate among hot rodders over rod length continues... If I were to look for answers I'd look at the paper BMW/VW/M-B wrote on the 500cc per cylinder optimized engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, I equated the v8 in my head and not the T's and A's you were talking about, sorry about that.  As for rod length, clean sheet you can optimize that, trying to better our own existing stuff, I'd prefer longer rod/lighter piston over the opposite.  Or course if I was going to just redesign our flatties it'd probably end up more like the slant six  than Mr. Winfield's design, simply because I am not the natural he was and have no problem stealing other's ideas, err borrowing them that is.

 

To be honest, I like the quirk's our flatties have, if I didn't I'd buy my neighbor's magnum wagon and just swap the drive train into the Cambridge, suspension and all if I could.  But then I;d almost be a bellybutton.  Around here no one see's a flathead running around.  But a swapped in V8?  Bellybutton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought propane might have slighter higher compression from the factory.  I'm sure if it does have a bit more compression, that the engineers didn't hurt breathing.  I don't know if the motor is good yet, looks like its been outside for years.

 

Its connected to what I think is a Dodge truck 2 speed differential with short 14-inch axles and chain sprocket for hubs and a PTO - some type of transmission with two levers - one must be a clutch.  I couldn't get the bell housing separated, it has what looks like a round SAE type bell housing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I removed the head.  Its got a copper head gasket.  I assumed that the copper would be green by now but its as shiny as a penny.   The motor has the tower style oil filter that 265s have.   If I can separate the block from its bell housing then I want to get the motor.  I've read that the SAE bell housings are useful to some folks, so I might get that as well. 

 

The motor is stuck.  A good way to free stuck motors is clean the cylinders with a solvent, blow it out with compressed air - especially down around the top ring, clean cylinders some more.  Then, use a product like Rust Rescue or Evapo-Rust.  These products can't remove oily material - using solvents first helps a lot.  These products won't harm aluminum, but I'd be using new pistons anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The #2 AND #3 main caps are cracked near the bolt hole on the passenger side.  If I used the block I'd need new caps.  Is this a known problem on the 265?   The bearings and crankshaft looks okay.

 

The copper head gasket isn't solid. There is a fibrous core with thin copper on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its got a huge flywheel,  which has proven difficult to remove with the motor stuck.  I will lift the entire crankshaft out tomorrow, the flywheel bolts on from the front.   I was told that the motor came out of the Ditch-Witch or similar large trencher.  Some of the pistons can move, maybe all of them, but I could not turn the crankshaft.  All the journals look good.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never seen a main cap on any flathead crack...including the 265's.

The caps were probably mixed up as per the original position or not seated correctly before torquing tight.

One last thought someone put in too big of undersized bearings and tightened the caps down cracking the ears...unlikely though.

Main caps must be marked with a prick punch before removal for proper re-assembly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main caps were already stamped with a number, but since they're cracked - doesn't matter.  This motor has probably been rebuilt. The SAE bellhousing is tricky to remove with the motor stuck. I'll get it off tomorrow. Someone may want this b/h.  Should I save it for some special application?  Its got 12 bolts on the back, not sure of the diameter.  The flywheel doesn't have a clutch surface, or maybe it does - maybe its two-piece, but the exposed surface at the rear is cylindrical with a splined coupler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Terms of Use